[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 10, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E187-E188]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JAMES L. OBERSTAR

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 10, 1999

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the European Community has proposed 
regulations that would discriminate against U.S. aircraft and airlines 
by banning certain aircraft for allegedly creating excessive noise, 
while not banning European aircraft that are noisier. This proposal is 
particularly aggravating when we recall that we have allowed British 
Airways and Air France to fly the Concorde into the United States, even 
though the Concorde does not meet our environmental noise limits.
  To counter the unfairness in Europe toward U.S. aviation, I am 
introducing legislation today with my colleagues Mr. Shuster, Mr. 
Lipinski, and Mr. Duncan to ban supersonic aircraft, specifically, the 
Concorde, from operating in the United States if the European Union 
(``EU'') adopts the proposed regulation that will blatantly 
discriminate against U.S. aviation products.
  The EU proposed regulation, which may be considered by the European 
Parliament this week, would restrict the use, in Europe, of certain 
aircraft that have had either a new engine, known as a ``re-engined'' 
aircraft, or a hushkit installed to meet the highest current noise 
standards, called Stage 3 or Chapter 3. The European restriction would 
only apply to U.S. aircraft and engines even though, in some cases, 
they are quieter than their European counterparts that would continue 
to be operated. If finalized, the proposed regulation could potentially 
cost American businesses over $1 billion in spare parts and engine 
sales; reduce the resale value of over 1600 U.S. aircraft; and cause 
severe financial losses for hushkit manufacturers, all of which are 
U.S. companies.
  The EU portrays its action as one to promote higher environmental 
standards. However, this claim has no basis in scientific or technical 
fact. ``Hushkits'' have been used for close to 15 years as an 
appropriate measure to quiet existing aircraft, first to meet the 
Chapter 2 standards and, since 1989, to meet the International Civil 
Aviation Organization's (``ICAO'') Chapter 3 standards. In addition, 
the EU regulation would not be applied consistently to re-engined 
aircraft. The regulation would ban only those engines with a by-pass 
ratio of less than 3. Engines with a higher by-pass ratio would be 
allowed, even though an engine's by-pass ratio has no direct 
correlation to the noise it produces.
  As a practical matter, this cut-off would tend to ban the use of U.S. 
manufactured engines and allow the use of European manufactured 
engines. A comparison of the cumulative noise between a Boeing 727-200 
(re-engined with a Pratt & Whitney JT8D-217C/15) and an Airbus A300B4-
200 (equipped with a CF6-50C2 engine) underscores this point. The re-
engined B727, with engines having a by-pass ratio of less than 3, has a 
better cumulative noise performance standard of 288.8 decibels, as 
compared to the Airbus' 293.3 decibels. Yet the Boeing would be banned 
and the Airbus would continue to fly.

  A further, important consideration: the proposal's adoption would 
deal a severe, long-term blow to the environment because it would 
undermine the ability of the international community to agree to, and 
enforce, new and improved noise standards in the future.
  Banning Concorde flights to and from the United States will have 
positive environmental benefits. According to a preliminary analysis 
from the FAA, such a prohibition will reduce the noise footprint around 
New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport by at least 20 
percent. The Concorde aircraft has enjoyed a waiver from noise 
standards for over 20 years even though it does not meet Stage 2 noise 
standards. We in the U.S. have been very tolerant of and cooperative 
with the Concorde. I am willing to continue cooperating and allow 
continuation of this waiver, but only if the EU drops this outrageous 
proposal.
  The Administration has seen through this thinly-veiled attempt to 
give a competitive advantage to EU aircraft and engine manufacturers. 
Transportation Secretary Slater, Undersecretary for International Trade 
Aaron, and U.S. Trade Representative Barshefsky have already tried to 
persuade to the EU Commission to defer action on this issue, and 
instead refer it to the proper forum--ICAO. These requests have been 
rejected. We must now make it clear to the EU that their initiative 
cannot proceed without severe consequences. Banning the Concorde is 
only the first step. I am committed to additional actions, including 
discussing the issue directly with the EU Parliament or Commission, if 
necessary.
  The EU proposal is bad environmental policy and bad for American 
businesses. If we

[[Page E188]]

are to deal seriously with noise and air quality standards in the 
future, we must ensure that the process is fair and based on scientific 
and technical evidence. The EU proposal fails on both accounts. By 
taking a strong stand against the EU action, we will help stop this 
current policy as well as lay the foundation for future, constructive 
action on aviation environmental issues. I hope my colleagues will join 
me in this effort, by cosponsoring this legislation.

                          ____________________