to be a further economic loss to the air-
line industry. The people will retaliate,
as they have a right to do, by curtailing
the use of the current jet ports in our
country. They will start closing the jet
ports down during the night-not just
National Airport in Washington, but all
major jet ports in America will start to
close down. People are going to get-and
rightly so a restriction on the use of the
current jet airports which service our
major population centers.

At that point the airline industry is
going to realize that what it thought
was economy by saving this money on
the retrofitting of planes and making
them quiet, bearable and livable, will be
a severe blow to them and civil aviation
in our country. I see that coming. I pre-
dict it is going to come as surely as we
are meeting here today. It has already
started. It will not be stopped unless the
airline industry makes hard economic
decisions to give the people on the
ground who suffer from this problem the
relief to which they are entitled.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the necessary number of words.

(Mr. GROSS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to
inquire about a couple of items in this
bill. On page 50, line 10, it is stated:

Paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of sub-
section (a) shall not apply with respect to
any product which is manufactured solely
for use outside any State.

make the export. For example, in our au-
tomobile situation we find that if they
do not have the proper fuel what we put
on an automobile would be wasted. There
can be many other instances like that.
Mr. GROSS. On page 51, line 3, it is
stated:

A person who does any act in violation of
paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 10(a),
and who establishes that he did not have
reason to know in the exercise of due care
that such act was in violation of such para-
graph, shall not be subject to a civil penalty
under subparagraph (A).

What kind of a loophole is being pro-
vided here, and for what reason? This is
obviously some kind of a loophole.

Mr. STAGGERS. If the gentleman will
yield further, I would say that if a person
does not know his article violates the
regulations we do not think he ought to
be punished if he does not know.

Mr. GROSS. I want to turn once more
to page 53, and section 12, "Citizen
Suits.' I am sorry that more of the
Members were not here earlier this af-
ternoon to hear the colloquy between the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. WAG-
GONNER) and the gentleman from Flor-
ida (Mr. ROGERS) on this section. I am
still far from convinced that this provi-
sion in the bill is not a wide-open invi-
tation to nuisance suits that will be
brought against those who may be the
least able financially to defend them-
selves.

Mr. STAGGERS. I might say to the
gentleman from Iowa that this is the

time when the Nation is confronted with
a financial crisis. I am willing to endure
some noise until I can be assured that
the Government and the people of this
country can be saved from moral and fi-
nancial bankruptcy. I will vote against
the bill.

Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the
House, I presently and for many years
have represented the district which en-
compasses the busiest airport in the
world, O'Hare International. It has op-
erations every 37 seconds. I think I would
be remiss if I did not at this time make
as a matter of record my comment with
regard to the pending amendment of my
good friend from Illinois.

This problem of establishing curfews
and going to the FAA seeking regula-
tions which provide for relief from the
noise problem in the area is nothing new.
I served on the Aviation Subcommittee
15 years ago when we were dealing with
this very problem. But I think we ought
to get one thing straight: We have a
curfew at Washington National Airport
because Washington National Airport
and Dulles are in a totally unique posi-
tion. They are not municipally operated
but instead under control of the Fed-
eral Government. O'Hare International
Airport is operated by the Chicago Mu-
nicipal Airport Authority. There would
be not one plane going in or out of
O'Hare field after 11 o'clock at night if
the local airport authority did not ap-
[p. H1535]

prove it. So it is well and good to sug-
gest bringing the complaints to Wash-
ington and have the FAA do the job
when in reality the responsibility pres-
ently exists with the local airport au-
thority.

So let us not beat around the bush
here. If we want this job done, I sug-
gest that if you have an interest in pro-
viding this relief, you should go to the
Chicago Airport Authority, which is an
arm of the city administration of Chi-
cago, get relief at the source. They have
the power to stop any flights after 11
o'clock if, in fact, we want a curfew. I
think that ought to be made eminently
clear, and I hope have done so today.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offeréd by the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. MIKVA).

The amendment was rejected.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. RYAN

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. RYAN: Page 56,
line 23, insert "(a)" immediately after "SEC.
14."; and insert after line 3 on page 58 the
following:

"(b) The Administrator may make grants
to States and other public entities to develop,
establish and conduct programs of noise con-
trol, prevention, and abatement, and to es-
tablish and conduct demonstration projects
to develop and evaluate new techniques, ap-
proaches, and methods in the control, pre-
vention, and abatement of noise. The Ad-
ministrator shall by regulation prescribe the
form, content, and manner of submission of
applications for grants under this subsection.
Payment of grants under this subsection may

enable local governments to conduct
meaningful noise control programs.
What must be added is a comprehensive
system of grants which will allow State
and public bodies to develop, establish
and carry out noise control programs and
projects.

Noise control takes money, and there
is no getting around the fact that local
communities are particularly hard-
pressed for funds. Given the significant
role that they must play in combating
this most serious hazard, I believe that it
is imperative that the Federal Govern-
ment do whatever it can to alleviate the
financial burden of States and local gov-
ernments in dealing with noise pollution.

Perhaps the best illustration of the
role Federal financial assistance can play
in noise abatement is the example of the
crucial role Federal funding has played
in the development of New York City's
air pollution control program.

Federal funding for State and local air
pollution programs is provided under the
program grant section of the Clean Air
Act in four stages: (1) development
grants, usually made for a 2-year period,
but may be continued into a third; (2)
establishment grants, made for a 3-year
period, the first of which may overlap
the development grant; (3) improvement
grants, also made for 3 years, the first of
which is again an extension of the estab-
lishment grant; and (4) maintenance
grants, to be made annually once the
program is fully established.

Before the availability of Federal fi-
nancial assistance in 1966, the New York
City department of air resources had an

technical positions. In 1968, when the
New York City Department of Air Re-
sources initiated a 10-station automatic
air monitoring system to complement
preexisting manual stations and permit a
continuous definition of the air pollution
problem in New York City, it was Federal
funding which made possible much of the
required technical work in design and
installation. Since then, it has been in
large part the Federal contribution which
permits the maintenance and servicing
of New York City's aerometric system,
including the compilation of data for the
daily air quality report.

Not only would such financial assist-
ance enable States and localities to un-
dertake programs which otherwise may
remain unimplemented, but a grant pro-
gram would serve also as incentive for
greater local initiative in the area of
noise control.

There are those who, although they
favor the concept of grants, would sug-
gest that we wait a few years before en-
deavoring such an undertaking. Although
I can understand their concern, noise
and its dangers are growing at such an
alarming rate that we simply cannot
afford the luxury of a wait-and-see ap-
proach. Urban noise has doubled since
1955 and is expected to double again by
1980. And evidence presented at the June
1971 meeting of the International Stand-
ardization Organization in Geneva,
Switzerland, indicated that if this trend
continues, every urban dweller will be
deaf by the turn of the century.

Quite clearly, the time to act is now.
The idea of grants to aid States and

be made in advance or by way of reimburse- annual budget of less than $900,000 and

ment, and in such intervals and on such con-
ditions, as the Administrator finds necessary.
There are authorized to be appropriated $5,-
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1973, and $10,000,000 for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1974, for grants under this
subsection."

(Mr. RYAN asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, this amend-
ment would establish a program of grants
to States and local governments in order
to develop and conduct programs of noise
control and abatement and to establish
and carry on demonstration projects to
develop and evalulate new techniques
and approaches.

Throughout the course of the hearings
before the Subcommittee on Public
Health and Environment, one theme
continued to be stressed: that States and
local governments have a significant re-
sponsibility in the control, abatement,
and prevention of noise.

Recognizing this, the committee bill
provides for technical assistance to State
and local governments to facilitate their
development and enforcement of am-
bient noise standards, including, but not
limited to advice on training of noise
control personnel and on the selection
and operation of noise abatement equip-
ment, and in the preparation of model
State or local legislation for noise con-
trol.

Although advice and technical assistance is necessary, it is not sufficient to

a staff of 120. In fiscal year 1966, that
department received a 3-year establish-
ment grant of $500,000. This grant en-
abled the department to create an emis-
sion inventory unit to define the names
and sources of every significant air pol-
lutant in New York City. This project
provided the basis for the advancement
of New York City's activities into a man-
agement program. Thus, in 1968, when
the Department of Air Resources em-
barked on its implementation of new air
pollution control legislation, it was a Fed-
eral maintenance grant of $860,000 per
year that provided the springboard for a
doubling of the total air pollution control
budget from $2 to $4 million and thereby
an escalation of the city's efforts to com-
bat air pollution.

During the past 3 years, the Depart-
ment of Air Resources has received $2.7
million in Federal maintenance assist-
ance. In fiscal 1969, this maintenance
support represented 25 percent of its $4.1
million budget, and in 1970 28 percent of
$4.4 million. In 1971, this figure increased
to about 35 percent of a total budget of
$5.1 million.

According to the administrator of New
York City's Environmental Protection
Agency, Jerome Kretchmer, Federal
funds paid the salaries of 36 percent of
New York's inspection and field staff,
greatly increasing its ability to serve
summonses to violators of New York's air
pollution code.

Federal assistance has also permitted
the existence of additional high level

localities in combating noise pollution
is not new. In the 91st Congress, I intro-
duced legislation to establish such a pro-
gram. Much of the reason that affirma-
tive action was not taken on this legisla-
tion was that the Congress was in the
process of mandating an Office of Noise
Abatement and Control within the En-
vironmental Protection Agency with the
task of preparing a comprehensive study
on noise. It was felt that we should wait
until the report was completed before
embarking on a major grant program.

That report is now complete. It was
submitted to the Congress on December
31, 1971. And it underscores why such a
grant program is essential. In the sec-
tion entitled "Specifics of a Program for
the Future," the report stated that:
Local and State governments have the pri-
mary responsibilities
for the actions
necessary to provide a quieter environment.

In the case of noise control, the future
is now. We cannot afford to allow this
problem to continue unabated. And if
we are to come to grips with this prob-
lem, it means that we must supply all
possible assistance to those with the
primary responsibility for making this a
more quiet and tranquil world.

My amendment would authorize the
Administrator to make grants to States
and other public entities to develop, es-
tablish, and conduct programs of noise
control, prevention, and abatement, and
to establish and conduct demonstration
projects to develop and evaluate new
techniques, approaches, and methods in
the control, prevention, and abatement
[p. H1536]

of noise. And it would authorize to be appropriated $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1973, and $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1974, for this purpose.

I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.

(Mr. STAGGERS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I
shall not take the full 5 minutes. I shall
take but a moment because in my opin-
ion the amendment is premature.

We are proposing to start a program of
investigating and making research and
then setting standards for the Nation
and for the manufacturing. of products.

Certainly, we do not want to put into
this bill anything to tell the States that
they can start saying that they are going
into noise abatement control and other
things.

What we are doing is simply making a
start at the manufacturing end, that the
in transportation, and so forth, will meet
new products which they manufacture
the standards established under the pro-
visions of this bill.

We hope we can keep it in that simple
fashion at the present time. Certainly,
after a year or two, if this needs to be
carried further, we can do it then.

So, Mr. Chairman, I hope the amend-
ment will be defeated.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. RYAN).

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, as is
probably obvious from my previous re-
marks, I have had to wrestle with the
problem of air jet noise as it affects the
average citizen perhaps more over the
years than any other Member of this
body. I realize, however, that many of
my colleagues with districts adjacent to
busy commercial airports can appreciate
the deep concern and the aggravation
of their residents in this regard.

I am not seeking to make any major
changes, and in fact I laud the commit-
tee for what I think is a sound and
sensible approach to this problem, but I
do think that my amendment would
accomplish one thing: I think that, if
nothing else, the residents in an area
adjacent to an airport should be ap-
prised of any construction that is likely
to increase the impact of noise upon
their everyday lives.

What my amendment does is to say
that where any commercial airport in-
stallation engages in an expansion, an
extension of runways, or anything that
would basically change the impact of

the noise on the people in the area, they

should at least be entitled to advance notice that this construction is going to be taking place, through a public hear

we take up the airport construction bill
again. This is an airport construction
matter. So far as I know, in my part of
the country, everybody is advised when
a new airport is to start. I can recall one
instance in which they notified all the
people and the courthouse was filled.
There was so much opposition at that
time to an airport being constructed at a
certain place that the FAA gave it up
and said that they would not construct
it there and that they would have to
select a better place.

Well, when they came up with another
place, another hearing was held in the
courthouse and everybody had their say.
There were a few who were opposed to it
there, but the majority were for it.

Now I would say to the gentleman
from Illinois that this committee when
we have any other airport bill, certainly
I would be very willing to put the gen-
tleman's amendment on such a bill.

I do not think it should be put on this
bill. I would be willing to say to him
that this committee would give to the
FAA now notice that this should be done
until such time as we could put it in the
proper bill and in the proper perspective.
Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?

Mr. STAGGERS. I yield to the gentle

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. COLLIER

Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. COLLIER: Page
47, insert after line 12 the following:

"(c) (1) For the purpose of assuring that
the public has adequate notice of and
opportunity to present its views respecting
construction or extension of a runway for
the construction of a public airport or the

such an airport, which has the effect of in-
creasing noise levels in any community-
"(A) paragraph (1) of section 16 (d) of
the Airport and Airway Development Act
of 1970 is amended by inserting (A)' after
'certifies to the Secretary' and by inserting
before the period at the end of such para-
graph the following: ; and (B) that the
public agency sponsoring such project pub-

ing where they would at least have their related to what this amendment is diday in court.

This becomes essential because we
have on two different occasions expe-
rienced situations in my area where con-
struction was commenced with
knowledge on the part of the local offi-
cials, no knowledge on the part of the
people living in the area. They subse-
quently engaged in litigation seeking to
get an injunction, but they failed.

So this merely says that where an air-
port installation does expand, where they
make changes, then have them give ad-
vance notice, 30 days before they com-
mence work, and to notify the local
officials so the people can at least come
in, find out what is going to happen to
lished notice of each such public hearing them, and have their say in public hear-

not more than thirty days and not less than
fifteen days before such hearing in a news-
paper of general circulation in each commu-
nity affected by such project, and further
that the public agency sponsoring such proj-
ect notify by registered mail the mayor or
president of the towns, cities or villages con-
tiguous to such airport of any proposed con-
struction not less than sixty days before be-
beginning any such construction as provided
by regulations of the Secretary'; and

"(B) section 308 of the Federal Aviation
Act of 1958 is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following new subsection:

ings. That is all it does.

I hope that this body would see my
amendment as a sensible amendment,
and one that they could support. Thank
you.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will say to the gen-
tleman from Illinois, I respect his pro-
posal very much. I enjoyed serving on
the House Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce with him for a longer
period of time. The gentleman was a
very valuable and hardworking member
of the committee. I know he does know
the problems of these airports. He does
an outstanding job for his constituents
whom he is trying to protect.

But I would say, Mr. Chairman, that
this is a noise control bill. I believe the
proper place for this amendment is when

rected to, and that is to the expansion of an existing facility.

Secondly, if the distinguished chair-
man for whom I have great respect,
would notify me at the time the airport
act is up for amendment, I would cer-
tainly yield to his wisdom by withdraw-
ing this amendment and offering it at
that time, because I do think public hear-
ings under the circumstances generally
prevail where there is an expansion of
airport activity. That is the right of the
people who live in that area.

Mr. STAGGERS. I can assure the gen-
tleman that when the bill comes up that
he would be notified and I will certainly
be in favor of his amendment to that bill.

Mr. COLLIER. I thank the gentleman
and will ask to withdraw my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask
unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from Il-

525-314 O - 73 - 12