[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S14428]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    GREEN LIGHTS, MONTREAL PROTOCOL

 Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the amendment I offered yesterday 
will restore the EPA Administrator's ability to fulfill our obligations 
under the Montreal Protocol. In addition, it will authorize the EPA 
Administrator to fund the successful Green programs, including the 
Green Lights Program and Energy Star Buildings Programs.
  I need not go into detail on the importance of the Montreal Protocol. 
Last year, the Congress appropriated $119 million for these important 
programs--$101 million for the Green programs and roughly $17 million 
for the Montreal Protocol multilateral fund. This amendment will allow 
the Administrator to spend up to $100 million on these programs, a 13-
percent cut from last years levels.
  Negotiated and signed by President Reagan and expanded and 
implemented by President Bush, the Montreal Protocol is working to 
reduce the production and use of ozone-depleting substances. President 
Reagan believed it was vital that we fulfill our commitments under this 
important treaty. President Bush took a leadership position and urged 
the rest of the world to agree to a complete phase out of a number of 
ozone depleting substances. President Bush also concluded the 
negotiations, begun by President Reagan, to establish the multilateral 
fund.
  Now, let me explain the fund, because this is what we are debating 
today. The multilateral fund was created in 1990 in order to assist 
developing countries in their efforts to phaseout ozone depleters. 
Since the development of the fund, 100 developing countries have 
ratified the protocol and agreed to the protocol's strict reduction 
requirements. They did this with the understanding that the fund would 
assist these developing countries in transferring the technology 
necessary to end this use of ozone-depleting substances. Most of this 
technology comes from the United States.
  Failure to pay our share of the fund would force developing countries 
to end their protocol obligations. This would lead to increased use of 
ozone-depleting substances in developing countries and offset the tens 
of billions of dollars spent by the developed countries to phase them 
out.
  Let me summarize.
  No money to the fund.
  Violation of our commitment to the treaty.
  Greater use of CFC's by developing countries.
  Faster depletion rates of the ozone.
  More negative health effects, such as skin cancer and cataracts.
  We must maintain our commitment to protect the ozone layer.
  My colleagues may argue that funds for the Montreal protocol belong 
in the State Department budget, not the EPA budget. As a member of the 
Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, I am continuing to work 
to ensure that the protocol has adequately funded the State Department 
budget. However, I believe that funding for international programs is 
so limited, that offsetting the loss in this bill would be impossible.
  Since 1991, almost one-third of the money for the fund has come from 
EPA. We made the decision, in 1990, to require EPA to assist the State 
Department. Let me read from section 617b of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990, which many of us here today voted for. Quote:

       The Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     State, shall support global participation in the Montreal 
     protocol by providing technical and financial assistance to 
     developing countries.

And at that time we authorized $30 million to be spent for the fund.
  The phaseout of CFC's is not just an international political issue, 
it is a technical, industrial, and environmental issue, on which EPA is 
respected globally. Further, through its experience in the United 
States of ridding the country of ozone-depleting substances, EPA has a 
good understanding of the benefits of U.S. technologies, and has been 
able to promote those technologies in other countries.
  This is no time to end this progress.
  Let me spend a minute on the Green Lights Program. I remember 
President Bush searching for alternatives to the overregulation, 
command and control policies of the 1970's and 1980's. He longed to 
find a way to control pollution in a nonregulatory, free-market manner. 
His legacy to the environment is his success in developing just such a 
program.
  The Green Lights Program, and Energy Star Programs, are a testament 
to the type of innovative programs we must implement if we wish to 
reduce the regulatory burden faced by industry today. The programs are 
voluntary, reduce energy use, decrease our dependence on foreign 
energy, save business money, and stimulate markets for clean, 
alternative energy technologies and services.
  Green Lights is simple. EPA provides technical assistance to help a 
company survey its facilities and upgrade its lighting. That's it. 
Since its inception, Green Lights has saved companies hundreds of 
millions of dollars and dramatically reduced air pollution emissions. 
All this without one regulation.

  This is the most successful public-private partnership running. Just 
ask companies in my own State, such as IBM, our largest utility--Green 
Mountain Power, Jay Peak Ski area, and others.
  Ask the Mobile Corp., who points out in this article in Time magazine 
that with the help of EPA Green Lights they have reduced their lighting 
energy costs by 49 percent.
  Eliminating this program now would be unwise. This program reduces 
the need for regulation. Without Green Lights we might need more 
regulation to accomplish what is now being done with a voluntary 
partnership.
  I believe one of the reasons this program is slated for elimination 
is that it is considered corporate welfare. Let me tell you why it is 
not.
  EPA does not give any grants or financial assistance to Green Lights 
partners.
  All funds are spent for information dissemination and communication.
  The resulting investment by participants is more than 50 times the 
Federal investment.
  Green Lights participants represent a wide range of entities, 
including 360 schools, 193 hospitals, numerous churches, local 
governments, small businesses, and nonprofit groups.
  Overcoming market barriers is valuable to many, but beyond the reach 
of individual organizations. Many businesses cannot afford to keep on 
hand the technical expertise that EPA has assembled to help business 
succeed in reducing their energy costs in this manner.
  Green Lights is a successful public-private partnership. It creates 
jobs and opportunities for sound energy use and savings, while at the 
same time preventing pollution. This is a model, nonregulatory program.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to seriously consider the 
consequences of ending these two vital programs. My amendment does not 
increase spending, nor does it cut from other areas of the bill. The 
amendment simply requests that the EPA Administrator be allowed to 
spend, within available funds, enough funds to keep these important 
programs up and running.

                          ____________________