[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.
____________________