[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13437-13438]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          FUNDING FOR THE FAA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Bass) for 5 minutes.
  Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my dissatisfaction at 
the majority's failure to allow consideration of amendments I proposed 
to the appropriations bill that include funding for the FAA. The Rules 
Committee did not forward those items so my colleagues could consider 
and vote on them.
  My amendments represent beginning steps toward addressing what has 
become an intolerable level of noise from planes in my district. The 
amendments will not see debate in this body, however, despite the fact 
that noise affects the health, well-being, and economic livelihood of 
people in every part of the country, whether they are Republicans or 
Democrats.
  When Congress directed the FAA to update how we control our airways, 
we were promised that, by reworking the Nation's airspace and using 
satellite technology instead of radars, our Nation's flight system 
would become not only more efficient, but cleaner and quieter.
  Next Generation systems were supposed to allow virtually automated 
air traffic control, eliminate circling overhead waiting for a landing 
slot, and facilitate smooth gliding flight descents without noisy 
engine power. Plus, planes would be able to stay higher longer, and 
FAA's published flight procedures would specify minimum altitudes over 
heavily populated areas, meant to ensure that effects on the ground 
were minimized.
  That is not what we got. Eight of the country's busiest and most 
complex metropolitan areas, called metroplexes, have seen NextGen 
implementation so far. Phoenix, North Carolina, and Washington, D.C., 
are just a few of the metroplex victims who have decided to take legal 
action against the FAA. The D.C. Circuit Court recently ruled in the 
Phoenix case, noting that the FAA had not paid enough attention to the 
effects of its actions.
  In every case, noise that used to be spread out across a wide area 
became concentrated over narrowed corridors, visiting misery on those 
living below. The best analogy I can offer is this:

[[Page 13438]]

Imagine that all of the traffic using a 6-lane highway was narrowed to 
a single lane. The concentration of that much traffic would surely 
cause considerable problems.
  Well, that is exactly what has happened in the southern California 
metroplex implementation. Areas that used to see planes flying overhead 
every 15 or 20 minutes now feel bombarded by flights as close together 
as every 3 minutes or less.
  As you can imagine, sometimes those planes and narrowed highways 
might get too close together. Air traffic controllers have to keep 
minimum separation for the safety of all involved. But in order to 
adhere to that narrowed lane, controllers tell the pilots to deviate 
from the flight path by going downward. Sometimes they fly at half, or 
less, of what the minimum altitude is supposed to be. So planes that 
are supposed to fly at 6,000 feet may fly as low as 3,000 feet at a 
frequency of every 3 to 5 minutes. I hope that you can appreciate that 
that noise is intolerable.
  Film production of all types, whether TV commercials, movies, or 
videos, is an economic driver in my district. The neighborhoods of the 
37th Congressional District have been used to represent cities and 
towns across the continent.
  Though you might not know it, I am sure you have seen both Culver 
City and the historic West Adams district, built over 100 years ago, in 
some of your favorite TV shows and movies. Unfortunately, the movie 
studios of Culver City and the homes of West Adams are directly under 
the new, narrowed flight path. Studios are complaining about having to 
move production from their back lots because of the noise.
  I have elderly constituents who have lived in their neighborhoods for 
decades and who rely on income from location filming to help them 
remain in their homes. Film scouts have told them that the frequent 
loud plane traffic makes it impossible to film there anymore.
  At this point, countless American and European health studies have 
demonstrated the harms that come from exposure to noise--and at much 
lower levels than that experienced by people on the ground. The 
arbitrary and outdated 65 decibel day/night level that the FAA uses to 
determine acceptable levels of exposure is calculated at an average of 
sound over a 24-hour period.
  Parents with young children have told me that their kids' sleep 
patterns have been disrupted by unrelenting noise, enough to alter 
their academic performance.
  A health clinic serving the affected areas has begun to investigate 
whether a spike in reported health problems, including poor control of 
chronic conditions like hypertension, can be related to the constant 
exposure to excessive noise.
  The European Union standard for noise exposure at night is half of 
the U.S. level and is still cause for health concerns there.
  In the absence of consideration of my amendments, I invite my 
colleagues to join me and nearly 40 other colleagues in the House Quiet 
Skies Caucus, which is working to make progress on this important 
issue.
  My constituents and I know many of my colleagues' constituents are 
suffering under the burden of excessive airplane noise as a result of 
the implementation of the FAA's Next Generation project. We cannot and 
must not sacrifice the health of those on the ground in the name of 
airline efficiency.

                          ____________________