[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 22, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5517-H5521]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 REGARDING INTERFERENCE OF EUROPEAN COMMISSION IN MERGER OF BOEING CO. 
                         AND McDONNELL DOUGLAS

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution (H. Res. 191) expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives regarding the interference of the European Commission 
in the merger of the Boeing Co. and McDonnell Douglas.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 191

       Whereas the Boeing Company and McDonnell Douglas have 
     announced their merger;
       Whereas the Department of Defense has approved the merger 
     as consistent with the national security of the United 
     States;
       Whereas the Federal Trade Commission has found that the 
     merger does not violate the antitrust laws of the United 
     States;
       Whereas the European Commission has been highly critical of 
     the merger in its consideration of the facts;
       Whereas the European Commission is apparently determined to 
     disapprove the merger to gain an unfair competitive advantage 
     for Airbus Industries, a government-owned aircraft 
     manufacturer; and
       Whereas this dispute could threaten to disrupt the overall 
     relationship between the European Union and the United States 
     which had a two-way trade in goods and services of 
     approximately $366,000,000,000 in 1996: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that--
       (1) any disapproval by the European Commission of the 
     merger of the Boeing Company and McDonnell Douglas would 
     constitute an unwarranted and unprecedented interference in a 
     United States business transaction that would directly 
     threaten thousands of American aerospace jobs and potentially 
     put many more jobs at risk on both sides of the Atlantic; and
       (2) the President should take such actions as he considers 
     to be appropriate to protect United States interests in 
     connection with this matter.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Gilman] and gentleman from

[[Page H5518]]

Minnesota [Mr. Luther] each will control on 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before yielding time to the sponsor of this resolution, 
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf], I want to commend him for 
introducing this resolution and working for its early consideration on 
the floor and in a very timely manner as the European Union is meeting 
on this same matter.
  I strongly support this resolution. It is the height of irony for the 
European Union, which has hounded our Nation unmercifully for so-called 
extraterri-torial legislation such as the Helms-Burton Act or the Iran-
Libya Sanctions Act, which are not extraterritorial and which were 
drafted to avoid any extraterritoriality, to attack a merger between 
two United States-headquartered corporations which do not manufacture 
in Europe.
  It is true that the welfare of the flying public, the price the 
airlines have to pay for the aircraft and the need for competition in 
aircraft manufacturing, ought to be considered as mergers are judged by 
antitrust authorities.
  But who is better equipped than the independent U.S. Federal Trade 
Commission to make that determination? Obviously the United States 
flying public is most directly affected by this than any other because 
Boeing and the combined Boeing-McDonnell Douglas Corp. will be so 
strong in the domestic marketplace.
  The European Commission's attitude gives rise to a strong belief, set 
out in this resolution, that the commission is primarily motivated by 
questions of industrial policy, the welfare of Airbus Industries, 
rather than consumer welfare. In other words, the European Commission 
is apparently using its competition policy hat to threaten to impose 
barriers to U.S. competition. That is obviously wrong.
  I am also concerned that the Commission of the European Union may be 
taking action at this time in an attempt to establish certain political 
credentials or make political points in intra-EU disputes. That could 
be disastrous.
  Mr. Speaker, I am known as a friend of warm relations between our 
Nation and the European Union. The United States and the European Union 
are one another's largest trading partners. Moreover, we are very close 
allies on a large range of political, security and other global issues. 
I am frankly concerned that the EU is going to take an ill-considered 
step that could lead to a trade war. Too much is at stake for this to 
occur. I appeal for cooler heads to prevail before the European 
Commission takes an irrevocable step.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Metcalf], sponsor of this resolution.
  (Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman, and the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Hamilton], the ranking member, for their support in allowing this 
legislation to come up under suspension. I am pleased that they agree 
that this is an urgent issue facing Congress and requires immediate 
action. Their indulgence in allowing a vote today without a markup is 
appreciated.
  Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the European Commission is scheduled to vote on 
the merger of the Boeing Co. and McDonnell Douglas. It is anticipated 
that they will vote to disapprove the merger.
  Mr. Speaker, any disapproval by the European Commission would 
constitute an unwarranted and unprecedented interference in a U.S. 
business transaction. The review by the European Commission has been 
dominated by Airbus Industries from the outset. It is unfortunate that 
the European Union would allow their process to be dominated by a 
government owned and subsidized company.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that my colleagues understand that 
this is a merger between two wholly owned U.S. defense contractors, 
consistent with DOD directives issued to downsize our military-
industrial complex in the post-cold war era, and it was ratified by the 
Federal Trade Commission. Any attempt to block this is nothing short of 
a foreign government trying to dictate America's vital national 
security policy. As such, it is an assault on our national sovereignty.
  The objections raised by the European Commission revolve around the 
signing of sole provider contracts by Boeing. However, Airbus was an 
eligible competitor for these contracts. In fact, Airbus signed the 
first long-term contract with a U.S. carrier. That action started these 
exclusive type agreements. Throughout the entire bidding process, 
neither Airbus nor the European Commission raised any objections 
whatsoever to the bidding on exclusive agreements until they lost out 
to Boeing.
  Another argument used by the European Commission is that the merged 
company will dominate the commercial airline business. Quite frankly, 
Boeing's share of the commercial aviation market has remained 
relatively stable at 60 percent or so for the last decade. It is the 
heavily subsidized Airbus that has taken market share from McDonnell 
Douglas. The only antitrust violation in the commercial aviation 
industry is by Airbus and its European government partners.
  While we all agree that more companies in the market would be 
optimal, the truth is that there are only two viable companies today, 
even before the merger. Last year, McDonnell Douglas was responsible 
for less than 5 percent of the total orders in the world.
  The Europeans are using this opportunity to obtain a competitive 
advantage against an American company, which could cost over 14,000 
jobs in the near term and many more in the long term. It is vital that 
the House take this opportunity to send a clear message to the 
Europeans that this act will not be tolerated.
  My legislation provides the President with leverage if it becomes 
necessary to intervene. He can be confident that he has the support of 
both the Senate, which passed a similar resolution last week, and the 
House of Representatives.
  The European Community believes that it should have veto authority 
over U.S. business decisions. The Europeans have stated that they may 
fine the merged company over $4.5 billion and potentially seize 
aircraft built by American workers here in the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, this is truly an issue of national significance. We must 
draw a clear line in the sand now to prevent any further infringements 
by foreign governments on U.S. business decisions.

                              {time}  1615

  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I thank the 
chairman and ranking member again for their support.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington, [Mr. Dicks].
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Minnesota for 
yielding me this time, and I want to thank the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf] for their 
outstanding effort on this resolution which I rise in strong support 
of.
  I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to be able to tell the House that there 
may have been a breakthrough today between the parties. We were very 
concerned, my colleagues and I from Washington State, about what would 
happen if the European Commission turned down the Boeing, McDonnell-
Douglas merger. We are hopeful now that, after further negotiating 
between the Boeing Company and the European Commission, that there may 
be a prospect for a favorable outcome.
  I think all of us have learned a lesson here, and that is I think 
both sides have to be careful in reviewing agreements, especially when 
we have two U.S. corporations that have no manufacturing facilities at 
all in Europe. The idea that the European Commission can exert 
jurisdiction and say that these two companies cannot merge, especially 
after this has been approved by the Department of Defense, it has been 
approved by the Federal Trade Commission, and under our process here in 
the United States, is wrong.
  The Federal Trade Commission does not go out and look and see what 
the

[[Page H5519]]

impact is going to be on Airbus. It goes out and looks at the airlines 
and says will this merger, in fact, have an anti-competitive impact. 
What they found was that it would not; that, in fact, McDonnell-Douglas 
today is declining in terms of its ability to produce and manufacture 
commercial aircraft. They just do not have the orders.
  The real competition out there is between Boeing and Airbus, and it 
is a healthy competition that will continue into the future. This is 
what the airlines in Europe should be concerned about; this is what the 
airlines in the United States should be concerned about.
  So what we have here is a situation in which the European Commission 
used this opportunity to leverage Boeing, to try to realign the 
competitive field to the benefit of Airbus, not to look at this in 
terms of anti-competitive behavior but to try to get things from Boeing 
to help Airbus in its ongoing competition. I think that is wrong.
  I am saddened to hear that there may have had to have been some 
compromise reached. I am always for compromise, but I think in this 
case forcing Boeing to give up on what we call exclusive, although it 
is not really exclusive, but exclusion agreements with American, Delta 
and Continental, after they were competed for, after Airbus and Boeing 
competed and Boeing won, and now in this process they are making Boeing 
give those exclusives back, I do not think that is fair. I think that 
goes beyond what this process should be about.
  I hope American companies in the future will be a little more 
cautious about agreeing in the first instance that the European 
Commission should have a right to review these mergers, especially when 
there are no facilities in Europe.
  As someone who has served on defense appropriations for 19 years, I 
would also like to point out that another area of attack came on the 
question of whether there is indirect subsidy because Boeing or 
McDonnell-Douglas have contracts with the Defense Department. Well, we 
have these aerospace companies go out and they bid and compete to do 
the C-17, the F-18, the F-22, the Joint Strike fighter. And, yes, they 
may learn some things from that about how to build better airplanes 
and, in fact, they may even bring their commercial experience to the 
defense arena and help bring down the cost of our defense products. But 
to assert that there is somehow an indirect subsidy here is really 
almost laughable.
  So, I think that area of concern is one also that should have been 
dismissed. I think we have shown that there is no indirect subsidy. Of 
course, the companies over there, the four companies that comprise 
Airbus, also receive defense contracts from their various countries, 
and there has been a record, a historic record of subsidy up to 1992 
for Airbus.
  So I am glad that the House and my colleague, the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Metcalf], have worked together on this. We have taken 
the floor and made our speeches. I think because of that and because of 
the good work of this administration, and I want to compliment 
President Clinton, Stuart Eizenstat, Dan Turallo, the people in the 
administration who have been working on this for the last several 
weeks. They stayed with it, they talked to the top officials in the 
governments of the various countries.
  And I am glad to see today in the newspaper, in the press accounts, 
that Reuters says that the British now see this would have been a 
mistake and the Germans see that this would have been a mistake. The 
bottom line is that they recognize, and I am just pleased that the 
administration said that there will be a major trade problem 
controversy with the United States if we do not reach agreement, and 
that has, I think, helped us break the ice here.
  So it has been a good combination of congressional support and 
support from the administration, and again I want to thank the chairman 
for bringing this out promptly and giving us his help and support, and 
my colleagues on the Democratic side for cooperating on this. This 
means a lot.
  It is not just in Washington State. If this had gone down, the jobs 
that would have been lost first are in Long Beach, CA. Fifteen thousand 
jobs at McDonnell-Douglas in Long Beach, CA would have been on the 
line. So it is not just Washington State and St. Louis, it is 
California that have a real stake in this decision.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Mrs. Linda Smith].
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, a special thanks to the 
chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  This is very, very important because it says something more than is 
before us today. It does not just talk about another country 
intervening in American politics, it talks about them dictating how we 
deal in commerce.
  Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas are both American corporations. They are 
not international corporations, they are not other countries. We do not 
even manufacture in the European market or the Community, and yet they 
had decided that they are going to protect one of their own, who is 
already subsidized, and try to change competition.
  Well, we believe in competition in America but we also believe in 
sovereignty. So if this is to go through, and if the President were to 
roll on this one, as someone said earlier, then we would set a 
precedent for the future, and that would be a precedent of other 
countries deciding to direct how we deal with our business in America.
  McDonnell-Douglas and Boeing have come together in an honest merger 
that has been OK in America, is fair, honest and competitive. We should 
not have another country come in and tell us to do something different.
  I think it has been said that this particular merger not going 
through would jeopardize jobs in California, but I think that it would 
jeopardize other American jobs, again as we see other countries, 
including this European Community, making a decision to do this in the 
future.
  Again I want to commend the sponsor of this, he has taken the time to 
bring it forward, and the committee chair, who has given us this time 
to make this statement but also to reaffirm the sovereignty of America.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt].
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me 
this time, for the opportunity to speak on this very important issue 
not only to our State but to our entire country.
  I support the resolution offered by the gentleman from Everett, WA 
[Mr. Metcalf]. Tomorrow, as we know, the European Commission will rule 
on the merger of Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas. Several news stories 
today have noted that the President has spoken with a number of 
European leaders about the Wednesday decision but, according to 
Reuters, ``There was virtually no chance that Boeing could produce an 
offer acceptable to the Commission by then.''
  Unfortunately, I think this has characterized the European bargaining 
position to date. Each time Boeing nears agreement, the Commission 
escalates its demands, claiming the merger would hurt fair competition 
in Europe.
  The current hang-up involves the so-called exclusive agreements 
between Boeing and three American carriers. These agreements are wholly 
unrelated to the merger, and the Federal Trade Commission definitively 
ruled that no basis exists to challenge them under U.S. law. Yet the 
European Commission is holding the merger hostage to extort concessions 
from Boeing on this issue.
  The German Economics Minister is reported to have said that current 
concessions offered by Boeing were clearly not enough, while last week 
President Chirac of France simply noted the merger could be extremely 
dangerous to Europeans.
  I had the opportunity to visit the Boeing facility in Everett just 
this last weekend, and I can report to my colleagues that this company 
represents the best in what the U.S. economy can expect from free 
trade. It has gained a global reputation by building the best airplanes 
in the world. The Europeans are not seeking to block the merger because 
of honest concerns about free trade. In my judgment, they are doing so 
because they fear their state-subsidized firm cannot hope to compete.
  I urge my colleagues to join in disapproving this potentially 
unprecedented interference by the European Commission and passing this 
resolution.

[[Page H5520]]

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn].
  (Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. 
It is vitally important for this body to express our outrage at the 
European Union's interference in an issue already settled by our 
Federal Trade Commission. I commend the strong support and actions 
taken by President Clinton and his staff to protect American jobs by 
resisting this European pressure.
  The approved merger of McDonnell-Douglas and Boeing will provide 
thousands of solid, high-paying, high-skilled jobs throughout the 
United States. This new company will not threaten the European Union or 
Airbus, a company largely subsidized by that consortium's member 
nations. The Federal Trade Commission has heard the arguments; it has 
approved the merger.
  In its attack upon the merger, the European Union has explicitly 
targeted more than 11,000 workers at Douglas Aircraft, which is 
headquartered in the district I have the honor to represent. The 
European Union is attempting to blackmail the United States into 
accepting its position. I do not believe we can allow our aviation 
industry to be shaped by our competitors overseas.
  To his credit, the President has stood firm. We all want him to 
remain so. No one wants a trade war with Europe, but we should not be 
afraid of that risk if that is what is needed to guarantee American 
control of our key industries and to protect American jobs.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from 
California for his statement. He recognizes, as I recognize, that the 
problem we have here is that this merger is absolutely essential for 
the commercial part of the McDonnell-Douglas Company which exists down 
in the gentleman's district, and to protect those jobs there is 
absolutely crucial. That would be the first casualty if somehow this 
agreement could not go forward.
  I think the gentleman from Washington pointed out one of the things I 
did not realize, that the European Commission claims it could fine 
Boeing $4.5 billion if they went ahead with this merger, if the EC 
turned it down. So this takes on very serious implications. Also, that 
they can seize Boeing aircraft in Europe and demand payment from the 
various airlines in Europe. So, hopefully, we can avoid this.
  And I appreciate the gentleman's comments regarding the 
administration, because we have been working with them. We have been 
talking to Stuart Eizenstat at the State Department and Dan Turallo at 
the White House and with the President and his immediate staff. They 
have been there working hard on this, and I think quietly and 
diplomatically, and we have taken a little higher profile up here in 
the Congress. But I think together it has worked effectively, and I 
appreciate the gentleman's comments.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. It is good we are on 
the same team from now on. It is sort of sad that the European 
Community is talking about fines when their countries have subsidized 
Airbus to the tune of $34 billion or more dollars over the last decade.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is 
absolutely correct. Let us hope now, maybe, that they are coming to an 
agreement and then, after that, the two companies can come together, 
and the stockholders can meet and approve this merger here in the 
United States.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
believe it absolutely will be good for the country and good for 
Washington and California.
  Mr. DICKS. And a few other States, too.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Adam Smith], another outstanding new Member of 
Congress.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. ADAM SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of 
this resolution and in opposition to European interference with the 
Boeing-McDonnell Douglas merger.
  What this should be about is competition. I think to the extent we 
move toward global competition rewarding the best competitor, the most 
efficient participator in a given market, then that is good and we are 
moving forward.
  The problem that the European Union and Airbus seem to have is that 
that best competitor right now has been Boeing for the last several 
years. They have consistently won the better contracts through fair and 
efficient competition. And we should reward that, not punish it.
  If the European Union raised an argument that Boeing was doing 
something improper, unfair competition on some levels, they would have 
a point and it would be appropriate. But they do not, and it is not. 
The type of things that they are raising is basic competition. It is 
almost like Airbus is negotiating this deal, not the European Union, 
and that is totally inappropriate.
  Airbus should compete on the economic field, in the marketplace with 
Boeing, not through the use of their government, as has been mentioned. 
Airbus is subsidized itself. Their complaints in this ring very, very 
hollow.
  The last point that I want to make is that our Government and our 
country must stand strong on behalf of Boeing, McDonnell Douglas and 
the entire country and not let the European Union unfairly use trade 
agreements to push us around and stop our economic advancement. It is 
in the best interest of the whole marketplace of the world in addition 
to the United States, and we must do it.
  I strongly urge the President to stand strong and stand behind Boeing 
for fairness, and I support this resolution.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
the resolution offered by Mr. Metcalf. This resolution simply expresses 
the view that the merger of two American companies should be the 
concern of regulatory agencies of the U.S. Government, not the European 
Union. Despite the approval of the Federal Trade Commission, 
bureaucrats in Brussels have threatened to impose fines on Boeing and 
McDonnell-Douglas, or even seize their planes in Europe, in order to 
protect a government-subsidized European manufacturer.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people have recognized the actions of the 
European Union as unjustified and based on obvious self interest. I 
strongly encourage my colleagues to support this resolution, and 
protect these American companies and their employees from Europe's 
efforts to prevent fair competition.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, recently, the European Union objected to the 
merger of McDonnell Douglas and the Boeing Co. I find this decision 
extremely troubling and rise in strong support of House Resolution 191 
as introduced by my colleague from Washington State, Mr. Metcalf. These 
two wholly owned American companies should be allowed to merge without 
fear of reprisal from a foreign government. The sole reason for the 
European Union criticism and imminent disapproval of the merger is to 
gain an unfair competitive advantage for Airbus, a government-owned 
aircraft manufacturer. It is ridiculous to allow a foreign government 
to block this merger because they cannot compete with our workers in a 
fair market.
  European Union's opposition to this merger is unacceptable for 
several reasons. First, there are sovereignty concerns about foreign 
intervention in an American merger. Second, the parties involved are 
both wholly owned U.S. companies with an international customer base. 
Third, this merger between two U.S. companies has already been approved 
by our Government. Fourth, the objections raised by the European Union 
regarding the abandonment of exclusive contracts awarded to Boeing is 
inappropriate. The Boeing Co. should not be punished because it obtains 
more contracts than Airbus Industries in a competitive market. Airbus 
has never objected to carrier requests to make the contracts exclusive 
in return for reduced prices. In fact, the European Commission objected 
only after the agreements were concluded. It is both irresponsible and 
inappropriate to risk U.S. jobs because the free market worked its 
will. Contracts that establish fixed purchase prices are directly 
related to the number of aircraft the customer agrees to purchase. Any 
abdication of these contracts is contrary to good commercial practices.
  The proposal by the European Union to require Boeing to divest their 
interest in McDonnell Douglas commercial aircraft business is

[[Page H5521]]

unacceptable as well. After the U.S. Federal Trade Commission [FTC] 
conducted a thorough review of the proposed merger, the FTC concluded 
that McDonnell Douglas is no longer able to sell enough aircraft to 
raise significant concerns about the loss of its competitive ability. 
Last year, McDonnell Douglas was responsible for only 4 percent of the 
international commercial aircraft business. The divestiture by Boeing 
of the McDonnell Douglas commercial aircraft business would have severe 
ramifications worldwide. First, it threatens American jobs that are 
tied into the continued support of McDonnell Douglas aircraft by the 
Boeing Co. Further, McDonnell Douglas' commercial aviation division 
cannot maintain itself as an independent company and previous efforts 
to sell the commercial aviation division have been unsuccessful. 
Therefore, any divestiture would threaten the safety of McDonnell 
Douglas commercial aircraft already in service if the commercial 
division were to close.

  Finally, it is vital to the health of the United States to downsize, 
through mergers, the military industrial base as we celebrate the end 
of the cold war period and adjust military budgets accordingly. Due to 
the large defense business that will be conducted by the Boeing Co., 
any action by the European Community is an infringement on the 
sovereign rights of the United States to provide for U.S. national 
security.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a trend we as Americans should allow to 
continue. We declared our independence from European rule in 1776 and 
should not revert to those days in conducting the business of today.
  I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 191 and call upon 
the President to take all necessary steps to protect American 
sovereignty and the jobs of hard working Americans.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 
191 because the prospect of the European Union ruling against this 
merger and effectively cutting an American corporation out of an entire 
market greatly disturbs me. I am absolutely appalled that leaders of 
other nations feel bold enough to tell America how to run.
  The EU will vote on the $14 billion merger Wednesday morning and 
comments by leaders from across the Atlantic strongly suggest that a 
vote of disapproval is imminent. I believe that disapproval would be an 
unmistakable shot across the bow of American business interests. We 
know our products can compete and succeed in a fair market. But if the 
EU would rather play hardball, I won't hesitate to say that we can too. 
We are heading toward a situation that is bad for American workers, and 
potentially devastating for States like California that depend on a 
strong American interest in this industry.
  Mr. Speaker, critics of the EU stance on the merger have pointed to 
the sagging performance of Europe's Airbus, a key competitor to 
American aerospace interests, as the true cause for EU opposition. 
European officials insist that the merger would simply create an unfair 
playing field for all interested parties. This is nothing more than a 
red herring to mask the fact that these nations have pumped over $26 
billion in government subsidies into Airbus and they still don't have a 
competitive product. They are literally holding this merger hostage for 
a sweeter deal which allows more government subsidies to keep Airbus 
afloat. They are not fooling anyone.
  The bottom line is, the Federal Trade Commission reviewed over 5 
million documents in their approval of this merger and they found no 
cause for concern. This has nothing to do with fair global markets. It 
is all about gaining an unfair competitive advantage for a government-
owned aircraft manufacturer. We simply cannot afford to let that 
happen. I encourage all of my colleagues to support House Resolution 
191.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] that the House suspend the rules 
and agree to the resolution, House Resolution 191.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________