European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1956) to prohibit operators of civil aircraft of the United States from participating in the European Union's emissions trading scheme, and for other purposes.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on S. 1956.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, and welcome back. The Congress is back in session today, and I guess all people's property and welfare and everything else is now at risk. But I'm pleased to be here to help lessen some of that risk that is a threat which has been offered to the United States in the form of a European Union emissions trading scheme.

The bill that I propose today is S. 1956, which replaces the bill that was passed a year ago in October of 2011, and that's H.R. 2594. That's legislation which I authored which basically does the same thing, again, giving the authority to prohibit the United States aircraft and operators of commercial aviation from participating in the European Union's emissions trading scheme.

Let me take just a minute and explain what this is. Several years ago, the European Union and some of the folks that are honestly concerned about emissions that come from aviation, commercial aviation in particular, decided to come up with a scheme or a plan to impose a tax on all aircraft. Now, if this had been done within the confines of the European Union, I don't think we would be standing here. But what they did is really go beyond the borders of the European Union and say that any aircraft entering the European Union from another nation will be subject to an emissions tax--and not when it reached the borders of the European Union or their states, but from where it departed.

So this would be, first of all, counter to international agreements. It is also a tax that they propose to impose on us that is unfair in every way, violates national agreements that we've had, and it unilaterally imposes this emissions trading scheme on all of the countries, including the United States. It would have a very damaging effect, first of all, because it does not do what it was set up for. The purpose of this was to try to limit or even compensate for emissions; and the scheme, as proposed, did neither.

First of all, it would impose a tax on the airlines, which would be passed on to consumers, so we would have higher aviation taxes. Secondly, when they collected the money, the plan was flawed in that the money was not in fact directed to compensate for emissions. It was basically a money-and-tax grab by European powers and not really accomplishing it. So they put a nice title on it and imposed a tax-- again, unfair--against and in total violation of international law and U.S. sovereignty.

So we have tried to work with the European Union. As the chair of the Transportation Committee, we led a meeting here in Washington with EU officials and sat down one floor below where I'm standing in March of 2011 and tried to resolve the differences. We actually led a delegation and went to Brussels, the headquarters of the European Union; met in Brussels in June and July of 2011 and further discussed trying to come to some agreement to resolve differences on this matter.

And then we took our case, as Members of the United States Congress, to the International Civil Aviation Organization, which is located in Montreal. That's the international civil aviation group that sets some of the policies and the standards for international and national aviation around the world. In fact, in October, a year ago, before we introduced this legislation, we convinced I believe it was some 27 or 28 of the 35 of their governing body to vote in favor of a position we held, which other nations also held. And I think only a small minority of some of the European Union core nations, in fact, prevailed in that vote. So we succeeded in garnering international support because this isn't a tax that affects only the United States, but it affects countries around the world. So we had many international partners who said this is unfair, it's not properly crafted, and it lacked transparency and definition.

In fact, when we sat with the European Union counterparts, parliamentarian to parliamentarian, they could not define exactly what they were doing or how they were going to impose this. And I think they're still at a loss because they don't have it completely settled.

So there is some good news on the horizon. Yesterday, the EU announced the postponement of imposing the Emissions Trading Scheme to international flights until 2014. Now, that's a temporary delay of imposition. They have said that they'd leave some of the decision up to ICAO, but ICAO does not set policy for the United States of America.

We are a sovereign Nation, and we must, again, I think, defend the position, our position, our sovereignty and concurrence with international trade agreements that have previously been agreed on. We've got to hold people's feet to the fire and respect also U.S. sovereignty.

So that's how we have gotten ourselves into this fix. We have a temporary delay; maybe that's because of this legislation that's up today. But we

must move forward, I think, in giving the Secretary of Transportation and our officials the ability to thwart this kind of unfair tax imposed on our carriers, and that's exactly what this legislation does.

We're not doing it by ourselves. We have dozens of other countries that expressed their opposition. So we join our colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, in the committee in bringing forward this bill. It is modeled after what the House passed in October of 2011. And by passing this bipartisan, bicameral legislation that the Senate has now passed, we are notifying the European Union that we are not going to support the scheme and that, in fact, we want a positive outcome.

We want a long-term solution, but we will not allow the United States to be held hostage. The European Union or any other nation or group of nations cannot hold us hostage on these tax and international flight issues.

So we'll work with ICAO, and we'll continue to work with the European Union and others. And in the meantime, I ask my colleagues to support Senate bill 1956.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 6 minutes at this point to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), who chairs the Aviation Subcommittee in the House.

Mr. Speaker, might I just inquire as to how much time remains on both sides?

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for Mr. Waxman and his leadership on many issues. Some of them we agree on--we're both art lovers and we both have great wives--but I have to disagree with him on a couple of points. First, I'd have to disagree with him on some of the climate statements that he made. I could spend the rest of the time debating that, but that's not what is before us.

What is before us is legislation that actually gives the administration and the Secretary of Transportation the authority and also the discretion to work on this issue. If you don't have the backing of Congress, how can he negotiate? He wouldn't have the authority or the discretion to impose some difference with the European Union. You can't fold the United States' tent here.

The other point that was made by Mr. Waxman was that we aren't working with them. Well, we hosted them right here. We sat and talked to them. Then we went to Brussels. We sat and talked to them. Then we went to Montreal with the ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, which helped settle some of these matters and set the standards. When we left, they voted 26-36 to agree with the United States. So, in the international body, they were defeated.

This does impose a penalty and a tax on the United States. It's unfair. If it's within the European Union, that may be within their discretion to do it, but not from the point of departure in the United States into the European Union or, for that matter, from any sovereign nation. The money doesn't go to clean it up. I know Mr. Waxman loves the environment--so do I--but this money doesn't go for that purpose. It can be used for anything. It's not for engine technology; it's not for the restoration of the environment; and it doesn't stop emissions.

So this bill does represent a bipartisan, bicameral compromise, but it gives us the authority to hold their feet to the fire and get a solution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we don't have any further speakers on our side, and I reserve the balance of my time to close.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again I'd urge my colleagues to pass S. 1956.

This does represent an honest effort to find a solution to deal with global emissions. They are a problem. We have tried to work with our European Union counterparts. Again, we've had meetings nonstop. When some of this issue began, we went there and talked. We took it to the international body of ICAO. They voted 26-36 to side with the United States' position; but sometimes in this business, you have to bring things to a head.

We passed this legislation a year ago with bipartisan support--Mr. Costello, Mr. Rahall, our side of the aisle. It was a little bit tougher measure than what has come from the Senate. The Senate did give discretion to the DOT Secretary and the administration so that they had both the authority and also the discretion to act.

I don't think yesterday that the European Union would have deferred to ICAO for a year if we hadn't pressed this; but we do need to bring folks together of goodwill, find a solution, something that is fair. And if we do want to clean up the environment and we want to have people pay a penalty for polluting, then we should ensure that that money goes back into cleaning up the pollution or at least developing the technology or offsetting the damage that's being done. The current scheme--and it is a scheme, which I have a definition of ``scheme'' here. A scheme is a systematic plan of action, a secret, or devious plan, a plot. That's not what we need to do here. We do need to work together, find a solution that's fair for sovereign nations and also accomplishes the laudable goal that we all set out to do.

I'm glad I helped force the issue. I appreciate my colleagues joining in this effort, and I think this is a reasonable bipartisan, bicameral solution that will accomplish the goal we set out.

Again, I ask my colleagues to vote in support of S. 1956, and I'm pleased to yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2594) to prohibit operators of civil aircraft of the United States from participating in the European Union's emissions trading scheme, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill before us, H.R. 2594.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of the bill before us, H.R. 2594, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011.

Starting in January of 2012, the European Union will begin to unilaterally apply its emissions trading scheme to civil aviation operators landing in or departing from one of the EU member states.

Under the emissions trading scheme, EU member states will require international air carriers and operators to pay for emission allowances and, in some cases, penalties for carbon emissions. The scheme will apply to the entire length of the flight, including those parts of the flight outside the EU airspace. For instance, on a flight leaving Los Angeles for London, taxes will be levied not just on the portion of the flight over the United Kingdom, but also for the portions of the flight over the United States' sovereign soil and the high seas.

On September 30, 21 countries, including the U.S., signed a joint declaration against the EU emissions trading scheme in New Delhi, India. Despite serious legal issues and objections by the international community, the EU is pressing ahead with its plans.

The bill before us will prohibit U.S. aircraft operators from participating in this illegal scheme put forward unilaterally by the EU. The European Union's unilateral application of the scheme onto U.S.-flagged operators without the consent of the United States Government raises significant legal concerns under international law, including violations of the Chicago Convention and the U.S.-EU Air Transport Agreement.

There are also concerns that the emissions trading scheme is nothing more than a revenue raiser for EU member states, as there is no requirement that EU member states must use the funds for anything related to the reduction of carbon dioxide production by the civil aviation sector.

The emissions trading scheme will extract money from the airline industry that would otherwise be invested in NextGen technologies and the purchase of new aircraft, just two proven methods for improving environmental performance. In addition, the scheme would introduce a new commodities market into the cost structure for airlines. Given the havoc fluctuating oil markets have played on the U.S. airline industry, it doesn't make sense to subject the struggling airline industry to another commodities market that is vulnerable to speculation.

According to the Air Transport Association's testimony before the Aviation Subcommittee this July, the extraction of capital from the aviation system as envisioned under the EU emissions trading scheme could threaten as many as 78,500 U.S. jobs. This is unacceptable.

Finally, there are considerable concerns about the proliferation of EU member states' ``eco-charges'' being put in place on top of the emissions trading scheme. Questions have arisen as to whether the eco- charges are consistent with U.S. member states' obligations under international law and whether some of these charges may, in effect, be double charges for the same emissions the EU intends to regulate under the emissions trading scheme.

Given all of these concerns, we believe that the European Union needs to slow down and carefully weigh their plans to include international civil aviation in their emissions trading scheme. We believe a better approach is to work within the international civil aviation community through the U.N. International Civil Aviation Organization to establish consensus-driven initiatives to reduce emissions.

However, because the EU has shown no interest in working with the international community to address their concerns and objections and to seek a global approach to civil aviation emissions, we're moving this bipartisan legislation forward to ensure U.S. operators will not participate in their unilateral and questionable scheme.

The Obama administration, Republicans and Democrats here in the House have recognized the troubled approach taken by the Europeans and have expressed ardent opposition. This legislation is one of many avenues the United States can take, concurrent with others, to resolve this conflict. To be sure, the United States Government will use all tools at its disposal to hold our aviation interests harmless from the Europeans' unfair and illegal scheme.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

October 5, 2011.

Hon. John L. Mica,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Mica: Thank you for your prior consultation

with us on H.R. 2594, the European Union Emissions Trading

Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011, given the jurisdictional

equities of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in that bill.

I am writing to confirm the agreement of the Foreign

Affairs Committee to be discharged from consideration of H.R.

2594 in order to expedite its consideration on the House

floor. In agreeing to waive consideration of that bill, this

Committee does not waive any jurisdiction that it has over

provisions in that bill or any other matter. This also does

not constitute a waiver of the participation of the Committee

of Foreign Affairs in any conference on this bill. I ask that

you include a copy of this letter and

your response in any Committee report on H.R. 2594 and in the

Congressional Record during floor consideration of the bill.

Thank you again for your consideration and collegiality in

this matter.

Cordially,

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to our colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Bill Shuster.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the two previous speakers from Massachusetts and California that we're not in any way talking about EU passing laws governing the behavior of our planes or anyone else in EU territory. We are talking about EU attempting to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over flights over the United States or international waters in violation of the agreement reached by each of the EU countries separately with ICAO, as well as of course every other country--190 in the world--that belong to that international order that allows for the peaceful movement of aviation throughout our globe. To deny that would be very disruptive and set a precedent that cannot be accepted. That's why not only our administration, but the administrations of over 21 other countries joined recently in New Delhi, India to condemn this. Other countries are in the process of adopting legislation similar to that which we are adopting here today.

We're not talking about emission trading schemes or anything else. We're talking about the principle of territoriality and countries attempting to exercise that beyond the legitimate and recognized bounds that have been accepted by international law.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), if he would care to rebut.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), chairman of the full Transportation Committee.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I couldn't agree more with my colleague from Florida (Ms. Brown) on her support for H.R. 2594. And to my colleagues watching or listening to this debate tonight, I would urge you to listen closely because this is a serious situation that's going to occur, and it's up to Congress to send a message to the European capitals of the world that the United States will not stand for this. This will be a terrible burden for not only our carriers but for aviation airlines, air travel, commercial travel around the world.

There has never been to my knowledge a more ill-conceived program than what the European Union is putting forth in this emissions trading scheme. They're going forth with this; and first of all, I believe it's violating international law, the Chicago Convention which was signed in the mid-1940s, which set up ICAO which is the International Civil Aviation Organization, which coordinates and allows for transportation, commercial transportation, aviation transportation around the world to go forth in a way that is orderly. We come together at this international organization and build on consensus with rule-makings and regulations that help us to not only build our airplanes but to fly them around the world.

What the Europeans are doing is they want to impose a tax on American air carriers, on all air carriers from their points of departure. So from our sovereign Nation and sovereign nations around the world, they're going to tax us to fly from, for instance, Los Angeles to Paris, which I believe, again, is a violation of the international agreement. I believe it is going to throw international aviation into an uncertain time period and may cause tremendous disruption in the flow of commerce through the air.

The air transportation industry worldwide accounts for 8 percent of global GDP, but only accounts for 2 percent of the CO2 emissions. And the airline industry has a great incentive to decrease the amount of fuel they have because it is one of if not their largest expense. So air travel with the airliners we build today, with the way we organize our air traffic control patterns in the United States, we've been able to reduce CO2 emissions over the last 10 years significantly, and we'll continue to do that because, as I said, the incentive is there for the airline industry in America to use less fuel, not more fuel. It's better for their bottom lines.

Once again, this trading scheme, this emissions trading scheme is going to impose a tax on our carriers. The Europeans estimate it will be about $2 a ticket. Our aviation industry believes it will be somewhere between $2.50 and $4 a ticket. We're not sure, but let's take the European numbers. So $2 a ticket, if you look over the last 10 years in the aviation industry in this country, we have lost $2.80 per ticket sold. So you're talking about an industry that is now recovering, an industry that seems to be making profits. If the Europeans are allowed to impose a $2 tax, it will probably wipe out the entire profits of our airline industry, so we can't let it stand.

Also, it is a counterproductive measure. The Europeans say they're going to reduce emissions by this. I believe it is going to do the opposite. What's going to happen is these planes, not the new planes, but the old ones, refurbished ones, are going to go to other parts of the world. And these old planes do emit more CO2, and so there are going to be places in Africa and Asia

and countries that can't afford the newest, latest, greatest Boeing or Airbus planes; and they're going to be spewing more emissions into the air. So it's counterproductive.

And if you want an industry to invest in more fuel-efficient airliners, they need to make a profit. So you're going to take that profit away, and they will not be able to invest in new ways to reduce emissions coming from these airliners. So it's counterproductive.

Also, if the Europeans want to reduce emissions, which they have not in their airline industry over the last 10 years, one of the things they could do, a huge step in the right direction, is to create a single European airspace. And they've been unable to do that.

Today, when you fly in the United States, because we're so much more efficient than the Europeans, our planes land quicker. That means they're not up in the atmosphere putting out CO2 emissions. In the European theater, what you have are 25 or 30 different airspaces. So planes tend to circle around the airport for longer periods of time emitting more CO2. So if the Europeans are really serious about this, instead of just doing the easy thing and tax the Americans or tax the Chinese or tax the Russians, they should look seriously at turning their 30 different airspaces into a single European airspace. That would be a tremendous improvement and be a tremendous reduction in the CO2 that they are putting into the air.

So my colleagues, if you're listening to this tonight, I urge you strongly to support the gentlelady from Florida and myself and others in a bipartisan way to send a strong vote, a strong message to the Europeans to don't go down this path. Let's sit down at the table and work together. We can do something that reduces CO2 without taxing American carriers and disrupting an international organization that's been so positive and so vital to commerce in this world.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to again stand up in support of what my colleagues from Wisconsin and from Florida have said over and over again. This is about sovereignty as well as doing what's right for the American traveling public.

Mr. Waxman from California, he represents Los Angeles, folks from that part of the country, as my colleague from Florida said, will probably see direct flights no longer exist because if you start off from Los Angeles and fly to Paris, it's going to cost you more money. So I can see the airlines trying to save money by stopping in Philadelphia or stopping in New York so that they can decrease the tax that's going to be imposed upon them.

As Mr. Petri has said, they're imposing it on the air over America. If they want to impose a tax in Europe on people doing business in Europe, they have the ability to do that. But to do it and start it over American airspace, over American departure, it's the wrong thing to do. And the Europeans know it. You already have the Italians and the Dutch already questioning the wisdom of doing this.

So I think you're going to see people in Europe starting to change their attitude. And tonight is going to send a very, very strong signal to Europe that America is not going to allow the Europeans to impose a tax on us on our sovereign airspace.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2594, a bill that would protect U.S. airlines, their employees and their passengers from the European Union's plan to unfairly charge U.S. airlines for emissions in U.S. air space.

President Obama has taken a strong stand against the EU emissions trading scheme scam on the grounds that it is inconsistent with international aviation law and practice. Additionally, airlines and labor groups oppose it because it would impose new and unjustifiable costs on the industry and destroy American jobs.

Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. Working through the International Civil Aviation Organization, the United States has committed to find a global solution to address aviation emissions based on agreement and cooperation.

However, the EU has decided to move forward with a go-it-alone approach that is contrary to international law and violates U.S. sovereignty by charging U.S. airlines for all emissions from flights between the United States and Europe, even the portion of flights over our own air space, and return the revenue to European countries without any specific assurances regarding how the revenue will be used. That is unacceptable.

This bill will protect U.S. airlines from unjust liability under the EU's emissions trading system. It sends a strong message from Congress that we do not support what the EU is doing, for a variety of reasons.

The United States is far from alone in expressing strong opposition to the EU's proposal. Last month, 25 other countries joined the United States in signing a joint declaration in India that calls upon the EU not to impose the emissions trading system on non-European airlines, and that urges EU member countries to instead address aviation emissions from ICAO, where progress already is being made.

The United States and other international partners stand ready and willing to work to address this issue constructively through the proper international framework.

We rightfully expect both governments and airlines to be good stewards of the environment and do everything possible to reduce harmful carbon emissions. In fact, the Federal Aviation Administration and the airline industry have invested billions of dollars in NextGen air traffic upgrades, and the FAA plans to reduce emissions by 2 percent a year through these improvements. Further, U.S. airlines improved fuel efficiency by approximately 110 percent since 1978. From 2000 to 2009, U.S. carriers reduced fuel burn and carbon emissions by 15 percent, while carrying 7 percent more passengers and cargo.

At meetings last week, I, along with Chairman Mica and several other members of the committee, met with European Union representatives to express our willingness to work with our friends to come to a more equitable solution to this problem, and I believe the meetings were very productive. But we also made it quite clear that the EU's my-way- or-the-highway approach was totally unacceptable, and we will take every action necessary to prevent the implementation of these unnecessary and dangerous taxes. And we made it clear that the Congress will stand up and defend the sovereignty of the United States.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden).

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

When I was growing up, I used to like this program with Sergeant Joe Friday, and he would say, ``The facts, ma'am; just the facts.''

I have a few facts about the European Union's emissions trade scheme--or scam--or whatever you want to call it. The U.S. airlines would be required to pay for carbon allowances for all segments of flights between the United States and Europe. For example, on a flight from Los Angeles to a European city, an airline would be liable for emissions over the U.S., Canada, and international waters. Two, fees for carbon allowance under the system would be paid directly to EU's member states without obligation to use them to mitigate aviation emissions impacts. The EU tax violates U.S. sovereignty by imposing liability on U.S. airlines for operations in the U.S. National Airspace System. Additionally, President Obama's administration testified before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that the EU's tax is inconsistent with international aviation law.

In closing, I want to thank Chairman Mica, all of the Members that went with us to talk to our partners across the water in Canada, and Ranking Member Rahall for bringing this bill to the floor. I would encourage my colleagues to protect the U.S. airlines, U.S. customers, and U.S. jobs, and support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank both Ranking Member Brown of the Rail Subcommittee, who's leading this legislation on the floor tonight, and Chairman Petri, the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, for their leadership and also directing in a bipartisan manner this legislation that we brought forth from our committee with very, very strong support, Members, again, from both sides of the aisle.

I know that there are some folks that have raised some concerns, and I'll address them; but very simply, what is taking place here is that the European Union is trying to impose, in January, an air emissions tax. And they're going to start the clock running, they want to start it running January 1, the meter will start, and American airlines will get the bill in 2013.

Now, you heard some comments here that we don't want folks to follow the law or operating in--there was an example of double-hull ships operating in U.S. waters. Well, we're not talking about, again, anything that's even similar to what's being proposed here. What they're proposing is, say, from Los Angeles or Chicago or New York, anywhere in the United States to anywhere in the European Union, to tax. And the meter starts running the minute the plane departs from any point in the United States until it reaches Europe, and the same thing when it departs Europe back to the United States.

Not only does this violate international treaties, the Chicago Convention; we've never had anything like this imposed or proposed before. It is not flexible. We've heard the term used it's ``flexible.'' It's not flexible.

The other thing, too, is we're trying to work with others and work with the European Union. And many states have now joined the United States--in fact, they've taken the lead on some of this, both in conference in New Delhi and in meetings in Oslo, and they said this is unfair. So it's not just the United States that's saying this is unfair.

Now, if the European Union chooses to impose a tax within its boundaries, or if we say within our waters you do certain things--like double hull if you want that ship to go there--that's fine with us. If they want to improve emissions in their airspace, that's fine with us. But that's not what they're doing here, and that's why we have this opposition.

The second point is, and I don't want to get into the climate debate, but if you really care about eliminating emissions--and I know the airlines do because the more emissions they eliminate and the more they can conserve fuel, that's their bottom line and that's very important to them. But that being said, again, one of the most important points of all of this is that, again, this money that they're collecting--and it's a tax grab by the European Union--this money that they're getting, there's no requirement that it goes into eliminating emissions from aircraft.

In fact, they told us that you can buy your way out or you can buy some other trade for some other industry. So it doesn't set out to do what, again, is being forecast or demonstrated. In fact, they're very unclear as to how this will be totally instituted. It's what's called an article 25 provision within their current law. And as I've checked, this is almost the end of October, this goes

into effect in January. And they couldn't tell us on Friday and they couldn't tell us here in the United States or in Brussels what provisions of article 25 and exactly how they will implement this.

So I think that what will happen here is we'll send a strong message: Yes, we're for protecting the environment. We have no problems with the European Union taking measures within their borders, and our airlines should comply and other carriers should comply, both departing and arriving. They can do that. But when you stop and think that this would impose a European tax over the skies of the United States, never heard of anything like that before.

So, again, we are willing to work with our European counterparts. We believe that November 2--we were informed when we were in Montreal meeting with ICAO representatives that this will be brought up before that international body, the International Civil Aviation Organization. It sets all the protocols, the standards, security safety provisions. And we will win in that body a legitimate vote by a very wide margin. The Europeans will be left behind on this issue.

But we all want to work with them. They're our friends. This shouldn't lead to a trade war. It should lead to a resolution that does improve our environment and that does allow the European Union to do what they need to do. And, also, if we're going to impose this, that we have some understanding of how we can do better in reducing air emissions.