Congressional Record
Proceedings, Debates of the U.S. Congress
November 18, 2003
108th Congress, 1st Session
Issue: Vol. 149, No. 167 — Daily Edition
Sections in This Issue:
All in Senate sectionPrev10 of 68Next
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
(Senate - November 18, 2003)
Text available as:
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[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. ____________________
All in Senate sectionPrev10 of 68Next