The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“MODIFICATIONS TO S. 1956” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Transportation was published in the Senate section on pages S6527-S6528 on Sept. 20, 2012.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
MODIFICATIONS TO S. 1956
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, would the Senator from South Dakota enter into a colloquy to discuss concerns I have with his bill S. 1956 and a suggested amendment I have filed for consideration, which is currently running through the hotline process?
First of all I want to thank my colleagues for their willingness to work with me to address some of the concerns I have with this bill as it was reported out of the Commerce Committee.
While I have some ongoing reservations about the precedent and potential impacts this bill could have on our relations with our closest European allies, I am willing to allow legislation to move forward if I may get consent to have my amendment agreed to.
I would like to discuss my amendment and the process which the legislation prescribes the Secretary of Transportation to follow in determining whether to prohibit U.S. airlines from participating in the European Union's carbon emissions trading scheme.
The second paragraph of subsection (a), section 3 of the legislation contains a provision that is designed to ``hold harmless'' U.S. airlines from the fees, taxes or fines that they incur from the EU under the emissions trading scheme.
While the Secretary of Transportation has discretion as to how he will act to ``hold harmless'' our air carriers, it is understood that these actions could possibly require some form of payment by the Federal Government.
One of my greatest concerns with the bill, which I believe the sponsors of the bill share with me, and I appreciate their interest in working with me to address this issue, is that any payments that may result from this provision not come at the expense of the American taxpayer.
I would like to ask the Senator this question: is it correct that it is not his intent that any costs or remunerations triggered by this legislation come at the expense of U.S. taxpayer dollars?
Mr. THUNE. That is correct, it has always been my intent, and it is shared by the Congressional Budget Office, and the Secretary of Transportation, who will have the primary responsibility of implementing this legislation.
According to the CBO, ``enacting S. 1956 would have no significant impact on the federal budget.''
I ask unanimous consent at this time to have their entire report printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
August 1, 2012.Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1956, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Megan Carroll.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure.S. 1956--European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition
Act of 2011
The European Union (EU) has established the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), a regulatory framework related to greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, the ETS covers emissions from air carriers that operate flights within, to, and from EU member states. Negotiations between the U.S. government and the EU about the applicability of the ETS to U.S. air carriers are ongoing, and the potential outcome of those negotiations is unclear.
S. 1956 would direct the Secretary of Transportation to prohibit U.S. air carriers from participating in the ETS if the Secretary believes such a prohibition to be in the public interest. The bill would direct federal agencies to continue negotiations in pursuit of a worldwide approach to addressing aviation-related emissions and would authorize the Secretary to use existing authorities to ensure that U.S. air carriers are held harmless for any costs they incur if they participate in the ETS.
CBO estimates that enacting S. 1956 would have no significant impact on the federal budget. We expect that the bill would not alter the scope of diplomatic efforts currently underway or federal agencies' costs to participate in those efforts, which are subject to appropriation. The bill would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
S. 1956 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments.
S. 1956 would impose a private-sector mandate, as defined in UMRA, if U.S. air carriers would be prohibited from participating in the ETS. The cost of the mandate would depend on how the prohibition is administered by the Department of Transportation. Because information about how the prohibition would be implemented is not available, CBO has no basis for estimating the cost, if any, to U.S. air carriers. Consequently, CBO cannot determine whether the cost of the mandate would exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($146 million in 2012, adjusted annually for inflation).
On September 23, 2011, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 2594, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on September 23, 2011. The two bills are similar, and the CBO cost estimates are the same.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Megan Carroll
(for federal costs) and Amy Petz (for the impact on the private sector). The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Mr. THUNE. Additionally, at a recent Commerce Committee hearing on my bill, Secretary LaHood was asked if any possible action of implementation could ``include the U.S. government paying EU authorities directly or compensating the operators for any fines incurred for non-compliance with EU ETS.''
He responded, ``We have absolutely no intention of asking the U.S. taxpayer to pay any ETS fines incurred for non-compliance with EU ETS, directly or indirectly.''
I appreciate Senator Cardin and Lautenberg for coming forward and working with me to clarify this point, and I thank them both for releasing their hold.
I am happy that we have been able to come to a bipartisan agreement on my bill and look forward to final passage today in the Senate and hopefully soon by the House of Representatives so we can send a clear message to the EU that ETS is arbitrary, unfair, and a clear violation of international law.
Mr. CARDIN. I appreciate the Sentor clarifying his intent, and I am glad he shares my concern.
I believe my amendment helps make the intent of the legislation clear.
My amendment adds a third paragraph to subsection (a) of section 3 of the bill.
The amendment will explicitly exclude any appropriated funds or user fee receipts to be expended on actions taken under the hold harmless clause.
This amendment will ensure that any taxpayer dollars, either through appropriations or through user fee receipts, are expressly prohibited from supporting actions resulting from the held harmless clause of the bill.
Would my colleague agree that my amendment assures that no U.S. taxpayer dollars will be expended on any held harmless actions that may result from this bill?
Mr. THUNE. Yes.
Mr. CARDIN. I thank the Senator for his cooperation with me on this important fiscal matter.
I want to make it clear to my colleagues, as this bill progresses forward or is reconciled with a less thoughtful House proposal, I do want my colleagues to understand that should the Senate have to reconsider a different proposal in a conference report that I intend to reserve my right to object.
I also want my colleagues to understand that I feel that the United States and countries around the globe must take actions to address the threat carbon emissions pose to the global environment.
I think there are some legitimate concerns with the way the EU has proposed to take unilateral actions to reduce carbon emissions from the aviation sector.
I don't fault the EU for their leadership in the face of what has thus far been nearly 15 years of failed multinational negotiations on how we as cooperating nations should be reducing or mitigating aviation carbon emissions.
I would like for the United States to take greater action to address this problem, and in many respects I think it is unfortunate that the United States has not demonstrated the same kind of leadership that the nations of Europe have taken on this issue.
____________________
