WRITTEN QUESTION E-3243/03 by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission. The Buy American Act in the American defence budget.
Date: 2003-11-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, United States, World Trade Organisation, adoption of a law by vote, arms industry, arms trade, trade agreement, trade relations

C 78 E/500

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0521)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3239/03

by Martin Callanan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject: Bird killing in Malta

Given reports of widespread illegal hunting and trapping of birds in Malta, what action is the Commission
taking to ensure the full implementation and enforcement of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC (1)) on the
Maltese islands?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

As an acceding country, Malta will be required to fully implement and enforce the ‘Birds’ Directive 79/409/
EEC (1) on 1 May 2004 with the exception of the transition period that was granted to allow the trapping
of seven species of finch until 31 December 2008. The Commission continues to monitor and report on
the progress made by Malta in working towards meeting this obligation and the latest state of play was
reported in the Comprehensive Monitoring Report (CMR) issued in November 2003.

The CMR concluded that Malta is partially meeting the commitments and requirements in nature
protection. It also observed that enhanced efforts are required to prepare the lists of proposed nature
protection sites and special bird protection areas, including the completion of the consultation process.
Considerable efforts are also needed to ensure better enforcement of Malta’s commitments regarding the
Birds Directive. Producing an enforcement strategy should be a priority of the national Ornis Committee.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation in the period before accession.

(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2004/C 78 E/0522)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3243/03

by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject: The ‘Buy American Act’ in the American defence budget

Is the Commission aware that a law has been included in the American defence budget of the House of
Representatives that extensively commits the Pentagon to buying American defence materiel, viz. the
so-called ‘Buy American Act’?

What is the Commission’s position in relation to the ‘Buy American Act’ that has been incorporated into
US Defense Authorization Bill FY 2004?

What efforts has the Commission made in seeking to prevent the act’s adoption?

To what extent does the act amount to a violation of international trade treaties?

What impact will the act’s adoption have on the arms industry in Europe and on cooperation in the area
of arms production between the EU and the USA?

What countermeasures will the Commission take if the act is definitively adopted?

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/501

Does the Commission intend, if the act were to be adopted, to recommend to EU Member States that they
adopt the same arrangements as those that the act would impose on the Pentagon?

Does the Commission consider that adoption of the ‘Buy American Act’ will put the already strained
relations with the United States under even more pressure?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

The Commission has been closely following the draft bill entitled ‘National Defence Authorisation Act for
Fiscal Year 2004’ since it was passed by the United States House of Representatives in May 2003. The
initial attention of the Commission was brought to this draft law by an unprecedented expansion of ‘Buy
American’ provisions into areas that may have violated commitments undertaken by the United States in
the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on Government Procurement.

Matters have evolved in the right direction since the draft was discussed in the House and Senate, where
deep disagreement forced a conciliation and the involvement of the United States Administration. The
Conciliation Conference Report was finally approved on 11 November 2003 and was passed in the House
and Senate immediately after. The bill was presented to President Bush to be enacted into law on
21 November 2003.

Regarding the actions undertaken by the Commission to oppose the initial draft, in early September 2003,
the Commission transmitted a ‘note verbale’ to the United States Administration and Congress, raising the
Commission’s concerns and pointing out that certain provisions contained in the draft law may violate the
WTO Agreement on Government Procurement. The Head of the Commission Delegation in Washington
wrote to the Secretary of State and selected Representatives from the House and Senate reiterating the
Commission’s opposition to any extension of ‘Buy American’ provisions. The Member of the Commission
responsible for Trade also discussed this issue with the United States Trade Representative, Mr Zoellick.
In October 2003, the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, wrote to the United States President,
Mr Bush, requesting he veto the law if adopted by the Congress in its (at the time) current form. The
Commission believes that these repeated interventions have been instrumental
in removing significant
shortcomings contained in the original draft. The overall final result can indeed be considered as largely
in particular as it avoids an extensive use of waivers or
satisfactory from the Union’s perspective,
exemptions, which would lead to a considerable degree of legal uncertainty, and left broad scope for the
application of discretionary measures.

According to the sponsor of the bill, the Chair of the Armed Services Committee in the House, Mr Hunter
(Rep., CA), the chapter on acquisitions contained in the bill originally aimed at strengthening the United
States defence industrial base capability and reducing dependency from foreign sources. Amongst other
measures, the bill,
in its initial version, would have allowed the Department of Defence to ban the
purchase of goods manufactured in countries that applied arms exports restrictions or did not support the
United States operations in Afghanistan or Iraq. A similar but slightly modified provision is contained in
the final version, but now a possible ban on procurement of goods would only apply to countries which
apply military export restrictions to the United States for its war against terrorism, in which case these
restrictions would be applied after the entry into force of the Act (and not as a consequence of restrictions
applied during the United States military operations in Iraq, as initially proposed). Furthermore, the
application of this provision is subject to a requirement that the United States Administration ensures that
its application is not contrary to any applicable international obligations, including the WTO Agreement
on Government Procurement.

Other proposed measures such as the increase of United States content subject to ‘Buy American’ (from the
existing 50 % to a higher 65 %) or a ban to import certain goods considered as ‘critical items for national
defence’ have been dropped in the final version.

The provision creating incentives for United States contractors to use machine tools or capital assets
manufactured in the United States for the production of military equipment and a vague preference for
suppliers using these machine tools or assets is maintained in the final version and is the main remaining
concern for the Commission. The Commission’s concerns on this provision will depend now on how the
United States Administration may apply it, and the broader exemption in the act which requires the United
States Administration not to apply the provisions of the act in a manner inconsistent with the United

C 78 E/502

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

international obligations,

including the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement.
States’
The Commission is conscious that European supplies to the United States Department of Defence of
civilian and military goods may potentially be subject to this provision, if the exemption is not correctly
applied. For that reason, the Commission intends to monitor particularly closely the implementation of
these provisions.

As in the past,
Authorisation Act for Fiscal Year 2004 and will take any action which may be considered appropriate.

the Commission will closely monitor the implementation of

the National Defence

(2004/C 78 E/0523)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3250/03

by Ruth Hieronymi (PPE-DE), Christa Prets (PSE),
Karin Junker (PSE), Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE)
and Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject: Assistance by the European Commission to Member States in encouraging the migration to an

open interoperable standard in digital television

Mandation is not desirable and should be a means of last resort. In order to avoid mandation we urge the
European Commission to explain how it
intends to help Member States in their obligation under
Article 17(2) of the Framework Directive (Directive 2002/21/EC (1)) to encourage the migration to an open
interoperable standard for digital television, such as MHP.

What can the Commission tell us about the Member States’ encouragement of interoperability less than
nine months before the expiry of the deadline for the implementation of the directive? How far do
Member States live up to the strict obligation of the directive?

Can the Commission give a precise date for the publication of its communication on the steps taken by
Member States to encourage the migration to an open interoperable standard?

The Commission stated on 26 September 2002 in the plenary debate on interoperability in digital
television that it was ‘providing political support for the voluntary application of this standard (MHP) by
the sector.’ What have been the concrete measures taken by the Commission to live up to this
commitment?

What will the Commission do to overcome the legal uncertainty among national regulatory authorities,
broadcasters and viewers that hinders the introduction of digital television? Will it clearly define which
national measures aiming at the introduction of digital television it considers unproblematic as far as the
rules on state aid are concerned?

When will the Commission publish the criteria it will employ in judging interoperability?

At what point after July 2004 will the Commission start preparing the procedure to mandate standards
according to Article 18(3) of the directive in the event that Member States have failed in their obligations?
Starting this procedure would bring pressure to bear on Member States to act by signalling that the last
resort will indeed be resorted to, if all other options fail.

Or will the Commission remain totally inactive until the expiry of the deadline as it stated on numerous
occasions earlier this year risking that mandation will be necessary and ignoring the European Parliament’s
resolution of 26 September 2002?

(1) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33.