From its very first sentence, your September 3, 1991, press release, "Congress Is Not A Green Consumer Charges Ralph Nader," is misleading, distorted, and reflects flagrantly poor research. Your September 11 cover letter sending this non-information to me suggests that I take an "action-interest" in the so-called "findings." Since those findings and real facts are a contradiction in terms, I want to shed some light on your dark analysis; call it an "information-interest" contribution to your research efforts.

You contend that Congress is "not being environmentally conscious in the management of its office buildings" and go on to say we ". .should lead the country. . . by buying recycled paper, conserving water, and being energy efficient." That we are not environmentally conscious is patently false. The allegations that we do not buy recycled paper, conserve water, and are not trying to be energy efficient is so easily refutable that even a cursory research effort should have no difficulty in discerning the truth.

During the past ten years that I have been the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that provides funds for the entire legislative branch, including those for the operations of Congress' office buildings, all of our agencies have been encouraged to become environmentally prudent. Over that period, and even before that, our subcommittee and those who operate our infrastructure have repeatedly taken positive and proactive stands on environmental issues within the Capitol complex and the other

Mr. Ralph Nader

October 16, 1991
Page Two

legislative agencies.

The public record is replete with examples

of these activities which can be found in hearings testimony, funding decisions, report directives, and the terms of several appropriations bills.

For example, your charge that recycled paper is unavailable to Congress is simply not true. Recycled paper is available to Members, committees, and staff offices from the House of Representatives supply store, the majority and minority printers, and the House Office of Printing Services. In fact, the House Office Supply Service reports that 57% of letterhead being printed this year is on recycled paper. Other recycled products routinely available include bond paper, envelopes, copier paper, file folders, facsimile paper, and toner cartridges.

In July 1990, Congressman John Porter, a member of the Subcommittee, and I collaborated on a policy directive in the fiscal year 1991 appropriation report (House Report 101-648, at page 18), viz, "The Committee is concerned that the Federal government should more actively promote the use of paper with a post-consumer waste content." The directive went on to encourage the Joint Committee on Printing, who set technical paper standards and conduct procurement oversight for all government paper, to increase the procurement of recycled printing paper throughout the government. This action was taken to support the very same objectives that you propound and that you mistakenly imply we do not. That report commended the Joint Committee for its efforts in meeting and even exceeding EPA recycled paper guidelines. Then in May 1991, our Subcommittee's report outlining the fiscal year 1992 appropriation (House Report 102-82, at pages 23-24 and 30) directed the Government Printing Office to study the feasibility of using recycled paper with post-consumer waste content in its work and to report its findings to the Congress.

So your contention that the Congress is not a leader in this area is without foundation. The Government Printing Office, a Congressional agency which buys paper or acquires contract printing for its own and all Federal agency requirements, reports that since August 1988, over 96% of the fine quality printing and writing papers supplied have met or exceeded EPA standards. The GPO is even now in the process of acquiring recycled newsprint for printing the Congressional Record as well as the Federal Register, their two largest paper based print products.

We don't hide these facts, Mr. Nader. Your research efforts need improvement. Of course, when you seem to make such good copy out of Congress-bashing, maybe you don't want the facts to interfere.

Mr. Ralph Nader
October 16, 1991
Page Three

You also call upon the Congress to use water more efficiently. In that regard, the Appropriations Committee, in fiscal year 1990, initiated a water and sewer payment program for Federal facilities located in the District of Columbia (P.L. 101-168, D.C. Appropriations Act, 1990). There is now a market pricing system for water and sewer usage, which is based upon actual metered usage rather than the previous system where estimates of these costs were lumped together in the annual Federal payment. This new pricing methodology now forces the Federal government, including the Congress, to monitor usage in order to keep its water and sewer payments at a minimum. The Office of the Architect of the Capitol indicates that water consumption is now being metered at nearly 60 different locations and that billed water consumption in the Capitol complex dropped by 17 million gallons between fiscal years 1989 and 1990. This is an example of a market place conservation measure, and I believe that can lead to further savings as we increase our monitoring awareness and recognize the economies of further conservation.

We have also done a great deal in energy efficiency and environmental controls. As far back as 1979, by directive contained in the Legislative Appropriations bill, the Architect of the Capitol installed solar collectors at what is now the Ford House Office Building. These solar collectors, which are still in use, preheat the building's hot water system, thus reducing the cost of heating cold water. That same year, 1979, an energy conservation pilot test was undertaken at the Capitol power plant. This pilot eventually led to a comprehensive $2.9 million program which includes a network of sensors installed throughout our Capitol buildings that electronically collect and report room temperature data to a central control system located at the power plant. This system is used to adjust heating and cooling settings in building office spaces during evening and non-peak hours. Based on projections calculated by the Architect's office and reviewed by the General Accounting Office, energy-avoidance costs are estimated at $71 million over the life of this system and will result in a 21 to 1 savings-to-investment ratio. An analysis of this program can be found in part 1 of the fiscal year 1985 Appropriations Hearings before the Subcommittee on Legislative at pages 352-354, and a further discussion in part 2 of those same Hearings at pages 39-40.

I find especially disingenuous your abject criticism of the $1 million that we provided to the Architect of the Capitol for fiscal year 1992 to test energy efficient lighting. This project

came about as a result of a directive the Committee on Appropriations issued in fiscal year 1991 to study the merits of

Mr. Ralph Nader

October 16, 1991
Page Four

installing energy efficient lighting devices (House Report 101-648, at pages 25-26). We also discussed this matter at some length during the fiscal year 1991 appropriations hearings (Legislative Branch Appropriations for 1991, Hearings, part 2 at pages 258-260). Unfortunately, the Architect's fiscal year 1992 appropriation request for this program, $27 million over several years, contained highly speculative estimates of potential costs and savings. The justification presented was insufficient to support a program of that magnitude despite the fact that it is well known that utility cost reductions can be achieved by installing energy efficient lighting. The Subcommittee thought it prudent to proceed as we have in the past; that is, by directing that a thoroughly documented test be devised that would establish the basis for a comprehensive lighting retrofit program, its costs and benefits (House Report 102-82, at pages 20-21). When that test is finished (we provided the $1 million for that purpose), we can make an informed judgment on the project. Incidentally, my personal office in the Rayburn Building as well as our Subcommittee office in the Capitol are among the test sites for

this technology.

It is fascinating, if not fiscally imprudent, that your government procurement project would not understand and support the importance of adequate testing, analysis, and justification before undertaking Federal investments of this magnitude. I cannot conceive that procurement specialists or experts who review the budget process would want to proceed into large procurements without sufficient analysis. By the way, you should know that the "savings" estimates that your procurement project is reporting do not reflect the capital and labor costs of purchasing and installing modified pendant, surface and recessed lighting as recommended by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). Obviously, those costs are just as important in the Federal budget or in corporate investment decisions as any other expenditure.

In 1989, the Subcommittee on Legislative directed the Architect of the Capitol to undertake a pilot test of office waste recycling, including paper, aluminum, glass and plastics, and the fiscal year 1992 appropriation contained $530,000 to expand the program to all buildings in the Capitol complex. This action was taken (House Report 102-82, at pages 19-20) in recognition of the benefits that can be achieved through office disposables recycling and the mounting fiscal and social costs of landfilling potentially useful resources. Actually, the Congress has been recycling waste paper for over a decade through a General Services Administration recycling program, but our program has been greatly

Mr. Ralph Nader
October 16, 1991
Page Five

expanded. Also, beginning in fiscal year 1991, a formal program was begun to remove hazardous wastes from the Capitol complex and to initiate a comprehensive ongoing hazardous waste management and disposal program in accordance with Federal and local requirements.

То

In

As you know, electrical transformers that contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) are particularly hazardous. fiscal year 1986, the Appropriations Committee provided an initial increment of funds to remove them from the Capitol complex. date, 36 of the 115 targetted transformers have been classified as PCB-free. This $10.5 million program continues as a high priority effort.

The Congress has also supported clean air by making improvements to the Capitol power plant. Two of the three coal fired boilers at the plant are connected to bag-houses, which collect potential air pollutants for disposal. In fiscal year 1989, funds were appropriated for the installation of continuous air emissions monitoring equipment equipment to ensure that these boilers are non-polluting and conform to regulations. The third coal fired boiler was converted to natural gas, a much cleaner fuel, in fiscal year 1990.

Other clean air initiatives include a building air quality study in the James Madison Memorial Building at the Library of Congress. The Committee directed the Architect and the Librarian of Congress (House Report 100-621, at pages 29-30) to undertake a study with technical guidance from the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH) to look into claims that the Madison Building suffered from "sick building syndrome." That study is now complete and several of its recommendations are being implemented or otherwise evaluated.

We are also conscious of potential asbestos contamination in Congressional buildings. Annual funds are provided for continuing asbestos abatement throughout the Capitol complex. The objective of this program is to encapsulate any asbestos-containing materials to prevent them from becoming accidentally airborne and also to remove asbestos containing materials whenever necessary. The Thomas Jefferson and John Adams Library of Congress Buildings are being cleaned of asbestos as part of an $81 million renovation program for those buildings. The 1.8 million square foot General Accounting Office building is also being cleaned of asbestos. Over the past five years, the Congress has appropriated funds to begin removing 35 miles of asbestos ductwork and other asbestos materials from that building. The project is approximately 25% complete and is scheduled for total completion by 1996. Incidentally, this is one of the two largest Federal buildings in the area built during an era in which asbestos construction was prevalent. This is probably one of the most expensive asbestos removal projects in the country.