Joseph Knollenberg: “My immediate view was, why was the language changed? No one presented that change to me. So let me proceed with my…”

“My immediate view was, why was the language changed? No one presented that change to me. So let me proceed with my comments. I appreciate the gentleman's explanation of why the change, but it certainly was not one that came from our side. Mr. Chairman, I do want to congratulate the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), and the others for the recognition of the original and enduring meaning of the law that has existed for years now, specifically that no funds be spent on unauthorized activities for the fatally flawed, in my judgment, unratified, Kyoto Protocol. I am grateful for the acknowledgment of the administration's plea for clarification. The whole Nation I think needs to hear the plea of this administration in the words of the coordinator of all environmental policy for this administration, George Frampton. In his position as acting chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, on March 1 of this year and on behalf of the administration, he stated this before the Committee on Appropriations subcommittee: 'Just to finish our dialogue here, my point was that it is the very uncertainty about the scope of the language which gives rise to our wanting to not have the continuation of this uncertainty next year.'”