Nowhere are the conflicts and dilemmas about Congressional decision-making more applicable than with environmental issues. These issues frequently generate confrontations involving manufacturers, labor, farmers, ranchers, and public interest and environmental groups. Also, environmental debates sometimes place different geographical regions at odds with one another such as the midwest versus the northeast on acid rain and clean air. Thus, the elected representatives from either party reflect not only the ideology of their party but also the differing economic and employment interests of the regions they represent. So, for example, Republicans from the northeast are often more "pro-environment" than some Democrats from coal producing areas such as Appalachia.

The legislative process is further complicated by the fact that there is no central focus on environmental issues in Congress. Rather, decision-making is widely dispersed and divided among the Senate and House Leadership, and numerous committees in both the Senate and House. This diffusion of power among so many members and entities has a significant impact on the legislative result.

The reality is that Congress, both collectively and individually, represents the various opinions, views and interests of American society. The conflicts, the confusion, and the inconsistency in Congress on environmental policy really reflect the lack of consensus in our country on how best to resolve these difficult questions. On the surface, Americans generally express support for strong environmental laws and enforcement. But this conceptual support often weakens when these laws affect their everyday lives jobs, taxes, and interference with personal freedoms. So, Congressional inertia on environmental legislation is not simply a failure of the legislative process or of Congress as an institution. Rather, it reflects this lack of a national consensus as to where the proper balance is on complex issues such as Superfund, clean air, acid rain, global warming, property rights, and the disposal of nuclear waste.

This Article will examine the approach taken by Congress regarding environmental policy-making over the past three years, as well as discuss some of the issues likely to receive attention on Capitol Hill during 1998. Further, a chart is included at the end of the Article for easy reference to the key committees, subcommittees, and members on environmental matters.

The change in party control in Congress has had an obvious and significant impact on environmental decision making. Since 1995, both Houses of Congress have been in Republican hands. There is a natural and understandable tension between the Democratic Clinton Administration and the Republican Congress. Frequently, there are fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats as to what should be done on a number of environmental issues. These differences are based on genuine disagreements over policy but also can provide an opportunity to posture for political advantage.

Even prior to the Republican takeover of Congress, Congress had become far more prescriptive with respect to environmental matters than was the case in the 1970s. The fact is that Congress is no longer comfortable with broad delegations of authority to agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Interior Department, DOE, or USDA. The change to a Republican majority reinforced this trend.

In taking control of Congress, the GOP focused on the themes that had brought them their election victory. These themes were: (1) federal spending is out of control; (2) the federal government excessively over regulates the private sector (and the cost of complying with government regulations often exceeds the corresponding benefits to society); and (3) there is a need to return power to the states, to the localities, and to the individual citizen. The GOP immediately pushed for a balanced budget constitutional amendment and a balanced budget by a date certain. They expressed the belief that federal regulatory agencies were interfering with economic and technological progress. They stressed that decisions made closer to home ("outside the beltway") would be better for America.

As the Republicans took control of Congress, they made significant changes in the manner in which Congress is run. They abolished a number of standing committees, reduced the overall number of subcommittees, and rewrote key parliamentary rules. Legislative decision-making became more centralized in the Republican Leadership, particularly in the House of Representatives. While still powerful, few Committee Chairs wield the same power as did their Democratic predecessors.

A. Regulatory/Procedural Reforms

When they were the minority party in Congress, Republicans were repeatedly frustrated by their inability to control the legislative agenda and effect significant legislative change. Consequently, on environmental issues, they sought to have an impact on environmental policies by pushing for procedural reforms such as prohibitions on unfunded mandates, broad-based regulatory reforms, regulatory flexibility for small business, and protecting companies that conduct their own environmental audits. That is, they sought to influence substantive environmental policies indirectly i.e. by altering the procedural rules. Consequently, when the Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, procedural change remained a prominent part of their agenda.

For example, the new House rules, adopted on the first day of the 104th Congress, provided for a Corrections Day or a "Corrections Calendar."(1) This innovation of the new Republican majority established a special procedure for expeditiously taking up bills to correct or repeal rules or regulations viewed as excessive or obsolete. Such bills favorably reported from committees may be placed on the Corrections Calendar on the second and fourth Tuesday each month. Amendments are limited and a three-fifths vote of members voting is required for passage. During the 104th Congress, the House considered a number of bills directed at environmental regulations under the corrections day procedure and several passed. One of those enacted was the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act.(2) It adds flexibility to the Oil Pollution Control Act of 1990, so transporters of edible oils can be exempted from certain oil spill planning and financial liability requirements that were intended to address spills of petroleum-derived oil.

As part of the "Contract with America," on March 3, 1995, the House also passed comprehensive regulatory reform legislation (H.R. 9). The bill would have required that federal regulatory agencies conduct a cost benefit analysis (on rules likely to increase annual costs by $25 million or more) and risk assessment (for rules likely to have an annual impact on the economy of $50 million or more) on significant or major rules. In the summer of 1995, the Senate conducted a lengthy debate over its companion regulatory reform measure (S. 343). Sponsored by the then-majority leader, Senator Robert Dole (R-KS), the bill would have imposed cost benefit requirements on major rules, allowed small businesses to go to court to challenge agency noncompliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980(5) and established a procedure for congressional review of major rules prior to their going into effect. The debate focused on whether the bill would require that "benefits" exceed "costs" before a rule could go into effect. The debate also involved whether the new requirements would be prospective or whether they would apply to existing rules. The scope of judicial review of agency action was also a key issue. While cast in terms of amendments to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),(6) the debate allowed the Democrat opposition and the environmental groups an opportunity to characterize Republicans as being out of the mainstream on environmental issues. The opponents portrayed Republicans as working closely with industry groups, in an effort to roll back federal air and water pollution laws. Fair or not, the Senate debate on regulatory reform became a serious public relations setback for Congressional Republicans. Finally, on July 20, 1995, after failing to break a filibuster on three different occasions, Senator Dole postponed consideration of the bill.

In the winter of 1995-96, the confrontation between the President and Congress over the budget resulted in a government shutdown. As a result of this confrontation and the previous summer s debate on regulatory reform, the so-called "Republican revolution" lost considerable momentum. A somewhat chastened GOP Leadership became more cautious and measured about their approach to environmental issues in the second session (i.e. 1996). Perhaps the most important regulatory relief law passed in the 104th Congress was the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).(7) Passed by both the House and Senate as part of the debt limit bill (H.R. 3136) on March 28, 1996, it was signed into law the very next day. First, this law made important changes in the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980.(8) Under that Act, federal agencies are required to analyze the impact that a proposed regulation may have on "small entities" (i.e. small businesses, local governments and farmers). The 1996 amendment allows, for the first time, judicial review of certain aspects of agency compliance with the Act. So, if an agency should have undertaken a "regulatory flexibility analysis" and did not, or if an agency should take corrective action with respect to the quality or accuracy of its analysis, a small entity can seek judicial review to achieve those goals. The law also mandated that a regulatory flexibility analysis take place for any major rule (generally defined as having an annual affect on the economy of $100 million or more) and provided for advisory panels, comprised of small business representatives to advise on EPA and OSHA regulations.(9)

Third, SBREFA established a procedure by which Congress may review all proposed rules to determine whether or not they should take effect. Also known as the "Congressional Review Act,"(11) this portion of SBREFA postpones the effectiveness of any new "major" rule for 60 calendar days. The President is allowed to bypass the 60-day delay through the issuance of an Executive Order, but only if the rule addresses an imminent threat to the public health or safety, or other emergency, or matters involving criminal law enforcement or national security. Non-major rules are not stayed, but are also subject to the Congressional review process.

Agencies are required to submit a copy of each new rule to Congress, along with a report describing its contents. If Congress does not believe the rule should take effect, each chamber must pass a joint resolution of disapproval, which must then be signed by the President. The Act creates an expedited procedure for consideration of these joint resolutions in the Senate. This legislation established a formal process by which Congress and its oversight committees can monitor the regulatory process. In the coming months and years, this new tool for Congress could have a significant impact on controversial environmental regulations.

B. Specific Program Reforms

Despite its rocky beginnings, the 104th Congress still managed to enact some substantive, as well as procedural, environmental legislation. This included revisions in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)(12); lender liability relief under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund)(13); amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act s (RCRA s) land disposal requirements (14); and the enactment of new standards for chemicals in foods.(15) Efforts to enact broad reforms in the Superfund law failed; as did efforts to enact significant changes in the Clean Water Act.

1. Superfund

During the 104th Congress, comprehensive changes in the Superfund program were hotly debated. Dating back to 1980, the Superfund law authorizes the federal cleanup of hazardous waste sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency. Based on the idea that the "polluter should pay," the program imposes retroactive, joint and several liability on individuals or businesses that dumped waste at designated sites (even if their actions were lawful at the time). The "Superfund" was financed by certain taxes on oil products, chemicals, and by a broad-based corporate environmental tax. This trust fund finances cleanups, where no responsible private party can be found or where private parties refuse to pay. From the beginning, identifying the responsible parties has led to an endless flow of litigation.

With the Republicans in control of Congress, industry critics hoped for changes in Superfund s retroactive, strict joint and several liability standard. However, these reform efforts were undercut by a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis demonstrating that liability repeal would place a significant new burden on the federal budget a budget which Republicans were intent on balancing. Bills (S. 1285 and H.R. 2500) were considered in both the Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works and the House Commerce Committee, but neither bill received a floor vote. In the end, House Commerce Committee Chairman Tom Bliley (R-VA) refused to do a narrow reauthorization bill and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer (R-TX) opposed renewing the program s taxing authority until the liability scheme was significantly altered. (The tax portion of Superfund expired on December 31, 1995. Estimates are that there are sufficient monies in the trust fund to pay for the program through the year 2000.)

2. Clean Water

The Clean Water Act (CWA) governs pollution in the nation s rivers, lakes and coastal waterways, and authorizes monies to aid in the constitution of municipal wastewater treatment plants. Dating back to 1948, the Act was last amended in 1987. It was one of the first environmental laws to receive attention in the 104th Congress. The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure began hearings in February, 1995 and by early April favorably reported a bill (H.R. 961) by a 42-16 vote.

Sponsored by Transportation Committee Chairman Bud Shuster (R-PA), H.R. 961 intended to make CWA more flexible and less prescriptive. The legislation also responded to regulatory relief issues raised by industry, states and localities who were critical of excessive, detailed clean water regulations. The Shuster bill proposed a $2 billion authorization through fiscal year 2000. But it also included a number of controversial provisions, such as a requirement that the government compensate landowners for reductions in the value of their property of 20 percent or more due to federal wetlands protection. The bill passed the House on May 16, 1995.

Then-Senate Majority Whip, Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) urged Senate Environment Committee Chair John Chafee (R-RI) to act favorably on the House-passed bill but Chafee hesitated, in the face of strong opposition from the Clinton Administration and environmentalists (who characterized it as the "Dirty Water" bill). The wetlands issue was particularly controversial. The Senate took no action on the House-passed bill and no clean water amendments were enacted.

3. Lender Liability

Because of a court decision invalidating an EPA rule intended to protect lenders from Superfund liability, banks and others in the lending industry pressed for protective legislation. Eventually, through language added in an omnibus budget reconciliation bill, the 104th Congress responded. Entitled the "Asset Conservation, Lender Liability, and Deposit Insurance Protection Act of 1996,"(16) the provision amended the definition of "owner or operator" so as to exclude a "lender that did not participate in management of a vessel or facility prior to foreclosure" from liability. So, if a lender forecloses on the vessel or facility and takes steps to prepare the vessel or facility for sale they are protected against liability. The new law also excluded a lender that "merely holds indicia of ownership to protect its security interest in the vessel or facility." The bill also extended liability protections to lenders under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).(17)

4. The Safe Drinking Water Act

The most significant programmatic environmental law passed by the 104th Congress was the reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).(18) Because of the severe criticism received about proposed regulatory reform efforts and the controversy over the Clean Water reauthorization, the Republican leadership in both houses made SDWA reauthorization a high priority in 1996. In particular, they wanted to avoid the bitter partisan fights of the previous year.

Originally enacted in 1974, and later amended in 1986, the statute was widely criticized because it failed to focus on contaminants of greatest concern. As a result, it placed a severe financial burden on states and localities to achieve extremely strict standards. Among other things, the existing law required EPA to regulate 25 new contaminants every three years. Industry groups, as well as state and local governments, argued that federal drinking water law should be based on "better science" and on the degree of contaminants occurrence in water. Environmental groups focused on water quality and emphasized that any new legislation should protect groups at special risk, such as children and pregnant women. They sought strict standards for substances such as radon, arsenic, and sulfates.

In the Senate, the lead on SDWA reform was taken by Senator Chafee, Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Senator Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID), Chairman of the Drinking Water, Fisheries, and Wildlife Subcommittee. Their bill (S. 1316) proposed to replace the requirement that EPA issue drinking water standards for 25 new contaminants every three years with a requirement that EPA prepare a list of unregulated contaminants for study and, beginning in 2001, determine every five years whether five of those contaminants merit regulation. S. 1316 further required EPA to conduct cost-benefit analyses when promulgating a new standard. The bill also proposed a state revolving loan fund program to help localities finance projects necessary to meet SDWA requirements. The Senate Environment Committee approved S. 1316 unanimously on October 24, 1995, and the full Senate unanimously passed it in November.

After months of bipartisan negotiations, the House Commerce Committee unanimously approved its bill (H.R. 3604) on June 11. The bill received broad, if qualified, support from the Clinton Administration and environment and public health groups. On June 25, 1996 it passed the House, after being merged with legislation reported by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (authorizing additional assistance for public water systems and watershed projects).

The final, conference committee version of SDWA: (1) revoked the requirement that EPA regulate 25 contaminants every three years; (2) added flexibility to the Act s standard setting process; (3) directed EPA to conduct risk reduction and cost analyses for new standards; and (4) authorized a state revolving loan fund program. The law also increased health effects research funding, expanded consumer information programs, and included new source water protection programs. Both houses approved the conference report on August 2 and the President signed the bill into law on August 6.

5. Pesticide Law Reform

C. Lessons Learned

In charge of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years, Republicans correctly presumed that Americans wanted change. However, they quickly learned that Americans were not prepared for sudden, dramatic changes in environmental laws and regulations. Over the two year period, they found that incremental, targeted changes in environmental policies were far more likely to succeed. They recognized that education directed at changing public opinion on complex policy issues takes time and patience. They also recognized, to a greater degree, the need to develop bipartisan support both for votes and political "cover" if important environmental and regulatory changes are to be successfully achieved. The changes ultimately achieved in 1995-96 were not inconsequential, but a broad array of issues remained for the new 105th Congress.

In the first session of the 105th Congress, attention was focused primarily on federal budget issues, campaign spending investigations, and whether or not Congress should grant fast-track trade authority to the President. In July, Congress and the President agreed upon a landmark legislative package that will balance the federal budget by fiscal year 2002. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (H.R. 2013)(20) cut spending by $263 billion over five years, while the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997 (H.R. 2014)(21) contained a myriad of tax cuts and tax increases which will result in a $95 billion tax reduction over five years. This budget package, however, did not make significant changes in environmental laws. The tax portion did contain a provision allowing the deduction of remediation costs at qualified hazardous waste sites.

A. First Session (1997)

Environmental issues were not a first tier, legislative priority in 1997. When they were considered, however, the approach taken in most instances reflected a careful, measured approach on the part of the House and Senate Leadership.

1. Clean Air Act Rules

On July 18, the EPA promulgated revisions of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulates and ground-level ozone. The decision by President Clinton to support EPA Administrator Carol Browner on these stringent standards was greeted with a negative outcry from the business community.

Congress reacted by scheduling a flurry of hearings and by considering a number of legislative options. The options included a possible resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (SBREFA) and a moratorium bill. But the Republican Leadership in both Houses pursued a cautious strategy on clean air. Concerned about the political downside of an overtly partisan move to overturn the rules, they waited to see how much support they could attract from Congressional Democrats. In the House, the Leadership asked Commerce Committee Chairman Tom Bliley to be the point man on the issue, in the hope that a bipartisan alliance with the Committee s ranking Democrat John Dingell could garner sufficient support. The SBREFA option was discarded early as being too blunt a tool and an unlikely means to success because of a certain Presidential veto.

Bills (H.R. 1984; S. 1048) calling for a four year moratorium on the standards and providing for further scientific study were promptly introduced but have not emerged from committee. The lead House sponsors of the moratorium approach are Congressman Ron Klink (D-PA) and Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA), while Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla) sponsored the Senate bill. Environment Committee Chairman Chafee, New York s Senator Alphonse D Amato and a number of other eastern Republicans remain opposed to overturning or delaying the rules. While 1998 brings a new session, it also is an election year. Most believe efforts to overturn or delay the effectiveness of the new clean air rules are not likely to succeed.

2. Nuclear Waste

In 1997, both the Senate and the House overwhelmingly passed legislation (S. 104; H.R. 1270) to authorize the construction of a high level nuclear waste facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Strongly supported by the electric utilities, the bills would establish this site as a temporary or interim storage facility for nuclear waste until a decision is made as to a permanent storage site. The Senate bill passed on April 15 by a vote of 65-34 and the House bill passed on October 30 by a vote of 307-120. The differences between the two versions have yet to be resolved by a House-Senate conference committee.

The Clinton Administration opposes the legislation because it wants the Energy Department to first complete its assessment of the viability of the Yucca Mountain site as a permanent repository for nuclear waste. Their position is complicated, however, by a recent U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) decision ordering DOE to find a disposal site by January 31, 1998. The Nevada delegation, both Republicans and Democrats, are strongly opposed to the bill and have aggressively tried to delay final action on the measure. The Congress and the President appear to be on a collision course, but a vote on this issue is not considered likely until March or April, 1998. It is unclear whether or not there are sufficient votes in the Senate to override a probable Presidential veto (S. 104 was two votes short of the required two-thirds last spring).

3. National Wildlife Refuge System

Late in the session, agreement was reached on legislation (H.R. 1420)(22) which, for the first time defines the mission of the 92 million acre National Wildlife Refuge System, which represents 4% of the nation s land area. The bill was a bipartisan compromise, reflecting concessions to both environmentalists and hunters. Specifically, it established conservation, including the restoration of fish, wildlife and plant populations, as the basic mission of the wildlife system but also recognized hunting as a "compatible use" of the system.

4. Property Rights

During most of the first session, House Republicans studiously avoided potential nasty floor fights over environmental issues. However, controversy ensued in October when the House considered and passed the "Private Property Rights Implementation Act" (H.R. 1534). Sponsored by Congressman Elton Gallegly (R-CA), this legislation would allow landowners expedited access to the federal courts to challenge local zoning actions as unconstitutional "takings" under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The current practice is for the federal courts to defer ("ripeness" and abstention doctrine) to local government agencies and the state courts on local land use issues. The bill is opposed by state and local governments, environmental groups, the federal judicial conference, and the Clinton Administration. The bill created a serious confrontation within the GOP caucus east vs. west. Republican moderates, led by Congressman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), prompted a floor fight by proposing a substitute amendment to narrow the measure. The Boehlert substitute, however, was defeated by a 178-242 vote and the bill eventually passed the House by a 248-178 vote. Thirty Republicans, primarily from northeastern and midwestern states, voted for the substitute and against the bill on final passage. The property rights legislation is expected to receive a "mixed reception" in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Senator Leahy (D-VT) and others are strongly opposed.

B. Outlook for Second Session (1998)

As the first session came to a close, numerous environmental issues were receiving considerable attention and debate, but resolution awaits further action in the second session. With the balanced budget deal finalized, Congress will have more time and energy to focus on other issues such as environmental policy.

1. Superfund

For over five years, Congress has grappled with whether or not to do a Superfund reauthorization and has been unable to gain a consensus in either House. In the 104th Congress, Republican members such as House Commerce Committee Chairman Bliley and Subcommittee Chair Congressman Mike Oxley (R-OH) hoped to achieve a repeal of retroactive liability. That particular approach did not prove saleable (in part, because of budget impact reasons) and they have adjusted their sights in this Congress. Congressman Oxley has introduced reauthorization legislation (H.R. 3000), co-sponsored by a number of moderate Democrats (known as the "Blue Dogs"). The revised Oxley bill does not call for the outright repeal of retroactive liability. It does, however, contain language that would allow a liability exemption for parties who transported and generated waste prior to 1987. But it also would allow EPA the discretion to reach-back and nevertheless assign liability to such parties if they were "significant contributors" to hazardous waste. The Clinton Administration is still not supporting this new Oxley approach on the liability issue.

Superfund reauthorization legislation (H.R. 2727) has also been introduced in the House by Congressman Boehlert, chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee (House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure). Among other things, it would exempt small businesses (75 or fewer employees) from liability, as well as persons that contributed only municipal solid waste to Superfund sites. But Boehlert s bill, which is labeled as the "Superfund Acceleration Fairness and Efficiency Act" did not attract any Democrat co-sponsors when it was introduced.

On the Senate side, Subcommittee Chairman Bob Smith (R-New Hampshire) introduced S. 8, which provided a vehicle for Senate Superfund discussions and negotiations for most of 1997. As introduced, the Smith proposal would enhance the role of state authority to implement Superfund; increase public participation in the litigation process; and decrease cleanup time by half by reducing the time spent in litigation. Along with Smith, Environment Committee Chairman Chafee has led efforts to forge a bipartisan compromise in the Committee. As in the House, liability language remains the central problem. Nevertheless, Superfund reform is a high priority in the second session.

2. Endangered Species Act

The 1973 Endangered Species Act ("ESA") provides the legal means to protect plants, animals, and their habitats, that are classified as "endangered" or "threatened." Currently, there are 1,530 species that are listed as endangered or threatened under federal law. Though the authorization for the ESA expired on October 1, 1992, Congress has continued to appropriate funds for ESA enforcement programs.

Late in the first session, legislation emerged in the Senate that could result in a reauthorization of the ESA. On September 30, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved a reauthorization bill (S. 1180) by the vote of 15-3. Sponsored by Senator Dirk Kempthorne (R-Idaho), the bill would allow a greater role for property owners and localities in ESA policies. The Kempthorne compromise has received wide bipartisan support including two key Democrats on the Senate Environment Committee, Senator Max Baucus of Montana and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. The full Committee Chairman John Chafee, a longtime friend of environmental groups, is also backing the Kempthorne bill. Also, the Clinton Administration has indicated that they are favorably disposed towards the legislation as well. It would appear that S. 1180 is a likely candidate for floor consideration soon after Congress returns.

In the House, the committee with jurisdiction Resources is chaired by Congressman Don Young of Alaska, who has been a critic of the statute in the past. Western Republican House members are not fully satisfied with the Kempthorne bill because it does not provide for landowner compensation when land values are reduced as a result of ESA requirements. The House Republican leadership has adopted a wait and see attitude on ESA. They want to see what happens in the Senate.

3. Global Warming

In December, 166 nations met in Kyoto, Japan to consider a proposed international treaty aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions and other "greenhouse" gases, which are believed to cause global warming. Under the terms of the Kyoto accord, the United States would have to reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and certain other pollutants to 7% below 1990 levels by the year 2012. The European Union agreed to an 8% cut and Japan to a 6% cut. However, developing nations such as China, Mexico, and South Korea would not be subject to any specific targets. Developing countries fear that their inclusion will retard their economic growth and lock them in to economic subservience.

The domestic politics of global warming are extremely complex. First, there is no discernable evidence of a climate crisis and considerable skepticism about the science that supports the theory. Consequently, the public is not demanding that Congress or the President take dramatic action relating to climate change. Furthermore, the AFL-CIO already smarting because of NAFTA ratification fears that such a treaty would mean more jobs would move overseas. Industry groups led by the auto manufacturers, the oil companies and electric utilities are also strongly opposed to the treaty.

In July, the Senate passed a resolution by a vote of 95-0 demanding that any new climate treaty contain compliance obligations for the developing countries. Sponsored by Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), the resolution demonstrates that, in its current form, the global treaty would not receive Senate approval.

It now appears that the global warming treaty is not likely to find its way to Capitol Hill in 1998. Instead, the Clinton Administration will continue to negotiate with the developing countries in the hope that they can make them participants as well.

C. Conclusion

The Republican Congress is still seeking change and reform on a wide range of environmental issues. As in 1995, they continue to feel that the cost and burden of federal regulation is too great; that federal programs need to respect private property rights to a greater extent; that more power should be given to states and localities; and that individuals and businesses should only be liable for damages based upon fault. At the same time, they recognize that competing interests regional differences as well as philosophical differences must be reconciled if significant environmental legislation is to be enacted. Some commentators believe that the Superfund reauthorization presents the most promising environmental legislative opportunity in 1998. Time will tell. But in an election year, both parties in Congress will exercise even greater caution and restraint. Decisions (or "non-decisions") will increasingly be based on their perceptions of the potential political ramifications this November. Don t look for dramatic changes in environmental law this year.