[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10509-10511]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1930
        AERONAUTICS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT REVITALIZATION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor this 
evening to discuss a very important issue for our Nation. I am most 
proud to introduce in a bipartisan fashion legislation entitled the 
Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act, H.R. 4653, to 
which we are also continuing to seek cosponsors.
  Since the historic flight of Mr. Lindbergh more than 75 years ago 
this past May, the United States has risen to commercial air dominance, 
so much so that in this fast-growing industry in 1985 we dominated the 
market, controlling more than 73 percent of the commercial aircraft 
industry. Since 1985, however, the United States has been on a perilous 
slip, so much so that today we control under 50 percent of the global 
market. The reason I have such great concern about this is because it 
impacts us not only from a commercial standpoint but also from a 
military standpoint.
  I would draw my colleagues' attention to this first projected chart 
that we have here. This was a report issued that said ``Buy European.'' 
Basically, it is saying that the Europeans have set out on a vision, a 
vision that they call Aeronautical Vision 2020, to capture the market 
by the year 2020. And so what we see going on in Europe these days is 
direct subsidization of their industry, direct subsidization by Air 
Bus, direct subsidization that leads both to the creation of jobs and 
the ability to take control of this market away from the Americans.
  The depth of this concern and the strategy behind it is well thought 
out and well planned. Here in this country, and rightfully so, we are 
driven by quarterly returns, driven by the fact that our shareholders 
of our respective industries expect a good return on their dollar. In 
order to compete with us long term, what the European Union has 
recognized is the need to directly subsidize their industry. In the 
process, Americans continue to shed jobs. We only have to look at the 
reports of what has happened to Boeing, Lockheed, General Electric, and 
Pratt & Whitney and understand the concern of a number of Members in 
this House of

[[Page 10510]]

ours about the loss of jobs that has occurred, while the European Union 
would suggest that they are more than willing to spend the kind of 
money that is necessitated to keep jobs in Europe, recognizing that as 
we continue our efforts here in this country adhering to quarterly 
returns that they will be able to augment their industry and make sure 
that they continue to employ people as we continue to shed jobs here in 
the United States.
  This has long-term ramifications militarily for exactly that reason. 
Because if we continue to shed jobs here in the United States, we lose 
the critical mass of highly trained, highly skilled employees who have 
been the backbone of the aerospace industry here in our great Nation. 
They have also been the backbone of making sure that we have an 
unparalleled military and command of the airspace. But if we continue 
on this precipitous slide, we will soon find ourselves in the position 
where American-made when it comes to aerospace will no longer be the 
case.
  If you look at these charts, what we have found is that the United 
States' share of aerospace markets has fallen dramatically. There is a 
direct correlation between what has happened since 1985 in terms of our 
share of the market and our willingness to invest in research and 
development. What we have witnessed is a precipitous dropoff, again 
where we have gone to more than 70 percent share of the market down to 
under 50 percent of the market. By the same token, we have seen our 
investment rise from greater than $30 billion in research and 
development to under 15.
  I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to point this out. I hope 
that Members will sign on to H.R. 4653. I look forward to further 
discussions.
                                                    June 10, 2002.
     Hon. John B. Larson,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Larson: The Aviation Coalition endorses 
     H.R. 4653, the ``Aeronautics Research and Development 
     Revitalization Act of 2002.'' The Aviation Coalition is 
     comprised of professional societies and trade groups 
     representing more than 1 million engineers, scientists and 
     researchers.
       In recent years, our Coalition has expressed concerns that 
     reducing federal funding for aviation research and technology 
     will jeopardize the nation's leadership in providing the 
     technologies needed to develop the next generation aircraft, 
     improve aviation safety and security, and attract the next 
     generation of aerospace scientists and engineers. Assuring 
     the nation's ability to develop innovative technologies to 
     inhibit future terrorist usurpation of the nation's air 
     transportation system, as well as to develop advanced 
     technologies for our air defense network is of paramount 
     importance.
       Over the last decade, funding for the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Administration's (NASA's) aeronautics research and 
     development (R&D) program has fallen by approximately 50 
     percent, and unfortunately this trend is continuing. The 
     Administration's Fiscal Year 2003 (FY03) budget request of 
     $541.4M for aeronautics is a reduction of $58M from FY02 
     appropriated funding. We strongly support your efforts to 
     counter the dramatic decline in U.S. research and development 
     spending in aeronautics.
       The ``Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization 
     Act of 2002'' will provide a funding basis for NASA to plan 
     and implement a program to achieve the objectives of their 
     ``Aeronautics Blueprint-Toward a Bold New Era of Aviation,'' 
     which we strongly support. We believe such a program is vital 
     to U.S. Aviation and a necessary response to accelerated 
     research and development by the European Union and other 
     global competitors. By introducing this legislation, you have 
     also taken the first step to address a recommendation of the 
     President's Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace 
     Industry for ``the Administration and Congress to work 
     together to fund a new R&D initiative to develop a new 21st 
     Century air transportation system for the nation.''
       We commend you for leadership in introducing this important 
     legislation, and we look forward to working with you and 
     other Members of Congress, in re-establishing the investment 
     in aeronautics research and development as a national 
     priority.
       If you have any questions, please contact Kathryn Holmes at 
     [email protected] or 202/785-3756, Ext. 390.
                                  ____


                 [From Defense News, June 10-16, 2002]

                       Buy European, Says Report

                           (By Martin Aguera)

       European Union governments should rethink pledges to buy 
     American arms--starting with the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), 
     Western European Union (WEU) officials say.
       Picking the U.S.-led JSF over home-grown alternatives like 
     the Eurofighter would hurt the European aerospace industry 
     and the ability of EU member militaries to work together, 
     they said at a June 5 meeting in Paris.
       The countries should ``reconsider their participation in 
     the JSF [Joint Strike Fighter] program, bearing in mind 
     European solutions now available and the fact that the effect 
     on the future of the European aeronautics industry of any 
     choice in favor of JSF might be detrimental to strengthening 
     European military capabilities,'' said the WEU report, 
     ``Equipping our forces for Europe's security and defense--
     priorities and shortcomings.''
       The only all-European self-defense organization, the WEU 
     has traditionally been subordinate to the trans-Atlantic 
     NATO, to which its 10 members all belong.
       A London-based analyst defended the WEU's stance.
       ``Europe has excellent programs under way, such as the 
     A400M, the Eurofighter, the Gripen or the Meteor medium-range 
     [missile] program, that justify a widespread cooperation. 
     However, Europe has not been able to get its act together,'' 
     said Paul Beaver, a defense analyst with Ashbourne Beaver 
     Associates.
       Beaver noted that countries such as Norway and the 
     Netherlands were supportive of U.S. products for industrial 
     reasons.
       ``These countries don't have large defense industries and 
     they are acting pragmatically. They have been introduced to 
     the F-16 and the plane has served them well. Also, those 
     countries have taken a close look at what Europe can offer 
     them, and what they see is a European cooperation that is 
     very much hampered by different national problems. Just take 
     the A400M or Meteor, and Germany's parliamentary delays,'' he 
     said. Germany has yet to formally sign on to either program.
       But a member of the WEU's Technological and Aerospace 
     Committee argued that continually seeking American solutions 
     to requirements would starve Europe's industrial base and 
     dull its technological edge.
       ``We have to be more aware of Europe and what our industry 
     can do and is able to achieve. Otherwise, our stated goal of 
     creating a consolidated defense effort can simply not be 
     met,'' Jose Manuel Pedregosa said June 3.


                              jsf concerns

       JSF lead contractor Lockheed Martin Corp., Bethesda, Md., 
     has been gaining ground in attracting development partners--
     and likely future buyers--in Europe. Several countries have 
     recently signed up to join the United States, Great Britain, 
     Canada, and Denmark to develop the JSF, which will be built 
     in three versions: conventional, aircraft carrier, and short 
     takeoff and vertical landing.
       Norway joined the development effort on June 3, pledging 
     1.06 billion kroner ($134 million) over a decade, a Norwegian 
     defense, official in Washington said. And Italy is poised to 
     sign up as well. Its parliament's defense committee's 
     recommendation to join the program as a second-tier partner 
     now awaits approval by the full legislature, said Filippo 
     Berseli, Italy's secretary of defense. And the Netherlands' 
     new, conservative government signed a memorandum of 
     understanding June 5 pledging about $800 million toward the 
     development phase of the $200 billion next-generation fighter 
     program. The Dutch plan to buy some 85 JSFs around 2017 to 
     replace its 137 F-16 fighter aircraft at a cost of up to 7 
     billion euros ($6.6 billion).
       But not everyone thinks signing up for the JSF is the right 
     move. Franz Timmermanns, Dutch parliamentarian and member of 
     the defense committee for the Social Democratic Party, said 
     the financial risk of participation is very high.
       ``We have committed ourselves to this program now in such a 
     way that we can only benefit from it if we later on also buy 
     the aircraft. If new priorities in European defense come up 
     now, we will not be able to adjust to that,'' Timmermanns 
     said in a telephone interview from The Hague on June 5. 
     ``This decision now had little to do with defense, but was 
     based on industrial politics and satisfied the Air Force's 
     needs for the next 50 years.''
       Timmermanns said there is a danger that Europeans may not 
     be able to influence any decisions on JSF. ``You have to see 
     that the JSF is still under discussion in the U.S. itself. 
     There may be less [U.S.] F-22s in the end, which could 
     require more roles and missions for the JSF, which in turn 
     could make the JSF costlier. Whatever decision the U.S. will 
     take then, we are stuck with it.''
       But Lockheed Martin officials called JSF ``an ideal 
     example'' of a program that promotes interoperability and 
     trans-Atlantic industrial cooperation.
       ``We are promoting all ways with this program politically, 
     and in industrial business links, to achieve the best 
     interoperability possible between the U.S. and Europe,'' Ivor 
     Evans, JSF business development manager at Lockheed Martin's 
     London office, said June 5.


                            jsf commitments

       All participants are involved in the system development and 
     demonstration phase. Aircraft purchase decisions must be made 
     in the 2012 time frame. International funding commitments:

[[Page 10511]]

       United Kingdom: $2 billion.
       Netherlands: $800 million.
       Canada: $150 million.
       Denmark: $125 million.
       Norway: $134 million.
       Italy: Plan awaits legislative approval.
       Turkey: In negotiation.
       Sources: Lockheed Martin Corp. and Defense News research.
                                  ____


         [From Aviation Week & Space Technology, Feb. 5, 2001]

             Europe Seeks Global Leadership in Aeronautics

                 (By John D. Morrocco and Jens Flottau)

       The European Commission and aerospace industry executives 
     have unveiled ``A Vision For 2020'' report which outlines the 
     ambitious goals of attaining ``global leadership'' in 
     aeronautics and creating a ``world class air transport 
     system'' for Europe.
       The report was assembled by European aerospace industry 
     leaders, including EADS Co-Chairmen Jean-Luc Lagardere and 
     Manfred Bischoff and BAE Systems Chairman Sir Richard Evans, 
     at the request of Philippe Busquin, EC commissioner for 
     research. It outlines some lofty ideas for research and 
     development activities and puts the spotlight on the need for 
     increased public funding to turn the vision into a reality.
       Implementing the Vision 2020 plan is expected to require 
     more than 100 billion euros ($93 billion) in the next 20 
     years, the report said. This takes into account continued 
     public, as well as private funding for the industry. Roughly 
     30% of civil aeronautics research is now funded by the 
     European Union.
       However, German Economics Minister Werner Mueller stressed 
     that there will not be ``a competition of subsidies'' with 
     the U.S. Repayable state loans to industry for development of 
     the Airbus A380 have already heightened simmering frictions 
     between the U.S. and Europe on this score.
       Busquin said the sector faces ``stark challenges'' in the 
     coming 20 years, including a tripling of the volume of air 
     traffic and increasing public concerns over environmental and 
     safety issues. ``The days of higher, further, faster'' are 
     definitely numbered and must be replaced by ``more 
     affordable, safer, cleaner and quieter.''
       Specific targets set in the report, which was unveiled at 
     an aeronautics conference in Hamburg last week, include:
       ``A fivefold reduction in the average accident rate'' for 
     aircraft operators worldwide.
       A 50% reduction in perceived aircraft noise.
       A 50% cut in CO2 emissions from aircraft per 
     passenger km. and an 80% reduction in oxides of nitrogen 
     emissions.
       An air traffic control system capable of handling 16 
     million flights per year with round-the-clock airport 
     operations.
       The report was purposely intended to provide the industry 
     with goals that in some cases will be difficult, if not 
     impossible, to reach, said Busquin. He admitted that while 
     some of the goals proposed were very optimistic, it was 
     important to set ambitious guidelines to serve as incentives 
     for industry.
       Better coordination of Europe's research and development 
     activities was highlighted as a key requirement. The report 
     said aeronautics research in Europe is ``substantially behind 
     that of the U.S. and scattered in various national programs 
     and centers.'' It recommended adopting different forms of 
     cooperation between various programs and transnational 
     partnerships.
       Busquin said the EC would set up an Advisory Council for 
     Aeronautics Research in Europe by mid-year to help coordinate 
     activities. The EC will also look for ways to reinforce 
     cooperation and deal with problems which can neither be 
     solved on the national nor on the community level.
       Walter Kroll, Chairman of the German aerospace research 
     center DLR, said research in Europe is too fragmented and 
     rife with unnecessary duplication and is also burdened with 
     too much intro-European competition. More synergies would 
     have to be found. Public funding was ``the key to success'' 
     and should be consistently sustained in the years to come, he 
     said.
       The report acknowledged that despite current restructuring 
     efforts European industry still ``lagged behind'' the U.S. in 
     terms of consolidation. Nevertheless, consolidation is viewed 
     as a ``platform for maintaining and enhancing Europe's 
     competitiveness during the next two decades.''
       European aeronautic experts believe that improved 
     competitiveness will allow the industry to capture a majority 
     of the world market in aircraft, engines and equipment. The 
     industry maintains that this can be achieved through a high 
     degree of innovation and a shorter time-to-market for its 
     products. The goal is to cut development lead times in half.
       Evans warned, however, that the process of constant 
     innovation and technological improvement could not be 
     sustained as readily as it would have been in the past due to 
     decreasing defense spending in Europe. He stressed that 
     ``virtually all of aerospace technology'' initially derived 
     from research for military projects. ``We took things out of 
     the basket, but we didn't put back in enough.''
       Furthermore, the European aerospace industry is in a 
     completely different position from several years ago, as 
     virtually every major company has gone through privatization. 
     He noted that the industry is now dependent on capital 
     markets, good financial returns and investor confidence. As a 
     result, European governments had to recognize that they were 
     competing against other world regions in order to retain 
     manufacturing sites within their own countries.
       The European aerospace industry, in Evans' view, will have 
     to focus on high-end products. ``Metal fabrication will be in 
     serious decline.'' In order to keep European businesses 
     competitive and prevent companies from moving to other 
     countries, the tax and regulatory environment would have to 
     be improved, Evans said. ``European governments will have to 
     decide if they want a vibrant industry.''
       Vision 2020 places a strong focus on the environmental 
     impact of air travel. Not only does it plan to dramatically 
     cut exhaust emissions, but also to employ more recyclable 
     materials. Another goal is to eliminate aircraft noise as a 
     ``political and social issue.'' To do so means that noise 
     levels will have to be reduced to 50% of current average 
     levels through new engines, better operational procedures and 
     sensible land planning around airports.
       The report noted that industry is exploring concepts for 
     more competitive aircraft designs, including a ``next 
     generation of super-liners'' capable of carrying up to 1,200 
     passengers. Vision 2020 also includes a readiness to develop 
     ``niche markets for supersonic aircraft and freight-carrying 
     airships.'' Flying wing designs, as well as vertical take-off 
     and landing vehicles, could also emerge in the commercial 
     world.

                          ____________________