[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 3, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H903-H907]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF SUPERSONIC TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRCRAFT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 86 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 661.

                              {time}  1116


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 661) to direct the Secretary of Transportation to prohibit the 
commercial operation of supersonic transport category aircraft that do 
not comply with stage 3 noise levels if the European Union adopts 
certain aircraft noise regulations, with Mr. Burr of North Carolina in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Recently, the European Union took the first step in adopting a very 
discriminatory regulation that would effectively ban most U.S.-based 
stage 3 hushkitted and certain U.S. re-engined aircraft from operation 
in the European Union, even though they meet all international noise 
standards.
  Hushkitted aircraft are older aircraft that have what is essentially 
a muffler added so that they can meet the current stage 3 noise 
requirements. Re-engined aircraft are stage 2 aircraft that have stage 
3 engines added to meet current noise requirements.
  Now, the proposed European Union regulation, on which they have 
already taken the first step, limits the number of possible buyers of 
U.S.-owned hushkitted and re-engined aircraft. Under the regulation, 
the European Union operators can only buy these hushkitted and re-
engined aircraft from other European operators. They cannot buy them 
from American operators.
  In addition, the regulation significantly increases U.S. costs of 
operation in European Union countries. New U.S. operations will have to 
be flown by aircraft originally manufactured to meet stage 3 
requirements even though the retrofitted engines meet all the 
requirements. U.S. hushkitted aircraft will not be allowed to fly in 
Europe.
  This is blatant, outrageous discrimination. This regulation 
implements a regional standard that is substantially different from 
that agreed upon through international standards and unfairly targets 
U.S. operations.
  The bill before us takes the first step to respond to these 
discriminatory practices by effectively banning flights of the Concorde 
in the U.S. if a final regulation is adopted by the European Union. The 
Concorde does not meet the stage 3 noise requirements that the U.S.-
owned hushkitted aircraft currently meet. It does not even meet the 
less restricted stage 2 requirements.
  So it is important that we, today, take our first step in response to 
the Europeans, having already taken their first step, so that we demand 
a level playing field. I strongly urge support of this bill.
  It is our hope that we do not need to proceed further with the Senate 
and having this signed into law, because our hope is that the Europeans 
will not proceed beyond the step they have already taken. But if they 
do, we are certainly prepared to respond in a similar fashion, and I 
urge strong support for this pro-American legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I want to thank the chairman of our full committee for that 
very strong, forceful, well-phrased statement but, more importantly, 
for his prompt action on this legislation, moving it through 
subcommittee and full committee to the floor quickly, because the 
situation demanded quick action. The gentleman is a strong advocate for 
American interests, whether in steel or in other modes of 
transportation, but especially here in this case in aviation.
  I did my graduate studies at the College of Europe in Brugge, 
Belgium, at the time of the formation of the European Common Market. I 
have continued to follow events in Europe very closely, from the coal 
and steel community, through the European Common Market, to the 
European Parliament and the Council of Ministers developments, all of 
which have united Europe, have brought a higher standard of living to 
Europe in the post-World War II era, all of which developments have 
been strongly supported by a succession of U.S. presidents and 
Congresses.
  We want a strong, economically strong, united Europe. It is in our 
best economic interest. It is in our national security interest. But it 
is to be a Europe that will trade fairly with the United States, that 
their markets must be open to ours on the same terms and conditions 
that ours are open to theirs. And we have the world's largest open, 
free market for any commodity, and especially in aviation.
  We have negotiated one after another liberal aviation trade agreement 
with European countries, beginning with the Netherlands. Free open-
skies agreements. We have with Germany. We have with Italy. We are 
negotiating one now with France. Why, then, in the face of this 
openness to trade, why in the face of U.S. cooperation with Europe in 
aviation matters, joint ventures with Airbus industry, the joint 
venture between GE and Snekma, the French engine manufacturer, why in 
the face of some 60 percent of the materials and parts produced for 
Airbus aircraft coming from the United States, why is the European 
Community taking anti-competitive action as they have done with their 
proposal to eliminate some 1,600 U.S. aircraft from the European air 
system?
  The European Commission made a recommendation to the European 
Parliament, which debated this issue, and then adopted a proposed 
regulation, submitted to the European Council of Ministers, that would 
restrict the use in Europe of some, but not all, aircraft that have 
either a new engine or a hushkit installed on existing engines to meet 
their highest current noise standards, Chapter 3 of ICAO, or stage 3 as 
we call it in the United States.
  On the face of it, it looks fair, but in practice it applies only to 
U.S. aircraft and U.S. engines. Conveniently, it excludes the engines 
produced by the GE alliance with the French manufacturer

[[Page H904]]

Snekma, the CFM series engines. U.S. aircraft engines are quieter than 
their European Chapter 3 counterparts, and if this regulation is 
finalized, the effect would be to cost American businesses over a 
billion dollars in spare parts and engine sales and reduce the resale 
value of some 1,600 U.S. aircraft as well as reduce the market for U.S. 
hushkitted manufacturers.
  Now, I have been to the Nordham facilities in the United States where 
they manufacture hushkits, and I have seen the splendid job they do. 
And their hushkits have been installed, starting with Federal Express 
and then with other U.S. airline operators, to meet our Stage 3 
standards. They do a superb job. They quiet those engines down. We are 
down now from the 1990 noise law in the United States, from 2,340 
aircraft in 1990 that were Stage 2, we are down to just under 900 
aircraft. By the end of this year we will be down to under 600, and by 
the end of next year we will be down to zero.
  We have done a far superior job of noise control in the United States 
than the European Community has done. Our aircraft are seen worldwide 
as the standard. Our technology is seen worldwide as the standard. So 
why has Europe chosen to take this policy initiative? Hushkits have 
been used for over 15 years to quiet aircraft. The regulation says that 
engines with a higher bypass ratio would be allowed in the European 
airspace, but those high bypass engines are mostly European 
manufactured.
  An engine's bypass ratio is only one of several factors in 
determining the actual noise produced by that equipment. Compare a 727-
200 re-engined with a Pratt & Whitney JT8D-217C/15 engine and a Airbus 
A300B4-200 equipped with a CF6-50C2 engine. The 727, and I want to be 
very precise about this, because the Europeans have made a big stink 
about this issue, the 727 I have described is quieter than the Airbus 
300. The 727 re-engined has a performance standard of 288.8 decibels; 
the Airbus A300, 293.3 decibels. Yet, under the European Union proposed 
regulation, the Boeing aircraft would be banned, the Airbus aircraft 
will fly.
  Well, I got news for the Europeans, that does not fly here in the 
United States. Furthermore, I think this would be destructive in the 
long run for the Europeans to enact this and permanently put into place 
this regulation because it will create havoc in the international 
community in negotiations on future noise regulation and air emissions 
standards from aircraft.
  Probably there is no one today who can remember what the skies over 
Washington looked like 25 years ago. Huge clouds of smoke, 12,000 tons 
of pollutants deposited on the Nation's capital from aircraft taking 
off from National Airport. We have cleaned that all up. We do not see 
those black smoke trails any longer. Well, Europe caught on, too. They 
followed our path, but now they want to be discriminatory.
  If the proposed recommendation is adopted, then our bill banning the 
Concorde is an appropriate response to Europe's anti-competitive 
practice.

                              {time}  1130

  The Concorde is European aviation's flagship aircraft. The Concorde 
is Europe's signature technological mark on world aviation. It is a 
mark of pride for Europe. We have been allowing their market pride to 
fly in our airspace, even though it does not meet our noise standards. 
We have been tolerant of and cooperated with airlines flying the 
Concorde. British Airways and Air France operate four daily flights, 
eight operations, that is, eight arrivals and departures each day into 
U.S. airspace. Yesterday, March 2, was the 30th anniversary of the 
first Concorde flight to the United States.
  It is rather appropriate we bring this legislation to the floor 
today. I am willing, and I know the chairman of our committee is 
willing, to cooperate and to support continuation of the waiver that 
has been in place for these three decades. But we are not going to do 
it unless the Europeans play fair and unless they drop their regulation 
that would prohibit certain U.S. aircraft from operating in European 
airspace. Fair is fair.
  There will be positive environmental benefits from prohibiting the 
Concorde in our airspace. Preliminary analysis from the FAA says that 
eliminating the Concorde and its noise from New York airspace will 
reduce the noise footprint around John F. Kennedy International Airport 
by at least 20 percent. I think that is a very strong argument. The 
Europeans I hope will see the wisdom of changing their ways. The 
Clinton administration, I am very pleased, has responded vigorously to 
this thinly veiled attempt to give a competitive advantage to European 
aircraft and engine manufacturers. Transportation Secretary Slater, 
Commerce Secretary Daley and U.S. Trade Representive Ambassador 
Barshefsky have already appealed to the European Commission to defer 
action and to let this go to the proper forum, the ICAO, the 
International Civil Aviation Organization.
  Last week, Commerce Under Secretary for International Trade Aaron 
testified before the Finance Committee of the other body:

       The acceleration of consideration at the Council level 
     appears aimed at precluding consultations between the United 
     States and the European Union before implementation on April 
     1, 1999. Because of its potential impact on our bilateral 
     commerce, Secretaries Daley and Slater, and Ambassador 
     Barshefsky have written not only the European Commission but 
     also to Ministers of the Member States asking that the 
     Council not proceed with adoption of the regulation until 
     consultations could be held. We are deeply concerned that 
     this regulation remains on track for approval without 
     meaningful consultations having taken place. I have informed 
     the EU that the United States is prepared to respond 
     appropriately to the harm our industry will suffer.

  Mr. Chairman, we are responding today. Our action moving this bill 
through committee and to the floor so quickly has already had a 
positive effect. Deputy Transportation Secretary Mort Downey informed 
me yesterday that he was advised at an ICAO meeting on Friday that the 
President of the EU has postponed action for at least 3 weeks on the 
pending proposal, which means that the Council of Ministers will not be 
able to consider the banning of U.S. engines and hushkitted engines at 
least until the end of this month. The reason: They took very careful 
note of this bill moving through committee and to the House floor. The 
Secretary of Transportation and the State Department have asked for 
consultation with the EU. We understand that those consultations are 
likely to take place within the next week or so, certainly before the 
end of this month.
  I share the administration's hope that the Europeans will come to 
their senses and realize that they have a lot at stake in working with 
us rather than against us. We have already been through the banana 
wars. We have had steel trade issues between the United States and the 
European community. Countervailing duties have been imposed on unfair 
trade practices by the European community and by Russia. I think Europe 
should get the message that in aviation, cooperation, competition on a 
fair and equitable playing field is right, but protective practices are 
not. We take a strong stand today and I think we have got their 
attention. We have just got to keep the heat on.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the distinguished chairman of 
our Subcommittee on Aviation.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this bill by one 
of the great aviation experts, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar). I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill.
  H.R. 661, Mr. Chairman, would prohibit the commercial operation of 
supersonic transport aircraft if the European Union adopts a rule that 
would prohibit operation of U.S. aircraft that have been modified with 
hushkits or fitted with new engines. The Europeans contend that their 
regulation is merely intended to improve the environment by reducing 
aircraft noise, but this is really ridiculous. The European Union, if 
they adopt this rule, would be asking us to allow one of the noisiest 
airplanes in the world into the U.S., the Concorde, which does not even 
meet Stage 2 noise standards, while banning some of the quietest 
airplanes in the world, planes that meet the more advanced Stage 3 
noise requirements. These would be banned only because they come from 
the United States.
  This is not an environmental issue. This is a trade issue. What the 
EU is

[[Page H905]]

proposing goes against every principle of free trade and open skies and 
in fact would be very unfair trade. In fact what the Europeans are 
trying to do is to keep U.S. aircraft out of their market. The 
regulation in question would prevent U.S. airlines from selling their 
aircraft to European airlines if those aircraft have been modified with 
these more advanced hushkits or new engines. But the regulation would 
not prevent European airlines from selling their hushkit modified 
aircraft to other European airlines.
  This is blatant discrimination, Mr. Chairman. There is no reason that 
U.S. hushkitted aircraft should be treated differently from European 
ones. Moreover, aircraft with a hushkit or a new engine are 
environmentally friendly. As I have noted, they meet the Stage 3 
standards established by our own FAA and the Chapter 3 standards 
established by the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO. In 
many cases, these aircraft are quieter than aircraft that the Europeans 
would continue to allow.
  The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has acted quickly in 
addressing this issue and he and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster) are both to be commended for moving this bill so quickly. I 
know that there is some concern regarding the speed with which we are 
moving. Some people really wanted us to go much further. But this bill 
is an appropriate and I think measured response to the European action. 
It would target the commercial flights of the Concorde which meet 
neither the Stage 3 nor Chapter 3 standards for noise. In fact, as I 
noted earlier, they do not even meet Stage 2 noise standards. They make 
much more noise than the hushkitted aircraft that the Europeans want to 
ban. The EU refused to enter into consultations regarding its measure 
until this bill was introduced. It is important that we move ahead with 
this bill to keep up the pressure on the EU. This approach will give 
our State Department added leverage in its consultations and 
negotiations on this matter.
  This is a very good bill, Mr. Chairman. I urge my fellow Members to 
support it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Aviation, and thank him for his splendid support for 
this issue.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for 
yielding me the time. I want to compliment him on this piece of 
legislation. My only regret in regards to it is that I did not think of 
it first. I salute him. I also want to thank the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster) for moving this bill so quickly through the subcommittee and 
the full committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very, very strong support of H.R. 661, 
a bill that will prohibit the operation of the Concorde in the United 
States. This bill is in direct response to a proposed European 
regulation which would effectively ban most U.S.-based Stage 3 
hushkitted and reengined aircraft from operation in the European Union.
  The European resolution banning hushkits is supposedly based on 
noise-related environmental concerns. However, there is no 
environmental analysis that supports the hushkit ban. In fact, some of 
the aircraft that will be banned under the regulation are quieter than 
some of those that will still be flying into European airports.
  The European regulation banning hushkitted and reengined aircraft is 
not an environmental regulation. Instead, it is an unfair trade action 
disguised as an environmental regulation. The regulation proposed by 
the European Parliament is specifically targeted against U.S. products, 
such as Boeing aircraft, Pratt & Whitney engines, and hushkits, which 
are only manufactured in the United States of America. There is no 
doubt that this regulation is designed to discriminate against U.S. 
aircraft and aircraft manufacturers.
  The economic effect of this proposed regulation will be immediate and 
severe. The U.S. aviation industry is already suffering at the hands of 
the Europeans. Within the past 2 years, Boeing's market share has 
fallen from 70 percent to 50 percent. Boeing is losing out to Airbus, 
which is still subsidized by four European countries that own it, 
because Boeing does not receive the same protectionist treatment that 
is given to Airbus.
  We cannot allow the Europeans to use the environment as a false 
excuse to attack U.S. aviation and aviation companies. Therefore, if 
this proposed regulation banning hushkitted and reengined aircraft is 
implemented, we must reciprocate by banning the operation of the 
Concorde, which is the pride of European aviation.
  H.R. 661 sends a strong message to our counterparts in Europe that we 
are serious about this issue. We cannot afford to let Europe use unfair 
trade methods to protect and promote their own aviation industry at the 
expense of U.S. companies. Boeing cannot afford to lose any more market 
share. In fact, no U.S. company can afford to lose business because of 
unfair trade regulations.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 661. This bill will ban 
the operation of the Concorde in the United States if and only if the 
European Union implements the regulation banning hushkitted and 
reengined aircraft. We must act quickly to let the Europeans know we 
are serious about protecting U.S. environmental interests from unfair 
trade actions, even if they are disguised as environmental protections.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I am pleased to rise in support of this bill requiring 
retaliation against the European Union banning flights of the Concorde 
if the EU adopts legislation restricting the use of so-called hushkits.
  I commend the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for bringing 
the issue to the floor and our attention and to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Duncan) for moving this measure quickly through the House.
  We had the opportunity to raise this issue with members of the 
European Parliament in Strasbourg during this past January. I was 
joined in that regard by the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), a 
member of the U.S. delegation and a member of the Subcommittee on 
Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We 
informed our European colleagues that we were very much concerned that 
the proposed legislation was a design standard and not a performance 
standard and that it was unilateral action not in keeping with the 
rules of the International Civil Aviation Organization. We told them it 
would cause great harm to American interests.
  Upon our return to the States, the gentleman from California and I 
decided to proceed in expressing our views in greater detail. 
Meanwhile, the legislative tempo in Europe sped up almost as if to try 
to cut off the flow of information from this side of the Atlantic.

                              {time}  1145

  The legislation was approved in early February even though it did not 
appear on the advanced agenda for that day of the week, and the final 
step in the adoption of the European legislation is approval by the 
Council of Ministers of the European Union. However, in reaction to 
strong representations by several members of our own Cabinet and, I 
believe, in the expectation that this legislation we are now 
considering will be coming to the floor, the European Union's Executive 
Commission has asked the final approval by the council administrators 
be held off until late March. During that time and during which 
negotiations will be under way we are hoping that some kind of 
agreement can be reached that will uphold our American interests.
  Mr. Chairman, we have often heard the view that sanctions do not 
work. Well, this is a case where the justified frustration and concern 
of the American people has brought us to the point of adopting a 
unilateral sanction to retaliate, and we will do so by a wide margin. I 
hope that the sponsors of this

[[Page H906]]

bill will bear in mind how important it was to take quick action and 
will not agree to legislation to place speed bumps in the way of 
enactment of future sanctions bills. I hope that the bill's managers 
will be sensitive to the need to modify this bill as the process moves 
along and will bear in mind the importance of the overall U.S.-EU 
relationship and balance them along with the very important American 
interests involved in the hushkit issue.
  Let me indicate my dismay that the hushkit issue was allowed to get 
to this point where it may precipitate a series of measures and 
countermeasures. We need to prevent this from happening and not just 
reacting to events. The U.S. and European parliamentary delegations 
agreed in Strasbourg to step up the level of our cooperation for this 
purpose among others. Indeed, we have formed a transatlantic 
legislative dialogue. We hope to have, for example, video conferences 
to allow in-depth discussions on the issues that concern us. Aviation 
issues such as Airbus/Boeing and hushkits might well be a good place to 
start.
  We will also be setting up links between the relevant committees to 
try to give early warning and advice in both directions across the 
Atlantic, again to try to prevent crises in our relationships and find 
ways to cooperate. Our Nation and the EU's democracies, which have the 
world's largest trading and investing relationships, need, of course, 
to head off conflict wherever possible.
  In conclusion, not only is conflict disruptive to our economies, but 
it can make it difficult for us to cooperate on important matters on 
the transatlantic agenda and in third countries. It has aptly been said 
that if our Nation and Europe do not act together, little will get done 
on the world scene.
  So, let me conclude again by saying that we simply must do a better 
job of managing the U.S.-EU relationships, but I regret to say that at 
this point we need to keep the pressure on, and the best course of 
action is to pass this measure before us. Accordingly, I urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 661.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill requiring retaliation 
against the European Union banning flights of the Concorde if the EU 
adopts legislation to restrict the use of so-called ``hush kits.''
  I became aware of the so-called ``hush kit'' issue late last year, 
when the impending European legislation to ban the entry of additional 
``hushkitted'' planes from Europe was brought to my attention by 
industry.
  After consultation with industry and the Executive branch, we had the 
opportunity to raise it with members of the European Parliament in 
Strasbourg this past January. I was joined in this regard by our 
colleague, Congressman Steve Horn, a member of our United States 
delegation and a member of the Aviation Subcommittee of the 
Transportation Committee.
  We informed our European friends that we were concerned that the 
proposed legislation was a design standard, not a performance standard, 
and that it was a unilateral action not in keeping with the rules of 
the International Civil Aviation Organization. We told them it would 
cause great harm to American interests.
  We were pleasantly surprised to learn that the new Chairman of the 
European Parliament delegation, Barry Seal, M.E.P., was the spokesman 
of the Socialist group on aviation. He told us that he had been unaware 
of the problem the United States had with the legislation and that he 
would look into it. Mr. Seal serves on the EP's Transportation 
Committee.
  Subsequently, a meeting of the Parliament's Environment Committee was 
held and this bill was discussed. Another member of the EP's delegation 
for relations with the United States, Mary Banotti, M.E.P., raised our 
concerns along with her own. However, she did not amend the 
legislation, but expressed her hope that an amendment could be worked 
out that would provide for a performance standard in lieu of a design 
standard.
  Upon our return, Congressman Horn and I wrote to the EU Members we 
had met with expressing our views in greater detail. In addition, Mr. 
Horn and I rounded up several colleagues on a letter to Secretary 
Slater and Ambassador Barshefsky to express our concerns.
  Meanwhile, the legislative tempo in Europe sped up, almost as if to 
try to cut off the flow of information from this side of the Atlantic. 
The legislation was approved on February 10th, even though it did not 
appear on the advance agenda for that day or week.
  The final step in the adoption of the European legislation is 
approval by the Council of Ministers of the European Union. However, in 
reaction to strong representations by several members of the United 
States cabinet, and, I believe, in the expectation that this 
legislation we are now considering would be coming to the floor, the 
European Union's Executive Commission has asked that final approval by 
the Council of Ministers be held off until late March. During this 
period of time, during which negotiations will be under way, I hope 
some kind of agreement can be reached that will uphold American 
interests.
  Even so, it appears that the legislation itself will be adopted, and 
whatever agreement comes will be by way of a side agreement of some 
sort relating to the implementation of the legislation. If no 
appropriate agreement is reached, legislation like this may be just the 
beginning of our reaction to the EU's position.
  Mr. Chairman, we have often heard in this chamber the view that 
``sanctions don't work.'' Well, here is a case where the justified 
frustration and concern of the American people have brought us to the 
point of adopting--dare I say it?--a ``unilateral sanction'' to 
retaliate. And we will do so by a wide margin. I hope that the sponsors 
of this bill will remember how important it was to take quick action 
and will not agree to legislation to place ``speed bumps'' in the way 
of the enactment of future ``sanctions'' bills.
  The mere threat of the passage of this sanctions bill becoming law 
should make its final enactment unnecessary. It may well be necessary 
to modify this bill in the Senate or in Conference to reflect an 
agreement between the United States and EU. I hope that this bill's 
managers will be sensitive to the need to do so, and will bear in mind 
the importance of the overall U.S.-EU relationship, and balance them 
along with the very important American interests involved in the hush 
kit issue per se.

  Let me indicate my dismay that the ``hush kit'' issue was allowed to 
get to the point where it may precipitate a series of measures and 
countermeasures. We need to prevent that from happening and not just 
reacting to events.
  The U.S. and European Parliament delegations agreed in Strasbourg to 
step up the level of our cooperation for this purpose (among others). 
Indeed, we have formed a ``Transatlantic Legislative Dialogue.'' We 
hope to have, for example, videoconferences to allow in depth 
discussions on the issues that concern us. Aviation issues such as 
Airbus/Boeing and ``hushkits'' might well be a good place to start. We 
will also be setting up links between relevant Committees to try to 
give early warning and advice in both directions across the Atlantic--
again, to try to prevent crises in our relationship and to find ways to 
cooperate.
  There is no question that there have been significant bumps on the 
road in U.S.-EU relations in the recent past. With tensions high on the 
banana and beef hormone disputes, not to mention issues such as data 
protection, Iran, and Cuba, we need to keep all lines of communication 
open.
  The private sector also needs to be on the lookout for legislation or 
regulations that will cause the U.S. and the EU to come into conflict. 
Organizations such as the Transatlantic Business Dialogue and the 
Transatlantic Policy Network have an important role to play in this 
regard. Our Administration could also do a better job in keeping on the 
lookout for such problems on the horizon. But they need to be helped by 
the private sector--and there is no question that the rather non-
transparent policy process in Brussels contributes to our being taken 
by surprise from time to time. Policymakers need to have issues on 
which conflict might arise brought to their attention well in advance, 
so that they can be addressed with ample time to make effective, 
thoughtful decisions.
  Our Nation and the EU's democracies, which have the world's largest 
trading and investing relationship, need, of course, to head off 
conflict wherever possible. Not only is conflict disruptive to our 
economies, but it can make it difficult for us to cooperate on 
important matters on the transatlantic agenda and in third countries. 
It has aptly been said that if the United States and Europe do not act 
together, little will get done on the world scene.
  Let me conclude by saying that we simply must do a better job of 
managing the U.S.-EU relationship but, I regret to say, at this point 
we need to keep the pressure on and the best course of action is to 
pass this bill.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 661.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), I yield myself 30 seconds to say that I am 
delighted to hear from the Chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations that this mechanism is being set up for consultations through 
the committee process between the U.S. Congress and the European 
Parliament. I think that will go a long way to improve understandings 
and prevent, hopefully, debacles of this kind or near debacles of this 
kind.

[[Page H907]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Gejdenson).
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman and 
ranking member for moving quickly. This is a critical time in our 
relationship with the European community, because the ground rules are 
just being established, and if the United States sits back as the 
Europeans close up this very important market for us, protecting and 
nurturing their own markets, we will find it will not just be in 
aerospace, it will be in every other sector. Any time the Europeans 
have a problem, whether it is exports of grain or beef or technology, 
they will come up with some new standard that their companies have 
already reached or have been advance notified, and American companies 
will be locked out.
  This administration and this Congress have to be tough and hard on 
this issue because, as we begin the relationship with a unified Europe, 
if they get the sense that they can shut out American products without 
paying a price, every worker and every company in America is under 
threat.
  Mr. Chairman, again I commend the ranking member and the chairman for 
taking this swift action.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I totally concur in the splendid statement of the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson). After all, Europe is where they invented 
the Hanseatic League, cartels, and they know how to control markets. 
This is a message to Europe: ``You're not going to do it in aviation.''
  Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would emphasize indeed it is the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) who provided the leadership in moving this bill forward, and 
so I am very happy to be supportive of his initiative, but he is the 
one that really deserves the credit for this.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this 
legislation, and I would like to thank the distinguished Chairman and 
the ranking member for giving members the opportunity to express their 
concern about this situation.
  At a time when the United States has advanced measures to reduce 
trade barriers and open doors to the global marketplace--and while the 
European Union has done much of the same--we're facing the passage of a 
new European Union regulation to limit the fair trade of aircraft.
  The regulation will have the effect of targeting the resale of U.S. 
aircraft that already meet International noise standards. And one of 
the most frustrating aspects of this initiative, common position 66/99, 
is that some of the aircraft banned under that regulation are quieter 
than some that are permitted to be sold.
  The regulation would prohibit the purchase of aircraft, from non-EU 
nations, that have been re-engined with a ``hushkit'' to meet 
internationally-established noise standards agreed upon by the 
International Civil Aviation Organization.
  And the regulation, which is presumably designed to reduce 
environmental noise, will allow purchases of aircraft with the same 
level of noise emissions that are already owned by EU operators.
  This type of gerrymandered regulation is a step backward in our 
efforts to promote international cooperation and a freer flow of trade, 
and may actually be a violation of some bilateral air service 
agreements between EU member states and the U.S.
  If the rule is adopted, U.S. manufacturers, airlines, and leasing 
companies stand to lose billions of dollars--and the impact on U.S. 
aviation workers will be substantial.
  I've heard estimates that the EU rule could result in job reductions 
as high as 16 thousand at impacted airlines and engine manufacturers.
  The U.S. can't stand by and watch as the EU unilaterally takes steps 
with this wide of an impact on U.S. airline, machinist, and aerospace 
workers.
  H.R. 661 is an appropriate response to an unfair barrier, and I 
strongly support its passage.
  Again, I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for their efforts 
and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express apprehension regarding the 
passage of H.R. 661. This bill, which bans the Concorde from operating 
in the United States, was introduced to deter the European Union (EU) 
from adopting a proposed regulation that would limit the use of 
hushkitted aircraft in Europe. American companies are worldwide 
suppliers of hushkits, which are fitted on older aircraft to reduce 
their noise level to meet worldwide noise pollution standards. The EU 
regulation discriminates against U.S. companies, and will cost American 
industry millions of dollars in losses. I strongly oppose the EU's 
regulation to restrict hushkitted aircraft, and support efforts to 
propel the EU to reassess their hushkit regulation.
  Last week, the EU did just that. The EU decided to postpone its 
decision on banning hushkitted aircraft until the end of March 1999. 
Originally, the EU was scheduled to pass the regulation on March 9, 
1999. This delay gives U.S. negotiators a chance to make our case to 
the EU, and us a chance to carefully consider a reasoned and 
appropriate U.S. response if one proves necessary. I have some concerns 
that this particular proposal is neither effective nor risk free for 
U.S. interests.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under 
the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 661 is as follows:

                                H.R. 661

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF SUPERSONIC TRANSPORT 
                   CATEGORY AIRCRAFT.

       If the European Union adopts Common Position (EC) No. 66/98 
     as a final regulation or adopts any similar final regulation, 
     the Secretary of Transportation shall prohibit, after such 
     date of adoption, the commercial operation of a civil 
     supersonic transport category aircraft to or from an airport 
     in the United States unless the Secretary finds that the 
     aircraft complies with stage 3 noise levels.

  The CHAIRMAN. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an 
amendment that he has printed in the designated place in the 
Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?
  If not, under the rule the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Forbes) having assumed the chair, Mr. Burr of North Carolina, Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 661) 
to direct the Secretary of Transportation to prohibit the commercial 
operation of supersonic transport category aircraft that do not comply 
with stage 3 noise levels if the European Union adopts certain aircraft 
noise regulations, pursuant to House Resolution 86, he reported the 
bill back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________