[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 160 (Monday, October 24, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H6997-H7002]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    EUROPEAN UNION EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011

  Mr. PETRI. 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

[[Page H6998]]

                               H.R. 2594

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``European Union Emissions 
     Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The European Union has unilaterally imposed an 
     emissions trading scheme (in this section referred to as the 
     ``ETS'') on non-European Union aircraft flying to and from, 
     as well as within, Europe.
       (2) United States airlines and other United States aircraft 
     operators will be required under the ETS to pay for European 
     Union emissions allowances for aircraft operations within the 
     United States, over other non-European Union countries, and 
     in international airspace for flights serving the European 
     Union.
       (3) The European Union's extraterritorial action is 
     inconsistent with long-established international law and 
     practice, including the Chicago Convention of 1944 and the 
     Air Transport Agreement between the United States and the 
     European Union and its member states, and directly infringes 
     on the sovereignty of the United States.
       (4) The European Union's action undermines ongoing efforts 
     at the International Civil Aviation Organization to develop a 
     unified, worldwide approach to reducing aircraft greenhouse 
     gas emissions and has generated unnecessary friction within 
     the international civil aviation community as it endeavors to 
     reduce such emissions.
       (5) The European Union and its member states should instead 
     work with other contracting states of the International Civil 
     Aviation Organization to develop such an approach.
       (6) There is no assurance that ETS revenues will be used 
     for aviation environmental purposes by the European Union 
     member states that will collect them.
       (7) The United States Government expressed these and other 
     serious objections relating to the ETS to representatives of 
     the European Union and its member states during June 2011, 
     but has not received satisfactory answers to those 
     objections.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON PARTICIPATION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION'S 
                   EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME.

       The Secretary of Transportation shall prohibit an operator 
     of a civil aircraft of the United States from participating 
     in any emissions trading scheme unilaterally established by 
     the European Union.

     SEC. 4. NEGOTIATIONS.

       The Secretary of Transportation, the Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration, and other appropriate 
     officials of the United States Government shall use their 
     authority to conduct international negotiations and take 
     other actions necessary to ensure that operators of civil 
     aircraft of the United States are held harmless from any 
     emissions trading scheme unilaterally established by the 
     European Union.

     SEC. 5. CIVIL AIRCRAFT OF THE UNITED STATES DEFINED.

       In this Act, the term ``civil aircraft of the United 
     States'' has the meaning given that term under section 
     40102(a) of title 49, United States Code.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PETRI. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PETRI. 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

[[Page H6999]]

     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.
                                  ____

                                                  October 6, 2011.
     Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,
     Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Ros-Lehtinen: Thank you for your letter 
     regarding H.R. 2594, the ``European Union Emissions Trading 
     Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011.'' The Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure recognizes the Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs has a jurisdictional interest in H.R. 2594, 
     and I appreciate your effort to facilitate consideration of 
     this bill.
       I also concur with you that forgoing action on this bill 
     does not in any way prejudice the Committee on Foreign 
     Affairs with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on 
     this bill or similar legislation in the future, and I would 
     support your effort to seek appointment of an appropriate 
     number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving 
     this legislation.
       I will include our letters on H.R. 2594 in the Committee 
     report and in the Congressional Record during House Floor 
     consideration of the bill. Again, I appreciate your 
     cooperation regarding this legislation, and I look forward to 
     working with the Committee on Foreign Affairs as the bill 
     moves through the legislative process.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John L. Mica,
                                                         Chairman.

  Ms. BROWN of Florida. 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.

                              {time}  1700

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

[[Page H7000]]

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.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden).
  Mr. HOLDEN. I thank my friend from Florida for yielding, and I rise 
in support of this bipartisan legislation.
  This committee has just concluded meetings at the International Civil 
Aviation Organization. Of that organization, that commission, there are 
36 votes; 26 of the voting nations have in writing expressed their 
disapproval of what the Europeans are approving. The only 10 countries 
in approval are eight European countries and Australia and Canada. We 
believe that this clearly violates article 1 of the Chicago Convention 
of 1944. Article 1 states that all signature countries to this 
agreement shall have control over their own airspace. If the European 
Union wants to put this scheme into place in the European Union, 
they're welcome to do that.

                              {time}  1710

  But they can't tell aircraft leaving O'Hare or Logan or Kennedy or 
Dulles that they're going to have to start paying taxes there. And the 
explanation from the European Union doesn't pass the laugh test. They 
say that the European Union member states are not responsible for a 
1944 agreement because the European Union was not in existence in 1944. 
Their member States were in existence and they are signatories to the 
agreement and they are bound by it. If the European Union continues to 
move down this path, they know at ICAO that there are remedies. And 
they know that there are going to be remedies that are to be sought.
  So I urge this body to pass this legislation today, and I even more 
so urge the Europeans to put this aside, come back to the ICAO 
organization--a vision that FDR had in 1944 to control international 
aviation--and have a global solution to this problem that we face.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both 
sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida has 14 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PETRI. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady.
  I rise in opposition to this legislation. If it were to pass the 
House, we lawmakers would be directing the Secretary of Transportation 
to tell U.S. airlines not to follow the law. If we prohibit our 
companies from complying with the laws in other countries, we should 
expect other countries to do the same when it comes to their companies 
complying with U.S. law.
  In an effort to protect U.S. airlines, this bill might actually 
undermine airline security. The U.S. currently requires international 
airlines to comply with a wide range of U.S. laws when it comes to 
passenger, baggage, and cargo security in order to do business in our 
country. If we legislate our companies out of Europe's environmental 
laws, our homeland security could be adversely impacted if European 
countries decided to withhold their cooperation in response with regard 
to screening of baggage for bombs on planes flying into the United 
States.
  When it comes to pollution from the transportation sector, the United 
States was the first to pass a law requiring anyone in the world 
interested in coming to our shores to follow our environmental 
regulations. In 1990, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act in the 
aftermath of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In order to reduce the risk of 
an oil spill, it required all tankers operating in U.S. waters to be 
double-hulled by 2015. No matter what country's flag a tanker is 
flying, it will have to be double-hulled to sail into the United States 
of America--to protect us from their pollution.
  We acted unilaterally to protect our country from the carbon 
pollution associated with an oil spill 21 years ago. Now, after years 
of trying to forge an international aviation agreement, the European 
Union is acting to protect itself from the carbon pollution associated 
from airline travel.
  Last week, an independent team of scientists at Berkeley released 
their analysis of land surface temperature records going back to 1800. 
They found--as their counterparts in NOAA and NASA had previously 
shown--that temperatures over the last decade were increasing. Once 
again, scientists have confirmed that global warming is real. Now that 
independent scientists have validated this bedrock fact, perhaps my 
colleagues who have questioned the science of climate change will be 
willing to give climate scientists the benefit of the doubt that the 
rest of their findings are accurate. And those findings have sobering 
consequences for the United States--more heat waves, rising sea levels, 
declining snowpack, more frequent drought, more extreme precipitation 
when it does rain--to name just a few.
  2011 has been a record-breaking year for extreme weather in the 
United States. If left unchecked, climate change could make a year like 
this seem normal. The Europeans are taking climate change seriously. We 
shouldn't undermine their efforts by legislating that our airlines 
break the law. I would urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 2594. Just remember 
that all of the other laws that we expect them to abide by in terms of 
the protection of American environment and American security become 
jeopardized when we question legitimate laws that the Europeans put on 
the books in order to protect our planet.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. PETRI. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I also rise in opposition to this legislation. I think 
Mr. Markey made an articulate case and a compelling case. If we expect 
European companies to comply with U.S. laws when they do business in 
our country, whether the EU countries agree with our laws or not, we 
have to respect their laws. But this bill, H.R. 2594, prohibits U.S. 
airlines from complying with the laws of the European Union.
  Worldwide aviation is estimated to produce about 3 percent of the 
total manmade greenhouse gas emissions--and these emissions are rising 
rapidly. In an effort to address aviation's uncontrolled contribution 
to climate change, the EU has adopted a cap on greenhouse gas emissions 
from the aviation sector. The EU program sets modest and achievable 
emission limits, it is flexible and market-oriented, and there is no 
viable alternative approach

[[Page H7001]]

based on regulating only those emissions that occur in a country's own 
airspace.
  The EU program also should benefit U.S. aircraft and engine 
manufacturers such as Boeing and Pratt & Whitney, which are building 
more efficient engines today. The program will encourage airlines to 
purchase new aircraft with lower fuel costs, boosting the economy and 
potentially saving consumers money.
  As a matter of fact, I just got off a plane today from the European 
Union, and I would hate to think that when I travel on an American 
airline they will not respect the laws of the European Union or the 
European Union might decide they don't have to respect our laws.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. 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.

                              {time}  1720

  Mr. PETRI. 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.
  Mr. SHUSTER. 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.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETRI. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica), chairman of the full Transportation Committee.
  Mr. MICA. 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

[[Page H7002]]

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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 2594.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________