Larry Pressler

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation for their clarification and assurance.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would first like to extend my appreciation to the managers of the bill, Senators Hatfield and Lautenberg, for agreeing to permit me to offer this amendment. We spent a good deal of time last night working in good faith to reach an agreement on proceeding forward on my proposal. I very much appreciate their assistance and that of their staffs and the staffs of several other Senators. My perseverance on this matter is because of its great importance to my State and almost every other State. My amendment would provide funding for the Local Rail Freight Assistance Program and the Section 511 Loan Guarantee Program. These programs are critical to addressing our Nation's rail freight infrastructure needs. Adequate investment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure makes for wise use of our very limited Federal resources. Therefore, as we consider this appropriations bill, we must determine funding priorities for our entire national transportation system. In that effort, we must not forget about one very critical transportation mode--rail freight service. The appropriators were unable to fund the LRFA Program or the section 511 Loan Guarantee Program. I know they have worked hard to consider many funding requests. However, funding for these programs was not allocated. Yet these are the only Federal programs that provide for infrastructure investments in short-line and regional railroads. As my colleagues know, H.R. 2002 provides a good deal of money to fund rail passenger service. I am proposing we not overlook the importance of rail freight service. Even limited Federal involvement will help to rebuild and improve the raillines serving our smaller cities and rural areas. These secondary raillines are critical to the survival of rural America's economy, but the capital to maintain them is extremely limited. We have invested billions of dollars in Amtrak as well as high-speed rail initiatives, yet little has been invested in the rail freight lines serving our smaller communities. Federal involvement in rail service should not be limited to rail passenger transportation. Certainly, Amtrak and high-speed rail are important. However, for States like South Dakota, which has no Amtrak service and will never benefit from high-speed rail, funding for freight rail infrastructure is even more important. The LRFA Program has proven to play a vital role in our Nation's rail transportation system. This program was created in 1973 and has helped States save raillines that otherwise would be abandoned. LRFA's matching requirements enable limited Federal, State, and local resources to be leveraged. Most of LRFA's success has been due to its ability to promote investment partnerships, thus, maximizing very limited Federal assistance. Historically, LRFA has received only a very modest level of Federal funding. Only $17 million was provided for LRFA in fiscal year 1995, and then $6.5 million of that amount was rescinded by Public Law 104-6. Yet, LRFA remains very popular. In fiscal year 1995, 31 States requested LRFA assistance for 59 projects--totaling more than $32 million in funding requests. But less than one-third of funding was available to meet these rail infrastructure needs. With continued railroad restructuring, these legitimate funding needs will only increase. On July 20, the Senate Commerce Committee approved legislation to permanently authorize LRFA at $25 million annually. As my colleagues may already know, oftentimes, small railroads face unique problems and difficulties securing needed financing. Unlike other businesses that need short-term loans, smaller railroads need long-term financing for big ticket items, ranging anywhere from equipment to track rehabilitation. Yet, I understand most financial institutions will not make loans that are not repaid within 7 or 8 years. These loan arrangements simply do not work for smaller railroads. Section 511 loans were permanently authorized to address these problems and should be funded. In this era of significant budgetary pressures, the 511 Program provides a cost effective method of ensuring modest infrastructure investment on a repayable basis. We should support programs like the 511 Program and LRFA that provide excellent leverage of our limited Federal dollars. The 511 Railroad Loan Guarantee program is permanently authorized at $1 billion, of which approximately $980 million currently is available for commitment. The Credit Reform Act rules require an appropriation for the 511 Loan Program to cover the anticipated loss to the Government over the life of each loan. Based on a fiscal year 1994 appropriation for a 511 project in New York State--the first 511 application processed under the rules of the Credit Reform Act--5 percent of the total loan obligation level must be appropriated. Several regional and short-line railroads are ready to submit loan applications as soon as the program is appropriated funding. My amendment provides $10 million to enable up to $100 million in loans. I have worked to find the least painful offset possible. The managers and their staffs, as well as the staffs of several other Senators, helped me in that effort. These programs would be offset by reductions in administrative expenses. I believe we have accomplished a reasoned approach. Mr. President, LRFA and the 511 Program are worthy programs and should be funded. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. [[Page S 12116]]

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, before discussing the EAS provisions in the bill, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the chairman and the ranking member on the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee for the fine work they did on this bill. As chairman of the Commerce Committee, I understand the difficult choices they had to make and the limited resources they had at their disposal.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, Senator Daschle and I also understand that preliminary data compiled by the Department of Transportation for 1994 indicates that enplanements have declined at the Sioux Falls airport to such an extent that it will no longer be considered a small hub.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, it is our understanding that since the Sioux Falls airport will not be considered a small hub, Brookings and Mitchell, SD will be further than 75 miles from a large, medium, or small hub and, consequently, will continue to be eligible for EAS subsidies.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I wish to discuss several provisions included in the Fiscal Year 1995 Department of Transportation Appropriations bill of significant importance to the Committee. A number of the authorizing provisions in this bill are within the jurisdiction of our Committee which is the proper forum for their consideration. Mr. President, I raised jurisdictional concerns with the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee last week prior to the Transportation Subcommittee's markup of this legislation. I understand other members of my Committee also raised similar concerns and objections. In fact, the very afternoon this legislation was marked up by the Subcommittee, the Commerce Committee's Aviation Subcommittee held a three and one- half hour hearing on the issue of reform of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Air Traffic Control (ATC) System. Several of the authorizing provisions in H.R. 2002 which I objected to related to FAA and ATC reform. Other objectional provisions related to matters such as airport funding which my Committee is also considering. As shown by the lengthy debate relating to the Roth amendment to strike several provisions in the legislation dealing with FAA procurement and personnel reform, these are very complex issues which require the careful and thoughtful consideration that my Committee has been undertaking. The importance of the FAA and ATC reform debate is very significant. The safety of the air traveling public is at stake. Also, the efficiency of our air transportation system, which is the envy of the world, should not be put at risk by hasty actions of the Congress. For these reasons, the steady and careful pace which my Committee has taken in developing legislative solutions to adequately address these problems is appropriate. The Subcommittee Chairman on Aviation, Senator McCain, and other members of the committee plan to introduce comprehensive reform legislation to safeguard the traveling public [[Page S 12212]] and improve the FAA and its activities. In fact, Senator McCain worked nonstop to try to bring a bill for the Committee's consideration during our mark up session of today, August 10. Unfortunately, negotiations with the Administration and the FAA to develop bipartisan legislation which the Administration could endorse was not achievable prior to today's session. However, our Committee continues to work diligently with Administration officials to craft this legislation. Therefore, I am pleased the managers of the bill agreed to postpone the effective date on the FAA procurement and personnel reforms included in the bill until April 1, 1996. This will give the Senate necessary time to achieve a consensus on how best to proceed in this most important area. Mr. President, I would also like to clarify for the record another matter regarding action by the Commerce Committee that was brought up during the Senate's consideration on this bill. During the short debate earlier today regarding my amendment to fund the Local Rail Freight Assistance (LRFA) program and the Section 511 loan guarantee program, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee argued against my amendment, opposing it because the Commerce Committee has not reported a bill to the Senate to authorize funding for LRFA. I want to explain to my colleagues why this bill, which we approved on July 20th, has not been filed since. I did not have an opportunity to rebut the opposition prior to the vote. On July 20th, the Commerce Committee approved a measure to reauthorize Amtrak and to permanently authorize LRFA. This approved bill has been available to the public since the Committee's approval. The Committee's authorization levels for Amtrak and LRFA have been readily available. To date, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has not provided a budget estimate to our Committee which must be included in the report. It is my understanding CBO has been inundated with scoring requests because of the on-going work on the appropriations bills. Again, the Committee approved the measure three weeks ago today. The report is ready to go as soon as we receive this information from CBO. I should reiterate that the LRFA reauthorization included in a bill that also reauthorizes Amtrak. A great deal of funding was provided for Amtrak in this appropriations bill, even though the bill has not been reported. Further, the 511 program is permanently authorized, but no funding was allocated.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, under an agreement I have reached, I am going to send an amendment to the desk and not debate it or say anything about it and tomorrow morning some of the numbers we are going to modify. This involves the local rail freight assistance. We are finding other offsets that may be acceptable or may not be acceptable to some other Members of the Senate.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, first I ask unanimous consent that Senator Frist be added as original cosponsor for an earlier amendment I offered, No. 2336, regarding a U.S.-Japan bilateral agreement.

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

Mr. PRESSLER. Yes.

Mr. PRESSLER. The staff are rewriting so that the offsets will be pleasing to the various Members. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRESSLER. Without making a speech on this amendment, I ask unanimous consent that tomorrow morning I be allowed to modify the amendment after consulting with my cosponsors.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. PRESSLER. Will my friend yield for a question?

Mr. PRESSLER. I have staff working ferociously to find other offsets that might be more agreeable, but I may be offering potentially a second-degree to the Burns amendment, if he were to concur in that. I just wish the managers to know of that intention.

Mr. PRESSLER. If the Senator will yield for a question. I will be offering an amendment to second-degree another matter. I will be offering a second-degree amendment later this evening.

Mr. PRESSLER. If my friend would yield for a question. I begin my question by thanking him very, very much for his fair statement that in our 20-some years together on the Commerce Committee--I believe 18 years we were together on the Commerce Committee--he has always been fair and thoughtful to me. I would certainly consider some other offset. As I mentioned, my State is, I believe, one of two States that does not get Amtrak. I have been a supporter of Amtrak to help out in other areas. And my State does not get high-speed rail. And I have been a supporter of high-speed rail. So, I am trying to help out. I am not trying to send any signals here, just that maybe it was another offset. These are hard to find. But I would like to offer my amendment. I know some other Senators who are not in the Chamber tonight who are very interested in this amendment. And so that is what I am trying to accomplish. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRESSLER. I yield the floor. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRESSLER. I have not offered an amendment. If I could get a word in edgewise.

Mr. PRESSLER. Earlier today and throughout the day my staff has been discussing an amendment with the staff of the Appropriations Committee, and we thought we had it on the list. In fact, discussions were held throughout the day with Anne Miano. We called the cloakroom and said, please, put it on the list. I think there has been an error made, a good-faith error, and I would very much like to offer this amendment because as chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, several of my members wanted a chance to vote on this amendment. I will not take much time, but I am not trying to do anything by sleight of hand. There has been a genuine slip-up, so to speak, and I am not blaming anyone. I am not here to blame staff at this hour of the night. But we did intend to have this on the list. It was our intention. We discussed it throughout the day with members of the staff. I would like to ask unanimous consent--first of all, let me explain, if necessary. I am not going to get into a tit for tat about what is on and what is not. I will spend some time explaining what is in the amendment. As you know, on the Commerce Committee, we try very hard to work with various critical transportation modes--rail, passenger. Indeed, I went out of my way to help with the Amtrak bill this year even though my State has no Amtrak. There is assistance for different types of transportation in this country. My State frequently does not share as generously as some other States, but I have fought hard for things that the Senator from New Jersey believes in. I know there is Amtrak in his State, and I could have blocked the Amtrak funding in the Commerce Committee. But I did not choose to do so because I think there is a national interest. There is one area of service that is not included, and that is the local rail freight assistance program and the section 511 loan guarantee programs. These programs are critical to addressing our Nation's rail freight infrastructure needs. While billions of dollars have been invested in Amtrak over the years and now high speed rail initiatives are receiving increased focus, little has been invested in the rail freight lines serving our smaller cities and rural areas. Indeed, capital investment needed to maintain our secondary rail lines far outpaces supply. In my view, Federal involvement in rail service should not be limited to rail passenger service. Certainly Amtrak and high speed rail are important. However, to smaller-city States such as mine, which has no Amtrak service and will never benefit from high speed rail, freight rail is even more important. As my colleagues know, H.R. 2002 provides a good deal of money to fund rail passenger service. Certainly a limited amount of funding should be provided to meet very serious rail freight needs. Even limited Federal involvement will help to rebuild and improve the rail lines serving our smaller cities and rural areas. These lines, run mainly by short-line regional railroads, are critical to the survival of rural America's economy, yet the capital needed to maintain these secondary rail lines is very limited. Mr. President, the LRFA program has proved to play a vital role in our Nation's rail transportation system. Created in 1973, the LRFA provides matching funds to help States save rail lines that otherwise would be abandoned. For instance, over the past few years, several rail improvement projects in my State and other States have been made possible. And I know we have been unable to reach the Senator from Iowa tonight, but he has worked on this. In fact, one of the east coast Senators wished to have a chance to speak on this tonight. Without LRFA, our freight funding needs would go largely unmet. Of particular importance is how LRFA's matching requirements enable limited Federal, State and local resources to be leveraged. Indeed, LRFA's success has been in part due to its ability to promote investment partnerships, thus maximizing very limited Federal assistance. Historically, LRFA has received only a very modest level of Federal funding. For example, $17 million was provided for LRFA in fiscal 1995. But a substantial portion of this very limited appropriations, $6.5 million, was rescinded recently by Public Law 104-6. In fiscal year 1995, 31 States requested LRFA assistance for 59 projects totaling more than $32 million in funding requests. Unfortunately, less than one-third of the funding was available to meet these rail infrastructure needs. With continued railway structuring, these legitimate funding needs will only increase. LRFA is a worthy program and should be funded. As my colleagues may already know, oftentimes small railroads face unique problems and difficulties securing needed financing. Unlike other businesses that need short-term loans, smaller railroads need long-term financing for big-ticket items, ranging anywhere from equipment to track rehabilitation. Yet, I understand most financial institutions will not make loans that are not repaid within 7 or 8 years. These loans and loan arrangements simply do not work for smaller railroads. And 511 loans were permanently authorized to address these problems and should be funded. In this era of significant budgetary pressures, the 511 program provides a cost-effective method of ensuring modest infrastructure investment on a repayable basis. We should support programs like the 511 program and the LRFA that provide an excellent leverage of our limited Federal dollars. The 511 railroad guarantee program is permanently authorized at $1 billion, of which approximately $980 million currently is available for commitment. The Credit Reform Act rules require appropriation for the 511 program to cover the anticipated loss to the Government over the life of each loan. Based on a fiscal year 1994 appropriation for a 511 project in New York State--the first 511 application processed under the rules of the Credit Reform Act--5 percent of the total loan obligation must be appropriated. Several regional and short-line railroads are ready to submit loan applications as soon as the program is appropriated funding. My amendment provides $10 million to enable up to $100 million in loans. Mr. President, I wish to be up front regarding the offsets I have proposed. A portion of this funding is taken from the Department of Transportation's working capital fund. Another portion is being off set by reducing the next generation high speed rail account for planning and design. However, more than one-half of that account will still remain. Let me be clear. I am not opposed to the high-speed rail program. However, we are still waiting for two reports from the administration on high-speed rail. One is on the commercial feasibility of high-speed ground transportation. It will be submitted to Congress by the end of the year. The other report due next year is to provide the administration policy directions and a perspective on high-speed rail. They are two very important reports. They will lay out the technological feasibility of where we should go in the next 20 years with high-speed rail. Certainly we can delay some funding for this until we have a firm foundation and vision on high-speed rail. Of course, I am willing to entertain any other suggestions for offsets and invite my colleagues to provide an alternative. So, Mr. President, in conclusion, let me say that I stand here as a Senator from a State where we do not have passenger rail service. We are, I believe, one of two States in the United States that do not have Amtrak. We have no prospect of getting high-speed rail. But I have been a supporter and a helper in those areas on the authorizing committee. Just the other day I assisted Senator Lott in working out the package that involved Amtrak. And I rise in good faith. I would ask that my amendment be considered. And I would ask unanimous consent that it be considered, and that we have a vote on it.

Mr. PRESSLER. To the Burns amendment.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Domenici. I am proud of the native American heritage which is so much a part of South Dakota's history. However, the Domenici amendment would inadvertently threaten the future of the EROS Data Center in Sioux Falls, SD, which will carry South Dakota into the 21st century and will bring new jobs to our state. South Dakota can trace its native ancestry back more than 9,000 years. Today, South Dakota is home to nine Sioux or Lakota Indian tribes: the Cheyenne River Sioux, the Crow Creek Sioux, the Flandreau Santee Sioux, the Lower Brule Sioux, the Oglala Sioux, the Rosebud Sioux, the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux, the Standing Rock Sioux and the Yankton Sioux. South Dakota's Indian reservations are the very poorest areas in the Nation. Mr. President, I recognize the importance of Federal funds to the survival and growth of the Indian tribes. These funds also are part of the longstanding Federal policy of self-governance. During my 20 years in Congress--both in the House and the Senate--I have strongly supported legislation to authorize and fund programs for native Americans. In fact, I recently coauthored a proposal which would allow tribes to run their own welfare programs. Though, I support the intent and the goal of the Domenici amendment, I must object to the means used to fund the goal. The funding offsets could result in the elimination of the EROS Data Center--which in many ways, represents the future of technology in South Dakota. The Earth Resources Observation Center, commonly known as EROS, was established in Sioux Falls, SD in the early 1970's. South Dakotans are justifiably proud of the EROS Data Center. For 20 years, it has been the Nation's primary center for managing and distributing land remote sensing data. Its excellent track record for making this information available has made EROS famous among scientists throughout the world. The National Satellite Archive houses the world's largest collection of space- and aircraft-acquired imagery. It currently holds more than 8 million aerial photos and over 2 million satellite images of the Earth. EROS facilities house the scientists, researchers, and technicians, as well as the high performance computer systems and advanced telecommunications networks, needed to process and distribute the data. Researchers use the data to better understand the Earth, determine the extent and distribution of natural resources, monitor land surface changes, and evaluate environmental conditions. What makes EROS unique is the availability of its information. The images collected at EROS provide very important information for agriculture, mining, urban planning, and other global change research. In fact, in South Dakota, many native Americans are utilizing Landsat data provided by EROS to manage land and resources on their reservations. EROS enjoys an internationally renowned reputation--a reputation that is well-deserved. The economic future of South Dakota depends upon the advanced technologies of facilities such as EROS. Balancing the budget requires that we make difficult choices. This certainly is one such choice. But a balanced budget is the key to growth for both the native American and scientific communities. Without balanced budgets, interest on the Federal debt will continue to skyrocket, squeezing out funds for legitimate programs, such as the tribal priority allocation. I would be pleased to work with my colleagues during the upcoming House-Senate conference to find a way to fund Indian programs without unnecessarily cutting other programs which are vital to South Dakota. It is my hope that we can work to this end. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1995. This bill provides a three year authorization for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]. Specifically, the bill provides $1.81 billion for FY96 $2.02 billion for FY97, and $2.03 billion for FY98. I am pleased to have join me as original cosponsors on this legislation: Senator Hollings, Ranking Member of the Commerce Committee and Senators Stevens, Burns, and Breaux. One of my goals in developing this legislation was to review current programs to see if they could be restructured while improving their functions. Over the last several months, I have heard people calling for major changes at the Department of Commerce. As Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I conducted a hearing on August 1, 1995, and invited Secretary of Commerce Ronald Brown to testify. His comments, as well as others', have helped in developing a bill that answers that call. This bill downsizes bureaucracy. It consolidates duplicative programs. It transfers functions to other agencies that can manage them better. It terminates unnecessary programs. Overall, the bill is a 7 percent decrease from the FY95 appropriations level of $1.95 billion and a 14 percent decrease from the Administration's FY96 request. The mission of NOAA is to explore, map, and chart the global ocean and its living resources as well as to manage, use, and conserve these resources; to describe, monitor, and predict conditions in the atmosphere, ocean, sun, and space environments; to issue warnings against impending destructive natural events; to assess the consequences of inadvertent environmental modification over several scales of time; and to manage and disseminate long-term environmental information. Mr. President, as a Senator representing an agricultural state, I cannot overstate the importance of NOAA's weather warnings and forecasts to our farmers and ranchers. My colleagues on the Commerce Committee who represent coastal states also know the great value of weather warnings as well as the value of NOAA's ocean and fishery programs. Therefore, I believe that the core functions of NOAA need to stay together as a single entity. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1995 authorizes just such an entity. Mr. President, let me outline the specifics of the bill: title i: noaa atmospheric and satellite programs Section 101 authorizes the operations and research activities of the National Weather Service (NWS) at $477,207,000 (FY96), $491,523,000 (FY97), and $484,278,000 (FY98). These activities include meteorological, hydrological, and oceanographic public warnings and forecasts, as well as applied research in support of such warnings and forecasts. Section 102 authorizes $131,335,000 (FY96), $222,000,000 (FY97), and $225,500,000 (FY98) to develop, acquire, and implement public warning and forecast systems. These systems include: (1) the Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD), which use Doppler technology to provide more accurate forecasts and warnings; (2) the Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS), which will relieve NWS staff from the manual collection of weather observations; (3) the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS), which will provide NWS meteorologists with integrated radar, satellite, and ground data for the first time; and (4) the Advanced Computer Technology to enable the development of improved computer weather forecast models. Section 103 authorizes $113,252,000 (FY96), $115,918,000 (FY97), and $119,396,000 (FY98) for NOAA to carry out its climate and air quality research activities. It continues support for NOAA programs designed to develop the capability to predict interannual (year-to-year) and seasonal climate changes over North America and improves NOAA's ability to do long-term climate and air quality research and high performance computing. Section 104 authorizes $46,850,000 for each of FY96, FY97, and FY98 for atmospheric research activities. These activities include efforts to improve observational and predictive capabilities for atmospheric processes, with special emphasis on solar disturbances and their effects on the Earth. Section 105 authorizes $449,000,000 for FY96 and $535,000,000 in each of FY97 and FY98 for the operation of NOAA's current geostationary (GOES) weather satellites and for NOAA's polar orbiting (POES) environmental satellites as well as for NOAA's related ground station systems. The bill also authorizes funds for the ongoing procurement and launch of replacement satellites. The weather satellites support the forecast and warning activities of the NWS. The environmental satellites are used for global change monitoring and research, for the monitoring of distress signals over land and sea through the Search and Rescue Satellite Aided Tracking (SARSAT) program, and for the monitoring of driftnets in the North Pacific. Section 106 authorizes $40,000,000 for each of the three fiscal years for NOAA's data and information products, services, and assessments. These climate, ocean, geophysical, and environmental data services are used by all of NOAA's programs. Section 107 describes the four core responsibilities of the National Weather Service (NWS) in its duty of protecting life and property and enhancing the national economy as: (1) the sole official source of weather warnings; (2) the issuance of storm warnings; (3) the collection, exchange, and distribution of meteorological, hydrological, climatic, and oceanographic data and information; and (4) the preparation of hydrometeorological guidance and core forecast information. Section 108 authorizes the procurement of up to four additional Geostationary Operational Environmental NEXT (GOES I-M) satellites and support systems from the developer of previous GOES-NEXT satellites. Finally, section 109 amends the Land Remote Sensing Act of 1992 to direct the Landsat Program Management Member to retain fees collected from foreign ground stations, and for Landsat 7 data sales to offset the system's operating costs. It also directs the Secretary of Commerce (the Secretary) to examine how NOAA might procure and operate its Landsat 7 ground segment in a more inexpensive fashion. It authorizes Landsat 7 operations at $10,000,000 annually. title ii: noaa ocean and coastal programs Section 201 authorizes $44,917,000 (FY96), $47,652,000 (FY97), and $46,265,000 (FY98) for the National Ocean Service's (NOS) mapping, charting, and geodesy activities, including geodetic data collection and analysis. Observation and assessment activities are authorized at $66,591,000 (FY96), $68,589,000 (FY97), and $70,646,000 (FY98), of which $10,943,000 (FY96), $11,271,000 (FY97), and $11,609,000 (FY98) are authorized for Coastal Ocean Program (COP) activities. The COP efforts contribute to three major elements of NOAA's strategic plan by improving: prediction and knowledge of factors influencing our abilities to build and maintain sustainable fisheries; prediction of coastal hazards to protect human life and personal property; and prediction of coastal ocean pollution to help correct and prevent degradation. Section 202 authorizes $9,506,000 (FY96), $9,791,000 (FY97), and $10,085,000 (FY98) for Ocean and Great Lakes research activities. Section 203 authorizes not more than $53,300,000 (FY96), $54,899,000 (FY97), and $56,546,000 (FY98) for the National Sea Grant College Program. This funding goes to the network of 29 Sea Grant institutions engaged in research, education, and advisory/extension services. Section 204 authorizes a maximum of $12,000,000 (FY96), $12,360,000 (FY97), and $12,731,000 (FY98) for the National Undersea Research Program's (NURP) undersea research activities. These funds are to be used only to fund the ongoing operations of existing undersea research centers, each of which is to receive, at a minimum, thirteen percent of annual appropriations made under this section. Finally, section 205 authorizes programs under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Specifically, monies for Protection of Coastal Waters (section 6217) are authorized at $5,000,000 for each of FY96, FY97, and FY98. Grants for developing coastal zone management programs (section 305) are authorized not to exceed $750,000 per grant in each of FY96, FY97, and FY98. Those grants for funding, improving, and enhancing coastal zone programs (section 305, 306A, and 309 grants) are authorized not to exceed $45,500,000 (FY96), $46,865,000 (FY97), and $48,271,000 (FY98). The section also authorizes amounts not to exceed $3,350,000 (FY96), $3,451,000 (FY97), and $3,554,000 (FY98) for section 315 grants (National Estuarine Research Reserves), and such sums, not to exceed $10,000,000 per fiscal year, for FY96, FY97, and FY98 for section 310 (Technical Assistance) grants. Authorization for expenses incident to administering the Coastal Zone Program are limited to the lesser of either $5,000,000 or eight percent of the total appropriated amount under this Act, with the additional restriction that administrative monies are not be used to augment grants made under other sections of this Act. title iii: noaa marine fisheries programs Section 301 authorizes a total of $99,928,000 (FY96), $102,926,000 (FY97), and $106,014,000 (FY98) for NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Programs. This includes $49,340,000 (FY96), $50,820,000 (FY97), and $52,345,000 (FY98) for Fisheries Information, Collection, and Analysis; $28,183,000 (FY96), $29,028,000 (FY97), and $29,899,000 (FY98) for Fisheries Conservation and Management, and $22,405,000 (FY96), $23,077,000 (FY97), and $23,769,000 (FY98) for State and Industry Cooperative Fisheries Programs. Section 302 authorizes the construction of a fisheries research facility at Fort Johnson, South Carolina and the consolidation of fishery research facilities on Auke Cape near Juneau, Alaska. Finally, section 303 provides reform to the fisheries loan guarantee program by limiting the loan amount to no more than $25,000,000 annually and by prohibiting these loans for vessels that will increase harvesting capacity within the U.S. exclusive economic zone. title iv: program administration and support Section 401 authorizes $72,847,000 (FY96), $75,032,000 (FY97), and $77,283,000 (FY98) for executive direction and administrative activities. Acquisition, construction, maintenance, and operation of NOAA facilities are authorized at $54,163,000 for each of FY96, FY97, and FY98. Marine services activities, including ship operations, maintenance, and support are authorized at $60,000,000 for each of FY96, FY97, and FY98. Aircraft service activities, including aircraft operations, maintenance, and support are authorized at $9,500,000 for each of FY96, FY97, and FY98. Section 402 requires the Secretary to reduce the Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) of NOAA by at least 2,318 from the FY93 FTE base. This 16 percent reduction is to be completed by the end of FY99. This section also calls for the reduction of active duty officers of the NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps and additional language to facilitate that downsizing. title v: cost savings and streamlining Section 501 transfers the NOAA Aeronautical Charting and Cartography Office's responsibilities for functions that are necessary or incidental for performance by or under the Administration of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to the FAA. Section 502 directs the Secretary to review regulations issued by NOAA prior to January 1, 1995 and to reduce the volume by 45 percent by December 31, 1997. Section 503 requires the Secretary to submit a revised fleet modernization plan to the appropriate committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The plan should include proposals for a 50 percent reduction from the current fleet size, including the elimination of three existing vessels in fiscal year 1997 and three in fiscal year 1998; a 50 percent reduction from the construction costs submitted in the 1993 fleet modernization plan; the use of chartering and contracting out; and the sale of decommissioned vessels where feasible. Section 504 directs the Secretary to review all congressionally mandated reporting requirements and to recommend legislation by March 31, 1996 to eliminate at least 50 percent of such reporting requirements that were in effect on January 1, 1995. Section 505 authorizes the Secretary to develop a laboratory consolidation plan for underutilized facilities. Section 506 authorizes the Secretary to convey the NMFS Gloucester, Massachusetts laboratory to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for use by the Commonwealth's Division of Marine Fisheries resource management program. The Secretary is authorized to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Commonwealth to allow NMFS to continue to occupy part of the laboratory for a period not to exceed five years. A reversionary clause is included. Section 507 includes a provision authorizing the Secretary of Commerce to execute agreements with State and local governments to clean up land and property formerly owned by NOAA on the Pribilof Islands, Alaska. Finally, section 508 requires amounts received by the United States in settlement of, or judgment for, damage claims arising from a past accident where a moored NOAA vessel was hit by another vessel to be deposited as offsetting collections in the NOAA Operations, Research, and Facilities account. Such funds may not exceed $518,757.09. Mr. President, I would like to commend the ranking member, Senator Hollings, for his assistance in the development of this bill. Our desire to work in a bipartisan fashion does indeed help in providing the best work product possible. I also would like to commend the efforts of Senator Stevens and Senator Burns, the respective Chairmen of our Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee and our Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee, and their Ranking Members Senator Kerry and Senator Rockefeller. Working together we can restore some of the needed fiscal austerity to our Federal Government--making it smaller, less costly, yet more efficient. This bill moves us in that direction.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Technology Administration Authorization Act of 1995. I am pleased to have Senator Burns, chairman of the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space, join me as an original cosponsor. This bill provides a 3-year authorization for the Commerce Department's Technology Administration and its National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST]. Specifically, the bill provides $755 million for fiscal year 1996 and $750 million for each of fiscal years 1997 and 1998 for those programs. As part of our effort to streamline the Department of Commerce, the fiscal year 1996 authorization for the Commerce Department's Technology Administration represents a 13-percent cut from the fiscal year 1995 level of $864 million. To that end, the bill also directs the Department to establish a plan for eliminating the largely redundant Office of Technology Policy during fiscal year 1996, transferring any essential functions to NIST. The bill also makes substantial cuts in funding for the Technology Administration. However, with the exception of the Office of Technology Policy, the bill continues all of the Technology Administration's major programs. With regard to NIST, the bill provides $750 million for each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998. This authorization is a 12-percent cut from the fiscal year 1995 level of $854 million. The bill provides $263 million for the NIST internal research programs and standards activities. NIST's standards work may be its most important function. Increasingly, standards are being used by foreign governments to close their markets to U.S. industries. There is little question that standards will become an increasingly potent trade weapon used to hinder market entry by U.S. firms or retaliate against the United States. In recognition of this, the bill fully funds NIST's lab and standards programs from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 1998 at their fiscal year 1995 funding level. The bill also provides strong support for NIST's Industrial Technology Services [ITS] account, which funds the agency's Advanced Technology Program and the manufacturing extension partnership. The bill authorizes $427 million a year from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 1998 for the ITS account, a cut of 19 percent from the fiscal year 1995 appropriation of $526 million. The bill leaves it to the discretion of the agency how to allocate funding among ATP, MEP, and the quality programs within the ITS account. However, the bill makes clear it does not authorize any funding for ATP grants after October 1, 1995. This limitation reflects the belief that, since it was first funded in fiscal year 1990, the ATP has grown too big, too fast, without demonstrating clear benefits to U.S. industry. Many critics of ATP have rightly pointed out that, too often, ATP grants have gone to Fortune 500 companies like IBM, Dupont, and Texas Instruments instead of the small high-technology ventures for which the ATP was intended. Regardless of the merits of the program, I believe that ATP-type grant programs cannot boost U.S. competitiveness alone. Rather, they must be a part of a larger national strategy including appropriate deregulation, tax incentives, and antitrust and product liability reform. Accordingly, the bill only authorizes support for existing grants while Congress has a chance to evaluate more closely the value of ATP in our competitiveness strategy. To conduct quality research, you need quality facilities. In that connection, the bill also provides $60 million for each of the 3 fiscal years for the construction of facilities account to fund needed new construction and renovation at NIST. Mr. President, it is disturbing to this Senator that less populated States, like South Dakota, have had difficulty getting any help from NIST in the area of manufacturing assistance. I know of at least two instances in my home State where attempts to obtain assistance from NIST have fallen on deaf ears. If these programs are continued in any form, they must benefit the entire country and not just high-technology corridors or revitalized Rust Belt areas in the East and West. To that end, the bill authorizes $10 million in fiscal year 1996 and $15 million in fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998 for a new program at NIST called the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology [EPSCOT]. Modeled after similar programs at the National Science Foundation and other science agencies, EPSCOT will provide grants for research and outreach work in rural States like my home State of South Dakota. Indeed, at our August 1 Commerce Committee hearing on the future of the Commerce Department, Secretary Brown endorsed the idea of starting an EPSCOT program at NIST. Our rural States want to contribute to the technological revolution. EPSCOT will help them do so. Finally, Mr. President, the bill would make technical changes to the Fastener Quality Act recommended by the Fastener Advisory Committee. In 1992, the Fastener Advisory Committee determined that implementing the act in its present form--without these changes--would have imposed costs close to $1 billion on the industry. The changes address the concerns of the Fastener Advisory Committee regarding metal chemistry testing, commingling of fasteners in distribution, and acceptance of nonconforming fasteners. For the past 3 years, NIST has delayed its implementation of the current law in the hope that Congress would correct the glaring problems in the current law. The specific language in the bill was developed by NIST and the fastener industry. The fastener-related provisions in this bill are similar to changes passed by the Senate, but not enacted, in 1994 as part of the National Competitiveness Act. As chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, I believe that by providing a 3-year authorization, our bill lends strength and stability to the Department of Commerce's important technology and research programs. At the same time, because of the tight budget environment we face, the bill forces the Technology Administration to carry out its goals and missions with less funding than before. I am hopeful the reduced funding level will motivate the Department of Commerce to eliminate unnecessary functions such as the Office of Technology Policy and operate more efficiently while ensuring all America has the opportunity to benefit from its programs. If we are going to reinvent the programs of the Commerce Department, the Technology Administration is an excellent starting point. This bill starts us on that path.