Mr. Ralph Nader 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 Mr. Ralph Nader October 16, 1991 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 Mr. Ralph Nader October 16, 1991 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. 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. То 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 Mr. Ralph Nader Page Six Lead abatement and disposal is also a concern in the Capitol complex. Several initiatives have been undertaken including designing lead-free plumbing systems in the Capitol, Russell and Cannon House office buildings. Further, all the vehicles operated by the Architect of the Capitol, the Capitol police, and the Congressional leadership use unleaded gasoline. Lead-based paint, which hasn't been used in the Capitol complex for many years, is disposed of in a controlled manner as part of the hazardous materials disposal program if it is disturbed during work in such areas. Domestic drinking water is also being tested on a regular basis, and substandard sources are being corrected. There This is not an exhaustive report on these activities. are other examples of programs that the Congress has initiated to improve its local environment and to set examples for new and environmentally progressive technologies. Since these programs are not without cost, we are constrained in our ability to fund every promising project, but we feel that we are doing our share to protect the environment and to conserve our resources. In addition to all of the above, as Vice Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, I have been a staunch advocate of a strong renewable energy research and development program. I am pleased that Federal support for these vital technologies is again on the increase. You may be interested to know that the solar energy account represents the only major segment of the Department of Energy's fiscal year 1992 budget that was increased above the President's request. Specifically, the energy and water development appropriations bill, signed into law on August 17, 1991, included an additional $39.6 million above the President's request for research and development of renewable energy technologies. This represents a substantial 24 percent increase over the President's budget recommendation, and I think it moves the solar R&D program solidly in the right direction. I would like to believe that even our most caustic and cynical critics, a group of which you are uncontestably an ardent member, would acknowledge that the Congress has done a great deal within its own precinct. We clearly do not deserve the unfounded innuendo contained in your letter, your press release, and in the incomplete research conducted by your tax deduction-supported government research project. The irony is that I believe you and I are in close agreement in recognizing the need to be environmentally conscious and Mr. Ralph Nader environment. Can it be that your partisan acerbity on the Federal senior level partial salary catch-up adjustment has affected your willingness to work cooperatively with those in Congress who share with you these common goals? Sincerely, Vic Fazio, Chairman P.S. Could it be that your letter to me on was typed non-recycled paper!? You can be certain that |