[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 127 (Monday, September 27, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H8671-H8674]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING EUROPEAN COUNCIL NOISE RULE AFFECTING 
                   HUSHKITTED AND REENGINED AIRCRAFT

  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 187) expressing the sense of 
Congress regarding the European Council noise rule affecting hushkitted 
and reengined aircraft, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 187

       Whereas for more than 50 years, the International Civil 
     Aviation Organization (in this resolution referred to as the 
     ``ICAO'') has been the single entity vested with authority to 
     establish international noise and emissions standards and, 
     through the ICAO's efforts, aircraft noise has decreased by 
     an average of 40 percent since 1970;
       Whereas the ICAO is currently working on an expedited basis 
     on even more stringent international noise standards, taking 
     into account economic reasonableness, technical feasibility, 
     and environmental benefits;
       Whereas international noise and emissions standards are 
     critical to maintaining the economic viability of United 
     States aeronautical industries and to obtaining their ongoing 
     commitment to progressively more stringent noise reduction 
     efforts;
       Whereas European Council Regulation No. 925/1999, banning 
     certain aircraft meeting the highest internationally 
     recognized noise standards from flying in Europe, undermines 
     the integrity of the ICAO process and undercuts the 
     likelihood that new Stage 4 aircraft noise standards will be 
     developed;
       Whereas while no regional standard is acceptable, European 
     Council Regulation No. 925/1999 is particularly offensive 
     because there is no scientific basis for the regulation and 
     because the regulation has been carefully crafted to protect 
     European aviation interests while imposing arbitrary, 
     substantial, and unfounded cost burdens on United States 
     aeronautical industries;
       Whereas the vast majority of aircraft that will be affected 
     by European Council Regulation No. 925/1999 are operated by 
     United States flag carriers; and
       Whereas implementation of European Council Regulation No. 
     925/1999 will result in a loss of jobs in the United States 
     and may cost United States aeronautical industries in excess 
     of $2,000,000,000: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) if European Council Regulation No. 925/1999 is not 
     rescinded by the European Council at the earliest possible 
     date, the Secretaries of Transportation and State should take 
     all appropriate actions to ensure that a petition regarding 
     the regulation is filed with the International Civil Aviation 
     Organization pursuant to Article 84 of the Chicago 
     Convention; and
       (2) the Secretaries of Commerce, State, and Transportation 
     and other appropriate parties should use all reasonable means 
     available to them to ensure that the goal of having the 
     regulation rescinded is achieved.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, this is a very good resolution. I think also a very 
strong resolution. It targets a European Union regulation that unfairly 
restricts the use of hushkitted and reengined aircraft in the European 
Union. The EU seeks to ban these aircraft, which are mostly U.S.-owned, 
from use beginning in 2002. The European Union claims that the 
regulation is written to target excessively noisy aircraft.
  However, its argument ignores the fact that the aircraft it seeks to 
ban have been modified to meet all U.S. and international noise 
restrictions. It also ignores the fact that the regulation allows 
noisier aircraft to operate in Europe than those it seeks to ban. Let 
me repeat that, Madam Speaker. This regulation by the EU bans primarily 
U.S. aircraft, almost exclusively U.S. aircraft, and would allow 
noisier European aircraft than those U.S. aircraft that this rule would 
ban.
  The resolution directs the U.S. Government to take all immediate 
steps available to ensure that the regulation is rescinded as soon as 
possible.

                              {time}  1415

  If this is not done, Madam Speaker, the resolution also directs the 
Department of Transportation to take all available steps to ensure that 
a dispute resolution petition is filed with the International Civil 
Aviation Association.
  We are making a small change in the resolution and directing the 
Department of State to take a role in beginning the dispute resolution 
process also. There has been strong interest recently regarding the 
status of this regulation. The House Subcommittee on Aviation, which I 
have the privilege to chair, held a hearing on the issue earlier this 
month. The subcommittee heard testimony about the great chilling effect 
of the regulation on the U.S. aviation industry. The European 
regulation has already cost the industry many, many millions in lost 
hushkit sales. It expects to lose much more in engine and spare parts 
sales. The estimates are that the industry could lose as much as $2 
billion. In fact, some people estimate that the losses already total 
over 1 billion and that ultimately U.S. industry could lose as much as 
$2 billion if this European Union regulation is not eliminated.
  This issue has already been visited by this body at one time. Earlier 
this year, the House passed legislation sponsored by my good friend, 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), that would ban the use of 
the Concorde in the U.S. if the EU regulation was passed. The EU passed 
its regulation anyway but agreed to defer its implementation for a 
year. The regulation, though, is adversely affecting U.S. industry even 
though the EU deferred the implementation of the regulation. Further 
deferral will only magnify this effect. This discriminatory regulation 
must be rescinded, and it must be done quickly.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) of the Committee on 
International Relations for all their hard work and cooperation on this 
issue. In addition, the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster), the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) have devoted 
a great deal of time and attention to this issue. I strongly support 
this resolution, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.
  Madam Speaker I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) 
and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), my distinguished 
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), and 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for introducing House 
Concurrent Resolution 187 expressing the sense of Congress regarding 
the European Council Noise Rule affecting hushkitted and reengined 
aircraft. I urge my colleagues to support this swift and decisive 
response to a harsh and unjustified European Union noise-reduction 
regulation which would harm American industry.

[[Page H8672]]

  The International Civic Aviation Organization, ICAO, created by the 
Chicago Convention, sets and administers international certification 
standards for aircraft. Once an aircraft is certified as having met 
ICAO standards, there should be no restrictions on an operator's use of 
that aircraft in ICAO member countries. Simply put, ICAO certification 
gives operators and investors assurances of worldwide marketability.
  ICAO has promulgated international noise restrictions known as 
Chapter 3 noise restrictions. Chapter 3 noise restrictions, similar to 
U.S. Stage 3 noise restrictions, are currently the most stringent noise 
restriction in the world. An aircraft may meet Chapter 3 noise 
restriction by various means. The most common means are, one, 
purchasing new, quieter aircraft; two, modifying a noisy engine with a 
device known as a hushkit; or, three, putting quieter State 3-compliant 
engines on Stage 2 aircraft, a process known as reengining.
  The European Union has adopted a regulation that will severely 
restrict the use of hushkitted and reengined aircraft in Europe despite 
the fact that these aircraft meet all Stage 3 and Chapter 3 noise 
compliance regulations. The European Union regulation targets and 
prohibits long-standing and generally accepted measures for bringing 
older engines into compliance with current noise regulations; and in 
doing so, this European Union regulation violates universally 
recognized international obligations.
  Article 33 of the Chicago Convention mandates universal recognition 
of an airline's air worthiness certificate where an aircraft conforms 
with ICAO standards. Further, the hushkit industry is almost entirely 
U.S. based. This regulation would have a discriminatory impact on U.S. 
hushkit manufacturers and U.S. owners of hushkitted aircraft.
  The European Union cites noise pollution and adverse environmental 
impact as a justification for imposing the hushkit ban. However, there 
has been no credible evidence that the regulation has any environmental 
basis. Additionally, the aircraft targeted by the regulation would be 
banned from airports where noise is not a problem.
  I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Lipinski) in expressing a sense of Congress that we expect the European 
Union to comply with international law and abandon its efforts to 
promulgate this protectionist measure. If this does not happen, we urge 
the administration to use all options available, including filing an 
article 84 petition with ICAO to ensure that the goal of rescinding 
this regulation is met.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the Chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, the European Union has passed regrettable 
legislation that is supposed to help control noise around their 
airports; but the European legislation will, in fact, let noisy 
European airplanes fly and will ban quieter American planes. It imposes 
a design standard rather than a performance standard that oddly enough 
favors European interests.
  Europeans often accuse us of unilateralism, but this regulation 
strikes at the very heart of an international agreement on whether 
airplanes can fly internationally or not. The European legislation will 
come into full effect this spring if nothing is done. There are 
negotiations under way to achieve this settlement acceptable to both 
sides; but while the European legislation will come into effect 
automatically, we will have no ready response.
  One response that has passed the House is a measure that would result 
in a ban on the Concorde landing in our Nation if this law does take 
effect. Banning the Concorde would result in a lowering by about 20 
percent of the airport noise in New York City, by the way. This 
legislation asks the administration to bring a case under the 
International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, and determine what our 
rights are. I believe that this procedure, which will take some time, 
Madam Speaker, is a good counterweight to the impending European 
legislation.
  We do hope that a less solution that permits an improvement in noise 
control standards over time by an international consensus can be 
reached. It may be that bringing this ICAO case will help put some 
pressure on the Europeans to come to a reasonable solution. 
Accordingly, I hope that members will support this resolution.
  We marked this resolution up in our Committee on International 
Relations just last week, Madam Speaker, and our committee has asked me 
to support its coming up on suspension.
  I appreciate the leadership by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Duncan), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the full committee, and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking Democrat on the 
full committee, all of whom, Madam Speaker, have taken a great interest 
in this matter. We will continue to work with the Europeans on this 
through every available channel.
  Again, we hope that this measure will pass by an overwhelming vote, 
and I urge my colleagues to be supportive.
  I thank the gentleman for having yielded the time to me.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank particularly the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for their great help on this legislation. 
This is not just about aircraft or engines, it is not simply about the 
impact on a Pratt and Whitney in my State or other companies in other 
States. This is a telling sign of how the Europeans plan to restrict 
American access, American products' access, Madam Speaker, to the 
European market.
  We have all seen that international trade agreements have lowered 
tariff and other barriers, and sometimes we hear debate about nontariff 
barriers. Well, what does that mean? Well, what that means is when 
Americans have a better product, our jet engines are better, they are 
priced better, they perform better, and they meet the noise standards 
which are measured in decibels. The Europeans come up with a standard 
that does not use decibels in the measurement; and as a result of that, 
they go to a design mechanism and use that to restrict access of 
American jet engines to the European market.
  For my colleagues who may not be involved in jet engine or airplane 
manufacturing, if the Europeans are successful here in blocking an 
American product by using not the standard with which we measure noise, 
but a fabricated standard based on construction that has nothing to do 
with noise, then we will see the same kind of restrictions for every 
other American product in every other sector; and, Madam Speaker, that 
will have an incredibly adverse impact on each and every one of our 
districts and this country.
  The United States is among the most open markets in the world, and we 
expect to see challenges from developing and poor nations. But when we 
are competing with the wealthiest nations, the most developed nations 
on the face of the Earth, to see the European Union trying to use this 
ruse as an attempt to keep out our products, it foretells of dangerous 
times ahead in trade. We have a healthy economy, the American economy 
is strong, our budget surplus is strong. All those things can become in 
danger if we do not act now.
  Again let me commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), for their 
excellent work; and I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) 
for his cooperation and support on this effort.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I have no other speakers at this point, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this

[[Page H8673]]

time to me, and I want to express my great appreciation to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for moving again so quickly on this issue of EU 
hushkit discriminatory regulation and express my appreciation to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for his strong support, as one 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, and to our colleagues 
on the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
  Earlier last year, Madam Speaker, the European Parliament passed a 
regulation restricting the use of aircraft that would operate within 
the EU territory that used either hushkitted or reengined engines on 
their aircraft even though such aircraft comply with the U.S. Stage 3 
noise reduction requirements.
  As you look at it, on the face of it, the EU says this is legislation 
necessary to reduce aircraft noise in our congested metropolitan areas 
that are close to airports. But looking deeper beneath the surface, 
this is simply economic discrimination masquerading as noise 
regulation.
  I would just take my colleagues back a few years to 1990 when in this 
Chamber on this floor we debated extensively, and there are members of 
the staff who can recall it very clearly. I see the majority Counsel of 
the Subcommittee on Aviation, Mr. Schaffer, smiling who was here at the 
time; Mr. Heymsfeld on our side, who was chief of staff at the time. We 
hassled our way through; we chiseled it out of stone word by word, 
issue by issue, a far-ranging noise regulation that was 2 years ahead 
of anything Europe was even contemplating, or ICAO in the international 
arena.

                              {time}  1430

  We worked it out, to reduce from 2,360 Stage 2 aircraft in 1990 to 
zero by the end of this year, reducing from 7.5 million the number of 
people impacted by unacceptable noise to roughly 500,000 or 600,000 by 
the end of this year, a 90-plus percent reduction in noise, 2 years 
ahead of Europe. Along comes the European community and complains that 
the United States forced the technology, forced a particular kind of 
engine and hushkitting so as to gain economic advantage over Europe.
  There is one word for that argument: Baloney. They knew what we were 
doing; they knew they could not meet our standards; and they did not 
want to get up to speed with the United States. They still have not 
achieved a Stage 3 standard all throughout the European community, and 
now they want to discriminate against American aircraft that our 
airlines have equipped to meet our Stage 3 requirements and wish to 
sell to non-EU countries who wish to operate those aircraft within the 
European community.
  It is that simple. So when the word became very clear about what the 
European community was up to, the Clinton Administration acted very 
quickly, moved decisively to complain about the blatantly 
discriminatory attack on U.S. air carriers and equipment and aviation 
trade, but Europe did not budge.
  So, again it was our committee that moved quickly and decisively 
earlier this year, again with the support of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Duncan), to act quickly on legislation that I introduced with their and 
Mr. Lipinski's support to ban the operation of the Concorde in U.S. 
airspace.
  If you want something that violates noise rules, the Concorde is it. 
If you take the Concorde out of the New York air space, you reduce 20 
percent of the noise inflicted upon people living in the New York air 
space.
  Well, that quick action by our committee and by the House got the 
attention of the European community and they moved to negotiate with 
the United States to allow U.S. aircraft to be sold and operated into 
the European Union through May of next year, but without protective 
language that guarantees the purchaser of such aircraft the right to 
operate the aircraft within the EU. So they created a hollow shell, and 
they have refused to move any further.
  Now, I understand there have been elections within the European 
parliament electing a whole new body. They have not reconstituted their 
Transport Committee. The European Parliament has to take certain steps 
to reformulate that committee and then the new committee should have a 
proper period of time to reconsider the healthiest rule. But there is a 
ministerial group within the EU that could have acted a long time ago 
decisively to move to show good faith, and they have not shown good 
faith.
  That is why we have to have this legislation, to press upon the 
Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of State to protest the 
EU regulation by filing an Article 84 petition under ICAO. I urge the 
administration, without waiting for the Senate to act on this 
legislation, to move decisively. File the Section 84 petition. File 
that notice of total discontent and disapproval of European inaction 
and discriminatory posture toward the United States, and the Europeans 
will see the light.
  What is at stake is nothing less than the $100 billion U.S. airlines 
have invested to convert our Stage 2 fleet to Stage 3, and the hundreds 
of millions of dollars more that U.S. air carriers and the FAA and 
others have invested in research and development of quieter engines and 
air frames to move to stage 3 and the next stage, which will be called 
Stage 4. But unless the EU acts, we are going to see U.S. carriers 
deprived of something in the neighborhood of $1.6 billion in sales of 
aircraft, engines, and spare parts to countries who wish to operate 
these aircraft into the EU air space, aircraft that are quieter than 
aircraft operated by European carriers.
  Now, I will be happy to engage in a debate with the European Union 
members of parliament at any time. I will be happy to take on any 
number of them who wish to debate the issue of compliance with Stage 3, 
the move toward Stage 4 and who has the better technology, because I 
guarantee you, U.S. air carriers, U.S. manufacturers, are ahead of the 
field, ahead of anything in Europe, ahead of any other country in the 
world.
  So, Madam Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Duncan) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for standing 
up for what is right, for what is fair, for American leadership in 
aviation, to restore this country and maintain its leadership in 
aviation throughout the world.
  We ought to pass this resolution; the administration ought to act 
decisively; and we ought to wait no longer for word from a European 
community that is determined to support a cartel in the sector of 
aviation airframe and engine technology.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, let me first of all say I want to commend the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member, for his 
strong and decisive leadership on this particular issue. As has been 
pointed out by Mr. Oberstar and several other speakers and myself, this 
is not a noise issue, it is a trade issue, and one that is aimed 
squarely and unfairly at the U.S. It could cost our economy as much as 
$2 billion in a very short time. As several speakers have pointed out, 
the EU regulation allows noisier European aircraft while banning 
quieter U.S. aircraft. This is a very good resolution, and I urge all 
Members to support it.
  Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) that the House 
suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 
187, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

[[Page H8674]]



                          ____________________