Mr. Speaker, I've had personal experience with the FAA and the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) as a community activist, a state Senator, and now as a member of Congress. In fact, I grew up about a mile from the Seattle/Tacoma International Airport (SeaTac), so I know how people are affected by airports first hand.

The Port of Seattle has been attempting to expand SeaTac for more than nine years. Over those years, I've had several problems with the way the Port and the FAA have dealt with this proposed expansion project. I feel they have severely underestimated the environmental impacts the new runway would have on local communities, including the potential financial costs of implementation. They have also failed to adequately evaluate other potential problems, including increased traffic that would arise from construction and the increased noise expansion would have on local schools and neighborhoods. Overall, I strongly believe the FAA and the Port have shown a disregard for the concerns of the local citizens whom will have to bear the brunt of the negative results of this proposed expansion.

Considering my experience with this program, I believe there are three things that could have been included in the legislation that would have made it better for those that live and work around our counties' airports. First, I have concerns over the current executive branch dealing with pollution from aircraft. The principal agency in the federal government that deals with environmental impact is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); however, when it comes to pollution resulting from aircraft it is the FAA. This wasn't always the case. Previously, the Office of Noise Abatement and Control in the EPA was responsible for coordinating federal noise abatement activities, updating and developing new noise standards, and promoting research and education on the impacts of noise pollution. This office was eliminated in 1982. I believe the FAA has a strong disincentive for effectively handing aircraft pollution because their main function is to expand and promote aviation. On the other hand, the EPA is in a much better position to fairly analyze pollution from aircraft and thus effectively implement policy to deal with these impacts, because its chief objective is to protect people against dangerous environmental problems. I feel the bill should have transferred these powers from the FAA to EPA in order to properly study and better protect citizens in my district and others from aviation pollution.

Second, I would like to have seen the bill set aside more funds to directly compensate the public for the damage that it will have on their lives. A study has determined that the impact that the proposed 3rd runway would have on my constituents is around $4 billion, but the plan by the Ports includes only $50 million in mitigation costs. This is clearly unfair. The citizens of communities surrounding the airport would have to bear the brunt of mitigating the environmental problems surrounding the proposed project, despite having very little impute and decision making authority. I feel that the bill could have authorized more money for the use of directly compensating individuals impacted by new construction for areas like my district.

Third, I'm very concerned about the lack of congressional and local input in the decision making authority for approving FAA discretionary grants for new airport construction. While I understand the meaning of a discretionary program is that the federal agency has the discretion in determining whether to appropriate the funds, I believe the current system so substantially displaces legislative input that it trumps the spirit of the separation of powers of our three branches of government, which is a critical part of our representative democracy. The Port of Seattle and the FAA negotiated a Record of Decision in July of 1997, despite serious objections from myself and my constituents. Our system is designed to have members of Congress represent the concerns and interests of their home districts and thus executive decisions that impact a certain group of people should only be done with the consideration of the opinions of the Member who represents those people. I do not feel that my concerns have not adequately been taken into consideration during this process, and I feel this is wrong.

Overall, I feel that the concerns of local citizens and thus Members of Congress who represent them are not sufficiently taken into consideration under the AIP, and will continue to advocate for changes to this program in the future. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.