[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 29, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11116-S11119]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement, the Senate will 
now proceed to the conference report to accompany H.R. 4060.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Under the unanimous consent agreement, there are other 
Senators who have time on this bill. I do not know if they are going to 
use their time. I am informed I can yield----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will withhold for one moment. 
The report will be stated.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes on the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     4060), have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
     respective Houses this report, signed by all of the 
     conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration 
of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of September 25, 1998.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico and Senator Reid 
control 10 minutes jointly.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will try to stay within 5 minutes. I 
thank the Senate which will be adopting the conference report. It is a 
good report.
  We will put a statement in that identifies some of the very new 
approaches to better governance. We do not have that completely in the 
Department yet, but we have some new ideas that we are imposing on the 
Department that will permit it to be run a little better than in the 
past.
  I want to change to another subject, and that is the Tennessee Valley 
Authority and the $75 million that was, this year, put in the 
President's budget for the nonpower aspects of the Tennessee Valley 
Authority.
  Mr. President, I hope that nobody is trying to make political hay out 
of the fact that the U.S. House of Representatives would not fund the 
$75 million for the TVA in this year's appropriations bill, and as a 
consequence we did not fund it. Let me tell you why the House would not 
fund it, and make sure that the Record is replete with the background 
information that the U.S. House had last year and this year regarding 
the $75 million.
  First of all, there is a gentleman, who I do not know, named Craven 
Crowell--Chairman Craven Crowell. I think he was appointed to the board 
by the Clinton-Gore administration in 1993.
  In 1997, meeting with Members of Congress and the administration, the 
Chairman argued that TVA's so-called ``nonpower programs,'' which 
include flood control and navigation on the Tennessee River, as well as 
management of some unique resources on the Land Between the Lakes 
National Recreation Area, indicated that these nonpower programs should 
be transferred to other Federal agencies, leaving the Tennessee Valley 
Authority to focus solely on the production of electrical power.
  Less than 1 month later, this very proposal to no longer fund that 
kind of activity because it should be transferred to other Federal 
agencies found its way into the 1998 budget request. The TVA Chairman 
had made an interesting proposal just a couple of weeks prior, and 
already it had been incorporated into the administration's budget. 
There is no way that that would have happened if people in the 
administration had not been aware of what Chairman Crowell was planning 
to propose, and if they had not given him the green light to do that.
  I would like to incorporate in the Record a news release dated 
February 6, 1997, ``President's Budget Supports Ending TVA 
Appropriations.'' I ask unanimous consent that the news release be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         President's Budget Supports Ending TVA Appropriations

       TVA's request for $106 million in federal funding for 1998 
     and its proposal to eliminate all taxpayer funding of TVA's 
     appropriated programs by Fiscal Year 1999 received support 
     from the Clinton Administration today in the President's 
     budget submitted to Congress.
       ``We very much appreciate the administration's support of 
     this funding level for 1998 and the proposal to phase out all 
     federal funding of appropriated programs by Fiscal Year 
     1999,'' TVA Chairman Craven Crowell said at a news conference 
     in Knoxville.
       The President's budget also directs TVA and the Army Corps 
     of Engineers to complete a joint study by September 1, 1997, 
     on the integration of TVA and Corps activities to improve the 
     operation of the Tennessee and Cumberland river systems.
       ``Future cooperation between TVA and the Corps could be the 
     linchpin that makes it possible to end all federal funding 
     for TVA's appropriated programs,'' Crowell said. ``We believe 
     more cooperation between TVA and the Corps would be a win-win 
     situation for both of us and would greatly reduce 
     expenditures of tax dollars.''
       As noted in the President's budget, TVA will work with 
     Congress, state and local governments and other interested 
     parties in a major effort to find alternate ways to fund, 
     organize and manage the taxpayer-funded programs.
       Crowel also said that a 17-member task force has been 
     formed to work out the details of the proposal. Kate Jackson, 
     executive vice president of the Resource Group, will chair 
     the task force, which includes representatives from all parts 
     of TVA.
       In his 1998 budget, the President recommends the same level 
     of funding TVA received in 1997. The budget recommendation 
     includes $81.5 million for water and land stewardship; $7.9 
     million for Land Between The Lakes, an increase of nearly $2 
     million over this year's funding; $6.6 million for a 
     feasibility study on a proposed new navigation lock at 
     Chickamauga Dam; $6 million for the TVA Environmental 
     Research Center in Muscle Shoals; and $4 million for economic 
     development.
       Funding requests for the Environmental Research Center and 
     economic development are down $9 million and $11 million, 
     respectively, reflecting TVA's previously announced plan to 
     phase out appropriated funds for those activities.
       TVA uses federal funds to manage the Tennessee River 
     system, maintain 11,000 miles of shoreline and 420,000 acres 
     of public land, conduct environmental research and promote 
     economic development.
       The federally appropriated funds are separate from TVA's 
     power budget which is financed from power sales. Revenues 
     from power sales totaled almost $5.7 billion in 1996. TVA 
     provides power to 160 distributors who serve nearly 8 million 
     customers in seven southeastern state.
       The 1998 fiscal year begins Oct. 1, 1997, and ends Sept. 
     30, 1998.

  Mr. DOMENICI. This is a TVA release that suggests that Chairman 
Crowell and others have decided that they do not need the $75 million 
and that other Federal agencies are going to take over. And the U.S. 
House had this release, had the proposal to eliminate Federal funding 
of TVA's appropriated programs in January of 1997.

[[Page S11117]]

  Mr. President, what has happened is that after doing this, and 
leaving the distinct impression with the U.S. House Subcommittee on 
Appropriations that they were not going to need the money anymore, and 
surely were not going to need it for the 1999 appropriations bill, they 
have changed their mind. That is, both the Chairman down there in the 
Tennessee Valley Authority area and the White House. They now want the 
money, after going through all of this that I have just discussed with 
the Senate.
  Let me tell you, what they did by proposing this was to get all of 
those in the surrounding areas who do not necessarily agree with the 
TVA to join in saying they do not need the money. And there are private 
power companies who clearly do not think TVA needs this nonpower money. 
But both the administration and the Chairman, Chairman Crowell, had 
indicated they do not need the money.
  Mr. President, in spite of that, because the administration changed 
its mind, and the Senators from Tennessee and from Kentucky and others 
came to me and said, ``Well, we know we said we don't need the funding 
anymore, but will you fund it another time for us?'' I did. The Senate 
approved.
  Mr. President, what has happened is the U.S. House said no, and, 
frankly, there is no way to change their mind because what they throw 
back at us is, we were just told in 1997 that that was the last year we 
needed that subsidy, that $75 million.

  Frankly, if there is any blame to go around, it does not lie with the 
Senators, who did everything humanly possible. They got the Senate to 
fund it, they encouraged me to hold it, they even met with Members of 
the House to tell them to put it back in, but what they got was what we 
might have expected.
  You just told us last year you don't need it anymore. The chairman 
down there issued this plan saying we don't need it. The President's 
budget said we don't need it.
  Now, if there is any reason that we didn't get it, it is because of 
that, not because of partisan politics. There are no Democrats on the 
committee who went to conference with me who are in favor of that. No 
one in the House is in favor of it, because you tell the House, and 
apparently this is how it works over there; it is not too bad. It 
sounds like the way you would behave. Tell the House this is the last 
year we are funding TVA $75 million, and they aren't too sure you want 
to fund it anyway. You do it and then you come around and change your 
mind after you have had this exhaustive plan and this commission 
appointed so that you won't have to have this money. You come along and 
say, as I said, we need it in another year, and they are saying the 
House will not vote for it another year, we can stay here until Hades 
gets a little cool, but we will not approve it because you told us you 
don't need it, and now we have too much support against it and it will 
not be funded.
  I am very hopeful for those who wanted to point fingers either at 
this Senator because he is Republican or some of the other Senators 
from the Tennessee Valley area. It is not their fault. Frankly, I don't 
think it is the committee's fault. It is just one of those things 
where, the way the House argued the case, you can't make them change 
their mind. And what they said was pretty logical. They had some good 
points. I know the occupant of the Chair served in the House. When you 
tell the House committee you are not going to fund it one single year 
beyond this one and come back and say, after all those plans and us 
getting money out of you, we need another year, it is not easy.
  Nonetheless, I want to say I am trying, because the Tennessee Valley 
Authority has some very expensive interests on some outstanding long-
term obligations, bonds and indebtedness, that they know they have to 
refinance, and in the process of refinancing, there would be a change 
in the interest rates. Obviously, it would be better and they would 
save money. We are trying to put together an amendment that would be 
taken care of as part of overall appropriations which would give them 
some interest rebate. So to the extent that this would help offset what 
they now think will be a big void because of the $75 million, we will 
try that.
  It actually has strong support from a number of Senators, including 
the Tennessee Senators, that we try to do this. I say to the people 
there, I am going to try to do this with their help and with the help 
of Chairman Stevens and others here in the U.S. Senate who I think will 
understand this issue and have understood it and will try to help us.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this last week the Conference on the Energy 
and Water Development Appropriations concluded and has provided 
$21,332,135 for the programs, projects and activities of the Department 
of Energy, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and other 
independent agencies. I would like to say that I generally support the 
Conference Report which Chairman Domenici recommend to the Senate 
today.
  Just as a balanced bill cannot accommodate all the priorities and 
projects of Members of Congress, neither could this conference report. 
Nevertheless, it is because of the scope of this bill, providing vital 
services of the Department of Energy and the many water projects around 
the nation that the Senate needs to support the Conference Report.
  For instance, the Department of Energy's breadth of responsibilities 
range from activities in nonproliferation to fissile materials 
disposition and from the projects in solar and renewable resources to 
the clean up of defense facilities such as Savannah River, Oak Ridge 
and Hanford.
  Specifically, in the Defense part of the bill, we were told that the 
Stockpile Stewardship Management, the program that provides safety and 
reliability of the nuclear stockpile, needed $4.5 billion, yet even as 
we are providing it $4.4 billion we are increasing our oversight of 
construction projects to prevent waste and mismanagement. Without the 
Stockpile Stewardship program we would not have the ability to be able 
to verify to the President that the nuclear stockpile is safe and 
reliable and we would be living under continued testing of nuclear 
weapons.
  In the Nondefense work at the Department of Energy, the Office of 
Science (formerly known as Energy Research) has facilitated many 
projects in science that will have practical impacts on the future of 
our society including the treatment of cancer, the isolation of 
diseased genes, and the tracing of contaminants in soils. I would note 
the vast research effort being made in the Fusion Energy Sciences. The 
Department has tried to cover its bases by funding different types of 
fusion energy research, but it eventually will have to make choices to 
focus on the most feasible technologies and the Conferees have provided 
this research almost $230 million.
  We, as a subcommittee and Conference, were placed in an impossible 
dilemma regarding the funding of water projects and, in particular, the 
construction projects of the Corps of Engineers. The Conferees 
recognize the value of the civil works program in protecting lives and 
property throughout the United States and in preserving commercial 
trade in our ports and harbors; but we simply were not given the funds 
to reflect the importance of the Corps projects. Consequently, while 
the Conferees provided $1.429 billion in Corps Construction, there were 
many construction projects that could not receive the funding that they 
needed. This is unfortunate since the Corps has many projects around 
the United States that will now be hindered by uncertain schedules and 
planning that may become useless. On the other hand, projects such as 
the Chicago Shoreline, the Kill Van Kull Channel in New York and New 
Jersey, Charleston Harbor and Virginia Beach, among many others, were 
able to receive enough to address their emergency circumstances. The 
dredging of the ports and harbors along both the Atlantic and Pacific 
coastlines as well as the harbors in the Gulf of Mexico is no small 
task and responsibility for the Corps. On an annual basis, the U.S. 
ports and harbors handle an estimated $600 billion in international 
cargo generating over $150 billion in tax revenue. There are small 
navigation projects totaling $6 million; but there are larger projects 
that require an even greater commitment. It is unfortunate that, 
because of the funding dilemmas that we faced, water projects that are 
vital to communities and industries around the nation will now be 
stalled and mired in uncertainty. The administration should take note 
of the many

[[Page S11118]]

criticisms of the budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers and 
recognize the essential role it has throughout the nation.
  Another major agency under the jurisdiction of this appropriation is 
the Bureau of Reclamation, whose historical responsibility to manage 
the precious waters in the West extends back to the Newland Project in 
Nevada. I will not subscribe to any notion that the Bureau is obsolete 
or unneeded and will oppose any effort to minimize the Bureau's role in 
water preservation. It's responsibility of reclaiming water and reusing 
it in communities is as needed now as ever. In the first half of the 
century, dams were built in managing the water systems, now we must be 
focusing on other reuse methods like desalination systems.
  Throughout the arid West the Bureau has assisted in the use and 
management of water and has even facilitated the cooperation of 
community interests such as the CALFED Bay Delta Project in California 
which received $75 million to continue its management of the Delta 
system which means that agriculture, environmental, and industry are 
cooperating in unprecedented ways. There are reclamation and water 
supply projects from Arizona to Idaho and from Washington to New 
Mexico. The communities benefit from new sources of water such as the 
community in Montana that will no longer have to haul their water for 
miles in pickup trucks so that their homes can have water. This was the 
goal of the Bureau of Reclamation when it was founded: to provide the 
homes and communities throughout the West with water and it remains the 
goal today.
  Mr. President, this conference report does not satisfy everybody, nor 
does it do justice to the many water projects that need our support, 
but it is the best the conference could arrive at with the funding 
allocations that we were given. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to 
support this Conference Report. And I thank the staff of the Energy and 
Water Subcommittee for their hard work and diligence throughout the 
process: Alex Flint, David Gwaltney, Gregory Daines, Lashwanda 
Leftwich, Elizabeth Blevins and Bob Perret on my personal staff.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, H.R. 5060, the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act, 1999, complies with the Budget Act's 
section 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays.
  The conference report provides $20.9 billion in budget authority and 
$13.0 billion in new outlays to fund the civil programs of the Army 
Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, certain independent 
agencies, and most of the activities of the Department of Energy. When 
outlays from prior year budget authority and other actions are taken 
into account, this bill provides a total of $20.7 billion in outlays.
  For defense discretionary programs, the conference report is below 
its allocation by $11 million in budget authority and $1 million in 
outlays. The conference report also is below its nondefense 
discretionary allocation by $20 million in budget authority and $46 
million in outlays.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of this conference report be printed in the 
Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            H.R. 4060, ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS, 1999, SPENDING COMPARISONS--CONFERENCE REPORT
                                   (Fiscal year 1999, in millions of dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Defense   Nondefense  Crime  Mandatory    Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference Report:
    Budget authority........................................     12,019       8,889  .....  .........     20,908
    Outlays.................................................     11,819       8,853  .....  .........     20,672
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority........................................     12,030       8,909  .....  .........     20,939
    Outlays.................................................     11,820       8,899  .....  .........     20,719
1998 level:
    Budget authority........................................     11,680       8,999  .....  .........     20,679
    Outlays.................................................     11,675       9,008  .....  .........     20,683
President's request:
    Budget authority........................................     12,298       9,003  .....  .........     21,301
    Outlays.................................................     11,875       9,150  .....  .........     21,025
House-passed bill:
    Budget authority........................................     11,934       8,719  .....  .........     20,653
    Outlays.................................................     11,171       8,742  .....  .........     20,513
Senate-passed bill:
    Budget authority........................................     12,030       8,912  .....  .........     20,942
    Outlays.................................................     11,818       8,896  .....  .........     20,714
Conference Report Compared To:
    Senate 302(b) allocation:
        Budget authority....................................        -11         -20  .....  .........        -31
        Outlays.............................................         -1         -46  .....  .........        -47
    1998 level:
        Budget authority....................................        339        -110  .....  .........        229
        Outlays.............................................        144        -155  .....  .........        -11
    President's request
        Budget authority....................................       -279        -114  .....  .........       -393
        Outlays.............................................        -56        -297  .....  .........       -353
    House-passed bill:
        Budget authority....................................         85         170  .....  .........        255
        Outlays.............................................         48         111  .....  .........        159
    Senate-passed bill:
        Budget authority....................................        -11         -23  .....  .........        -34
        Outlays.............................................          1         -43  .....  .........       -42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
  conventions.


  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, fellow Senators. I rise today with my 
colleague, Senator Mack, to discuss the status of the Kissimmee River 
Restoration project in the state of Florida. This project is a land 
acquisition and canal backfilling project. it was authorized by 
Congress in the Water Resources Development Act of 1992. The state of 
Florida has spent approximately $95 million in land acquisition and 
restoration evaluation. The state of Florida has met all of the 
necessary schedule requirements defined in the Project Cooperation 
Agreement with the Corps to keep this project on schedule.
  To date, the state's expenditures far exceed the federal 
contribution--a situation that occurred by design. The state of Florida 
has front-loaded the land acquisition costs and the federal government 
is supposed to back-load construction costs.
  Mr. MACK. The first backfilling contract is scheduled to be awarded 
on March 30, 1999. For this contract to be awarded, the Corps has 
indicated that between $22 and $23 million must be appropriated for 
this project. Today we are reviewing an Energy and Water appropriations 
bill that includes only $8 million for the Kissimmee River project.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I have been involved in the Kissimmee River project since 
my days as Governor of the state of Florida. This project is the first 
step in a long series of individual projects that seek to restore the 
Florida Everglades to a state as close to their natural state as 
possible. The results of this backfill contract will be visible to the 
naked eye. This first contract would backfill 9 miles of the Kissimmee 
Canal; restoring approximately 16 square miles of restored river/
floodplain ecosystem and 17 miles of river channel. Not only will this 
have important ecological benefits, but it will also make an important 
contribution to increasing water storage capacity and improving water 
quality north of Lake Okechobee.
  Mr. MACK. The Kissimmee River restoration project is at a critical 
phase. With the current funding levels in the 1999 Energy and Water 
appropriations bill, this project will not move forward. We both 
understand the difficult nature of funding decisions in these times of 
tight budgets, but we also recognize the responsibility of the federal 
government to meet its costshare requirements with the state of Florida 
and fund the construction phase of this project.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Today, I ask the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate 
Energy and Water Appropriations Committee, Senators Domenici and Reid, 
of your intentions for the future of the Kissimmee project.
  Senator Mack and I remain committed to forward progress on the 
Kissimmee River restoration. We would like to work with the committee 
to identify potential reprogramming opportunities within the Army Corps 
budget that might allow forward progress on this project which is so 
critical to Everglades restoration.
  We would also like to work with the committee during the fiscal year 
2000 appropriations process to ensure that the Kissimmee River 
restoration is funded at appropriate levels.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I recognize the importance of this project to the state 
of Florida, and I look forward to working with the Senators from 
Florida to identify any potential funding alternatives or reprogramming 
options for the Kissimmee River project. We will work together in the 
next year to include appropriate funding levels for the Kissimmee River 
restoration project in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill.
  Mr. REID. I would like to echo the comments of Senator Domenici by 
stating my support for the Kissimmee River restoration project. I, too, 
look

[[Page S11119]]

forward to working with both Senators Graham and Mack in the next week 
to identify any funding or reprogramming opportunities for the 
Kissimmee River project.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise to engage the chairman of the 
Subcommittee, Senator Domenici, in a brief colloquy. It has come to my 
attention that, due to some confusion regarding the funding of an on-
going Section 1135 ecosystem restoration project of a similar name, the 
conference report to accompany the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations bill eliminated funding for the Duwamish and Green River 
Basin study. Would the chairman agree that neither the Committee nor 
the conferees are opposed to the ongoing Duwamish and Green River Basin 
study?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington is correct. 
There has been some confusion regarding this study and the funding for 
the Green-Duwamish ecosystem restoration project under the Section 1135 
program.
  Mr. GORTON. Would the Chairman also agree that the Corps of Engineers 
should seek a reprogramming of funds to keep this important project on 
schedule and, if sought, would the chairman be inclined to approve such 
a request?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I agree that, if appropriate, the Corps 
of Engineers should seek to reprogram funds to keep this study moving 
forward. I am not aware of any opposition to the project and do not 
anticipate a problem with a reprogramming request.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the distinguished 
Senator from New Mexico, the Chairman of the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee, for the outstanding work he has done on this bill. This 
is an extremely tough bill covering a diverse range of issues from our 
nation's nuclear defenses, to scientific research to water projects 
impacting each and every state. He has done a superb job in balancing 
these needs. I wish to especially thank him for recognizing the special 
needs for Positron Emission Tomography work at the Medical University 
of South Carolina in Charleston, South Carolina.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from South Carolina. I appreciate 
his interest in this bill and in medical research. The Subcommittee 
appreciated the Senator bringing the Medical University of South 
Carolina's needs to the Committee's attention last year and he has 
again made a convincing case for them this year.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Cancer rates in South Carolina are some of the highest 
in the nation, with more than 17,000 new cases diagnosed and more than 
8,100 deaths each year. The funding in this bill is critical to our 
efforts to combat cancer in South Carolina as well as the nation and I 
thank the Senator.
  In closing, there may be some slight confusion regarding the funds 
for the Medical University of South Carolina. I want to make sure 
everyone understands these funds are to build upon last year's efforts 
and are to be used to design and construct an expansion of the Medical 
University of South Carolina's cancer research center to provide space 
for Positron Emission Tomography treatment. Is that your understanding?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from South Carolina is correct. I thank him 
for clarifying this matter.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I have read and agree with the 
subcommittee's views on improving the efficiency of Nuclear Regulation 
Commission regulation. There is significant evidence that different, 
but equally protective, approaches to regulation could result in more 
efficient regulatory practices.
  As I am sure the Senator from New Mexico is aware, there are some 
areas within the Commission's purview that will be challenged to keep 
up with the growing workload even in the face of significant 
improvements in efficiency. An example is the Spent Fuel Project Office 
(SFPO) which is responsible for approving domestic use new dual purpose 
canister systems for the safe storage and transportation of spent 
nuclear fuel; ensuring the safety of existing technologies that have 
been deployed throughout the nuclear energy industry as needs for out-
of-pool storage have emerged; reviewing and approving cask technologies 
necessary to support high priority non-proliferation activities of the 
United States, including the DOE Foreign Research Reactor Spent Fuel 
Receipt Program; reviewing and approving the transportation 
technologies for nuclear materials other than spent fuel; and reviewing 
and approving or providing support to a host of other spent fuel 
storage and transportation initiatives sponsored by either the federal 
government or private interests.
  Does the Chairman agree with me that this plays an important role and 
does he believe that the agency recognizes the importance of the 
office's work?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I agree with the Senator's observations. The licensing 
of technologies to handle the storage and transportation of various 
types of spent fuel is one of the few areas within the Commission's 
budget in which the demand for regulatory activity is clearly 
increasing.
  In addition, I hope the agency will examine further management 
initiatives, such as those currently under review, that might be 
necessary in the short term to address existing budget constraints and 
to ensure that the resources that are available are being utilized to 
maximize the likelihood of succession review of application for new 
technologies.
  I agree with the Senator from Georgia that the Commission should 
continue to monitor the workload of the SFPO to ensure that adequate 
resources are available to meet demand for application reviews.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, all time is yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the conference report.
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________