[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 167 (Tuesday, November 18, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14993-S14996]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 2861, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2861) to make appropriations for the
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development and for sundry independent agencies, boards,
commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Bond/Mikulski amendment No. 2150, in the nature of a
substitute.
Dayton amendment No. 2193 (to amendment No. 2150), to fully
fund the Paul and Sheila Wellstone Center for Community
Building.
Amendment No. 2199 to Amendment No. 2150
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have some amendments that have been
cleared on both sides. First, I send an amendment to the desk for Mr.
Jeffords, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Edwards, dealing with a
study on Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New
Source Review.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Edwards, proposes an
amendment numbered 2199.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To include an evaluation of the impact of a final rule
promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
in a study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences)
At the appropriate place, add the following:
SEC. __. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES STUDY.
The matter under the heading ``administrative provisions''
under the heading ``Environmental Protection Agency'' in
title III of division K of section 2 of the Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (117 Stat. 513), is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of the fifth undesignated
paragraph (beginning ``As soon as''), by inserting before the
period at the end the
[[Page S14994]]
following: ``, and the impact of the final rule entitled
`Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and
Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR): Equipment Replacement
Provision of the Routine Maintenance, Repair and Replacement
Exclusion', amending parts 51 and 52 of title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations, and published in electronic docket OAR-
2002-0068 on August 27, 2003''; and
(2) in the sixth undesignated paragraph (beginning ``The
National Academy of Sciences''), by striking ``March 3,
2004'' and inserting ``January 1, 2005.''
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, in January 2003, the Senate approved a
very similar amendment by Senator Inhofe to the Fiscal Year 2003
consolidated appropriations bill. That amendment initiated a study at
the National Academy of Sciences to look at the effects of the EPA's
first set of New Source Review rules, published on December 31, 2002,
on emissions, human health, pollution control technology, and energy
efficiency.
That amendment provided that the National Academy will submit an
interim report to Congress no later than March 3, 2004, approximately 1
year after passage.
In September 2003, the EPA provided an oral authorization to the
academy to begin work. Unfortunately, the agency has still not provided
the contract papers necessary for the project to start. I do not know
what the holdup might be.
However, that study, if it ever gets funded by EPA, would not review
the effects of the second set of NSR rules on routine equipment
replacement which were published on October 27, 2003. It should and,
since EPA has not yet funded the study and it has not started, there is
still plenty of time to revise the mission statement and do the work. I
am advised by academy staff that this expansion would entail minimal
additional cost to EPA.
As I have noted, my amendment simply extends the NAS study to cover
the effects of the second set of rules looking at the same criteria and
extends the interim report deadline by 10 months to January 1, 2005.
I am pleased the managers have agreed to accept this amendment.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are ready to accept the amendment by
voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to amendment No. 2199.
The amendment (No. 2199) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2200 to Amendment No. 2150
Mr. BOND. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator
Inhofe, providing for implementation plans and no preclusion of other
provisions relating to the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for Mr. Inhofe,
proposes an amendment numbered 2200.
Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To include provisions relating to designations of areas for
PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards)
On page 106, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
SEC. __. DESIGNATIONS OF AREAS FOR PM2.5 AND
SUBMISSION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR REGIONAL
HAZE.
(a) In General.--Section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7407(d)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(6) Designations.--
``(A) Submission.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, not later than February 15, 2004, the Governor of each
State shall submit designations referred to in paragraph (1)
for the July 1997 PM2.5 national ambient air
quality standards for each area within the State, based on
air quality monitoring data collected in accordance with any
applicable Federal reference methods for the relevant areas.
``(B) Promulgation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, not later than December 31, 2004, the Administrator
shall, consistent with paragraph (1), promulgate the
designations referred to in subparagraph (A) for each area of
each State for the July 1997 PM2.5 national
ambient air quality standards.
``(7) Implementation plan for regional haze.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, not later than 3 years after the date on which the
Administrator promulgates the designations referred to in
paragraph (6)(B) for a State, the State shall submit, for the
entire State, the State implementation plan revisions to meet
the requirements promulgated by the Administrator under
section 169B(e)(1) (referred to in this paragraph as
`regional haze requirements').
``(B) No preclusion of other provisions.--Nothing in this
paragraph precludes the implementation of the agreements and
recommendations stemming from the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission Report dated June 1996, including the
submission of State implementation plan revisions by the
States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New
Mexico, Oregon, Utah, or Wyoming by December 31, 2003, for
implementation of regional haze requirements applicable to
those States.''.
(b) Relationship to Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century.--Except as provided in paragraphs (6) and (7) of
section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (as added by subsection
(a)), section 6101, subsections (a) and (b) of section 6102,
and section 6103 of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (42 U.S.C. 7407 note; 112 Stat. 463), as in
effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act,
shall remain in effect.
Mr. BOND. We have no further statements on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2200) was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2193
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2193 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 2193 is pending.
Mr. DAYTON. I defer to the ranking member.
Ms. MIKULSKI. First, we acknowledge the very able Senator from
Minnesota has offered an amendment for the full funding of the
Wellstone Memorial in this year's appropriation.
We acknowledge the vigorous advocacy of Senator Dayton for not only
Minnesota but for his dear and beloved colleague, Senator Wellstone, of
happy memory. We all remember with great melancholy that terrible day
when Senator Wellstone lost his life. We promised we wanted to have a
permanent memorial to the legacy of truly an extraordinary American. I
assure the Senator from Minnesota and all the people of Minnesota, we
have the will to help complete this memorial. We are a little tight on
the wallet.
I wonder if the Senator would accept essentially a 2-year funding
promise, that we fund this this year at $500,000 and that next year we
complete it with $700,000. This way it keeps the money in the pipeline
so the memorial can be sure it can meet its bottom line, and that we
can continue to stay the course on creating this most appropriate
memorial to our beloved colleague.
Would the Senator accept that as a way of keeping the process moving
forward but understanding that we are a bit tight this year? I know,
because the Wellstone legacy was in championing veterans, I say to my
colleague from Minnesota, we have been able to add $1.3 billion, and if
I know our colleague, that is what he would be happy about.
But we are not going to abandon the memorial, either. Does this sound
like a reasonable, rational, and acceptable approach?
Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Senator and the chairman of the subcommittee.
I know these two leaders have been under the greatest of pressures and
financial strictures. They both have performed heroically in getting
the money for veterans.
My colleague is right. My former colleague, Senator Wellstone, would
be happy beyond belief for the veterans of Minnesota and of America. I
thank you for your extraordinary efforts. I salute the efforts of both
distinguished colleagues and I thank them for this matter.
I certainly meant no disrespect to anyone yesterday in my remarks. My
distress was primarily because I felt that again my friend Paul's
memory would not be well served by having the folks in Minnesota or
anywhere else losing out. So his memory would be served, I wanted this
memorial, this
[[Page S14995]]
tribute from the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the
President of the United States, and they have been very supportive and
gracious throughout all this. We finally fulfill that.
I thank the chairman and ranking member for making this possible, and
I yield the floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I further say to my unflagging colleague from
Minnesota, this $500,000 will not come out of other Minnesota projects.
OK? The memorial to Senator Wellstone is a national project of national
impact and, therefore, will not impact upon the Minnesota projects
which are also so important and needed.
Mr. DAYTON. I thank my colleague.
Amendment No. 2193, As Modified
MS. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification of the
Dayton amendment and ask such modification reflect the agreement we had
here and I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to modifying the Dayton
amendment? Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2193), as modified, is as follows:
On page 58, line 21, strike ``$1,112,130,000'' and insert
``$1,111,530,000''.
On page 125, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
Sec. 418. There shall be made available $1,500,000 to the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for the purposes
of making the grant authorized under section 3 of the Paul
and Sheila Wellstone Center for Community Building Act.
Mr. BOND. We are happy to accept it. We appreciate working with the
Senator from Minnesota, in fact both Senators from Minnesota. Senator
Dayton and Senator Coleman have both been very strong, vocal
supporters. We know how important it is to Minnesota. We are sorry we
are in such tight fiscal constraints, but we want to put the money in
this year with the sure knowledge that we will be able to come back and
finish it next year, which I trust will not delay the construction of
the memorial.
Furthermore, since Senator Coleman has been active on this, on his
behalf, I ask that he be listed as a cosponsor of the amendment. I know
the people of Minnesota want to know both of their Senators are very
vigorous champions of this great memorial to a man we will always miss.
I didn't always agree with him but it was always interesting, and I
had many, many good and pleasant exchanges with him. We worked together
on many issues. The Government Printing Office now uses soy ink because
of our amendment. We used to tease each other, that in Minnesota he
would claim it as the Wellstone amendment; I would claim it as the Bond
amendment in Missouri. But neither one of us would mention the
cosponsor in our States.
But we worked closely together. His is a wonderful spirit that is
still with us.
I believe there are no further comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator will be added
as a cosponsor.
Mr. BOND. I ask we adopt it on a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment as modified.
The amendment (No. 2193), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, may I have 1 minute?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank, again, the chairman for his
wonderful remarks. I know my departed colleague enjoyed his camaraderie
with his colleagues here as much as he enjoyed the debates and
disagreements. He respected all of them as individuals and the process
as we are all engaged in as the essence of our democracy.
I thank the distinguished Senator from Missouri for those gracious
comments. Again, I thank the ranking member, the great Senator from
Maryland, for her help in this matter and our successful resolution.
I wish to give credit to my colleague, Senator Coleman, who is
chairing a hearing of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He
has been very supportive of this throughout and was instrumental
earlier this year in getting the funding raised to its current level. I
cannot speak for him, but I am sure he is grateful, as I am, that this
has been resolved.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the VA-HUD
NASA flat-line budget. The bill has NASA funded at $15.3 billion. This
is the same as the amount enacted in fiscal year 2003. As many of you
may recall, I have fought to plus up the shuttle upgrades program for
years. I still firmly believe that adequate supportability and safety
upgrades budgets, coupled with supporting infrastructure, are needed to
keep the shuttle operating safely.
The Columbia Accident Investigation Board chaired by Admiral Gehman
concluded that throughout the decade, the Shuttle Program has had to
function within an increasingly constrained budget. Both the shuttle
budget and workforce have been reduced by over 40 percent during the
past decade. The White House, Congress, and NASA leadership exerted
constant pressure to reduce or at least freeze operating costs. As a
result, there was little margin in the budget to deal with unexpected
technical problems or make shuttle improvements.
Most people believe we will continue to fly the shuttle for the life
of the station, but we continue to base our budgetary decisions on the
long-lost premise that the shuttle will be replaced in the near term.
The fact of the matter is that the shuttle must return to flight to
complete the assembly of the International Space Station. Return to
flight will take funds, and we don't know if NASA has enough funds to
fully cover the cost of return to flight since the fiscal year 2004
supplemental was never sent to Congress and the fiscal year 2005 budget
remains embargoed. We do know that NASA plans to reprogram $200 million
out of station reserves and $107 million out of the Service Life
Extension Program, SLEP, to cover some of the fiscal year 2004 costs.
The requisite funds should not be robbed from other NASA accounts as
has been practiced in the past. Perhaps it would be better to provide
NASA enough money to adequately fund all the NASA initiatives without
resorting to starving one account to feed another.
The shuttle needs to be able to fly safely as long as this country
needs it. To even consider using upgrade and infrastructure funds for
return to flight is unconscionable and certainly not in the long-term
best interest of our Nation's space program.
It is important that we build, maintain and fly the safest vehicle
possible. We cannot afford to have accountants making technical
decisions instead of engineers and program managers if we want to
maintain our technology edge.
Reducing the NASA budget for the International Space Station program
in fiscal year 2004 could force NASA to transfer skilled, knowledgeable
personnel--civil service and contractor--to other programs. A lesson
learned from the Columbia accident was that we must retain the
technical knowledge within human space flight programs so that
potential life-threatening problems can reliably be identified and
correctly addressed.
The science and technology payback from the ISS is proportional to
the size of the crew working there. There are now two crew members
onboard but the program plan calls for an increase up to seven when the
shuttle is returned to flight and emergency crew return capability is
onboard. That increase also requires that the ISS's life support
systems be beefed up to provide greater oxygen generation and carbon
dioxide removal among other capabilities. The fiscal year 2004 ISS
budget request includes capability upgrades that are the upfront
systems that will allow that increase in crew size. This development is
programmed to be continued in fiscal year 2005 from program budget
reserves. If the ISS budget is reduced in fiscal year 2004 that
reduction will come from existing reserves that would have been carried
forward to fiscal year 2005 and paid for the continuation of these
necessary developments. A cut this year will most
[[Page S14996]]
likely force NASA to cut back on this development and further delay
crew size increase and consequently the scientific return from the ISS.
Because a reduction in the ISS budget for fiscal year 2004 will
likely be taken from program reserves that is like tying one arm behind
the program's management. ISS is a developing human space flight
vehicle, with inherent schedule and technical risks. Managing the
unknowns that will occur requires appropriate flexibility in the
management's budget, budget reserves. Reducing the program budget and
as a consequence reducing those reserves is simply dangerous.
We cannot allow this budget to be flat lined from fiscal year 2003.
NASA cannot do everything it hopes to do on the cheap. The fiscal year
2004 Presidential request should be approved and in addition $300
million added to ensure human space flight achieves its objectives
without jeopardizing safety and delays to completing the ISS. I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting an increase to the NASA top line.
____________________