Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007 -- (Senate - July 12, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment. Certainly, I understand the intent of the amendment, which is to terminate the LORAN program. This is a program that affects a lot of our small airplanes, maritime safety, their ability to communicate in the Pacific Northwest waters. I know Senator Stevens from Alaska has a deep concern about this as well.
We know that at some point the LORAN system is going to be changed. The problem is that the Coast Guard alone, which I have tremendous respect for, made a decision to terminate the LORAN system without talking to the FAA, without talking to DOD, and without talking to many of the other users of the LORAN system. This bill makes sure that as we move toward a new structure within the waters in the area of the Pacific Northwest and up into Alaska and other places along the coast, we do it in a way that makes sure that all of the users of the system are not impacted in a way that makes them unsafe or their travels unsafe.
It is unwise for us to terminate this program without the consent and the understanding of these other organizations. We had a debate about this in the Appropriations Committee. The committee agreed with us that as we move forward on the termination of the LORAN program, we need to make sure that the Department of Defense, the FAA, small maritime users, and everybody who relies on this for safety in the waters along coastal regions is on board and we move forward in a way that doesn't cause any harm to any of the users of the system.
I respect the Senator in trying to eliminate funding and trying to make sure that we are making the best use of public resources. But it has to be done in a way that doesn't impact the safety of our many maritime and airline users.
I will oppose the amendment. I know Senator Stevens from Alaska has been very involved in the debate. I believe he is on his way to the floor as well. I urge our colleagues to listen carefully to the safety and the use of many people in our coastal waters as we move forward on the matter of closure of the LORAN system.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska just made a point that I think is critical that we understand. During the debate prior to the Senator coming to the floor, the point was made by the Senator from Oklahoma that there are a number of other backup systems that are available to users of the system in the coastal waters off Alaska and other States.
From what I just heard from the Senator from Alaska--and I want to clarify this--because of the mountainous regions, because of the inaccessibility and a lot of the difficult geographic locations that exist within his State, we are not positive that many of those backup systems work; is that correct?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there are areas in our State where GPS does not provide the accuracy it does in other places because of the line-of-sight problem, whereas because of the very strong wavelength and signal strength LORAN puts out, particularly the modernized LORAN-C, it is an absolute necessity right now.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator then, what he is saying to us is it could, indeed, put many people at risk because we do not know yet whether those systems are working in many of the geographic locations within his State?
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is absolutely right. We just cannot terminate this system all at once. It is true it can be phased out in many places in the country without any harm to anybody. But the people who rely on the system right now as the sole source of their navigation should not be abandoned.
As a matter of fact, I have prepared a second-degree amendment which I will be glad to offer if the Senator from Oklahoma does not understand our situation. It is a second-degree amendment which would delete the amendment, as the Senator wishes, but substitute for it a complete indemnity by the United States of any harm that comes to any person who presently is relying on LORAN because they cannot have navigation capability.
We believe there is going to be substantial harm to a lot of people if this is not done right. The current system just says ``terminate.'' If they did so by cost-benefit analysis on a nationwide basis, they did not do it on a cost-benefit analysis in the area where it is needed. ``Where it is needed'' is what makes a difference.
We do not say this program should exist forever. We believe in the final analysis that it probably will be terminated. But when it is terminated, it should be phased out on a geographical basis so it stays in effect in the areas where it is absolutely needed until it can be replaced by a system which would have to upgrade GPS, and that is not in the plan of the Department of Commerce at all.
I think this is wrong to take out our amendment. I believe the amendment is a reasonable one. All it says is we postpone the termination operations. We refrain from taking steps to reduce operations at these stations where they are needed.
If that is not acceptable to the Senate, then I say, all right. If the Senate, in its wisdom, is going to take a total cost and benefit analysis on a nationwide basis and leave people who depend on this system now completely without a navigation system they can rely on, then they should be indemnified for any harm that comes to them as a result of the premature termination of this system.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me just add that I support the recommendation that Senator Stevens has just made, and if we are able to work that agreement out, I think that would be good.
I do want to amplify something quickly that I stated earlier in the debate, and it was repeated by my colleague from Alaska, and that is that DHS came to this decision without adequate consultation with other impacted Federal agencies. If there is any confusion over that question, I would like to put in the RECORD and ask unanimous consent to insert a letter from the Honorable Jeff Shane, Under Secretary of Transportation, to the Honorable Stewart Baker, the Assistant Secretary of Policy at DHS.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, what this letter simply does is make it clear that DOT is willing and ready to discuss this matter, but it also makes clear that there are other issues, especially in aviation, as the Senator from Alaska has said, that really have to be worked through as we move toward this, and I ask that we have those considerations.
Again, I hope the language that Senator Stevens has proposed is something that can be worked out because I think that would be amenable to all of us.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov