[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 191 (Monday, December 4, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S17931]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1977

 Mr. MACK. I would like to engage in a colloquy with my 
colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell. Activities funded under the 
Department of Energy's Codes and Standards Program are primarily 
concentrated in two sub-programs known as Lighting and Appliances and 
Building Standards and Guidelines. However, as is clear in the 
Department of Energy's budget, its activities within these two programs 
extend to areas outside of that which might be assumed under their 
titles. This would include setting standards for commercial equipment 
electric motors, as well as the advocacy of minimum energy codes for 
residential buildings. Therefore, it was my understanding that the 
intent of the amendment to H.R. 1977 that placed a 1-year time-out on 
Department of Energy's use of funds to propose, issue, or prescribe any 
new or amended standard would extend to Department of Energy's 
activities in advocating changes to minimum codes for residential 
energy use.
  Mr. McCONNELL. My colleague is correct. While not specifically 
spelled out in the statutory language of H.R. 1977, it was my intent 
that this 1-year time-out extended to the entire program as it related 
to the establishment of minimum standards and codes. I had hoped that 
this clarification would be made in the conference report, but since 
there is no report language addressing this issue, I feel it necessary 
to clarify it here for the record. Indeed, product manufacturers have 
raised concerns over the methodology and assumptions in Department of 
Energy's current cost benefit analysis. Similarly, builders have raised 
concerns over the minimum mandatory standards found in codes enacted by 
local municipalities or States that use the voluntary products of code 
and standard organizations over which Department of Energy has 
significant influence. Builders have told me that these standards are 
often not responsive to technological innovation, customer needs, or 
economic consideration of affordability or payback. Therefore, just as 
there needs to be a time out to review standards-setting activities 
conducted by the Department of Energy, the same review should apply to 
its activities relating to residential building codes.
  Mr. MACK. I appreciate this clarification. Indeed, considering that 
the House language eliminated funding for the entire Codes and 
Standards program, the intent is clear that the House aimed to 
institute this 1-year time out on Department of Energy's activities in 
the standards arena as well as in standards which are part of the codes 
as well as the standards arena. I think it is important that, since the 
House agreed to recede to Senate language on this issue, which restored 
the funds cut by the House, that the Senate ensure that the spirit of 
the House language be carried out.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would also point out that as means of reaching 
agreement on Senate language, I was asked to include a caveat stating 
that the Federal Government was not precluded from promulgating rules 
concerning energy efficiency standards for the construction of new 
federally owned commercial and residential buildings. By expressly 
carving out federally owned buildings, this would indicate further that 
standards and codes for all other buildings, and thereby privately 
owned structures, would be covered. It should also be clear that it is 
not the intent of this language to prevent promulgation of the national 
Home Energy Rating System voluntary guidelines.

                          ____________________