Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is an issue that came to my attention not long after I was sworn in as a Senator. I hope the American public pays attention to the system I am getting ready to describe because way too many things in the Federal Government are bought this way. The goal of the Defense Travel System was a worthy goal. It said: We travel so much, we ought to have a system that gets us the best fare and can do that on a routine basis so we can save money when Defense Department employees travel. They contracted with a firm to develop that system. It was not necessarily a competitive bid contract either. What this amendment does is prohibit money from being spent on operations and further development of the system because, quite frankly, it does not work. It works less well than any private travel system that is out there now. It works less well than the GSA's travel system. We are now close to $500 million being spent with one contractor to develop a system that does not work. The system did not work at the first development stage, which cost $47.3 million, and the Defense Department bailed them out. It did not work. It has never met the requirements or the efficiency or the savings that it was supposed to meet. It is kind of similar to one of those things you get into and you keep hoping it will work, keep hoping it will work, and then it does not work. Well, the American taxpayers are now on the hook for almost $500 million. The Defense Department does not even own this program. That was recently changed so the contracting law could be avoided, in terms of going after this contractor on it, because it was not competitively bid, because it was not managed properly. When you review the DTS system, in 2002, the DOD Inspector General said it should be shut down unless a cost-benefit analysis was prepared that showed the worthiness of its continuation. No analysis has ever been conducted. That was in 2002, and we had only spent about $100 million on it. We are now at $500 million. There is no cost-benefit analysis that has been done. Every Defense Department employee can travel cheaper following some other system than this system. We do not own it. We keep paying for it. We keep paying for the development of it. The American taxpayers are getting hooked, and yet when we are finished with it, we are still not going to have a system that is as good as what is in the private sector. It is a boondoggle, at best. Program Assessment and Evaluation testified they were unable to complete an analysis because the DTS office had not even kept enough documentation of their own expenditures to make a reliable assessment. We have big contracting problems in the Defense Department, and this is the best example I know of that ought to be eliminated tomorrow. At the end of the seventh year of an 8-year contract, a cumulative total of 370,000 travelers had utilized DTS out of 5.6 million annual DOD travelers. So for $500 million, over the 7 years, we have had 370,000 travelers. It has cost us $1,500 per ticket, not counting the price of the air fare. There is not anybody in America who would look at this, with any common sense, and say we ought to continue this boondoggle. The utilization rate for the current calendar year under the Defense Travel System is at 15 percent. That means only one in eight employees of DOD uses this system to buy a ticket. And then they do not always get the best price. In order to break even with the costs of DTS annualized--in other words, its annual cost--90 percent of DOD employees would have to use it. They are not using it. DTS costs $40 to $50 million per year in operations and maintenance. Orbitz does not come close to it. The GSA accounting system does not come close to it. None of them come close to it. Yet we are continuing to spend $50 million of the American people's taxpayer dollars before we get the first ticket. So it is a system that does not work. It is broken. The contracting mechanism is broken. Yet we still have people who are going to come to the floor to defend a system that is broken. Travel executive Robert Langsfeld testified at the hearing that DTS performed less effectively than any--any--civilian e-travel system. We have $500 million in it, and it is unending on what we are going to have, and it still works worse than any private e-travel system. We have spent half a billion dollars. The Federal Government has also spent this money on a system that is not even reliable. It might work one day and does not work the next. It might get you the best fare, it might not. Unlike DTS, GSA e-travel contracts do not pay operations and maintenance for the programs. They only pay a per-transaction fee. So for what was a good idea that turned sour, we continue to pour unspoiled milk on soured milk, and it becomes soured milk. So we continue to spend money on it. The Government still does not own DTS, as I said. It is an intellectual property--computer software and source codes. Last year, Judge George Miller of the Federal Court of Claims decided he would not even look into allegations of violations of the Competition in Contracting Act because the software and source codes are owned by the contractor. So if the contract were opened for bidding and another bidder was awarded the contract, the Government would have nothing left but a $500 million loss. But last week, before the hearing, the contractor promised to transfer ownership of this intellectual property to the Defense Department at the end of the contract period, if requested. The reason for this, obviously, is to maintain the fiction that the open bidding on the contract in 2006 is on the level. It is not. There is no open bidding. It violates the very laws that were put on the books to try to maintain competition in contracting. Ownership of DTS bounces around to wherever it is most convenient for avoiding serious scrutiny. One of the secret changes in the contract that was alleged to have violated the Competition in Contracting Act was the shift from a fee per transaction, as we do with all the civilian e-travel systems, to a cost plus guaranteed profit for the contractor. That has proven they are inept at developing a system. So now we have even changed the contract. Now that we spent $500 million on it, we are now going to change it. We are not going to hold them accountable. We are going to guarantee them a profit for incompetency and inefficiency. It is fair to have Defense contractors reimbursed on the same terms as civilian contractors and agency contractors who are doing the same thing. My amendment will permit that, and only that, a cost per service. Another secret contract change was an agreement by the Government to pay $43.7 million that had been spent in development costs by the original contractor. We got absolutely nothing for that money. It just covered the losses suffered by the contractor in trying to do something they were not capable of doing, and they are still not capable of doing, rather than to go into the private sector and buy one that was already developed. This is money the Government was not obliged to pay under the original contract, but we paid it anyway. We paid it anyway--$47 million. We are trying to pay for Katrina now. We are trying to fund the war in Iraq. We have a $500 million boondoggle that does not work, and we will have people defend that on the Senate floor. The fact is, they can't compete. That is what the testimony of the GAO is. That is what the testimony of everybody is. They do not even compete. And now they are only at a 15-percent utilization rate. Failure carries no negative consequences when we contract this way. When we contract this way, we violate our oaths as the defender of the taxpayers of this country to spend their money wisely. I know I am up against a powerful defense contractor as I attack this process. I want to support our defense contractors. I want to make sure they are there to help us fight and win and defend our freedoms, both here and abroad. But this is the kind of garbage that needs to come out of the contracting system. It is the kind of thing that we need to put on the floor and say: Defend this. Defend it. You cannot defend it. It is indefensible that we would spend a half a billion dollars trying to get an e-travel system, when they are out there working nine times better than anything this program has developed. I am hopeful the Members of this body, and the American public, more importantly, will call this body, will secure this body's attention on issues just like that. If we are going to not steal from our grandchildren, then we have to be about cleaning up the contracting process in the Pentagon. This is a good first step in doing that. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside and call up Coburn amendment No. 2005.

Mr. COBURN. I withdraw my request.

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

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. I thank the Senator for his commitment to include language in the final reauthorization and for his commitment to reduce violence and protect those who are the victims of sexual assault. I would also like to recognize the tireless efforts of Deidre Raver of New York who was raped at the age of 19 and has been an effective and compassionate advocate for other survivors of sexual assault. Earlier this month, DNA evidence linked a man on death row in California to the 1988 murder of Deidre's sister, Rachel. My thoughts and prayers are with Deidre and her family at this time and I am hopeful that this discovery will finally bring some closure to her family's long ordeal.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Biden and all those who have worked hard on this bill. I have a few comments on my amendment about protecting victims of rape and sexual assault from being further victimized by HIV/AIDS. As a practicing physician, I am deeply concerned about both the physical and emotional well-being of those who have been traumatized by rape and sexual assault. That is why I believe that it is necessary for the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act to include timely HIV tests of those accused of rape and sexual assault. There are countless stories of women and children who have been victims of rape and sexual assault who have been denied access to this potentially life-saving information. In some circumstances, rape defendants have even used HIV status information as a plea bargaining tool to reduce their sentences. Let me explain why this is important. Treatment with AIDS drugs immediately following exposure to HIV can significantly reduce the chance of infection. However, because of the toxicity and long-term side effects, these drugs should not be administered without first knowing if HIV exposure has occurred. Victims cannot rely solely on testing themselves because it can take weeks, sometimes months, before HIV antibodies can be detected, Therefore, testing the assailant is the only timely manner in which to determine if someone has been exposed to HIV. The American Medical Association, AMA, supports this policy because ``early knowledge that a defendant is HIV infected would allow the victim to gain access to the ever growing arsenal of new HIV treatment options. In addition, knowing that the defendant was HIV infected would help the victim avoid contact which might put others at risk of infection.'' In addition to the AMA, groups such as the Children's AIDS Fund and Women Against Violence support this policy. The Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1994 already allows victims to request a court order to have alleged perpetrators tested for HIV only in Federal assault cases. In October 2000, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a bill, 380 to 19, that would have provided this right and protection to all those who were the victims of sexual assault, but, unfortunately, the Senate never took up this bill. But now is our chance. It would be a cruel hoax if the Senate approved the Violence Against Women Act of 2005 without including this amendment that ensures those women who have already been victimized by sexual assault are not further victimized by our legal system and HIV/AIDS. I propose an amendment that would reduce the overall amount of funding under this act for a State or local government by 10 percent unless the State or local government demonstrates that with respect to a defendant against whom an information or indictment is presented for a crime in which by force or threat of force the perpetrator compels the victim to engage in sexual activity, that the defendant be tested for HIV disease if the nature of the alleged crime is such that the sexual activity would have placed the victim at risk of becoming infected with HIV; and the victim requests that the defendant be so tested. The defendant must undergo the test not later than 48 hours after the date on which the information or indictment is presented, and that as soon thereafter as is practicable the results of the test are made available to the victim. My initiative would not force States to provide this protection, but simply reward those States that do. This right, in fact, already exists in some States but too many women and children are still denied this information that could literally be the difference between life and death. Do I understand from the Senator from Delaware that constitutional language, ensuring that indicted perpetrators of sexual assault, who have placed the victim at risk of becoming infected with HIV disease, are tested for HIV disease, will be included in the final legislative language agreed upon by the House and Senate conference?

Mr. COBURN

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, first, I have the distinct privilege of being on the Judiciary Committee. I also have the distinct privilege of serving with three other members on that committee who are nonlawyers so I bring to that committee not a legal background but a citizen background. One of the things I found very refreshing during the hearings was the fact that we have a person in the name of John Roberts who recognizes the role of the judiciary as outlined by our Founders. I will go into that in a minute. I will address, first, some issues that are important. We heard today some criticisms of Judge Roberts in sitting and hearing the Hamdan case while he was under consideration for this position. For the record, I show that Justice Ginsburg, during her consideration, decided 24 cases. Justice Breyer decided 15 cases during the period of time he was under consideration. I have the attestation of ethicists who have made statements in support of the fact that Judge Roberts violated no ethical creed and did nothing but his job as an appellate justice while hearing this, and I ask unanimous consent to have them printed in the Record.

Mr. COBURN. I thought it would be important for the American people to hear what our Constitution says about our judges. I also thought it would be important for the American people to hear the oath sworn by a judge. I have been a Senator for less than a year. When I was campaigning--I also will readily admit I am a pro-life conservative from Oklahoma--but when I was asked during that campaign if I had a litmus test on a Supreme Court nominee, every time I said ``no,'' except one: Integrity. It doesn't matter what position a judge holds. It doesn't matter what their background is. It doesn't matter what their thoughts on any issue are. If they lack integrity, none of the rest of it matters. No one can claim that John Roberts lacks integrity. During that campaign, I very well explained to the people of Oklahoma that I didn't want a Justice that sided with me. I didn't want a Justice that sided with anybody, except the law and the Constitution. Here is what article III says about judges: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and in inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good Behavior, [we heard some conversation about foreign law; Judge Roberts passes the bar on his refusal to use foreign law] and shall at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. [Their power] shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; It reads in article 6 that: This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. The oath John Roberts will take and each Justice before him is as follows: I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me under the Constitution and the laws of these United States, so help me God. There are going to be several of my colleagues who will vote against John Roberts. The real reason they will be voting against John Roberts is because he would not give a definite answer on two or three of the social issues today that face us. He is absolutely right not to give a definite answer because that says he prejudges, that he has made up his mind ahead of time. The religious test I spoke about is one of if you don't agree with me and what I believe and if you don't believe there are certain rights to privacy or certain rights that are there that are not spelled out in the Constitution that have become rights, you have set up a religion. The religious test is going to be that if he won't give an answer on those controversial social issues such as abortion today, he will never qualify. Under that religious test, no nominee President Bush will nominate to the Supreme Court will ever get their vote, regardless of whether they are pro-Roe v. Wade or against Roe v. Wade. The fact is, they will not commit. Therefore, if you can't know or you are suspicious that somebody might take one position or the other ahead of time and you have that as a test, you yourself are violating one of the tests of the Constitution. I believe John Roberts is a man of quality. Most importantly, he is a man of integrity. I don't want him to rule my way. I want him to rule the right way. The right way is equal justice under the law for all of us. If he does that and if the rest of the Supreme Court starts following him, we will reestablish the confidence that is sometimes lacking in the Court today, and we will also reestablish the balance between the judiciary, executive, and legislative branches. It is my hope this body will give a vote to John Roberts that he deserves based on his interpretation, knowledge, and honesty with the committee and, fundamentally, with his integrity that is endorsed by the American Bar Association. Everyone who knows him knows he will do just that, equal justice under the law for every American. I yield the floor.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2132.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 221, S. 37.

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

Mr. COBURN. In order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 2107 be discharged from the Committee on the Judiciary and that it be referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this week the Senate has been considering the nomination of Judge Roberts. Tomorrow we will continue making statements on this important nomination, with the vote on Mr. Roberts' nomination occurring at 11:30 a.m. Thursday. The majority leader is asking that all Senators be seated at their desk for this historic vote. As a reminder, the leader has announced that the Senate will turn to the Defense appropriations bill on Thursday, and votes are expected on Thursday and Friday of this week. The Senate will also need to act on a continuing resolution before the close of business this week.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the 60 minutes allocation of time for the other side which begins at 6:45 and that the Senate now resume executive session.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, September 28; I further ask that following the morning prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate proceed to executive session to continue consideration of Calendar No. 317, John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States; I further ask consent that the time from 10 to 11 be under the control of the majority leader or his designee; the time from 11 to 12 be under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee; 12 to 1 under the majority control; 1 to 2 under Democratic control; 2 to 3 under majority control; 3 to 4 under Democratic control; 4 to 5 under majority control; 5 to 6 under Democratic control; 6 to 7 under majority control; 7 to 8 under Democratic control.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COBURN. I thank the Senator for his amendment.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1775 and ask to set the pending amendment aside.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I will be happy to respond. The Senator from Utah has my great respect. I know he is an accountant and has a tremendous background in terms of finance. But if you overestimate for the 3 years prior to coming into this before you change it, and you have contracts based on that that were overestimated, you do have an excess of funds in there now. There will be no shortage of rental payments because of the over-roll of the overpayments, the overestimate of the contracts that have been made. The good answer for the American people is this is going to throw people out. It is not going to throw a person out. There is plenty of money in this account. There is almost $50 million at the end of this year left in this account that is not expended and can be spent. So it is not accurate to say people will not be able to have the homes that they have. I think the Senator will agree that if, in fact, you overestimate inflation rates 4 years running, and you have been appropriated all that money looking forward for that, and you had contracts on costs that were less than that, if anything the surplus will grow if the usage is the same. To make the argument that we should not do this because somebody might be thrown out, when, in fact, it is not accurate based on the funding that is in this account at this time, doesn't do justice to the very problems that we have before us. I do not expect this amendment to pass, and I probably will not ask for a rollcall vote. I don't know what I am going to do in terms of asking for a rollcall vote. But it is that kind of thing we have to look at. We have to tighten our belts. There is loose money in this program. It can be done better. They have demonstrated they have started to do better, but they have not demonstrated they are doing better. What I would ask is for us to send a message: Do better. It doesn't undercut the first person we are trying to help. We have already sent $62 billion out there for this disaster, and we are planning on sending more. If we need to make an adjustment in one of those appropriations bills, if in fact I am wrong and you are right-- which I do not believe to be the case--we can do it then. But send the signal: Do it right, do it efficiently, and do it for the best price you can because our grandchildren are counting on you. I hope at some point in time we will start getting to the realization that we have to start making some choices. This is a choice that is not going to hurt the first person, but it is going to change an agency to make them recognize you are going to start playing with real numbers and quit gaming the system. They have a cushion. They know they have a cushion. I believe the appropriators and accounting staff know they have a cushion, and we ought to take that cushion away and make them do what they should be doing.