PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. (text of measure as introduced: CR S8440)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Dec 7, 2015
Expresses the sense of the Senate that a protocol, amendment, extension, or other agreement (agreement) relating to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, entered into force March 21, 1994, shall have no force or effect in the United States and no funds shall be authorized in its support, including for the Green Climate Fund, until it has been submitted to Senate for advice and consent, if the agreement:
fulfills mitigation commitments through existing and future regulations that would put our national industries at a disadvantage compared to the industries of developing countries;
includes a financial commitment that will not go into effect without subsequent congressional legislation or authorization;
represents an agreement to be overseen by an international administrative entity covering a wide range of topics, including mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology transfer, capacity building, transparency, implementation, and compliance; or
establishes a mechanism to assess contributions or commitments for future compliance.
People & committees
Sen. Inhofe, James M. [R-OK] · R–OK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. (text of measure as introduced: CR S8440)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.Res.329 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.Res.329 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.Res.329 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.Res.329 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.