Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. OK. Let me speak for a few minutes about this amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask, is there additional time preserved?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Was there 2 minutes before each vote that was provided for in the unanimous-consent agreement?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask the floor manager, I have one amendment that is going to be voted on in about 15 or 20 minutes, I understand. Is it appropriate to speak on that at this point?

Mr. BINGAMAN. This is the Bingaman-Murkowski amendment. Amendment No. 937

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just speak briefly on this amendment. We are still in morning business, as I understand it; is that correct?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me briefly describe what the amendment is. The amendment which I am offering along with Senator Murkowski, the chairman of the Energy Committee, would strike section 630 out of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill which is pending before the Senate. The reason we are trying to strike section 630 is that it would impede Federal agencies from using energy conservation programs that are now being offered to all customers by electric utility companies. This section would override both the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and the National Defense Authorization Act of 1993. There is nothing anticompetitive about eliminating section 630. Many energy conservation measures, such as agreements to use certain amounts of energy at certain times of the day, can only be made--those types of agreements can only be made with the local utility. We are in a period where we are moving toward a restructured electric utility industry, but we are not there yet. In most parts of this country today, customers still deal with one electric utility. So the opportunity to enter into these energy conservation measures is with that one electric utility. If there is only one source offering a particular service--in this case the providing of electricity--there is no point in outlawing a sole-source procurement, as section 630 would do. Existing law tells Federal agencies to use energy conservation services offered by local utilities if those same services are offered to other customers in that same location. This amendment overrides section 630 of the bill, which we are dealing with here and which we are trying to eliminate. It would override these mandates and would have the following negative consequences. First of all, there are 58 existing contracts between the General Services Administration and utilities that will be adversely affected by this provision, according to the Department of Energy. Second, the Department of Defense will be forced to scrap its model energy conservation agreement that it has with members of the utility industry. Since the law allows sole-source contracts, and since the sole source is sometimes the only option for the Government, section 630 is not about making agencies comply with the law; it is about the Senate intervening on one side of an electric industry dispute without having all of the facts. Energy conservation law is obviously complex. We should not be trying to change this law in an appropriations bill. Before we change the law, we need to hear from all of the affected parties. The chairman of the Energy Committee, who is cosponsoring my amendment, has agreed to hold hearings on the concerns raised by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Given that good-faith offer to investigate and resolve these concerns, I believe the Senate should support our amendment and take out section 630 until we have all the facts.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have heard no arguments here as to why these good provisions should now be repealed. In addition, the Appropriations Committee's report offers no explanation of the need for section 630. Let me also observe that section 630 attempts to make these controversial changes in energy legislation through an appropriations bill. As far as I can tell, no formal notification to or consultation with the Energy Committee has taken place. I doubt that such a far- reaching change would be considered by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee without at least a hearing. The proponents of section 630 should have their views heard in the appropriate forum. I am recommending to the chairman of the Energy Committee that hearings be held so that we can get all the issues out on the table and, if changes are needed, come to a reasonable solution. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and strike section 630. Exhibit 1 Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC, July 18, 1997. To: Mr. Dan Alpert, Office of Senator Bingaman. Subject: Section 630 Senate Treasury and Postal Service Appropriations bill. This is in response to your phone request for a Defense position on the proposed Section 630 to the Senate Treasury and Postal Appropriation bill which would preclude any Federal agency from obtaining energy conservation services on a sole source basis. I understand the intent of the section is to assure best value to the government through competition. I cannot comment on the jurisdictional issues, but I believe very strongly that the language as written would significantly reduce the authority and opportunity this Department has to take advantage of private sector energy conservation expertise and capital. I can only assume that the sponsor of this section has been seriously misled as to its implications. The Department of Defense is the single largest energy user in the country and as such we have been and continue, to be committed to achieving the energy efficiency improvement goals of the Energy Policy Act and President Clinton's Executive Order 12902. If those goals are achieved, we will realize a billion dollar reduction in our annual energy bill by 2005 and implement the most cost effective environmental improvement result possible through pollution prevention. With the reduction in available appropriated funds and technical personnel to achieve the buildings and energy systems improvements necessary to meet program goals, we are turning to the private sector for those resources. The Military Departments and this office have worked for over a year to develop a memorandum of agreement with the Edison Electric Institute to expedite participation in existing energy conservation programs offered by many of their member companies to all customers. There is no question that Department of Defense installations, and all Federal agencies, should have the same ability to access those programs provided to other similar customers. The agreement, based on authority in the Energy Policy Act, includes direction that a competitive procurement process be used to select the most cost effective and competent private sector firm capable of doing the specific technical work. It is our belief that this utility ``prime contract'' process will lead to a significant increase in the actual work done by the energy savings performance contractor and Architect/Engineer communities. The intent of the DoD/EEI agreement was simply to expedite the contracting process through which Defense installations could access private sector energy conservation experts and resources. Passage of Section 630 would in fact seriously reduce the amount of work offered to all sectors of the energy community. I urge you to work to convince the Congress to strike Section 630. Millard E. Carr, P.E., Director, Energy and Engineering.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, these are but two examples from the Federal Energy Management Program. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 simplified the contracting procedures Federal agencies may use to implement energy conservation measures. The last thing we should be doing is eliminating options. We should be striving for maximum flexibility and not hamstringing the agencies as they strive for substantial progress. Mr. President, last week the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee stated that section 630 ``reflects no change in the law'' and that the section ``directs federal agencies to abide by the law.'' I must respectfully disagree with the chairman. Section 630 would make very substantial changes in energy-management measures enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which Senator Murkowski and I, and the other members of the Energy Committee, worked to pass. Last week, in speaking on section 630, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee listed what he stated were the provisions that are, in his view, relevant to Federal agency contracting programs for energy services. However, with all due respect Mr. President, the distinguished Chairman omitted the sections of the existing law that section 630 would overturn. In particular, section 152 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 describes the implementation options available to agencies. If I may, I'd like to read the exact text: Each agency shall ``take maximum advantage of contracts authorized under subchapter VII of this chapter, of financial incentives and other services provided by utilities for efficiency investment, and of other forms of financing to reduce the direct costs of Government * * *.'' Section 630 would effectively eliminate the option for Federal agencies to work with utilities, receive any available financial incentives, or take advantage of attractive forms of financing. This would be a bad deal for the taxpayer. Another part of section 152 of the Energy Policy Act that section 630 would repeal specifically describes utility incentive programs: (1) Agencies are authorized and encouraged to participate in programs to increase energy efficiency and for water conservation or the management of electricity demand conducted by gas, water, or electric utilities and generally available to customers of such utilities. (2) Each agency may accept any financial incentive, goods or services generally available from any such utility, to increase energy efficiency or to conserve water or manage electricity demand. (3) Each agency is encouraged to enter into negotiations with electric, water, and gas utilities to design cost- effective demand management and conservation incentive programs to address the unique needs of facilities utilized by such agency. (4) If an agency satisfies the criteria which generally apply to other customers of a utility incentive program, such agency may not be denied collection of rebates or other incentives. Congress placed very similar requirements on the Department of Defense in the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1993. Mr. President, I will not read any more of the existing energy or defense authorizations that would be wiped out by section 630. Instead, I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks all the relevant provisions that allow local utility participation in Federal energy management programs.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Earlier, I described the options available to Federal agencies to secure energy management services. If I could Mr. President, I'd like to take a moment to give two examples demonstrating that the program is on the right track and illustrating the risks of hasty and ill-considered changes. The first example is the New Mexico initiative from my home state. The General Services Administration has a contract with a local utility, Public Service Co. of New Mexico, that covers the Federal facilities in PNM's service territory. Under the terms of this agreement, PNM partners with energy service companies on a competitive basis to implement the actual energy-saving measures. This initiative is expected to result in $60 million in new investments in conservation and energy efficiency technologies. The initial pilot project is at the White Sands Missile Range, where I understand that substantial reductions of energy and water use have been achieved. This successful program would be terminated if section 630 were enacted. The other option available to Federal agencies is to contract with energy service companies. I understand there may be concerns that these companies are left out of the Federal Energy Management Program when the agencies choose to work with their local utilities. Mr. President, I don't believe this is the case. An article from the May 22, 1997, New York Times describes the Department of Energy's awarding of five competitive contracts worth up to $750 million dollars. These contracts cover Federal buildings in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The winning companies include energy service companies such as Honeywell, Inc., and Johnson Controls. Five more awards are planned over the next 2 years for a total contract value of $5 billion. It seems to me that all commercial players are helping Uncle Sam reduce his energy bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment Senator Murkowski and I have offered strikes section 630 of the bill. If enacted, section 630 would foreclose all Federal agencies from taking advantage of energy conservation programs offered by their local utility company. I believe section 630 would needlessly restrict an option that helps the Federal Government, the Nation's largest energy user, implement cost-effective energy-savings programs at Federal facilities. Mr. President, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 set a goal of reducing by 20 percent the average energy consumed by the Federal Government. Federal facilities were given various approaches for reducing energy consumption. For example, an agency can sign an energy savings performance contract with an energy service company, or it can work with the local utility company to take advantage of utility-sponsored energy conservation measures. Under current law, Federal agencies may select the option that is best for their situation. It is important to have this flexibility because working with the private sector to reduce a facility's energy use is not an ordinary procurement. Purchasing energy efficiency isn't like buying paper clips or furniture. The Federal Energy Management Program has made substantial progress in streamlining the contracting process for energy management services at Federal facilities. If an agency chooses to work with the local utility company, it may go directly to the utility on a sole-source basis to obtain the energy efficiency and management services that are available to all utility customers. In most cases, the utility teams with energy service companies to maximize cost- effective energy savings for the Government. Section 630 would eliminate the option of working with the local utility. If section 630 remains in the bill, Federal agencies will not be able to take advantage of the financial incentives, goods, or services generally available to all other customers of the utility. This could represent literally millions of dollars lost to the taxpayers. Section 630 could also prevent payments on existing energy management contracts between Federal agencies and utilities. Over the years, I have spoken frequently here on the critical need for Federal agencies to make better efforts to reduce their energy use. According to a recent GAO report, the taxpayers' electric bill for Federal facilities is more than $3.5 billion a year. There is no question we could be saving a substantial portion of this amount through cost-effective energy measures that frequently have payback times less than 10 years. I am pleased to see the substantial progress now being made. For example, the Government's largest single energy user is the Department of Defense, which accounts for half of all Federal electricity consumption. The Department is now on a track to save up to $1 billion per year in total energy spending by the year 2005. The Department of Defense believes section 630 would significantly reduce its authority and opportunity to take advantage of private sector energy conservation expertise and capital, and would, in fact, seriously reduce the amount of work offered to all sectors of the energy community. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter from Millard Carr of the Department of Defense be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as if in morning business for up to 12 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in my office, Dan Alpert, be permitted floor privileges during the pendency of the Treasury, Postal appropriations bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask permission to speak for up to 2 minutes in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I also ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the chance to speak again about my amendment. Let me take just a few minutes to describe what this amendment does and then reserve a couple of the 5 minutes that is allotted for my side for any rebuttal I need to make. This amendment is very modest. It tries to do three things. It is aimed at assisting the Cuban-American families that reside in our country, some of whom are citizens--some individuals are citizens, some are residents. It tries to assist in three respects. First of all, it says with regard to family support payments, that residents of the United States shall not be prohibited from sending to their parents, their siblings, their spouses, or their children who currently reside in Cuba, small amounts of money, not to exceed $200 per month, to be used for the purchase of basic necessities, including food, clothing, household supplies, rent, medicines, and medical care. Mr. President, I think this is self-explanatory. We had a policy until the shootdown of the plane some 2 years ago, nearly, at this point--we had a policy of permitting, I believe, $100 per month to be remitted by Cuban-Americans living in this country to their families in Cuba for these types of purposes. That is no longer permitted at any level. This amendment would say up to $200 per month could be sent by a person in this country to a family member in Cuba. Second, compassionate travel--that is the second item in this amendment. It says essentially that U.S. citizens and permanent residents here can travel without limitation for periods not to exceed 30 days for each trip to attend either a medical emergency or a funeral of that person's parent, sibling, spouse, or child. As I understand it, the present law in this country is that you can go to Cuba for a very short time once a year, if you are a resident of this country, for this kind of purpose. It doesn't take a great deal of ingenuity to conjure up a situation where you would have a person's parent getting sick, having a medical emergency that required that person to return early in the year, and then have a funeral later that year which would require a return again to Cuba. This amendment says that you could do both of those trips. Neither could be more than 30 days in duration. It is a very limited provision. It is only applicable to people who have spouses, parents, siblings, and children in Cuba. And the third item here, which I think is not just aimed at the Cuban-American community, it says that the United States Government shall not be prohibited from participating in humanitarian relief efforts of multilateral organizations of which the United States is a member, where such humanitarian relief efforts are made in the aftermath of a natural disaster in Cuba. All we are saying here is that if there is a hurricane, if there is some natural catastrophe in Cuba, and multilateral organizations that we are a member of decide to take some action to assist the Cuban people, then we can participate along with the other members of that multilateral organization. As I indicated when I started, this is a very, very modest amendment. It is trying to deal with some very specific problems I see in our current law, and I would very much appreciate it if our colleagues could agree to this amendment. I understand it is objectionable, and I will, at this point, yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time to allow the opponents of the amendment to explain why this is going to undermine our great democracy. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just say this whole issue of most-favored-nation status is not what the name implies. We have normal trading relations with well over 100 countries in the world, and as to each of those countries, we have so-called most-favored-nation trading status with them. What we need to maintain with China is a normalized trading situation which then allows us to deal with the specific problems that the proponents of this resolution have identified. I agree that there are major problems in the trade imbalance that we have with China, that there are human rights abuses in China that are of concern, that there is missile proliferation that is of concern, and clearly the issue that is being raised about possible involvement by the Chinese Government in our elections is of concern. But those are specific issues that should be dealt with by a rifle-shot approach. We should not try to cut off our trade activities with a very large economy, such as China, and hamper the economic opportunities of our own private sector and the job creation that comes from that in this country through this kind of device. So I very much oppose the notion that we should deny most-favored- nation status to China. I think we should get that issue behind us and get on to dealing with the more specific issues that do require attention in regard to our relations with China. I hope in future years we can do that. It seems like we are caught in a time war. We get to where we have an annual debate about most-favored-nation status and that is all we seem to be able to have when it comes to talking about China, and that is, unfortunately, what is happening again this year.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me conclude by saying I am not trying to change United States policy toward Cuba. I am not trying to provide assistance to Fidel Castro. I am not trying to send a signal that Fidel Castro is a favorite statesman of this country. I do think it is appropriate for us to separate out the concerns of Cuban-American citizens and residents from this geopolitical issue, and say these modest efforts to assist Cuban-American citizens and residents to help their families and to visit their families are not something that a great nation like ours should resist. Clearly, the humanitarian assistance my colleague from Florida cites that we have done is in the private sector. There is no public sector assistance at this time. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of my amendment. While I have the floor, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Bob Kerrey from Nebraska as a cosponsor of my amendment.