us what the Department of Energy is going to do to insure that the labeling program is a success?

Ms. TIERNEY. Mr. Synar, I hope that you will forgive me, because I want to answer your question with a lot of details, and I am not sure I can do it here. As you know, I am pretty new at the department, and I want to give you a very good solid answer to that and not give you a slippery answer. Could I follow that up?

Mr. SYNAR. You sure can, and we will leave the record open for that.

[The information follows:]

In your question you mentioned that the labels are sometimes confusing and inaccurate. The labels themselves are designed and approvd by the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC recognizes the problem and published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on March 5, 1993, to revise the labels and associated consumer information regarding energy efficiency. The Office of Codes and Standards at the Department has worked with the FTC on labeling issues and will assist them to the extent possible and desirable in their current rulemaking efforts.

With regard to the timeliness of the standards, the Department of Energy is reviewing the process used for issuing them and is committed to adopting reforms in order to ensure that the standards are released on a timely basis. For example, the GAO report that you mentioned contained recommendations to improve the success of DOE's Appliance Standards and Labeling program, and we are acting on these recommendations.

Specifically, GAO recommended that the Secretary of Energy: (1) allocate resources, after appropriate consideration of competing priorities, that will enable the applicance standards program to comply with statutory deadlines; and (2) direct DOE staff to use concurrent steps whenever possible for internal reviews of proposed standards.

The Department agrees that both staffing levels and cumbersome concurrence procedures have prevented the Department from meeting its statutory schedule for issuing energy efficiency standards. Because this administration places a high priority on energy efficiency, the Department will work with Congress to provide the Appliance Standards and Labeling Program with the staff and funds needed to meet its statutory obligations.

Mr. WIRTH. Mr. Chairman, if I might add, I think it is important to note that we are behind time on that. The previous administration vetoed that legislation, you remember. It took a long while for the Congress to obtain the two-thirds vote necessary to override that veto. I think we attempted to build upon that finally in the energy bill which passed and finally became law late last year.

So we do have a long way to go and it is enormously important. This is a good example, I think, of the cost-effective capabilities that we have in the United States to reach the goals of 1990 levels by the year 2000 enunciated by the President, which can be done at no cost overall to our society, but, in fact, at very significant savings to consumers. This is a perfect example of where we are, as you pointed out, in a win-win situation.

Mr. SYNAR. One final question and then I will turn it back over to Phil.

Mr. Sussman, is the administration committed to funding the Forest for the Future initiative?

Mr. SUSSMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think we are interested in it. I know that is a program that EPA is supportive of. I am not sure I could tell you exactly what the administration's position on future funding it.

Mr. SYNAR. Could you make that available for the record.

Mr. SUSSMAN. I will.

Mr. SYNAR. Thank you.

I will now turn it back over to the chairman.

Mr. SHARP. Did the gentleman have more questions?

Mr. SYNAR. No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WIRTH. Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Synar leaves, could I make just a note?

Mr. SHARP. Surely.

Mr. WIRTH. I know he mentioned in his opening comments the attempt to look at tradeable permits in all of this, and I might say, as you know, that has been an area that has proved enormously productive over the years. It started with the Clean Air Act and Project 88. I might suggest, if you haven't already done so, looking at the second round of Project 88. There was a major section in that that dealt with greenhouse gas emissions and tradeable permits.

Mr. Bill Nitze, from the Alliance to Save Energy, in Washington, and Rob Stavins, who is on the faculty of the Kennedy School at Harvard, have really perfected this to a point and done a lot of very creative work, and I am sure they have been involved with you and Congressman Cooper.

We believe that it is very productive for us to look at this. There are enormous savings capable again to our economy, where we can do the right thing and also save the economy a great deal of money. We look forward to working with you and Congressman Cooper and others on that, Congressman Synar.

Thank you very much.

Ms. TIERNEY. I would underscore that.

Mr. SYNAR. I appreciate that, because I think Mr. Cooper, if he was here, would tell you that we really still believe this is the best principle to give industry the greatest amount of creativity and leeway, with the minimum amount of cost and also bring the global picture into focus. So we do look forward to working with you, as you all develop that, and we will contact those and others, too. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHARP. Thank you.

I am very pleased to hear both the commitment that we take this problem very seriously and the commitment to take it seriously by having broad-based participation of knowledgeable people throughout the country, because this is going to have a profound impact potentially in the future on both our economic prosperity, as well as whether we wish to alter the climate and poison ourselves with other kinds of pollutants.

It is the essential issue of our time, in a way, as to how to have our cake and eat it, too. We are continually working that out, and I think anybody who has dealt with these environmental questions knows that they are very important, but highly complex, and to try to be cost-effective takes a lot of work and ingenuity, and I think the administration is on the right track of trying to focus very heavily on that.

I might add, on the trading permits question, obviously, whether or not we ever get to direct emissions control, where we actually document specific emissions and set specific caps on industry or whomever is a polluter, there obviously is an enormous amount of policy trading, in a sense.

I am not sure what you would call it, but that is trying to identify worldwide what is the most cost-effective step that can be taken which might be different in India than it is in Brazil or it is in the United States, and getting some kind of coordinated effort where each country is doing what is the least cost contribution. And it may well be that we will find that getting our industry helping or our Government helping cause upgrading of coal-burning in China will have a profound effect on this is far greater and far cheaper for us than for us to try to make another marginal incremental improvement on some of our own well being at high costs. So it does take a lot of ingenuity and work and creativity to do that. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to focus perhaps a moment on the international aspect of that, of trying to engage other people and for us to promote that. In the Energy Act, we obviously had some provisions to try to enhance export of clean coal technology and renewable technologies and what not, and I think it really behooves the administration to move forward on these programs.

Those are bureaucratically lodged in the Department of Energy, but the State Department and Commerce and even AID have roles to play in this, and it seems to me that simply aggressively trying to carry that out will both have benefit environmentally, but also economically for us.

Ms. TIERNEY. Who wants to begin?

Mr. SUSSMAN. Let me just try that and others could pick up. Mr. Chairman, I think you are absolutely right. The international effort here is absolutely critical. We cannot be focusing on emission stabilization in the United States to the exclusion of real strides around the world, particularly in developing countries, because, over time, these countries are going to replace the United States and other industrialized countries as major emitters, and if they don't begin to control their emissions and make significant progress as they continue to develop, then the global warming problem is going to get worse, regardless that the steps that the United States does or does not make.

Let me mention that there is a program under way called the Country Studies Program. I know EPA is participating in it, and I believe that State and DOE are participating in it, as well. This is a program in which our experts work closely with developing nations to look at their emissions profiles, to look at their energy use profiles, to identify opportunities for energy reduction and to move them down the road of developing national plans of their own which will achieve significant reductions.

I think that this is a very good program, because it enables us to put the spotlight on the emission reduction needs of other countries, and I hope that we continue to emphasize that.

Ms. TIERNEY. Let me add to that by saying a couple of things. When we reach the point in our process when we have an opportunity to talk with people, I mentioned earlier that we will be entering that point with open minds and in a listening mode. It is the case, however, that we don't go in with empty minds, and many of us-and I include myself in this group-bring some expectation that offset programs are ones that will give us the capability to really do a cost-effective program and a win-win one, as you say.

Offsets programs require very careful attention to monitoring to make sure that we know where reductions are being made and that the data are reliable. I know work is under way to try to negotiate what kind of voluntary recording system we could put in place to get ahead of the curve on that.

I think that we have some experience around the country with the SO2 trading program. We have experience looking at what various States are doing in their own laboratories at looking at emissions reduction trading programs on other pollutants. I am interested to hear a lot during this process about how we could use offsets very productively.

One of the exciting things that I think that kind of approach offers is the chance for the United States to really take advantage of the competitiveness payoff. If we go early with this commitment, as the President has committed us to doing, and we get our companies well situated to take advantage of their early positioning in international marketplaces, we can go in and help them with the kind of innovative technological programs that I think you were alluding to in your question.

I think we have an opportunity not only to reduce costs effectively here, but also put in place techniques where we can get our own companies' products and services into international marketplaces. That is where we have job creation potential, as well.

Mr. SHARP. Thank you.

Mr. Crapo, questions? The gentleman from Idaho.

Mr. CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I apologize that I had three hearings at one time and was not able to get here on time.

I am most interested in some of the things we were just talking about. I guess I would first question Mr. Sussman with regard to the cost-effectiveness issue. I am interested in what the EPA is doing to insure that the most cost-effective approaches possible are being implemented and made available to U.S. industry and U.S. firms who are seeking voluntarily to offset through joint implementation.

Mr. SUSSMAN. Our voluntary Green Programs I think are targeted very directly at the goal of encouraging our companies to achieve emission reductions cost-effectively, by making voluntary energy improvements which, in fact, pay for themselves through increased efficiency and in increased profitability.

Our Green Programs are, as I mentioned before, voluntary partnerships which EPA forms with companies in the private sector and also with municipalities, with universities and other entities, and our objective in forming these partnerships is to introduce companies and public sector entities to energy efficient investments that they can make, not only because they are environmentally desirable, but because they improve overall efficiency and in the end boost profitability and competitiveness.

We think that these have been very successful programs and we think a continuation and strengthening of these programs can do a great deal to move our private sector in a direction which is not only beneficial environmentally, but desirable economically, as well.

Mr. CRAPO. Now, it is my understanding that most of the Green Programs are domestic. Is that correct? If so, are there efforts going on internationally to move in the same direction?

Mr. SUSSMAN. I believe you are right, that most of the Green Programs are domestic, but I know that the EPA staff that implements the Green Programs is interested in overseas opportunities and hopes to pursue them.

Mr. WIRTH. One of the most striking phenomena, Congressman, if I might point out, is the fact that we are, of course, so much less efficient in terms of our use of energy of our major competitors around the world. And were we able to increase our energy efficiency to the point, say, of the Germans and the Japanese, we would be in very good shape in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and, of course, in terms of our own economy.

What we are trying to do is to develop programs that will encourage those who are not as efficient either around the world, with particular emphasis to the developing world. As pointed out in Congressman Sharp's earlier question, the ominous trends are the long-term trends related to developments in parts of the world. whose economies are not as efficient nor nearly as committed to the international environmental goals that we might share.

For example, the Chinese referred to earlier have a per capita energy consumption of about 7 percent of ours, but the problem with that is two-fold, (1), that the energy consumed is predominantly coal and very dirty brown coal, and (2) as their economy grows very dramatically, the greenhouse gas emissions are going dramatically. We believe that presents to us and our industries very significant opportunities.

The other problem, of course, is that even though their per capita consumption is very low compared to ours, there are an awful lot of "capitas" there and, therefore, it is important for us to recognize that problem, as well, as an overall part of our international strategies and the need for the United States to lead.

Mr. CRAPO. While we are on that, Mr. Wirth, could you just briefly tell me what are the causes, in your opinion, of the phenomenon you described in which that we are much less efficient in our use of energy?

Mr. WIRTH. Well, I think there are a lot of historic reasons for that. One, energy has been extremely abundant and very cheap in the United States, and really until the last 15 years we have not really accounted for energy. If you look at any large corporation and describe with almost any 1 of them the history of energy attention in that corporation 20 years ago or when Congressman Sharp and I were first on this committee, I suppose the person managing energy was an assistant to the building manager some place way down on the bottom of the corporation.

Because the cost of energy has gone up so dramatically, because the cost of oil, which gives other costs, has gone up so dramatically, attention is now being given to that factor and, like anything else, if the market works, and the market has proved to be working Í think very, very effectively and our country is slowly but surely catching up with the inevitability of higher prices.

Mr. CRAPO. I just have one more question.. I guess it would probably be for either EPA or the State Department, I am not sure. Are