burlington, like other cities around the country, could capture that waste heat and use it to provide heating and cooling to multiple buildings downtown. mr. president, according to a 2008 department of energy report, imiepped hea combined hr systems, particularly in coordination with district energy systems, could make a huge impact in meeting our energy needs while lowering greenhouse gas emissions. approximately 40% of our energy consumption in the united states is for heating and cooling of our buildings as well as industrial process heat. combined heat and power represents roughly 9% of our electric power capacity today. if we can move to 20% combined heat and power by 2020, we could, according to the d.o.e., create more than 1 million new jobs and avoid more than 800

million metric tron tons of carn dioxide emissions. this would avoid more than 60% of the projected growth in carbon dioxide emissions between now and 2030. in other words, mr. president, as you well know, this is a big deal. mr. president, we are talking about real technology that is deployable today. not 50 years in the future, it's here today ready to be utilized. in copenhagen, district energy provides clean heating to 97% of the city. this has saved energy, reduced fossil fuel consumption, and avoiding greenhouse gas emissions. in our own country, st. paul, minnesota, in st. paul, district energy and combined heat and power provides 65 megawatts of thermal energy and 25 megawatts of electricity from renewable urban wood waste. that is an extraordinary development. this heats more than 185 buildings, 300 homes and cools an additional 95 buildings.

this has reduced emissions and provided exceedingly reliable energy for st. paul. same story, smaller scale, jamestown, new york. mr. president, i offer amendment number 1903, which will provide $15 million for feckal assistance grants under -- technical assistance grants under a program authorized in the 2007 energy i understand expens200energy2007 independenc. these funds do require a match between 25% and 60%, so we are leveraging federal dollars wisely. these grants were authorized but have never received funding. in fact, we have long neglected district energy and combined heat and power systems. we should be providing federal support for these efficient technologies. interestingly, according to the biomass energy resource center and the international district energy association, there are hundreds of shovel-ready

projects that need capital or infrastructure to go forward right now. so we are sitting on the verge of putting people to work, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, making these systems more energy efficient. we also have many, many programs around the country that are in need of money for feasibility studies. by providing $15 million for technical assistance grants, we will be taking an important step to move these projects forward. i would ask the chairman of the committee, senator dorgan, if i could? i have brought this amendment forward. how do you suggest that we proceed on that? mr. dorgan: mr. president, i'm prepared to accept the amendme amendment, and my colleague, senator bennett, is as with. the amendment has been cleared. we've reviewed t. we think it has merit, and we approve it on both sides. and so i would suggest that we ask for consideration and have a vote on the amendment at this point. mr. sanders: well, thank you

very much, senator dorgan. mr. dorgan: mr. president, i suggest that we have a vote on the amendment at this point. the presiding officer: is there further debate on the amendment? if not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to. mr. dorgan: mr. president, let me thank the senator from vermont. i know he cares passionately about this issue. i think that the description he has given demonstrates the merit of this proposal, and i, frankly, am happy to be very supportive. mr. sanders: thank you. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: thank you. i'd ask unanimous consent that whatever pending amendment be set aside and that the coburn amendment 1879 be called up. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. mr. dorgan: mr. president, might i ask the senator to yield for a question? mr. coburn: i would be happy to yield. mr. dorgan: mr. president, senator coburn and i and senator bennett have talked about the order of his amendments. i believe he has three

amendments and we intend to accept one. i had indicated to them -- to him on the contracting amendment that he intends to offer that i will offer a -- an amendment as well and we'll have side-by-side votes. and i wonder if i might offer my amendment just to have it pending, the senator would then offer his amendment and discuss it and i would offer my amendment on behalf of myself and senator bennett. mr. coburn: sure. mr. dorgan: if that's acceptable to the senator from oklahoma, mr. president, i believe my amendment is filed and i would ask that that amendment be called up. it is amendment number 1895, and i ask that on behalf of myself and senator bennett.

the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report the dorgan amendment. the clerk: the senator from north dakota, mr. dorgan, for himself and mr. bennett, propose aproposes an amendment numbered 1885 to amendment numbered 1813. mr. dorgan: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered as read. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the coburn amendment. the clerk: the senator from oklahoma, mr. coburn, propose an amendment numbered 1879 to amendment number 1813. mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: let me first discuss the dorgan number 1895 amendment. the american people really need to know what this is. this is a way to say we're following the law on everything in terms of contracting except

if it's an earmark. that's what this amendment does. it says, we're going to follow all the laws on contracting except if we have an earmark that we want some company to get that might be a political friend or political donor or might be something that we think is better than somebody else might think. so dorgan 1895 essentially guts transparency for this country in terms of when we buy, what we buy and how we buy. my amendment says that anything we buy is going to be competitively bid. now, senator dorgan may have something that he believes in strongly and believes should be done, and there's nothing wrong with that at all, especially if it's authorized. but there's plenty wrong with saying who's going to get the benefit from that being done, which company, which firm, which special interest group. so you -- for, you see, most often earmarks are for the

well-healed, the well-connected in this body. and when i bring an amendment to the body that says we will have transparency, the american people will get value even if we do an earmark, at least you know we're going to buy that earmark at a competitive price compared to what we could have bought it otherwise. what the dorgan amendment does is guts that, says we'll follow the law all the time, the federal contracting statutes, except when we have earmarked something. so what it does, it allows them to vote to say they're following the law with the exclusion of all earmarks. whereas my amendment says if you're going to earmark something, at least in this times of trillions of dollars of deficit, maybe the american taxpayer ought to get the benefit of having a competitively -- having it competitively bid so that we get real value for it. it's not any more complicated than that. what we say in my amendment is if it's out there, get good

value for the american people. competitively bid it. make sure it's on-line. make sure we follow all the rules and regs, but let's make sure that if somebody wants this -- and today it's much more important than ever because government purchasing is more important to those people whose businesses are down slightly. so we're having many more people interested in competing for the dollars on government work, and yet we have an amendment that's going to be voted on side by side for political cover under that sounds good. it sounds -- it sounds good. it says that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this act may be used by the department of energy to enter into any federal contract unless such contract is entered into into in accordance with the federal property and administrative services act or chapter 137, title 10, united states code, and the federal regulation unless such contract

is otherwise authorized by statute. that's code word for earmark. unless such contract is otherwise authorized by statute. so what the -- what the dorgan amendment says, if you vote for the dorgan amendment, you want to continue to connect the well-heeled, the well-connected in this country and you don't want transparency and you don't want competitive bid prices on what we as americans pay for on tax dollars for what the government buys. it's as simple as that. and what my amendment says is each time, every time, unless it's in national security interests, that we will, in fact, competitively bid. we may not all agree where senator dorgan or i may want something done, but at least when we're doing it, we're going to buy it in a more efficient, more effective way and save money for the american taxpayer. and with that, i'd yield the floor and ask for the yeas and

nays on this? the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. mr. coburn: we'll pool votes at a later time, because i'd like a recorded vote? mr. dorgan: mr. president, first of all, i think -- i will respond, of course, to the comments of the senator from oklahoma. but i think if he would wish, it might be sensible for him to proceed to offer his other amendments, calling them up, setting aside this amendment and we'll have them all -- supply coburn: okay. i'd be happy to do that for the chairman. mr. dorgan dorgan dorgan: and te them all in front of us and an order by which to vote. mr. coburn: i ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside and ask unanimous consent to call up amendment 1878. further, that it be in order to modify the amendment with the change i send to the desk at this time. and i understand senator dorgan has approved this change. the presiding officer: is there an objection?

without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from oklahoma, mr. coburn, proposes an amendment numbered 1878 to amendment numbered 1813, as modified. at the appropriate place -- mr. coburn: i ask unanimous consent further reading be dispensed. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. coburn: throughout this appropriations bill we have a lot of reports we are asking agencies to come up with. this is another amendment about transparency. i appreciate that the chairman and ranking member will accept this amendment. this says if we have a report the agency has to report it to the american people. in other words they have to publish it. we get to see what the results of that report. now there's exceptions for national intelligence and military but in those areas where there is not reason for the american people to see it, what this amendment says the amendments have to release the report and put them online and mack them available for the american people. you paid for the report.

for too often we pay for the reports and never get to see them. this says the reports that come out of here that are not related to national security or defense and otherwise are appropriate will be made available by the agency to the american public. with that, i yield to the chairman. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. dorg mr. president, senator bennett and i have reviewed this amendment and think it has merit and support it and would hope that we could vote on this by voice vote and we might do so immediately. mr. president, if the senator from oklahoma is ready, i would suggest -- mr. coburn: fine. mr. dorgan: i concept and it has been cleared on both the republican side and the democrat side. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, without objection, the senate -- the amendment as modified is agreed to.

mr. coburn: is i understand, mr. president, we have accepted 1878, and that the amendment 1884 which requires contracts as a side-by-side with the dorgan 1895, i have one other amendment to call up and i ask the pending amendment be set aside and amendment 1879 be drawn up. mr. coburn: is it pending? mr. president, is 1879 pending? the presiding officer: yes, it is. mr. coburn: thank you. the department of energy, one of its tasks in this country is to help us with energy efficiency, with a lot ofhings that we would expect to be within the department of energy. it is peculiar, however, that

when the department of energy is looked at by themselves that they're highly inefficient cording to their own inspector general. with the utilization of energy. they have 9,000 buildings, the inspect r general said last year they wasted at least 13.8 million in energy costs. $13.8 million. $13.8 million they could have saved had they done some small, simple, straightforward things like they request every other agency in the federal government to do. isn't it ironic that the very agency that's telling all the rest of the agencies to save money by becoming efficient with their computers, by becoming efficient with their heating and cooling systems, by becoming efficient with their lighting, doesn't even follow their own rules? that they ask of the rest of the

agencies? this said we know at least $13.8 million was wasted -- that's just probably the tip of the iceberg. this amendment says we will reduce their funds by $13.8 and i can tell them the steps tomorrow where they can save $13.8 so till have no net effect on the agency and what we do, the american taxpayers get $13.8 million as a minimum of the energy savings from the department of energy. that is as straightforward as i can say it. another report that nobody read, sen,vice president our staff and i.g. is doing their work and now we are going to bring an amendment to the floor not agreed to, hasn't been accepted but it is absolutely commonsense. and the fact -- i don't understand why it isn't accepted when the i.g. has plainly listed out where you can save the money and how you can do it, why we would not reduce their funding to force them to do that. so it's a no net revenue loss for them because they're going to save the $13.8 as they

reconfigure computers. i won't go on, in detail, but this is the kind of commonsense amendments we need to be doing in the senate to hold the agencies accountable, to follow their own rules as they force everybody else to follow the same set of rules. this isn't "do as i do" this is "do what you see us doing." and that's the model and that's the example. it is my understanding, mr. president, that 1884 still needs to be called up. so i would ask at this time unanimous consent to set aside this pending amendment, call up amendment 1884, and then following its calling up, return and set it aside and resume to the present amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from oklahoma, mr. coburn, proposes an amendment numbered 1884 to amendment 1813.

at the appropriate place -- mr. coburn: i ask unanimous consent further reading be dispensed. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. coburn: it's my understanding we are back on the previous amendment. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. coburn: one last point i make is the department of energy is responsible for numerous private sector energy efficient programs. and for the enforcement of those programs. and it just makes sense that if they're going to be the enforcer and be responsible that they ought to follow those same energy efficiencies to regape thregainthe confidence the verye they say they want change from. it's pretty hard to expect people to swallow making changes

for energy efficiency and all the rest of the government agencies when the agency that is telling you to do it doesn't follow their own rules. i know the appropriators don't like someone cutting money but this is a no net cost to the agency. all they have to do is about 15 small steps, very inconsequential in terms of cost and they can save almost $14 million next year and probably they will save $20 million or $25 million and that post jufs based on th --that's just basedw reports from the i.g. and i would hope that my colleagues would reconsider and accept this amendment because it's one of the ways we save $13.8 million. it's an easy deal. with that, i yield the floor. mr. dorgan: mr. president, as always the senator from oklahoma is thoughtful and coursous an ad

let me say we have cut the administration budget in the department of energy by $8 million as we brought it to the floor but more important than that we cut $643 million from the department of energy if the president's budget so as c.b.o. recalculates the president's request to the congress we have cut $643 million and we have cut $8 million in the department of administration in the department of energy so i sympathize with his notion and i certainly strongly support what he is suggesting the department of energy should do and i just say to him we have already made those cuts and far, far more in terms of what the president wanted for the department of energy. we're $643 million below the president's request and $8 million below in the administration accounts in the department of energy. i am happy to yield. mr. coburn: the senator would admit that the president's

request is what he requested, not what was actually spent last year. that's number one. what you is done is cut $8 million from actual expenditures in administration last your. mr. dorgan: that's correct. mr. coburn: would the senator agree by just adding $5.5 million to the $8 million you have cut because you get it back in energy savings. mr. dorgan: again, i agree what we ought to be doing is encouraging the department of energy of all departments to be engaged in energy savings and energy efficiency and so on and i'll be glad to visit with the senator about cuts but we have already made substantial cuts and i think the senator from oklahoma knows the president's request in the context of the broad range of budget requests for a broad group of federal agencies was what he felt he wanted and needed in order to have some sort of transformational energy future. we're working on a wide range of new energy approaches, including

additional production in wind and solar and biomass, and additional oil offshore and some of that requires substantial research and development so the president had a good appetite what he felt was needed and we cut that by $643 million and the reason i emphasize that to the senator, senator bennett and i didn't just saddle up and say,, whatever you want, here is it. we cut it. we cut it because we felt those cuts were deserved and i certainly appreciate the senator from oklahoma coming to the floor wanting additional cuts but $643 million is a pretty substantial walk away from what the president had originally requested for that agency and my hope is we will include, certainly exile be the chairman of the conference, we will include various strong and assertive language of the type the senator is requiring of the department of energy and i would insist, as well, the department of energy, of all agencies, demonstrate efficiency and

conservation and the kind of things that can and should be con t --should be done to addree overuse of energy. mr. bennett: i associate myself with the chairman's remarks and simply add a few more figures. in the energy efficiency and renewable account we reduced funding for program direction by $85 million and program support funding was reduced by $48 million. in the office of science, we've cut funding for field offices by $13 million and cut headquarters funding by $6 million. the president's request for personnel and program direction account we cut by $160 million so these are a little more granular than the overall figure

the chairman mentioned but i mention them to point out we have, indeed, looked at each one of these individual items very carefully and produced the result the chairman described. mr. dorgan: let me make a comment. i know the senator feels strongly about contract reform and the two amendments in front of us the senator from oklahoma talked about earmarks but he is well aware that his amendment deals with far more than just earmarks and the issue of formula awards to state and local governments which are carried in this legislation, the issue of competitive grants, the competition model that you seem to suggest you believe is appropriate for the competition and research and development, many of which are very exotic and interesting and cutting edge, world-class research projects in the department of

energy, i don't know that the -- i guess the people who do now -- suggest that the contract competition model for some of those kinds of things doesn't work very well, at all, because issue he looking for things that go beyond who will bid the lowest and very high-tech exotic research we are doing in a wide range of fields. my view is i have always supported contract competition. there's nobody that's been tougher on the department of defense, for example, than on -- particularly no-bid contracts to those that are contracting in iraq. i've held 20 hearings, now, starting on monday it will be my 20th hearing on issues like that. i strongly support competition in contracting and so on. i think this amendment that has been offered is not an amendment that very well fits this bill and addresses in a very broad stroke way some things that should not be addressed that way

so it's a reason i have offered an alternative to it and my hope is the senate will agree with the alternative. i might say i believe this exact debate was held two weeks ago in the homeland security agency and has already been resolved by the senate. mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i enjoy my debate with appropriators. i love you guys. i think it's great. the one thing that wasn't mentioned is in the stimulus bill the department of energy got an additional $1 billion. so there's been no net cut but actually a massive increase in the department of energy when you count the stimulus bill. number two is you've ramped up the femp program, the energy management program, by 50%, going from $22 million to $33 million. the very program that they're enforcing on everybody else but yet they won't comply with it. i also would say, the senate is

going to get to decide this every time we have an appropriations bill, as far as transparency in crght. i may get smarter at the way i write it, but the american people deserve to have great value. if you want to change the contracting law to say that there are certain times that we shouldn't do that in terms of highly specific scientific things, that's fine with me. but the fact is, is billions and billions and billions of dollars are well-placed directly to businesses in this country at higher rates than what they would have been otherwise had we had competitive bidding and open contracting. and nobody can deny that fact. nobody can deny that fact. and i'm talking about all across the government. so we're going to get a vote on competitive bidding on every appropriations bill that comes before the senate. the american people get it.

and it's a hard -- it's great defense you're offering, but it isn't going to pass the smell test with the american people. they deserve the best value they can get on every penny that we spend of their money, not our money. so i understand we think we've decided it. we're going to get to keep voting it. we're going to get to keep voting against t and we're abouting to tell the american people we're going to connect up with our bud -- we're going to make that you art those people who are well-heeled are going to get things. there are things that should be outside of that, that are highly scientific, that are limited to very few potential, and maybe even only one. but we have futuregen going into chicago right now. it's going to be ads 6 billion earmark that we said only one person can do and m.i.t. said nobody can do it because the technology isn't finished. we've got that going. that's the department of energy

earmark. so -- and it's not just hundreds of thousands of dollars. it's billions and billions and billions of dollars. so america should hear what we're going to see is we've got all the reasons in the world why we're not going to competitively bid. we're going to give all the reasons why we're not going to be efficient with your dollars, why now is not the time, why we shouldn't do this now, but the fact is while we shouldn't be doing it, we're cutting the legs off of our children and grandchildren. the presiding officer: the senator north daivelg. mr. dorgan: the senator from oklahoma is not going to win a debate we're not having. i agree with most of what you've just said. i support contract -- but the senator from oklahoma himself just suggested, maybe we should have a different model for the highly exotic research contracts. and, by the way, they are not just a few. you go to the labs and take a look the the contracts that are going on around the country in very exotic, high-tech, research cutting-edge world-class

research. if in fact there should be a different model for that, it is not in this amendment, and that's my point. i would be happy to sit down with the senator from oklahoma to bring an amendment to the floor that does address things in the right way. but to bring an amendment to the floor that has a very broad brush that covers everything when the senator himself acknowledges that probably something other than that should be done with respect to these kinds of exotic research programs, he didn't respond to the issue of state formula grants and so on, but again, we're not having a debate about the merits of what you aspire to achieve. i want us to have contracting rules that give the american people the best value for their dollar, that advance this country in the most significant, capable way. we want the same things. but my point is, when one offers an amendment like this that just say, all right, do it all this way, and even, i would say to the senator from oklahoma, even the senator acknowledges that there are areas that perhaps shouldn't be handled that way.

so let's do it in a way that resolves it in the right way. so i know he's frustrated that we like lie won't pass this amendment. but if he's going to bring it up time and time again, the next time or the time after, let's do it in a way at that gets closer to that which we believe will really address all of these issues the right way for the american taxpayer and i'll be on his sievmenthis idea. mr. bennett: mr. president, i say to the chairman and the senator from oklahoma, if they'rintherrien a going to be g to try to write this in -- if they're going to be meeting to try to write this in the proper way, i want to be part of it. the senator from oklahoma made one reference to efficiencies and he said he wants a bidding process that's efficient. i want to step out from the scientific debate into another circumstance that has to do with this bill, that has to do with my own state this a, and i can

give an exact example. we have a cleanup program in southern utah dealing with the cleanup of an old uranium plant, the tailings from that plant are right next to the colorado river, and the fear is that the leaching from that -- the tailings from that plant are going into the colorado river, not only threatening the fish but population downextreme -- but population downstream, downstream states. all right, a contractor was necessary to clean up the tailings pile. and there was competitive bidding that went on and the contractor was chosen and is now involved in a very significant multimillion-dollar cleanup program. as i understand the language --

as of the senator from oklahoma's amendment -- because we are appropriating more money for that cleanup program in this bill, we need another competitive bidding proceeding to see if that's the right contractor. this is a contractor that's looking at 10 years, 12 years kind of contract, and every time a new appropriation is necessary in each bill. it would seem to me that it makes sense that once we have picked the contractor through competitive bidding, there does not have to be a competitive bid every year to see whether or not another contractor can now move in, take over, and make the thing work. it's possible that we could. it's noble this first contractor might be running up costs in fashions that he shouldn't be doing, and there should be a review. but i agree with the senator from north dakota that this is too much of a broad brush in that kind of eamplet area.

i was involved as a freshman senator with respect to concessions at national parks, angered the ranking member of that committee when i sided with some other senators in the majority -- the democrats at the time -- to change the rules with respect to concessions in national parks because i said, this is a rigged bidding situation where the incumbent contractor is always going to be taken care of, and we finally got that done. so i'm completely in sympathy with what's trying to be done here, but i discovered in going through that process, same general idea, different set of facts, that it's more difficult than it looks on the surface. that's why i'm supporting the chairman in the amendment that he is offering, but if there ising to a discussion of how this gets more efficient in the pattern in which it is written, i want to be part of that

because i'm completely sympathetic to the effort to try to see to it that we have open contracting wherever it makes sense. mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: the senator from utah mischaracterizes both the intent and function of the amendment. the amendment, if something is already contracted, even though you're appropriated for, it won't affect it. alts new contracts and new bids. that's the intent. the reason i come with this is because nothing ever changes here. if in fact we pass my amendment, you know what? we will have to change the contracting. how do we change contracting with everything that's coming across the floor? how do we get it through committee? how do we ever move? we'll never move it until you're forced to move. that's why this amendment is written this way, because all of us know the great deal of difficulty to get anything done in this body. so if in fact -- we're tabooing t-- we'regoing to do three bille

next week. one on unemployment insurance and one on h.u.d. and one on transportation. they will get done. the reason it's written this way is because it'll have to get done and we'll do it. we'll never get it done the other way and both of you recognize that there's truth in that statement. so i'm going to insist that we have a vote on the amendment of i thank the chairman and ranking member for their debate. i would remind the american people, there is always an excuse in washington not to have transparency, not to be efficient, ant not to be effective. we will always find a way not to get good value for your money. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: without repron re-- without prolonging this debate, let me say, there are other ways to get things done as well. look, some of the most significant contracts that have gone out of this town recently in the last ten years or cork the log cap contract which provides services by contractors

in iraq. sole-source contracting -- billions and billions and billions of dollars, most of it went to halliburton and k.b.r., by the way. not all of it. some to other -- but the fact is massive amounts of money. and i've held 20 years ago as of monday on these issues. so you know what? finally they're bidding all those contracts. finally they're bidding them. and when you hold up some of the abuses, you can actually require change, in my judgment. yesterday the inspector general said that those that were providing electrical services to the military bases in iraq were responsible for the electrocution of soldiers because they were hiring third third-country nationals. didn't know how to ground wires, speak english. you know what? those contracts are now going in other directions. the contract to provide water to military bases and the nonpotable water was more contaminated than raw water from the euphrates river, paid for by

our taxpayers. the contractors didn't have the foggiest idea what they were doing and got billions of dollars of contracts that they didn't have to bid on. now, the fact is, this sort of thing is despicable and needs to change. i take no back seat to any member of the senate about trying to change these things. i've held 20 years ago on these contract issues, just in recent years. the senator from oklahoma comes and raises important questions always. i understand it. my point to him was simple: this amendment in my judgment doesn't respond to all the things we need to respond to if you're going to do an amendment that really does reform contracting. and i'm very interested in working with him. but he's on the right subject, in my judgment, just the wrong amendment. so i just wanted to say, there are a lot of ways to change things. yes, with an amendment here on the floor of the senate, in committees -- i'm sure the senator from oklahoma does that as well. pressing federal agencies, you can get change by putting the spotlight -- all of the

spotlights on the same spot on a federal agency to say, how do you justify this? we demand you change. so, there's a a lot of good work that goes on by people that care about forcing change. and many of us have done t so i just wanted to say, there are a lot of ways to do this. and i encourage the senator from oklahoma to continue. i want to be a part of constructive change on contracting. i have been in the past and will be in the future. mr. coburn: mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays. mr. dorgan: mr. president, let me ask if the senator would agree, if he would withhold, i believe the senator from missouri wishes to make a very brief statement and she may be offering an amendment. i don't know that she's going to require a vote on t then we could line up -- i believe we will have three recorded votes on -- mr. coburn: that would be fine with me, mr. chairman. mr. dorgan: all right. if we could turn to the senator from missouri at this point and then we could line up three successive votes on the coburn amendments, two by senator coburn and one my myself and senator bennett. the presiding officer: the

senator from missouri. ms. mccaskill: mr. president, i thank the senator from north dakota. i want to agree with my friend from oklahoma on his amendment on contracting competition. maybe it is fitting that in the energy bill i'm probably doing a don quiote here tilting at a windmill. i have learned during my time in the senate that there are certain things very protected. one of them is the earmarking process. i think most people would acknowledge that we have billions in noncompete contracts through earmarks. and they're not all for exotic research. we have -- yes, we have noncompete contracts a lost places, and we should try to get rid of all of them.

every last one ever them. if it's exotic research, then there's probably not going to be very many people that will bid on it. so i don't agree with my friend from north dakota on this issue of carving out earmarks as an area of noncompete. i think there are a lot of things wrong -- mr. dorgan: would the senator yield? ms. mccaskill: yes. mr. dorgan: the senator is not describing my position. i have not suggested carving out eemplets over not heard that this afternoon. mr. dorgan: well, you didn't hear that during the debate. mrs. mccaskill: i heard the senator from oklahoma wants to pass an amendment that would require competition from all the earmarks in the bill. i think that's a good idea. i think competing for all earmarks is a good idea. and i think it is not correct that the noncompetitive earmarks are all exotic research or any

other kind of earmark that could lend itself to competition. i think there are many that could easily lend themselves to competition. and i just believe that once we get to competition, it is going to provide the transparency that the american people are aching for in this area of earmarking. mr. dorgan: would the senator yield again? mrs. mccaskill: yes. mr. dorgan: the discussion was not just about earmarks. if the senator is describing an amendment that only requires competition or competitive bidding on earmarks, that is not the amendment. mrs. mccaskill: my discussion is about the noncompetitive earmarks. and i think whatever amendment gets us to more competition, i'm for it. and i think that there are way too many. i couldn't be a bigger fan of the senator from north dakota and what he's done on contracting as it relates to the war in iraq. i followed those hearings before i came to the senate. i continue to follow them.

he has been a groundbreaker in the area of wanting competition. if you look at the billions of dollars that were wasted in the iraq war over noncompete contracts, if you look at the atrocities that were committed in the name of noncompetition that the senator from north carolina has exposed, he has been terrific on that. and we just have a disagreement about whether or not earmarks -- some of us disagree about whether or not earmarks should be competed. i know that -- i generally, although i try to agree on every bill that removes all earmarks, i generally don't go in and pick out an earmark to complain about. and i generally don't vote for amendments that do. because in many ways i think the process of just picking on one amendment here or one earmark here, one earmark there, one earmark there can be as arbitrary as the process of

earmarking sometimes appears to be. so i generally don't do that. but in this instance there's an earmark in the bill that i know a lot about. the senator whose -- from north dakota is offering, has done this because he believes very much in having another study on the missouri river. and we've been fighting over water in this country for as long as this country's been around. water's pretty important. water is very important in missouri. the navigation of the missouri river is incredibly important to our farmers. it's important to our utility companies. in fact, there was a very large study undertaken on the missouri river, and it was completed in 2004. it cost the taxpayers $35 million. it took 15 years to complete. and there was all kinds of lawsuits over it between the various states up and down the river. there were a couple of things that came out of that study.

one of them was there was an agreement that began the missouri river recovery and implementation committee. it is a committee that includes stakeholders from all along the river that meets several times a year to help develop a long-term management plan for the river. this prosz has just recently begun. it hasn't even had time to work. and i really feel strongly that repeating another study when there is nothing that has dramatically changed since we spent the $35 million on the one that got done in 2004, and now we're going to begin another $25 million study by the same group, looking at the same issues. and that, to me, is wasteful. i think that the fact that the senator from north dakota did participate aggressively in the long-term management proposal on the mmric, the missouri river recovery and implementation

committee, i would hope we give it time to work before we embarked on another policy. i know there was a g.a.o. study that talked about navigation, and i know that that study showed that there are less goods being shipped on the missouri river. but that g.a.o. study didn't take into account a couple of things. one thing it didn't take into account is the navigation season has been severely limited by the corps, and that drives away the shippers. it also did not include -- this g.a.o. study did not include -- and this is important -- it did not include the value of the goods shipped, the jobs associated with those shipments or the impact on utilities. we have in fact four power plants located along the river that need the water in the missouri river to cool their plants. i just think that this study is not going to end the fight over

the river. i cannot fathom what a $35 million study failed to accomplish that a new $25 million study is now going to accomplish. i think this is a great example of studies to try to impact policies so you just keep having continuous studies. the amendment that i have offered would remove the money for this study because i do think it is wasteful duplication. i do believe very strongly that in fact we should not be embarking on another one of these studies. it's wasteful and it's duplicative, and i will want to continue to work with the senator from north dakota. obviously we don't see eye to eye on who should get all the water in the missouri river. we probably never will. i look forward to working with him. hopefully as we move forward with the mmric that we can have all the stakeholders at the

table and continue to negotiate in a way that is most cost effective for taxpayers and that does not harm the state of north dakota or any of the other states along the missouri river. i thank the president, and i yield. mr. dorgan: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: mr. president, the senator from missouri is an active and avid, aggressive fighter for the interest of her state. i understand it. i recognize it. i wouldn't expect anything else. but i'd like to tell you all a story, if i might, about water and about the missouri river. the missouri river is a big old, wild, tangled river for a long, long time. it used to flood. it flooded a lot. and in the spring when the floods came from the missouri river, it would devastate parts of my state and south dakota and other states down south and ruin the parks and flood the parks in st. louis, missouri, and so on.

so some people came to north dakota -- from the federal government -- and said we'd like to harness that old missouri river. they can't play softball in the parks of st. louis because of all of that flooding. we'd like to get the benefits of flood control. here's our deal for you. if you will allow us in the middle of north dakota to put in a flood that will come and stay forever -- a big old flood, half a million acres, permanent flood, if you'll allow us to do that, we'll aloe you to have some benefits. we understand we're asking you to flood your state in order to protect the downstream states, but if you allow us to do that and if montana will allow to us do that and south dakota, we can put in big old floods in the upstream states, and we understand there is a cost to you to have this flood that comes forever, so we'll let you move water around for pwreurbl use in your state. and -- beneficial use in your

state. it will be good and you'll appreciate it. my folks believing this was on the level signed contracts. they moved the indians from a reservation. the three affiliated tribes, moved them off the bottom land, built a big old dam. dwight eisenhower, president of the united states, came to dedicate the dam. the elbow woods indian hospital is now under water, has been for 50 years. and so we have the flood that comes and stays. now the problem with the way the river is managed after they built six main stem dams in order to harness the missouri rivers is the way they manage the river is the way they planned to manage it about 60 years ago. they studied it 60 years ago and they said we have a vision for this river. we'll be able to navigate the river down south with barges and we'll haul a lot of material on barges. and what a great thing. and think of the value of having

barge navigation on the downstream reaches of the missouri river. you know what? there are days when i can get you the reports, and there's one little miserable little boat floating down in the downstream reaches of the missouri. and yet we are furiously releasing water from the upstream dams to support one little old barge. by the way, that little old barge is hauling mostly sand and gravel, something of relatively low value. and so we have this big fight about how the river should be managed. in the old days, you know, they predicted a lot of commercial value of barge traffic. but the fact is that's not the case. the upstream value of recreation, tourism, fishing is now almost ten times the value of the downstream value of barge traffic. and yet, the river is still managed for the minnow and not the whale. very typical of the corps of engineers. never change. resist change. never change, no matter what. so they did a, an evaluation of

the river. and all of the states except missouri, which was an outwire, and they wouldn't agree to anything, they did an evaluation, and finally a study was developed. and that study had a lot more to do with the endangered species act, and managing the endangered species issues than determining whether we're making the best use of the river system in our current management scheme. the answer is the current management scheme makes no sense at all. we're releasing water in the middle of a drought? which we did, by the way. it is a river system which has somewhere around, capacity of around 55 million feet of water. it was down to 53 million feet of water and we were still floating water to float one boat. that is unbelievable to me. last year i included funding for a study what is the management of this river, what is appropriate, what should be done, what resembles some

semblance of common sense here. and i know people objected to doing that, because the answer may well be an answer that moves away from, you know, what i've called a one-state hog rule. give us all that you have when we need it and keep it all pwhe we don't want it. an interesting way to manage the river, but that's the way some states on the missouri have suggested it be managed. it's not fair to us. we're waiting 50, 60 years later for all of the benefits of that which was promised us if we would allow a permanent flood to come and stay forever in the middle of our state. our ancestors did that. they said, yeah, we'll sign up to that. we got all of the costs and have not yet received the benefits. with respect to the management of the missouri river system, it's passed the time -- long, long passed the time that that river be managed with the recognition of the current use of that river. when we're still releasing water

for one little barge on one day on the lower reaches of the missouri, then somebody ought to have their head examined. well, we can't examine their head, but we can examine the master manual. and that's what we're going to do with this study. mr. president, i have so much more to say, but let me resist, defer. i will make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. dorgan: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: mr. president, i ask consent that the quorum call be waived. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. dorgan: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that at 5:15 p.m. today the senate proceed to a vote in relation to the following amendments and -- in the following order with no amendments in order to any of the amendments covered in this agreement with the time until then equally divided and controlled in the usual form. after the first vote, the succeeded votes in the sequence be 10 minutes each, coburn, 189,

dorgan amendment 1859 and the coburn amendment 1884. 1879, 1895 and 1884. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing -- without objection, so ordered. mr. dorgan: mr. president, let me just indicate that senator bennet and i have discussed and i also visited with the majority leader just within the last hour and my hope will be to go to a third reading with the consent of senator bennett and the majority leader to go to a third reading on the bill following these votes and following a period in which we would gather together whatever remains. i think there are a few amendments that remain that we can clear. but we have waited all day. we waited all day yesterday. senators have had plenty of opportunity. plenty of time. their staffs have had plenty of notice to come and offer amendments. and so for the next hour we will be here. we'll have the vote at 5:15.

following that vote it's my intention that we finish this bill very shortly following that vote by going to a third reading. we don't want to preclude the opportunity for people to offer amendments but no one can come to the senate floor and suggest that they've been precluded from anything given the fact that senator bennett and i have been sitting here patiently for well over two days. so, again, with the cooperation of our colleagues and the hard work of the staff and our colleagues, i think we can finish in this evening. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. dorgan: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: i ask consent that the quorum call be situated. the presiding officer: -- vacated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. dorgan: i ask at that time that we're in a quorum call be divided equally on both sides. mr. bennett: mr. president, i have no objection to that. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. kaufman: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed. .the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. kaufman: mr. president, i rise to speak of an amendment senator carper and i filed today, amendment 1891. this is a simple amendment and one i hope the senate will

support. our amendment addresses the delaware river deepening project. this is a project to deepen the river's shipping channel from a depth of 40 feet to 45 feet in an ever to bring in more commerce. 29 miles of the shipping channel runs through the state of delaware open the way to the ports in philadelphia and new jersey. those of us with ties to the three states that are involved know a long history -- know the long history. there have been a lot of stops and starts over the years and put on hold in 2002 before being restarted in 2007. what our amendment does is prohibit the use of any funds from this bill on the portion of the project that is within delaware. part of this is up the delaware river. there's a section of the delaware river which is ruled to be part of delaware. what this thing does is say no funds should be spent until, within delaware, until the state government issues an applicable people.

this is necessary for several reasons. early this month. delaware department of environment control denied a permit for the project pending for eight years. the scope of the project has changed substantially and the state was lacking current scientific data. the rejection of the old permit application, however, was made without prejudice permitting the corporation ocorps of engineersa new permit. the army corps has not yet provided the state with an updated and detailed environmental assessment of the deepening nor has the state been given any detailed information regarding the placement of the dredged soils resulting from the project. finally, the government accountability office is undertaking a reanalysis of the cost verify sis benefits whic -n and the people of delaware deserve to have answers and that is why we offer this amendment.

this amendment merely prohibits funding of the bill to carry out this project within delaware until state government has given its approval. this will give the delaware natural resources and environmental control department the opportunity to do its job and protect the river river's environment and give the state the ability to obtain information vital to the state of delaware prior to any deepening being done. i hope my colleagues would understand as they would feel the same for their support i hope the senate supports the adoption of the amendment which i will introduce later. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: