Reserving the right to object, is that the pending amendment? Reserving the right to object, what is this amendment? Mr. President, is there a time limit on the amendment? Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma will…
Reserving the right to object, is that the pending amendment?
Reserving the right to object, what is this amendment?
Mr. President, is there a time limit on the amendment?
Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma will delete an amendment I offered in committee. This is what it says:
The committee denies the request to terminate operations at
LORAN stations nationwide and directs the Secretary to
refrain from taking any steps to reduce operations at such
stations. The committee further directs the Secretary, in
consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, to submit
a report to the Appropriations Committee and the Commerce
Committee regarding the future of the LORAN system. The
report shall include the cost benefits, the merits of
maintaining the LORAN system as a backup navigational aid,
and the benefits of using the LORAN system in conjunction
with the global positions system. The report shall be
submitted to the committee within 180 days of enactment of
this act.
I did hear my good friend from Oklahoma indicate he would like to have some vigorous debate. I don't know how vigorous it is going to be. I do want to tell the Senate that this amendment means a great deal to my State, obviously, with half the coastline of the United States, with a number of areas that are affected by this LORAN system.
The LORAN system has not been modernized in my State, although it has been in all the rest of the country. In recent years, we have appropriated approximately $160 million to the Federal Aviation Administration and the Coast Guard to modernize the LORAN structure through an existing interagency memorandum of agreement that existed between the two agencies. The recapitalization primarily came through the FAA budget, while the Coast Guard has provided resources to operate and maintain this system.
The proposal to terminate LORAN was not coordinated with the Department of Transportation or the FAA and certainly was not coordinated with my State. The decision to terminate this system should not unilaterally be controlled by the Coast Guard.
I am constrained to tell the Senate, this is just another example of the problems of representing the largest State in the Union with agencies that are not properly represented in our State.
The LORAN system was originally developed as a radio navigational service for coastal waters and was later expanded to include complete coverage of the Continental U.S., as well as all of Alaska. Originally, it really was designed for an area like the coastal waters off our State.
LORAN-C provides coverage for maritime navigation in the U.S. coastal areas, particularly in Alaska, and provides navigation, location, and timing services for civil and military air, land, and marine users.
We welcome the advent of the global positioning system. It is an invaluable navigational aid. The LORAN system uses a very strong wavelength and signal strength which enables it to penetrate areas where GPS has difficulty and will not work because of line-of-sight blockage.
The LORAN system is an independent system. It can serve as a backup for GPS. Until the people who have equipment to use LORAN are able
to switch to GPS and have it be shown that GPS will work in every area where it is necessary to navigate--I remind the Senate, 70 percent of the cities in my State can be reached only by air. We have the largest area and the largest involvement in fishing in the Nation. Over half of the fish consumed in the United States comes from Alaska.
This is an independent system and really it ought to be maintained as a backup to the GPS, in our opinion, at least until the complete modernization of the older vessels and the older airplanes that were designed to use LORAN.
The modernization of LORAN is almost complete. As I said, we spent $160 million in the past few years to do that. It can be used as a backup to GPS to better produce an estimate of location than either system acting alone.
The LORAN system is a national asset. Again I say, it was not coordinated with the Department of Transportation, particularly the FAA, in terms of making this recommendation.
It just so happens that the first weekend of the last recess, just 10 days ago, I had occasion to travel with my son down one river and up another in Alaska in a vessel that had GPS. He is a qualified pilot for any vessel in the United States. At one point, at around 11 o'clock at night, we were traveling through a fog. We were talking about the navigational systems. The difficulty people have is they don't understand what it means to live in an area where it can be dark for several months and operating in a fog at night--all day long, as a matter of fact, in darkness in some instances.
The fisheries vessels and the systems off our State depend on LORAN for accurate positioning. It is true that GPS is a better system where it works better, but it has not had the findings and analysis that this committee amendment asks be prepared. That is, the Secretary of Commerce is asked to make a study, along with the Secretary of Transportation, and report to us the analysis of the cost-benefits of this LORAN system, the merits of maintaining it as a backup navigational aid, and give us that within 180 days.
In other words, for 180 days, we have a hiatus to determine whether we should follow the report made by the Coast Guard or whether we should listen to those involved in the fishing systems and in the aviation systems in a State such as mine.
Yes.
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.
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.
Mr. President, if I could just answer that.
The Senator is right, but at the same time, he is wrong. Satellites don't work everywhere in Alaska because of problems in updating their signal. The same is true for GPS. You must have a satellite signal that can reach for GPS.
Many places in our State did not have access to GPS because the satellite is not ubiquitous for the world. It does not come down in some places of our State.
I want to make certain, Mr. President, that the Senator understands what I am saying. There are places where GPS cannot be accessed in Alaska.
That is true, in some places. But where it has been operating, LORAN is relied upon in places where GPS cannot reach.
Will the Senator yield? That is not what I am asking for.
Mr. President, the Senator is quite generous in his suggestion, but I have to say that we heard on April 18 of this year from the Department of Transportation the following:
The Department of Transportation has not formulated a
position regarding the future of LORAN. It is our hope,
however, that it will be possible, consistent with the
Federal Radionavigation Plan, for the administration to
announce a final, fully considered decision before the end of
the calendar year. That decision should be made
collaboratively with due regard for the mandates in NSPD 39
relating the identification of a backup for GPS.
In terms of where we live on the Pacific, the problem is we appropriated the money for modernization of LORAN but, unfortunately, it was improved in areas where it wasn't needed anymore, and in the area where it is still needed, it was not.
We are in a situation now where our people still rely upon LORAN. We were told that the Department of Transportation did not participate in this study. We now know that the Department of Transportation says that from a cost-benefit analysis, the whole system is not justified. That may well be. That may well be. All we are asking for is this analysis now to be made of the system, and the merits of maintaining LORAN as a backup navigational aid and the benefits of using it in conjunction with the Global Positioning System.
We believe that in areas where it doesn't work continually, GPS ought to be backed up by LORAN and vice versa. But particularly in terms of the long coastline of the Pacific coast--and we are part of the Pacific coast--we were not included in the study. This benefit-to-cost ratio is a national conclusion and not a conclusion based upon the areas where LORAN is currently used. In many areas of the country, it has been totally abandoned, and it ought to be abandoned. We don't have any problem with that. But steps to reduce operation at stations where this LORAN is still in use and is relied upon today is wrong. If there is to be some decision along that line, we will be happy to try and work that out in conference with the Senator. But maybe we should say the Secretary should refrain from taking any steps to reduce LORAN at certain stations but nationwide.
I will be happy to change that, so he should not be prevented from taking steps to reduce operations at any station where it is not currently relied upon for navigation, either directly or as a backup to
Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold, I would like to make one point with a letter I am quoting from, dated April 18, 2006. It was addressed to Assistant Secretary of Policy at Homeland Security, and it says:
The future of LORAN should be determined by reference to
the broader national interest. Might LORAN serve as the
backup to GPS contemplated by the mandates of NSPD 39? Apart
from its potential as a backup to GPS, does its robust, low-
frequency, penetrating signal offer potential value in our
effort to secure the international supply chain? Are there
other possible backups to GPS that offer clear advantages
over LORAN?
None of that has been answered.
Now, certainly, this is after the Secretary signed off on that plan, but the idea of abandoning LORAN prematurely was not signed off on by the Department, to my knowledge.
Madam President, I say to my friend, I do support his amendment now as amended to preserve the rights of people who currently rely on the LORAN-C--the LORAN system, not just the LORAN-C.
Thank you very much.