[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 128 (Tuesday, September 17, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1623]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       INTRODUCTION OF THE BI-STATE AIRCRAFT NOISE CORRECTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. BOB FRANKS

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 17, 1996

  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing 
legislation, along with Representatives Molinari, Frelinghuysen, and 
Martini, entitled the ``Bi-State Aircraft Noise Correction Act''. Our 
bill is directed at ending the Federal Aviation Administration's reign 
of tyranny over New Jersey's and Staten Island's skies.
  For 9 long years, the FAA has cynically pitted the citizens of New 
Jersey against the citizens of Staten Island. The agency deliberately 
sought to convince the residents of Staten Island that the people of 
New Jersey were the ones blocking meaningful relief from aircraft 
noise. In turn, the FAA fostered the perception that any reduction in 
airplane noise over Staten Island would make the problem worse over the 
skies of New Jersey.
  This cynical ploy was aimed at provoking a war between the States, 
thereby diverting attention from the real culprit. Today, for the first 
time, our States stand united behind a common solution. Instead of 
fighting each other, we will be focusing all our energies to compel 
action by the Government agency that started it all: The FAA.
  Our bill takes a new approach to this issue by mandating aircraft 
noise reduction goals for the FAA, not specific new air routes.
  For New Jersey, our bill directs the FAA to reduce aircraft noise by 
6 decibels for at least 80 percent of the people residing between 
roughly 2 and 18 miles from Newark Airport. Let me put into context 
what a 6-decibel decrease means to the average person. By way of 
example, many of my constituents impacted by aircraft noise have to 
cease their outdoor conversations when a plane is overhead. A 6-decibel 
decrease will reduce noise enough that most conversations will not be 
interrupted when a plane flies over.
  As a result of the FAA's long history of resistance to every effort 
aimed at addressing the airplane noise problem over the metropolitan 
region, this legislation includes a contingency plan in the event the 
FAA refuses to carry out the requirements of this legislation. Our bill 
provides legal standing for citizen groups in New Jersey and Staten 
Island to sue the FAA to ensure compliance with this act in Federal 
district court.
  No longer will the FAA be able to hide behind a bureaucratic veil, as 
they have so effectively done in the past, to deny our constituents 
relief from aircraft noise. If the FAA does not comply with our 
legislation, they will have to answer to a Federal judge.

  Since the inception of the Expanded East Coast Plan in 1987, I and 
other Members from New Jersey and New York have tried everything we can 
think of to get the FAA to face up to its responsibility to address the 
real concerns of citizens who have had their homes and neighborhoods 
disrupted by a level of aircraft noise that has diminished their 
quality of life.
  Just last week, the House passed an amendment that calls for the 
establishment of an aircraft noise ombudsman in the FAA to represent 
the concerns of those living with airplane noise.
  Last November, I presided over a House Aviation Subcommittee hearing 
where the FAA administrator admitted he had no plan to solve our 
aircraft noise problem.
  I also introduced legislation moving the FAA eastern regional office 
from Queens, NY, to Union County so FAA bureaucrats could hear the 
problem they have created.
  After nearly a decade of the FAA's acts of duplicity and evasion on 
this issue, it's become apparent that they never intend to voluntary 
take steps to remedy this problem.
  That is why our bill is so significant. No longer will our 
constituents be solely at the tender mercies of the FAA. Our bill 
mandates a solution.
  After years of acrimony and bitterness between the FAA and members of 
the New Jersey and New York delegations, I understand that it is 
unrealistic to expect the FAA to rush out and embrace our bill. The 
FAA's first reaction to our legislation will probably be to kill it by 
working behind the scenes with their allies, late at night, leaving no 
fingerprints.
  Instead of playing that cynical, political game, I instead challenge 
the FAA to sit down with the sponsors of our legislation and hash out a 
solution to this problem. I refuse to accept the FAA's posture that 
nothing more can be done to reduce noise in New Jersey and Staten 
Island. I suspect more savvy FAA representatives know this issue can be 
worked out amicably and quickly--if the will exists on their part to do 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be working tirelessly, from now until adjournment 
sine die, to enact our bill. In the interim, I urge the FAA to accept 
my offer to negotiate an end to our differences.

                          ____________________