Tax On Bonuses Received From Certain TARP Receipients

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the McCain amendment No. 3528. I understand we are scheduled to consider that amendment in a series of votes beginning at 5:30 p.m. The amendment deals with commercial air tours over Grand Canyon National Park. I wish to take a few minutes to explain the reasons for my opposition.

The Grand Canyon, of course, is one of the crown jewels of the National Park System. It is one of the earliest areas that was set aside for conservation purposes--originally in 1893 as a forest reserve; later designated as a national monument by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1908; and in 1919, it was designated by Congress as a national park. The Colorado River winds its way over 275 miles through the park, forming one of the most spectacular series of canyons anywhere in the world.

The park is one of the most heavily visited sites in our country, with just under 4.4 million visitors last year. Visitors come not only to see the awe-inspiring views or to float down the Colorado River but also to experience the quiet and the solitude that much of the park offers.

In recent years, however, experiencing the natural quiet has become more difficult as noise associated with aircraft flights over the park has resulted in increased noise on the ground in the park.

Recognizing this fact, in 1987 Congress enacted the National Parks Overflight Act. This law included a finding that ``noise associated with aircraft overflights at Grand Canyon National Park is causing a significant adverse effect on the natural quiet and experience of the park .....'' The 1987 Park Overflight Act directed the Secretary of the Interior to submit to the Federal Aviation Administration ``recommendations regarding actions necessary for the protection of resources in the Grand Canyon from adverse impacts associated with aircraft overflights.''

It also went on to say:

..... and shall provide for substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the park and protection of the public health and safety from adverse effects associated with aircraft overflight.

Importantly, the act also directed the FAA to implement the Secretary's recommendations unless the FAA Administrator determined doing so would adversely affect aviation safety.

In response to the 1987 law, the National Park Service developed recommendations which were implemented by the FAA and which remained in place for several years. However, by 1996, both the Park Service and the FAA concluded that the policies in place were not achieving the goal of restoring the natural quiet in the Grand Canyon. In addition, the projected increase in commercial air tours over the park would result in even more noise at the park.

Since then, the agencies attempted to finalize new rules to improve noise
conditions in the park, but those rules were challenged in court, both by air tour operators who thought the rules were too restrictive and by environmental groups who thought the rules did not go far enough to limit aircraft noise. The challenges went to the court of appeals on two separate occasions. This is in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Following clarification of the law from the court in its most recent decision in 2002, the agencies refined key definitions and have worked with affected stakeholders to be able to finally implement a rule that will achieve the congressional directive to restore the natural quiet in the Grand Canyon. I am told that currently the National Park Service and the FAA expect to have the draft environmental impact statement for the proposed rule ready this summer and the final environmental impact statement completed and a record of decision implemented sometime next year.

That is a lot of history. It has been 23 years since the National Parks Overflight Act was enacted. I appreciate the frustration all parties have with the fact that a final rule is still not in place that meets the goals and requirements of the 1987 law. However, as evidenced by the history of the process I have described, the delays are not the result of inaction or of inattention to the law; rather, they are the result of the difficulty establishing accurate models for acceptable noise standards, as well as the multiple legal challenges that have occurred.

I have several concerns with the amendment Senator McCain has proposed. My principal objection is, however, that I do not believe it makes sense to legislatively enact new standards when the National Park Service is close to putting out its new recommendations, especially since it has taken so long to get to this point. I believe the better action would be for us to wait and see what the agencies actually propose. Then, if there is disagreement with the new proposed rule, we can enact legislation to correct it.

Besides the fact that I believe the timing of the amendment is premature, I also have concerns about many of the specific provisions the amendment would legislate. Some of these get somewhat detailed.

Let me indicate that there is a concern I have with the definition in this legislation for ``substantial restoration of the natural quiet.'' What does that mean? The legislation would establish a certain definition of that which is significantly different from what has been assumed and worked with for a long time by a great many people.

The amendment also prohibits the National Park Service from considering aircraft sound from sources other than commercial tour operators, which will significantly limit the ability to control aircraft noise over the park.

The amendment prohibits the allocation for commercial air tours over the Grand Canyon from being reduced, notwithstanding any other provision of law, regardless of the noise effects over the park. It goes even further and directs that the FAA begin a rulemaking to increase the flight allocations over the park.

Because the proposal has not been through a standard committee process--as, to my knowledge, there have not been hearings on this proposal--and input from affected agencies and stakeholders have not been solicited, the potential impact of several other provisions in the amendment remain unclear, at least to this Senator. For all these reasons, I believe we should not proceed with this amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Let me mention also a very good editorial on this issue that appeared in the Arizona Republic yesterday. It is entitled ``Congress Should Not Foil Process,'' and its first couple of sentences say:

The plan to reduce aircraft noise at the Grand Canyon is finally wrapping up. Suddenly, there's an attempt in Congress to make a last-minute end-run around the process. This makes no sense. The draft environmental document is weeks away from being released. Multiple stakeholders have weighed in. After years of work, we are on the verge of a plan to restore natural quiet to one of the most majestic places on Earth.

Then it goes on to discuss, in very substantial detail, what the amendment of Senator McCain would try to do. It ends by saying:

Congress should hold off. A plan to restore quiet at the Grand Canyon is so close to completion. Let the process go forward.

That sums up my sentiments exactly. I hope we will heed the good advice contained in the editorial, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article from the Arizona Republic.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source