[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.

                          ____________________