[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 129 (Thursday, September 24, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10871-S10873]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 WENDELL H. FORD NATIONAL AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 
                                  1998

  The Senate continued the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 3627

 (Purpose: To reestablish the Office of Noise Abatement and Control in 
                  the Environmental Protection Agency)

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment on 
the underlying legislation of FAA reauthorization. I do so in 
recognition of the reality of life of hundreds of thousands of people 
that I represent--and, indeed, most Members of the Senate represent--
who, by the chance of the place of their birth or where they choose to 
live, have a daily encounter with the rising problem of airplane noise 
in our country.
  We have through recent decades learned to expand our concept of 
pollution of the air and the water to toxins, to chemicals we work with 
every day. But to most Americans they, in their own lives, have already 
come to understand and reach the decision that I bring before this 
Senate today: Noise is a pollution, and it is a very real part of the 
quality of life of most people in our country, impacting their 
communities.
  I offer this amendment because this problem will not solve itself 
and, indeed, as the years pass, it is clear it is

[[Page S10872]]

going to get worse. The FAA predicts that by the year 2007 there will 
be 36 percent more airplane flights than this Nation will experience 
this year; 60 of the 100 largest airports in this country in each of 
our major metropolitan regions are planning expansions with new 
runways. To some, this is a choice between economic expansion and the 
quality of life or health of our families. We do not have to reach that 
choice. If we build airports, plan their expansion, and deal with the 
issue of flight paths with good, scientific information, understanding 
the impact of noise on health and how it can be mitigated, there is no 
reason to compromise economic growth while we legitimately address the 
health of our families.
  We already know that 25 million Americans are impacted by noise 
problems every day. Even the rudimentary studies that have been 
undertaken lead us to understand that noise exposure is an element of 
hypertension difficulties and cardiovascular problems. It is estimated 
that another 40 million people with different levels of noise exposure 
have sleep or work disruption that affect their productivity and their 
own quality of life.
  The Environmental Protection Agency for a time was involved in these 
issues. Some of the judgment I bring before the Senate today was made 
more than two decades ago. Then Congress understood the impact of noise 
on health and quality of life. But in 1981 the Congress eliminated the 
Office of Noise Abatement and Control, so much scientific work and the 
advice of scientists and others with this responsibility ceased.
  In the EPA's absence, the Federal Aviation Administration has been 
charged with the responsibility of monitoring aircraft noise. Mr. 
President, the FAA has a mission, it has technical capabilities, and it 
performs its mission admirably. But dealing with the problem of noise 
is not its expertise or its mission. There is an obvious conflict of 
interest between promoting the expansion of the aviation industry and 
its airports and their operations, and dealing with the problem of 
noise. This conflict was recently highlighted by the Natural Resources 
Defense Council's own study that found that the FAA's policy, relying 
on a 65-decibel threshold for determining the level of noise 
compatibility with residential communities, was far too high and 
completely inappropriate. Yet that is the level the FAA continues to 
use because it does not force the critical choices in dealing with 
noise abatement.
  I cannot adequately describe, for the quarter of a million people who 
live in New Jersey who are impacted by noise problems from Newark 
Airport, JFK, and La Guardia every day, how disappointing it is that 
this work in the Federal Government has ceased and the FAA alone is 
exercising this responsibility.
  In our absence in these 17 years, much of this work and much of the 
progress on the question of noise and airports has been ceded to 
European leadership where much of the current health studies are being 
undertaken. For example, in Munich, Germany, a scientific study 
recently found that chronic exposure to airplane noise was affecting 
the psychological well-being of young children. Another study in 
England, where in our absence this work also was continuing, found that 
children studying under flight paths to Heathrow Airport in London had 
a reading age 6 months behind children who were not similarly exposed 
to aircraft noise.
  The amendment I offer today, of which I now speak, would reengage the 
EPA in the serious business of evaluating alternatives and the impacts 
of airplane noise. It is based on legislation that I introduced last 
year with Senators Sarbanes, Wellstone, Lautenberg, Moynihan, Murray, 
D'Amato, and Boxer. I have termed it the ``Quiet Communities Act,'' and 
it would reestablish within the EPA an Office of Noise Abatement and 
Control.
  Some of that mission is reflected in the amendment I bring to the 
floor today for this authorization legislation. It will require the EPA 
to conduct a study which examines the FAA selection of noise 
measurement methodologies, so we know when the FAA does undertake 
studies whether their methodologies are sound and reasonable, as well 
as establishing a threshold of noise at which health impacts are felt.
  So that in communities all across America, when people gather with 
local airport authorities and State authorities and Federal 
authorities, there is a scientific basis to know with some certainty 
whether or not their children's health is being impacted.
  It is important to note that this bill will only give the EPA the 
authority to recommend new standards. It will only give them authority 
to recommend. It imposes nothing. The EPA can make its suggestions. It 
can do scientific studies. It can give a baseline. It will not change 
the authority in making final judgments.
  Mr. President, I believe this is a reasonable suggestion to go down 
the path that other industrialized democracies have followed and which 
this Congress recognized two decades ago, that noise is a real and 
persistent problem in America that affects health. It is only 
reasonable that on a voluntary basis the EPA be able to make 
recommendations at what level and what methodologies so we can have an 
informed debate.
  Mr. President, I offer this amendment for my colleagues' 
consideration, and I urge its adoption.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from New 
Jersey seeks a recorded vote on this; is that correct?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. That is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. I will make a motion to table the Torricelli-Lautenberg 
amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no amendment pending.
  Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend from New Jersey, I do not believe he 
has sent the amendment to the desk yet.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. It is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Jersey ask that it 
be reported?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I ask that it be reported, and I ask unanimous 
consent that before the recorded vote, each side be given 2 minutes to 
explain their positions.
  Mr. McCAIN. That is fine.
  Who has the floor, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent agreement calls for 1 
hour of debate on this amendment, evenly divided.
  Mr. McCAIN. Sure.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I reserve the remainder of my time pending Senator 
Lautenberg having a chance to come to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli], for himself, 
     Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Moynihan and Mr. Wellstone, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3627.

  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we will be glad to use whatever time the 
Senator from New Jersey desires, along with his colleague.
  I still move to table the amendment, and ask unanimous consent that 
the time for that vote----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A motion to table is not in order until the 
time has been used.
  Mr. McCAIN. Until such time as the time has expired or the Senator 
from New Jersey yields back, at that time, I intend to seek a tabling 
motion, and that tabling motion would be at the agreement of the two 
leaders, since it is not clear as to exactly when that vote would be 
held. So that is my intention.
  Mr. President, I would like to speak on the amendment.
  This amendment to reestablish the Office of Noise Abatement and 
Control in the EPA is something that I believe is very unnecessary. The 
language of the proposal is being represented as dealing with noise 
from all sources. It is clearly targeted at aviation noise.
  I also say to the Senator from New Jersey, I understand the aviation 
noise problems in his State, as well as neighboring States.

[[Page S10873]]

  Mr. President, aviation noise issues involve a careful balancing of 
many concerns, including technology, safety, airspace management, 
research and education, and land use. The expertise and necessary 
center of authority for dealing with these highly interrelated matters 
has always resided in the FAA.
  Replication of the necessary expertise within the EPA, along with the 
creation of jurisdictional ambiguities, would not only be wasteful of 
our limited Federal resources, but would also serve to complicate and 
confound existing efforts to deal with and better understand community 
noise concerns. The fact of the matter is that the EPA does not have 
any expertise in aerodynamics, which is fundamental to addressing 
aircraft noise issues.
  Mr. President, I think it is important to point out that noisy Stage 
2 aircraft are currently being phased out. The FAA estimates that by 
the year 2000, the population exposed to significant aircraft noise 
will be approximately 600,000. That is a dramatic decrease from the 
more than 4.5 million just 8 years ago. It is clear that current noise 
mitigation efforts have significantly reduced the exposure of a great 
many people to aircraft noise. We should allow this substantive work to 
continue without any interference.
  Reestablishing the Office of Noise Abatement and Control strikes me 
as a needless return to big government. The last thing I think we need 
to be doing now is funding, even with a budget surplus, another 
bureaucratic office, especially when the underlying concerns are 
already being addressed.
  Mr. President, the FAA News, i.e., the press release that was issued 
on September 9, says:

       Aircraft Noise Levels Continue to Decline, Secretary Slater 
     Announces.

  It goes on to say:

       With the continued removal of noisier aircraft and the 
     introduction of quieter airplanes to the U.S. fleet, 
     approximately 80 percent of airplanes operating in the United 
     States today are the quieter Stage 3 aircraft, Secretary of 
     Transportation Rodney E. Slater reported today.
       * * * * * *
       This is the sixth consecutive year that the aircraft fleet 
     has been ahead of the requirement to transition to a quieter 
     aircraft. The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 requires 
     that all airplanes meet quieter Stage 3 noise levels by the 
     year 2000.

  I might add that that legislation was a direct result of the efforts 
of the Senator from Kentucky.

       Secretary Slater's report to Congress shows that operators 
     surpassed the Dec. 31 interim compliance requirement. 
     Operators either had to reduce noisier Stage 2 airplanes by 
     50 percent or have 65 percent of the quieter Stage 3 
     airplanes in their fleets. Just this past year, 225 noisier 
     Stage 2 aircraft have been removed from service while 554 
     quieter Stage 3 aircraft have entered service in the United 
     States.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this complete statement 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From FAA News, Sept. 9, 1998]

 Aircraft Noise Levels Continue to Decline, Secretary Slater Announces

       Washington.--With the continued removal of noisier aircraft 
     and the introduction of quieter airplanes to the U.S. fleet, 
     approximately 80 percent of airplanes operating in the United 
     States today are the quieter Stage 3 aircraft, Secretary of 
     Transportation Rodney E. Slater reported today.
       ``President Clinton is committed to protecting the 
     environment, and I am pleased by this progress,'' said 
     Secretary Slater.
       This is the sixth consecutive year that the aircraft fleet 
     has been ahead of the requirement to transition to quieter 
     aircraft. The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 requires 
     that all airplanes meet quieter Stage 3 noise levels by the 
     year 2000.
       Secretary Slater's report to Congress shows that operators 
     surpassed the Dec. 31 interim compliance requirement. 
     Operators either had to reduce noisier Stage 2 airplanes by 
     50 percent or have 65 percent of the quieter Stage 3 
     airplanes in their fleets. Just this past year, 225 noisier 
     Stage 2 aircraft have been removed from service while 554 
     quieter Stage 3 aircraft have entered service in the United 
     States.
       FAA Administrator Jane F. Garvey said, ``I applaud the 
     continued commitment of airplane operators and manufacturers. 
     The operators continue to meet or exceed interim compliance 
     dates and manufacturers continue to develop quieter aircraft 
     and engines.''
       Stage 2 airplanes include Boeing models 727-200, 737-200 
     and McDonnell Douglas model DC-9. Stage 3 airplanes include 
     Boeing models 737-300, 757, 777 and McDonnell Douglas models 
     MD-80 and 90.
       Some operators are complying with the Stage 2 airplane 
     phaseout by installing FAA certified Stage 3 noise level 
     hushkits to their Stage 2 fleet. Many airline operators have 
     already met the criteria for the next interim compliance 
     date, which is Dec. 31, 1998.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are making progress, a lot of it due to 
the exhaustive efforts of the Aviation Subcommittee of the Commerce 
Committee under the leadership of Senator Ford. We are making progress. 
It is exceeding the goals that everyone agreed were reasonable at the 
time we passed the act in 1990. I strongly recommend that we do not set 
up or reestablish another bureaucracy to address a problem which, 
although is still in existence, clearly is being addressed in a manner 
which exceeds our expectations.
  Again, I have great sympathy for the Senator from New Jersey and the 
people who live in these air corridors where there is exceedingly high 
noise levels. My message to them is: Help is not only on the way but it 
has been on the way for some years now. In fact, for the sixth 
consecutive year noise levels have been reduced. I know that is of 
small consolation to some, but over time we will have much quieter 
communities in New Jersey, as well as Arizona, Kentucky, and every 
other State in America.
  As I said before, Mr. President, I intend to move to table the 
amendment, either at the expiration of all time or the yielding back of 
time before the vote. I tell my colleagues, I will let them know as 
soon as possible, because the two leaders would have to consult on the 
time of that vote.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if there are no others seeking recognition 
on this amendment--and the distinguished Senator from Arizona has noted 
the procedure following the vote--I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to proceed as in morning business to speak about the issue of 
impeachment.
  Mr. McCAIN. For how long?
  Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, for 1 minute, I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I renew my earlier unanimous-consent 
request.
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, is that request for a 
maximum of 20 minutes?
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes, an absolute maximum of 20 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. As long as that unanimous-consent request includes not 
longer than 20 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I amend it to so state.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from 
Kentucky for their usual courtesies.

                          ____________________