[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 129 (Thursday, September 24, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10875-S10877]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                           amendment no. 3227

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, can you tell me how much time is 
available?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Torricelli controls 30 minutes as a 
proponent of his amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. On Senator Torricelli's time, I yield myself as much 
time as I need, which will probably be less than 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the pending 
amendment, offered by my friend and colleague from New Jersey, Senator 
Torricelli. The amendment, called the Quiet Communities Act, will 
reestablish the Environmental Protection Agency's appropriate role in 
noise abatement.
  This amendment simply reactivates an office in the EPA--the Office of 
Noise Abatement and Control--that was unfunded in 1981 at the request 
of the Reagan administration. The Office of Noise Abatement and Control 
will coordinate Federal noise abatement activities, develop noise 
standards, provide technical assistance to local communities, and 
promote research and education on the impacts of noise pollution.
  This office will be a resource to the millions of Americans who are 
affected by noise pollution, and particularly aircraft noise.
  Those of us who are in the New York-New Jersey region know only too 
well what effect aircraft noise has on our communities. It is a serious 
problem for populations across our country who are constantly harassed 
by airplane noise, truck noise, construction noise, and other noise, 
when they can never find peace in their own homes. In our region, with 
the several airports we have operating--La Guardia and Kennedy and 
Newark, and others--it is a constant. We have to find ways to deal with 
it.
  Just like air and water pollution, noise pollution is an 
environmental health issue. People who are tormented by noise pollution 
experience a range of health problems, such as hearing loss, stress, 
high blood pressure, sleep deprivation, distraction, and lost 
productivity. Aircraft noise is especially detrimental to human health.
  Some studies indicate that persistent exposure to high levels of 
aircraft noise is linked to hypertension, cardiovascular and 
gastrointestinal problems, among other disorders.
  Noise pollution is particularly troublesome in parts of the State of 
New Jersey.
  New Jersey is the most densely populated State in the Nation, and 
millions of New Jerseyans live close to major transportation centers 
that generate significant levels of noise in their neighborhoods. For 
example, aircraft approaching and departing from Newark International 
Airport are guided along flight paths routed over residential 
neighborhoods, patterns which disrupt families and disturb the 
community's quality of life. Communities affected by aircraft noise 
have been living with the pain for over 10 years and they must find 
relief.
  Unfortunately, the Federal Aviation Administration, which is charged 
with the responsibility of monitoring aircraft noise, has not 
adequately addressed the noise problems in New Jersey, and when 
attempted, its approach toward these problems is often flawed.
  For example the FAA's current threshold of 65 decibels Day-Night 
Level--or DNL--that the FAA indicates is compatible with residential 
use is often criticized as problematic and, in the opinion of the 
National Resources Defense Council, significantly underestimates the 
level at which many people are affected by aircraft noise.
  The fact that this fundamental threshold is controversial and the 
science behind it is disputed points to the fact that more research is 
needed on these issues.
  Mr. President, citizens living near airports have few resources at 
their disposal to find out more about the effects of air noise on their 
health and their environment.
  The Office of Noise Abatement and Control used to be one resource, 
and it has been dormant for too long.
  Simply put, Mr. President, noise pollution, and particularly aircraft 
noise, is a serious environmental health issue that deserves attention 
from the primary Federal agency whose responsibility is environmental 
protection--the EPA.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, that was not the view in 1981. But now 
we have an opportunity to correct this mistake by adopting this 
amendment.
  Besides reactivating the Office of Noise Abatement and Control, the 
bill authorizes funding of $5 million a year for the first 2 years and 
$8 million a year for the subsequent years to fund Office's activities.
  According to the National Institutes of Health, more than 20 million 
Americans are exposed on a regular basis to

[[Page S10876]]

hazardous noise levels that could result in hearing loss and other 
psychological and physiological damage. In my view, $5 million a year 
to address a problem affecting over 20 million Americans is a sound 
investment.
  The bill also requires the Office of Noise Abatement and Control to 
produce a study. The study must examine the FAA's selection of noise 
measurement methodologies, determine the threshold of noise at which 
health impacts are felt and determine the effectiveness of noise 
abatement programs at airports around the United States.
  The EPA would then issue recommendations--recommendations, Mr. 
President, not directives--to the FAA on measures that will mitigate 
the impact of air noise on affected communities. In my opinion, Mr. 
President, this study is long overdue, and particularly long overdue 
for the millions of Americans who live every day with the nuisance of 
aircraft noise in their lives.
  Mr. President, back in 1990, I sponsored a provision in the Airport 
Noise and Capacity Act, that required all commercial airlines to 
convert their fleets from Stage II to Stage III noise certification 
levels, a quieter plane, by the year 2000. I am pleased to say that 
many of the commercial airlines are ahead of their schedules and we 
have seen positive benefits.
  Research is continuing on even quieter aircraft, and we may soon see 
fleets that would satisfy Stage IV noise certification levels. However, 
as air travel increases, communities will experience more aircraft 
noise. This issue will not go away. Indeed, if nothing is done, it will 
only get worse.
  Mr. President, this amendment simply reactivates a program in EPA 
that has been dormant for too long, a program that addressed a serious 
environmental health issue, in the Federal agency that is responsible 
for mitigating environmental health problems. This amendment makes 
sense, and will provide some element of relief for the millions of 
Americans who face debilitating noise pollution, such as aircraft 
pollution, every day.
  Mr. President, we have a chance to do something about this at a 
fairly modest cost overall, and to say to those people, simply because 
they live in an area that is crowded, that is a transportation center 
and so forth, that you shouldn't have to suffer a different way of 
life, or a less pleasant way of life than other citizens across this 
country.
  We do all kinds of things to mitigate against noise. We build highway 
noise barriers and have all kinds of systems. We have police rules that 
say you can't blow your horn unnecessarily--all kinds of programs that 
would reduce the amount of noise pollution that we endure each and 
every day.
  I strongly support this amendment and urge my colleagues to think 
through what it means to their communities, to their States, and do the 
same thing.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
between now and 12:10 p.m. be equally divided in the usual form for 
debate on the pending Torricelli amendment prior to the motion to 
table. I further ask that upon the expiration of time Senator McCain be 
recognized to offer a motion to table the amendment. Finally, I ask 
that no second-degree amendments be in order prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I just want to mention that I received 
information from Senator Chafee, chairman of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee, who feels very strongly that legislation of this 
nature should--and I agree with him--very appropriately go through the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. That is another reason why I 
hope my colleagues will support the motion to table at the appropriate 
time.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, it is always painful to be against an 
amendment by one of your colleagues, and particularly a friend. But I 
think under the circumstances it is a little premature to go with this 
when the Environment Committee has asked that this come through their 
committee and not be offered on the floor. But attacking noise is a 
difficult problem that requires a coordinated effort involving 
research, airport grant money, flight paths, and phaseout of noisy 
aircraft.
  The FAA has been successful in its efforts to reduce airplane noise. 
In fact, the FAA has spent in the last few years $2 billion for sound 
insulation and property purchase around our U.S. airports. And 
duplicating the expertise of the FAA within the EPA and costing the 
taxpayers some $21 million would be wasteful, in my opinion, of 
government resources. It would complicate and confuse efforts to deal 
with and better understand community noise concerns. And it would, Mr. 
President, create a judicial ambiguity that could have real problems as 
we reduce aircraft noise worldwide.
  Since 1993, the Federal Interagency Committee on Aircraft Noise has 
worked successfully to advance cooperative noise research among the 
various Federal agencies with an interest in this area. The 
participants of this interagency committee on noise includes the 
National Park Service; EPA is a part of this, FAA, NASA, HUD housing, 
Department of Defense, National Institutes of Health, and others. And 
the participating agencies have and continue to address all of the 
responsibilities envisioned in the Quiet Communities Act through their 
cooperative research work, and EPA is, has been, and will remain an 
active participant in this process.
  Mr. President, there is no need to change their current structure. I 
want to reiterate:--There does not appear to be any substantive reason 
to expend $21 million and add needless jurisdictional confusion to the 
ongoing efforts to deal effectively with community aircraft noise.
  I go back to the struggle we had to eliminate Stage 2 aircraft 
engines. There were 4.5 million, as my friend from Arizona said, people 
that were subjected to noise as it relates to aircraft. We have been 
quite successful. We have reduced that now by 90 percent. We are down 
to a mere 10 percent. And by January 1, 2000, all aircraft will have to 
be Stage 3. So the noise is going to be reduced even further.
  I understand the problems. But we have been working on it for some 
time. I hope that our colleagues will leave the authority with FAA and 
let them continue with all the groups in the Federal Government, such 
as NASA, Housing, Defense, National Institutes of Health, and EPA that 
are working together.
  I am going to join with my friend in endorsing his motion to table.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, the proponent of this amendment, Senator Torricelli, 
wanted at least 2 minutes. I don't believe Senator McCain and I have 
any time left. I will suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the 
time be charged equally to both sides up to no more than 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, in a few moments, the Senate will vote 
on an amendment that I have offered with my colleague, Senator 
Lautenberg. The amendment could not be simpler on its face or more 
modest in its intent. We could have required an environmental impact 
statement for every time the FAA changes a flight path. We did not do 
that. We could have given the EPA the power to set standards for noise, 
for health. Maybe we should have, but we did not do that.
  All that we have asked is that, as with each of our other major 
industrial competitors in the western world, noise be considered as a 
factor in the operation of this Nation's airports. That is all. And on 
two bases. First, when the FAA establishes methodology to determine 
whether or not particular noise involving airplanes is safe for 
schoolchildren or families or recreation, that methodology be evaluated 
by the EPA. That is all. They will not establish it. They will not make 
the decisions. They

[[Page S10877]]

will evaluate whether the methodology is sound because scientific 
studies are indicating our current methodology does not accurately 
gauge whether or not our children are safe.
  Second, that the appropriate levels of what is safe be established. 
There is also independent scientific evidence, as confirmed by European 
allies, that current levels may allow a level of noise pollution that 
does have detrimental health impacts. We would like the EPA's judgment 
on what the appropriate levels might be. They will not make a decision. 
They will offer their advice.
  Mr. President, it is modest in its intent. It recognizes that noise 
is a real part of their lives for 40 million Americans every day of 
this expansion of our air networks. I urge adoption of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am very appreciative of and I believe 
sympathetic to the concerns of the Senator from New Jersey, Senator 
Torricelli. There are very large noise issues in his State and in 
States surrounding his. I just think it is important for us to 
recognize that noise levels have decreased by some 80 percent around 
America. We are moving to Stage 3 aircraft. We do not need to 
reestablish another bureaucracy. I am confident in the FAA in that the 
provisions of the 1990 act, which Senator Ford was responsible for, are 
being carried out in an accelerated fashion. I pledge to the Senator 
from New Jersey that if there is not continued progress, I would be 
more than happy to revisit this issue with him.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time. I move to table the 
Torricelli amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the motion 
to table the amendment, No. 3627, offered by the Senator from New 
Jersey. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn), the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), and the Senator from 
Illinois (Ms. Moseley-Braun) are necessarily absent. I also announce 
that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone) is attending a funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone) would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 27, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 287 Leg.]

                                YEAS--69

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--27

     Biden
     Boxer
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     D'Amato
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Torricelli

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Glenn
     Hollings
     Moseley-Braun
     Wellstone
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3627) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I see Senator Abraham on the floor. Before 
I yield, I want to say that I believe we are very close. We have about 
two or three amendments left, on which I believe we will be able to set 
times for debate, and we will have votes on those amendments before 6 
o'clock this evening, when the Senate will recess for the evening.
  I thank all of my colleagues for their assistance in narrowing down 
what looks like about 30 or 40 amendments to 2 or 3. There are a couple 
of recalcitrant, obstinate Members who will shortly show up on the 
floor, but the rest we thank very much.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, as we go through 
these amendments that we have worked out, with the Senator's agreement, 
as amendments on my side come, I will offer those and get them done so 
we can move on when we come to 6 o'clock tonight and try to get a final 
vote on this piece of legislation so that we will not be kept here 
after 6 o'clock.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I made a comment in jest, and I want to 
make sure the Record is clear that it was in jest. The Senator from 
North Dakota, as well as the Senator from Rhode Island, who are waiting 
to address these very serious issues. I have discussed, on several 
occasions, the situation that existed in North Dakota. When there was a 
Northwest Airlines strike, his State was, for all intents and purposes, 
shut down. The Senator from North Dakota has been an important member 
of our committee and a serious student and expert on these aviation 
issues. I certainly was not in any way making light of his involvement 
or that of the Senator from Rhode Island in these aviation issues.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 10 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, do we have Senators who want 
to offer amendments?
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask the Senator from Kentucky if we can let him speak 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. FORD. That will be fine, since we don't have a Senator on the 
floor wanting to offer an amendment right now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Michigan is recognized for 10 minutes.

                          ____________________