« PreviousContinue »
1.4a (3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 118 (1972)
1.4a(3) (a) Feb. 29: Considered and passed House, pp. H1508H1539
NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 828 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. RES. 828
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move, clause 27 (d) (4) of rule XI to the contrary notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 11021) to control the emission of noise detrimental to the human environment, and for other purposes. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce now printed in the bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of such consideration, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. MARTIN), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. MATSUNAGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, with
Because the committee report was not
filed until Saturday, February 19, 1972,
and, excluding Sunday and the legal
holiday which followed, the 3 calendar
days had not intervened before the bill
was scheduled for floor consideration, as
required under rule XI, clause 27(d) (4),
the resolution provided for a waiver of
that requirement to avoid any point of
order. However, since the bill was re-
scheduled for floor consideration for to-
day the waiver is no longer required.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides an
open rule with 1 hour of general debate,
and also makes it in order to consider
the committee substitute now printed
in the bill as an original bill for the pur-
pose of amendment under the 5-minute
rule. Upon conclusion of consideration of
H.R. 11021, the resolution further pro-
vides that the Committee of the Whole
shall rise and report the bill to the House
forcement machinery must be provided.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 11021 is designed
to do all of these things. Except for air-
craft noise control standards and regu-
lations, over which the Federal Aviation
Agency will exercise primary responsi-
bility, the Environmental Protection
Agency is empowered to carry on a com-
prehensive program of noise abatement
and control. Citizen suits are authorized
against violators and the EPA admin-
istrator is authorized to assess and col-
lect in civil action penalties of not more
than $25,000 for each violation.
The bill also authorizes appropriations
in the amount of $3 million for fiscal
year 1972, $6 million for fiscal year 1973,
and $12 million for fiscal year 1974, plus
$1 million for fiscal year 1972 and $2
million for each of the next 2 fiscal years
for the payment of additional costs of
certifying low-noise-emission products.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
House Resolution 828 in order that H.R.
11021 may be considered.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
this bill out considered all the questions that the gentleman now raises.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, does it not
appear to the gentleman that with this
$12 million for the fiscal year 1974 that
there will be a very nice little empire of
employees built under the terms of the
money to be authoriated and appropri-
ated for this new outfit in Government?
Mr. MATSUNAGA. I do not believe so.
As the gentleman may well concede, $12
million is much too small a sum with
which to build an empire. With costs as
high as they are today even Caesar could
Mr. GROSS. I only asked the gentle-
man the question I did because he lauds
this as a great bill,
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I re-
serve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, as the gen-
tleman from Hawaii has explained,
House Resolution 828 provides an open
Mr. MATSUNAGA. I am happy to yield rule with 1 hour of debate for the cof-
to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. As the gentleman
knows, noise is truly a big pollution
problem today. I support the bill because
it proposes a solution to this problem.
The $12 million will be an investment in
the good health of our people, particu-
larly those 80 million Americans whose
hearing is daily placed in jeopardy be-
cause of the existing sources of noise.
Mr. GROSS. Perhaps we should have
had it earlier this afternoon and applied
to what took place on the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
sideration of the bill (H.R. 11021), the
Noise Control Act of 1972.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the
attention of the gentleman from Iowa
who just engaged in a colloquy with the
gentleman from Hawaii that the total
authorization in this bill is $26 million
rather than $21 million.
On a more selective basis, occupa-
tional noise has long been known to
cause various degrees of hearing impair-
ment among some of the working popu-
lation. The number of persons engaged
in occupations in which there exists a
definite risk of hearing impairment is
estimated to be as high as 16 million.
The growth in numbers of sources of
noise in recent years underscores the need
for legislation such as H.R. 11021..Ob-
viously, not all noise will pose a poten-
tial hearing impairment hazard. There-
fore, any program to control noise must
be reasonable and, in order to be suc-
cessful, must be grounded on several
basic considerations: First, the sources
of noise that jeopardize human health
or welfare must be identified; second,
noise emission standards must be estab-
lished; and, third, an abatement or en-
for his correction.
not do it. This bill was reported out of
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce, without any objection, in its
recognition that there are many, many
items which are being produced today
which need to have their noise emission
controlled and the sum of $12 million
would constitute a mere drop in the
bucket, if it were sufficient at all.
Mr. MARTIN. I know the gentleman is
a great student of legislation that we
have before us and I did want to call
that to his attention, because in addi-
tion to the $21 million, there is an addi-
tional program cost where the bill au-
thorizes $1 million for the fiscal year
1972 and $2 million for each of the 2 suc-
Mr. GROSS. Perhaps a drop in the ceeding years for the Federal agencies to
noise bucket; is that it?
pay the necessary additional amount for
low-noise emission products.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. We hope that when the drop is made, its consequence will be that there will be no deleterious noise.
Mr. GROSS. Does not the gentleman
agree that the expenditure of $21 million
will likely result in the creation of an-
other administrative empire, and espe-
cially in terms of this beautifully titled
sion Product Advisory Committee.
When they dream up better titles than that, I do not know whether I want to be around here. But when this section goes on to provide that they can hire an unlimited number of people at the supergrade level of GS-18; does not the gentleman think there ought to be some brakes put into this legislation to control the hiring of people?
Mr. MATSUNAGA. As the gentleman knows, the primary administrative function will be per med by the Environmental Protection Agency which is an agency already in being. Perhaps that question should be put to the chairman of the committee during the general debate on the bill itself. But I am confident that the committee in reporting
So the total authorization of the bill is $26 million.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill H.R. 11021, with
Mr. BENNETT in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
STAGGERS) will be recognized for 30 min-
utes, and the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. NELSEN) will be recognized for 30
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from West Virginia.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman and
Members of the House, I rise in support
of the bill which came out of our com-
mittee. I think it is a good bill. I think
it is one that we need. The legislation
looks ahead a little bit before the Nation
really gets into desperate trouble on the
noise situation. We are in enough trouble
already in this respect.
Noise is affecting millions of people
physiologically, psychologically, and so-
ciologically at the present time. We have
proof that many people in our mental
institutions have been put there as the
result of excessive noise and irritation
caused by noise. Noise affects the body
physically and can cause different di-
seases. Certainly it is a sociological
The bill had several days of hearings
in the subcommittee. It came out of the
subcommittee unanimously. It came to
the full committee, was discussed there
in executive session, and came out of the
and women-and I assume we would
have some women as part of that com-
mittee-who are experts and who will be
called in occasionally to advise and help
on noise problems. They are paid at the
GS-18 rate and only a per diem and only
for the time they are there. I think most
Federal agencies have such advisory
committees. As I say, these are people
who are specialists from the manufactur-
ing field, or other fields and who have
some special knowledge. They are
brought in to help.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. If the gentleman will
yield, I would refer him to the language
on page 59 of the bill where he will find
there are no limitations as to numbers
of new employees and the limitation as
to pay is GS-18, which is a supergrade.
Mr. STAGGERS. We say that they
shall be a reasonable number on this ad-
visory committee, and they shall be paid
only for the days they work. I cannot
conceive of the administration bringing
in a vast group of people here to advise
on the noise issue. I just think it would
be a reasonable size group.
Mr. GROSS. If the gentleman will
yield further, this bill authorizes $21 mil-
lion, largely if not all of it for admin-
istrative purposes. Does it not?
Mr. STAGGERS. This authorization
is for 3 years. As I said, the bill requires
coordination of 18 different agencies, and
it does this too:
It applies to inspecting prototype en-
gines and other parts that contribute
and I do not see how people can get their
sleep and do their work in the daytime
under such conditions.
Mr. GROSS. If the gentleman will
yield further, there are other things that
are becoming serious in this country, and
one of them is the state of this Nation's
finances which is of crisis proportions.
Mr. STAGGERS. I would agree with
Mr. GROSS. I am going to look long
and hard before I vote for a total of $26
million to be expended in this fashion
and for this purpose.
Mr. STAGGERS. I agree with the gen-
tleman that this is one of the problems.
The administration and the committee
in its wisdom thought it was imperative
to be done and to be done now.
With this explanation of this bill and
what it does, I urge every Member of the
House to vote for it. It is with vision,
looking into the future, that we need to
take care of the problem now.
Mr. ADDABBO. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. ADDABBO. In view of the colloquy
held with the gentleman from Iowa, and
the growing problem of possible damage
to hearing, et cetera, could the gentle-
man explain to me why, under section 7,
"aircraft noise standards," the FAA is
retained as the custodian of noise deci-
bels and not the EPA, especially in view
of the fact that the FAA has had this
authority for the past 3 years and has
not set noise decibels, has not fulfilled
the obligation given to it by congression-