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:
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 [p. H1508]
the din of the heated debate on the Union Calendar over, I believe we can now shift our attention to noise pollution and its effect on our health. But while on the subject of health, I heard on my way over to the floor that the people of Tai- wan have discovered something worse than the Hong Kong flu; it is "the Pe- king flight.'
(Mr. MATSUNAGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 828 provides for consideration of H.R. 11021, which, as reported by our Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, provides for a program to control the emission of noise which is detrimental to the human environment.
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- tleman yield?
this bill out considered all the questions that the gentleman now raises.
Mr. GROSS. I only asked the gentle- man the question I did because he lauds this as a great bill,
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 for yielding.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I re- serve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska MARTIN)
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 con- to the gentleman from Iowa.
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
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.
The gentleman overlooked $5 million in this legislation.
Mr. GROSS. If the gentleman will yield, I am sorry I made that mistake and thank the gentleman from Nebraska
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 com- mittee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Mr. Speaker, the Environmental Pro- tection Agency reports that noise ap- pears to affect to a measurable degree of impact at least 80 million persons, or approximately 40 percent of the present population of the United States. Of that number, at least one-half are believed to be risking potential health hazards, hearing impairment in particular, as the result of long enduring exposure to noise.
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-
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. GROSS. Perhaps a drop in the noise bucket; is that it?
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
committee-the Low-Noise-Emis- 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 con- trol the hiring of people?
Mr. MATSUNAGA. As the gentleman knows, the primary administrative func- tion will be performed by the Environ- mental Protection Agency which is an agency already in being. Perhaps that question should be put to the chairman of the committee during the general de- bate on the bill itself. But I am confi- dent that the committee in reporting
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- ceeding years for the Federal agencies to pay the necessary additional amount for low-noise emission products.
So the total authorization of the bill is $26 million.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation was re- ported out of the Committee on Inter- state and Foreign Commerce unanimous- ly. I support the rule and I support the legislation. I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, hav- ing no requests for time, I move the pre- vious question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Speaker, I move 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 hu- man environment, and for other pur- poses.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from West Virginia.
The motion was agreed to.
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 minutes.
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 problem.
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 brought in to help. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the and for this purpose. gentleman yield?
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 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
Mr. STAGGERS. I would agree with the gentleman.
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
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- al direction?
« PreviousContinue » |