98-664: Global Climate Change: Congressional Concern About "Back Door" Implementation of the 1997 U.N. Kyoto Protocol

Wayne A. Morrissey
Science and Technology Information Analyst
Science, Technology, and Medicine Division

Updated February 3, 1999

CONTENTS

• Summary
• Introduction
• FY1999 Appropriations Bill Report Language
• Energy and Water Appropriations (P.L. 105-245, October 7, 1998)
• Department of Defense (P.L. 105-262, October 17, 1998)
• Department of Interior and Related Agencies (P.L. 105-277, October 21, 1998)
• VA, HUD and Independent Agencies (P.L. 105-276, October 21, 1998)
• Foreign Operations (P.L. 105-277, October 21, 1998)
• Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations (P.L. 105-277, October 21, 1998)
• Treasury and General Government Appropriations (P.L. 105-277, October 21, 1998)
• Conclusion
• Footnotes

Summary

Adopted in December 1997, by parties to the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), the [Kyoto] Protocol would require legally binding regulations on greenhouse gas emissions for most industrialized countries, if it enters into force (EIF). EIF requires 55 countries, representing at least 55% of global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), to sign the treaty and deposit an instrument of ratification with the U.N. FCCC Secretariat. The U.S. Senate has stated that it has not yet had an opportunity to consider advice and consent to ratification of the Kyoto Protocol because the Clinton Administration is trying to modify the agreement to align it, in principle, with S.Res. 98, the Byrd/Hagen resolution of July 1997, before sending it to the U.S. Capitol Hill. S.Res. 98, expressed the Senate's views regarding international regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, and stipulated that the Senate would not ratify any international treaty that does not include commitments which are comparably stringent for all FCCC parties, including developing countries which the Kyoto Protocol subsequently has exempted.

In the 105^th Congress, in addition to S.Res. 98, some legislation and some FY1999 appropriations bills were used as vehicles for explicit congressional direction to the executive branch about possible "back door" implementation of the Kyoto Protocol; that is, implementation without Senate ratification. Also, in some of the appropriations committees' reports Congress raised the question of whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has authority to regulate greenhouse gases in the face of congressional direction not to promulgate or implement further regulations without the force of legislation. In addition, Congress addressed federal research funding for climate change in some of these reports and questioned its efficacy and benefits for the American taxpayer. For FY1999, Congress approved an estimated $1.8 billion in funding for global climate change programs, including about $130 million for the President's Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI).

Discussion of other legislation and issues relating to global climate change, may be found in Global Climate Change, CRS Issue Brief 89005, updated regularly, or in the Legislation section of the CRS Electronic Briefing Book for Congress on Global Climate change. This report will not be updated.

Introduction

Certain legislation in the second session of the 105^th Congress, and appropriations bills for FY1999 reported in the House and in the Senate, addressed issues of what some Members of Congress regarded as a possible premature implementation of requirements of the U.N. [Kyoto] Protocol on Climate Change through the "back door." The Kyoto Protocol, if it enters into force, would require new regulatory action by the United States, and other industrialized countries, on greenhouse gases. Many in Congress were concerned that some form of implementation might occur prior to deliberation by the Senate for advice and consent to its ratification. The Clinton Administration signed the treaty on November 12, 1998. Other legislative issues related to climate change research, its funding, and President Clinton's request for $6.3 billion for a Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) ⁽¹⁾ for the Department of Energy, The Environmental Protections Agency (EPA), and other contributing agencies, and also prompted congressional direction in many of the same measures as those addressing the Kyoto Protocol. For example, Congress asked for clarification on whether funding for existing federal programs that have been previously authorized can be construed as contributing to, or "contemplating,"the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Relative to this debate was whether EPA has the authority to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases implicated in projections of future global warming. Still other issues raised included whether funding at scientific agencies for global climate change research was being directed to enhance knowledge about global climate change or to fund studies that attempt to advance a specific policy agenda, and whether funding agencies could demonstrate a return on such investments in compliance with the 1994 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).⁽²⁾

Primary legislation introduced in the 105^th Congress to address a possible attempt by the Clinton Administration to implement elements of the Kyoto Protocol prior to advice and consent of the Senate included H.R. 3807, the "American Economy Protection Act." This measure was introduced on May 7, 1998, by Representative Knollenberg, and was referred to the House Committee on Commerce and, later, its Subcommittees on Energy and Power and Health and the Environment on May 26, 1998, and thereafter received no further legislative action. Other legislation of similar intent were also introduced in both the House and the Senate, but did not see further legislative action.

However, H.R. 3807 did address two major areas of concern for Congress: (1) federal funding to directly or indirectly implement the Kyoto Protocol and, (2) granting of authority to any U.S. agency to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). It is important to note at the outset that H.R. 3807 did not expressly preclude federal funding for the United States to carry out its responsibilities and commitments under the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). H.R. 3807 was concerned only with implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, adopted by the parties to the Convention in December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. The Kyoto Protocol is an international regulatory instrument related to, but separate in force of law from, the FCCC.

The first theme of H.R. 3807 recognized that federal funds have been appropriated in budgets of such agencies as the U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, and for the interagency U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program (USGCRP). Funds have been authorized under such legislative vehicles as P.L. 102-486, the 1992 Comprehensive National Energy Policy Act, or EPACT, to conduct among other things research on energy efficiency and energy saving or conserving technology, some of whose results might have a primary or secondary outcome of reducing carbon dioxide and, possibly, other greenhouse gas emissions. Also, as noted, the United States is currently party to the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), for which the U.S. Senate gave advice and consent to ratification in October 1992. Among commitments for industrialized countries under the FCCC, which includes the United States, is one that calls for those parties to support research into ways to reduce greenhouse emissions at their source or to improve means for sequestering carbon dioxide through enhancement of "sinks" (forests, vegetation, and land-use practices) -- all within the context of the Convention's non-binding aim of stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000.

On July 31, 1997, the Senate passed S.Res. 98, the Byrd/Hagen Resolution, that expressed the sense of the Senate regarding new commitments for the United States under international climate change agreements. S.Res. 98 signaled the executive branch that developing country commitments under the Kyoto Protocol should be no less stringent than those of industrialized countries, in the view of the Senate, and that developing country parties also should be subject to legally binding emissions reductions within the same time-frame as industrialized countries. H.R. 3807 referenced this language in its Findings section, 2(5)(A).

H.R. 3807 stated that the Senate unanimously voted that any new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions of the United States must include scheduled commitments for developing country parties to limit or reduce greenhouse gases emissions, and in principle, recognizes that the United States and other industrialized countries have existing commitments (voluntary stabilization of greenhouse gases at 1990 levels by the year 2000) under the FCCC. What is different about the Kyoto Protocol for the United States is that it goes beyond the FCCC to require legally an emissions reduction of an average of 7% below 1990 levels between the years 2005-2012. That agreement would represent a new (and more stringent) commitment for the United States, subject to advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. Moreover, entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol would mean new commitments for most industrialized countries under FCCC, but not necessarily for developing countries.

In the spirit of S.Res. 98, Section 3 of H.R. 3807 stipulated that no funds shall be used for rules, regulations, or programs to implement, or in contemplation of implementing the Kyoto Protocol. The term "...or in contemplation of..." became problematic. That is, new rules relating to greenhouse gases promulgated by the EPA might be judicially challenged as "contemplating" Kyoto requirements whether or not it was true. Definition of this term might then have to be determined by a court. Questions also arose as to how this language might apply to existing programs. For example, would this language have an effect on the Department of Energy's research and development programs in energy conservation and renewable energy, which are already funded but that might, in the long run, be interpreted as contributing to the ability of the United States to meet future emissions reductions goals under the Kyoto Protocol, if it were to enter into force?

The second major theme of H.R. 3807 addressed U.S. government authority, or lack thereof, to regulate carbon dioxide emissions through existing law. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not identified as a criteria pollutant under the U.S. Clean Air Act, and is therefore not regulated by the federal government as such. (Criteria pollutants are those determined to adversely affect human health.) EPA does have the authority to identify new substances that might be determined to be criteria pollutants. However, some believe that CO2 should be regulated because of its potential contribution to climate change, which has not been determined to adversely affect human health. H.R. 3807 appeared to effectively bar regulatory actions without new legislation, and this provision proved to be a controversial one for some in Congress.

FY1999 Appropriations Bill Report Language

Reflecting themes raised in H.R. 3807, and other global climate change issues, specific direction emerged in some report language accompanying House and Senate versions of bills that sought to fund the federal government and its programs. In many cases, that direction was modified by final appropriations conference committee actions at the close of the 105^th Congress. Congress seemed to focus its greatest attention on research and development programs authorized at the Department of Energy for energy conservation, nuclear and renewable energy, at EPA for Science and Technology and Environmental Management, and on the request for new funding for President Clinton's Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI). Also, in these reports, Congress exercised its authority for oversight of government programs and reviewed whether funding for global climate change research was being spent as it was authorized, and whether the American taxpayer was receiving returns on its investments in scientific research, as now required by GPRA. The following entries demonstrate differences in congressional direction between House and Senate Appropriations Committees and in final language in conference report. Although FY1999 appropriations bills for some federal agencies passed independently, many were consolidated into P.L. 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1999 (OCESSA) (H.Rept. 105-825), whose direction about climate change funding was generalized throughout various Titles of the Act.

Energy and Water Appropriations (P.L. 105-245, October 7, 1998)

In the report on Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill 1999, on S. 2138, Title III-Energy Supply, Solar and Renewable Energy, (S.Rept. 105-206, June 5, 1998) the Senate Appropriations Committee acknowledged S. 2138 as being the first appropriations bill since "signing the Kyoto Global Climate Change Accord." [The United States only recently signed the Protocol on November 12, 1998.] Language in this report questioned the Administration's methodology in selecting 1990 as baseline for U.S. emission reductions, and recommended that historical concentrations, rather than annual production rates, be used citing long-term climate implications of the former. Questions were also raised regarding Kyoto Protocol effectiveness at reducing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The committee stated that they were not averse to funding low-emissions technologies (solar, renewable, nuclear) that are currently undeveloped but that might be anticipated to be implemented by the year 2010, rather than advancing to market technologies which are currently in the pipeline or required under existing law.

In the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 1999 on H.R. 4060, Title III-Department of Energy, "Energy Supply," (H.Rept. 105-581, June 16, 1998) the House Appropriations Committee questioned the premise of the Administration's request to increase spending for programs it identified as part of the Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI), specifically considering how FY 1998 appropriations had been managed and spent with respect to global change research (e.g. scientific research vs. support of Clinton Administration policy on the Kyoto Protocol). In the "Science" section of the report on the DOE budget, the committee recommended cutting the "Office of Energy Research" request for CCTI of $27 million in half, citing that half of the funding to date had been spent on policy and half on science. As a criteria for funding, DOE would be authorized only to publish materials related to the understanding of the underlying science and complexities of climate change, but not policy-related materials. In the "Departmental Administration" section of this report, the committee instructed that $13.5 million of CCTI funding be transferred to the DOE Basic Energy Sciences and Biological and Environmental Research Program.

Conferees on H.R. 4060, approved $13.5 million for the President's Climate Change Technology Initiative at the Department of Energy (CCTI) (H.Rept. 105-749, September 25, 1998); however, another $13.5 million requested for the "Office of Energy Research" for policy-related work was disallowed. Conferees directed that the $13.5 million approved be made available as a funding adjustment exclusively for the Basic Sciences and Biological and Environmental Research Programs at DOE. The House had stated in H.Rept. 105-581, that they believed a sufficient level of funding for environmental technologies is already provided under existing energy R&D programs. The conference report reiterated the Senate Appropriations Committee's expressed continued support for "basic research to provide improvements over existing technologies and recommended that no federal-funding to be made available to support the final stages of product development and all stages of market development."

Department of Defense (P.L. 105-262, October 17, 1998)

In the Conference report Appropriation for the Department of Defense for FY1999 on H.R. 4103 (H.Rept. 105-746, September 25, 1998) the Senate Appropriations Committee requested $5 million for research on climate change fuel cells and $2 million for research on low emissions gas boiler under DOD "Environmental Compliance". The House Appropriations Committee had requested $3 million in research for a low emissions gas boiler only. Conferees approved $3 million for research on "climate change fuel cell technology" and $2 million for "low emissions gas boilers" for a total of $5 million.

The Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 105-261, October 17, 1998). In H.Rept. 105-736 to accompany H.R. 3616, September 22, 1998, conferees acknowledged DOD efforts to achieve greater efficiency in its operations (troop maneuvering), including broad-based energy efficiency and fuel efficiency programs, whose activities would not be prohibited or discouraged, if done independently of the Kyoto Protocol. Section 1232 of this Act, "Prohibits restrictions of activities of U.S. Armed Forces under the Kyoto Protocol to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change." Originally proposed in the House, the Senate noted that they would recede with a technical amendment because the Kyoto Protocol had not been sent to the Senate for Advice and Consent to ratification. Conferees noted that it was not their "intention to predetermine the outcome of the Senate debate on advice and consent to ratification of the Kyoto Protocol," upon rendering this decision.

Department of Interior and Related Agencies (P.L. 105-277, October 21, 1998)

In the report on Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 1999, on S. 2237, (S.Rept. 105-227, June 26, 1998) in the "Summary" section of the bill under a subsection on "Climate Change Research," the Senate Appropriations Committee stated that is could justify funding for programs already funded and associated with issues of domestic energy production, national energy security, energy efficiency and costs savings, related environmental assessments, and general energy emissions improvements. However, the report language directed that no funds be used to implement actions called for "solely" under the Kyoto Protocol, prior to its ratification. The committee recognized long-standing energy research programs that "have goals and objectives which, if met, could have positive effects on energy use and the environment." The committee stated that "future funding requests would require that the Administration justify additional funding as being independent of the goals of implementation of the Kyoto Protocol." Title II- Related Agencies, Department of Energy, gave instruction to the Administration to comply with Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) with respect to justifying a national plan for climate change under the Kyoto Protocol and to prepare a detailed report on how key elements of the President's proposal would be implemented, addressing in that report performance measures that demonstrate effectiveness of the Administration's meeting intended emissions reduction goals, and betterment of the environment. The committee required the President's plan be reported in conjunction with the fiscal year 2000 budget submission for the Department of Energy to Congress.

In the report on Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 1999, on H.R. 4193, (H.Rept. 105-609, July 8, 1998) in comparing committee recommendations with the Administration budget request, the committee noted that the Administration focused much of its proposed budget increase on the Department of Energy programs, including global warming/climate change programs. The Committee did not agree to fund those programs in the absence of any international agreements (i.e., U.S. ratification of the Kyoto Protocol). Under "Related Agencies, Fossil Energy Research and Development, Policy and Management" Provision 9 stated that no funds are to be used to implement the Kyoto Protocol, as does provision 28 under "Energy Conservation." A number of funding cuts were made to specific energy conservation programs (pp. 96-100), and the President's "million solar roofs" initiative was not supported under these appropriations. In an addendum to this report entitled, "Additional Views of Hon. David R.Obey," it stated that, "Many other ... funding levels in the bill are woefully inadequate ...Virtually none of the Administration's ... Climate Change Technology Initiative was funded."

No specific language concerning climate change technology funding at the Department of Interior was included in the conference report (H.Rept. 105-749) on OCESSA.

VA, HUD and Independent Agencies (P.L. 105-276, October 21, 1998)

In the report on Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill, 1999 on S. 2168 (S.Rept. 105-216, June 12, 1998), the Senate Appropriations Committee reduced U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funding for the Climate Change Technology Initiative redirected $10 million to the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV). Also, it reduced funding for the Global Observation and Learning to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) program by $ 1 million. The report acknowledged the President's October 1997, 3-staged proposal for reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and conferees requested a detailed plan including annual performance goals by December 1998, that documented compliance with and determined effectiveness of implementing international climate change agreements negotiated on behalf of the United States, to comply with GPRA. Report language also supported funding of international collaborations in arctic research related to global change.

In the report on Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill, 1999, on H.R. 4194, Title III-Environmental Protection Agency (H.Rept. 105-610, July 8, 1998), climate change research at EPA was funded at $26.9 million, an increase of $10 million above FY1998 levels. The Climate Change Technology Initiative received $72.5 million, identical to FY1998 funding. H.R. 4194 included language which limited expenditures for certain activities relative to the Kyoto Protocol, and specifically prohibited funds to implement the Kyoto Protocol in any manner until it has been ratified by the Senate. The committee stated that "the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), among others, may be engaging in activity that is tantamount to lobbying in an effort to build public support for implementation of the Protocol, and that there is a fine line between education and advocacy of an issue." EPA and CEQ thus were directed to refrain from conducting educational outreach or informational seminars on policies underlying the Kyoto Protocol until or unless the Protocol were to be ratified by the Senate. In an addendum to this report entitled, "Additional Views of Hon. David. R. Obey," it stated that,

Although proponents of the provisions will undoubtedly say that the intent of the [bill] language is only to prohibit implementation of the Kyoto Protocol until ratification of a treaty by the United States Senate, the effect of the provisions would be much greater. The EPA has ongoing activities to develop and issue regulations--under existing statutory authorities--that would be affected by the Kyoto provisions. Furthermore, the report language is too extreme. Its effect is to prohibit the Administration from providing information or educating the public on the "policies underlying the Kyoto protocol." ... [W]hatever the facts, the government in general, and the Congress in particular should not stifle a full discussion of an issue with such potential import... Once again, there are many ongoing Administration activities with separate existing legal authorities that could be construed by some as "underlying the Kyoto Protocol." Thus, such language invites both confusion and confrontation.

In the conference report (H.Rept. 105-769 on H.R. 4192, October 5, 1998), under "Environmental Programs and Management, " p.37, 273), conferees modified previous House Appropriations committee report language by removing the phrase "in contemplation of," and replaced it with the phrases "in preparation for," and "solely" for the Kyoto Protocol...," reflecting negotiations between Sen.Hagel and Rep. Knollenberg. Also, conferees noted lifting of restrictions on funding for educational activities and seminars on U.S. Policy on the Kyoto Protocol that would be conducted by EPA. EPA climate and global change research activities were reduced by some $26 million, including a reduction of $1 million for the GLOBE program. Also, conferees required future funding requests for climate change activities authorized by Congress to be justified by goals and objectives independent of the Kyoto Protocol, and as early as the FY2000 budget submission. EPA Appropriations: Conferees approved $99 million for CCTI: $72.5 million under "Environmental Management" and $27 million under "Science and Technology." Conferrees reduced "Science and Technology" by $19.9 million and "Environmental Management" $86 million below President's request. Conferrees also approved $10 million under HUD Appropriations for the Partnership for Advancing Technologies in Housing (PATH), another CCTI initiative, under "Policy Development and Research--Research and Technology."

Foreign Operations (P.L. 105-277, October 21, 1998)

In the report on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriation Bill, FY1999, on H.R. 4569 (H.Rept. 105-719, September 15, 1998), under Title IV--Multilateral Assistance: Contribution to the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), conferees approved a total of $42.5 million, of which "one-third of funds attributable to climate change activities." The President had requested $300 million to secure developing world participation in emissions limitations under the Kyoto Protocol. Title V-- General Provisions. Sec. 569 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, required the reporting to Congress by the President of the costs to the federal government associated with domestic and international activities for FY1998 and FY1999, under the proposed agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions [Kyoto Protocol], and the detailing of such proposed expenditures in the FY2000 U.S. budget submission. Ultimate funding levels were objected to in "Additional Statements by Representatives Nancy Pelosi and David Obey." Sec. 569 was retained as sec. 573 in OCESSA.

Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations (P.L. 105-277, October 21, 1998)

In the Senate report on Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, 1999, on S. 2260 (S.Rept. 105-235, July 2, 1998), The Senate Appropriations Committee did not approve $7 million for National Institute for Stands and Technology (NIST) request for a new initiative for measurements and standards for climate change under CCTI. Conferrees adopted the Senate Appropriations Committee language during deliberations on OCESSA.

Treasury and General Government Appropriations (P.L. 105-277, October 21, 1998)

In the conference report on H.R. 4328, Division A, Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations, Section 121, provided additional amounts in the conference report accompanying H.R. 4194 (H.Rept. 105-769), of $10 million for "Science and Technology," for research associated with the CCTI, to remain available until September 30, 2007, for obligations made in FY1999 and FY2000.

As illustrated above, for FY1999, some $130 million was appropriated by Congress for the President's Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI), predominantly for programs at the Department of Energy and EPA. A further estimated $1.7 billion was appropriated for the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program, making total budget authority for FY1999 for global climate change programs about $1.8 billion. While significantly less than requested by the President, given that $2.3 billion of the request would be for direct funding of CCTI research, alone, this amount is seen by some as a positive step for the United States toward pursing future climate change protection.

Conclusion

H.R. 3807, introduced in the 2^nd session of the 105^th Congress, emerged as key legislation that addressed a possible "back door" implementation of the 1997 U.N. Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change prior to Senate advice and consent to its ratification. That legislation was left under review of two Subcommittees of the House Committee on Commerce at the close of the 105^th Congress. In addition, some appropriations bills for FY1999, and their accompanying reports, related to issues addressed by H.R. 3807, and were scrutinized owing to what some Members characterized as an unclear understanding and possible ambiguity of some language contained in that bill relating to what climate change activities could and could not be funded. Also, at the root of the debate on H.R. 3807, was whether EPA and other executive branch agencies have the authority under existing law to issue rules addressing global climate change and its impacts, or whether that direction had to come by means of new legislation enacted by Congress. For example, some believe carbon dioxide should be regulated as a greenhouse gas, and this is also a requirement of the Kyoto Protocol. As a consequence, concerns were raised as to whether certain provisions of the Clean Air Act, or other U.S. laws, might allow for implementing provisions of the Kyoto Protocol without Senate ratification. Another issue raised in some appropriations reports was whether global climate change research was being funded by federal agencies as authorized by Congress, that is, for scientific research for a better understanding of climate change, or rather to promote Administration policy, be that either developing means to mitigate or educating the American public on possible adaptation strategies for uncertain climate change.

However, despite an early dire outlook for funding for FY1999 climate change activities, an extensive review of current funding and its perceived economic benefits during the FY1999 appropriation process prompted some Members of Congress to reconsider direction on how climate change funding should be spent, and to build upon a track record of apparent successes achieved from previously authorized funding. Many Members also recognized that these programs might have other benefits for society not necessarily related to their direct implications for climate change, for which they could justify funding while allowing them to maintain their objections to the terms of the Kyoto Protocol. This included the extent to which many of these programs were contributing to U.S. responsibilities in the international arena of climate change protection previously approved by Congress, such as the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the 1992 Energy Policy Act, and the President's 1993 voluntary Climate Change Action Program. Indeed, final FY1999 funding was viewed by some as a significant gain for the U.S. government response to global climate change and may encourage the Clinton Administration to seek stronger fiscal support for such programs in the FY2000 budget for the United States.

While not all Members of Congress were convinced that the Clinton Administration was not trying for "back door" implementation of some aspects of the Kyoto Protocol, or that progress was being made on "meaningful participation of developing countries, and these had protested the Administration's signing of the Kyoto Protocol on November 12, 1998, in an interesting development a legislative initiative was introduced at the end of the 105^th Congress, S. 2617, which sought to give U.S. industries early credits for greenhouse gas reductions. This is seen by some as a signal that the U.S. Senate may be moderating its position on the treaty somewhat, by acknowledging that at least some aspects of it are valid and bear further attention, if not legislative action, during the 106^th Congress.

Footnotes

1. ^(back)For more information on the President's Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI), see CRS Report 98-408, 27 April 1998.

2. ^(back)For more information on GPRA, and Congress's role in its implementation, see CRS Report 98-1028, updated periodically.