Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. I do. I have a modification of amendment No. 4585. The amendment will remain intact with the following added at the bottom which says ``except in Alaska, far Northwest, and far Northeast Continental United States of America.'' I want to be clear that the Record show what that means; that is, they can dismantle LORAN everywhere except there. And that would protect specifically Nantucket, Caribou, George, and all six in Alaska. The study would still go forward for those areas only, not for the rest of the country. The dismantling of these areas that are not used would be able to continue as the administration and the Federal Radio Navigational Plan suggests. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be accepted.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have a couple of comments to the Senator from Washington State. LORAN won't go away if this instruction for this study is taken out. There are still 4 years that LORAN will be there under the Coast Guard's plan. I also remind the Senator that the FAA has already said they don't need it. The Maritime Commission has said they don't need it. The Coast Guard has said they don't need it. Who needs it when we have other backups? It is true that in 2000 the FAA said we don't have sufficient backup to eliminate LORAN. They have since, in the report--the study that has already been made--said they don't need it. So this is a report to extend the life of LORAN, something that we don't need. I know the Senator from Alaska will oppose this. I look forward to a vigorous debate with him. I will soon ask unanimous consent again to submit the 2005 Federal radio navigational plan into the Record so everybody can see all the claims that have been made by the groups that supposedly don't need it. The plan has already been done. It is not required as a navigational backup. Now, will some people somewhere want to get a better navigational system? Yes. You can buy a GPS system for a boat now for about $300 and you can have something far superior than LORAN ever was or you can use the VOR system or one of the myriad--seven other backups for maritime without using LORAN. With that, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set aside, and I will call up another amendment.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would note that in the report, the considerations for backups are very well and very explicitly listed, including Alaska's backup system. So I agree that there is some confusion and there certainly is some difference in what was signed off on the report and what we are hearing now. I would ask to note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would just make a couple of points. Norm Mineta of the Department of Transportation signed this report on October 21, 2005--the Secretary of the Department of Transportation-- the Federal Radionavigation Plan. So for the Department of Transportation to claim now that they didn't agree with this report, when their Secretary and his staff signed off on the report, there is something amiss. There is some miscommunication. What I would like to do is note the absence of a quorum in the hopes that I could work with the Senators from Alaska and Washington to come to a compromise on this amendment.

Mr. COBURN. There are also places where LORAN cannot be accessed in Alaska today.

Mr. COBURN. I would concede to the Senator that there are occasional times that the GPS cannot be utilized. I would concede that.

Mr. COBURN. I will finish my point, and then I will turn the time over to the Senator. Mr. President, the Federal Radionavigation Plan is a 120-page report. Let me just go through it real quickly. FAA has said: Sufficient alternative navigational aids exist in the event of a loss of GPS-based services. They have VOR, which they have in Alaska. The Maritime Administration determined that there would not be significant disruption in the movement of vessels in and out of U.S. ports or affect commercial enterprises as traditional aids to navigation are still in use and capable. The Department of Homeland Security has determined that LORAN-C is not needed as a backup for timing users, as adequate alternatives are already in place. The Federal Railroad Administration said they have no need for LORAN. The bottom line: The accuracy of LORAN in these areas can be equally degraded and compromised, and therefore, there would be no material degradation in navigational safety should GPS be the only RNAV source for Alaska. Traditional backups for maritime navigation would still be in place: VTSs, buoys, ranges, radar, lighthouses, and fathometers. Since 1997, $160 million has been appropriated to recapitalize LORAN. $117.5 million of that has been transferred to the Coast Guard. It is estimated that it will take another 6 to 10 years and $300-plus million to recapitalize that. The point is, even without the amendment of the Senator from Alaska, his addition in committee, it is 4 years before this is decommissioned. So it gives 4 years for anybody who has any problem with it a chance to adjust to that problem. I would offer to the Senator from Alaska that there might be a compromise that we could discuss in keeping LORAN working just for Alaska where there is a problem, rather than keeping LORAN working everywhere else there is not a problem. I would suggest there may be a compromise to address the issues of concern that the Senator from Alaska has, that would also save us a considerable amount of money and solve his problems with those who feel at risk without elimination of LORAN. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. COBURN. I would concede that.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 4589 be called up.

Mr. COBURN. I would concede to the Senator that LORAN can be used in places where GPS cannot be utilized. But I would also concede that the study that asked for this has already been done. Everything that this study asked for has already been put forward. The 2005 Federal Radionavigation Plan answers every question you have asked in this amendment. What the Department of Transportation says, what the FAA says, what the Maritime Commission says, what the U.S. Coast Guard says is LORAN is not needed for a backup for a navigational system anywhere in this country. That is what they say, and that is what you are asking for. They have also done a cost-benefit analysis, and they have said, without question, the cost-benefit is on the side of eliminating LORAN. Let's talk about what it will cost. The Government estimates it will cost $300 million to upgrade the LORAN system in Alaska over the next 6 to 7 years. And what they are certifying--and I understand the concern of the Senator from Alaska because some people might not have a system they are used to today. But when these agencies certified that LORAN is not needed as a secondary backup, that is what you are asking them for in the study, and they have already said it is not needed.

Mr. COBURN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his words. I want to clarify something which is just my understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong. The GPS is never limited by line of sight. It is a satellite. It is the LORAN system that is limited by line of sight. The mountainous structures in Alaska limit the LORAN system. GPS is far superior to the LORAN system. That is accurate. Both as a pilot I know that and from what we have said. The other point that I would make--

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I am going to take a few minutes. I am very happy with the support of the Senator from Illinois for the nomination of Mr. Paulson, but I challenge what was just said. There is no question we have deficits. There is also no question that on 9/11, we experienced a great economic shock and we had a recession that was big. The tax cuts have led to the highest revenues this Federal Government has ever had. On the spending side, I find it somewhat curious, the Senator from Illinois ranks No. 6 in the most spending voted for in the Senate last year. He ranks No. 8 in the cosponsorship of the most new spending outside the appropriations bills. You can't have it both ways. You can't complain that we are in deficits and we are in debt and never vote to lower the spending, never vote for amendments that trim wasteful spending, and then complain that somebody else made you do it. If we look at the voting record on appropriations bills, there are not very many noes coming from that vote. The way we control spending-- and we have proven it on our committee, the Federal management oversight committee--we identified over $200 billion worth of waste. If we want to balance the budget, let's have everybody on both sides of the aisle voting to trim the waste, fraud, and abuse out of the Federal Government, rather than when we go to a conference or a meeting with the President when there is excess money and demanding more spending, not less. The numbers are fairly revealing. Last year, Senator Durbin sponsored $93 billion in new spending--new spending, outside of what we did on appropriations. He put his name to spend $93 billion, and he put his name to trim $100 million. That is the problem we have. It is not taxes, it is wasteful spending and the idea that the only way we can accomplish something is to spend more money. I am for the same priorities. We need to help the people who need help in this country. But we will never be able to afford it in the future without stealing from our kids if we don't do the hard work to get rid of the waste now, and that means voting against appropriations bills, not voting for them. The President signed what the Senator from Illinois voted for. I thank the Chair.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have great respect for the Senator from Hawaii, for his service as a veteran, as well as his service in this body, but I couldn't disagree more. Our Founders used the word ``speech.'' They didn't say ``expression'' or ``expressive behavior.'' They used the word ``speech'' very critically. It was discussed in the documents: What word will we use in the Bill of Rights in this first amendment? They chose the word ``speech'' because they meant speech. They didn't mean behavior. They meant speech. I think it is real important for the American people to understand what this debate is all about. It is not about burning the flag. It is about restoring the balance of the three branches of Government, and that when one of the three becomes imbalanced, that we have the right to restore that balance. Our Founders were wise in that regard to give us this vehicle of amending the Constitution. We can talk about the flag all we want, but the real debate here is, when an overwhelming majority of Americans agree with this and all 50 State legislatures have passed requests that we do this, why we don't do this? The only way we have to balance the judiciary with the legislative branch is to do it in a manner that represents the will of the people as prescribed by our Founders. Seven new Republican Senators were elected in 2004, and if there was an issue that dominated that debate more than anything, it was, what kind of judges are we going to put on the courts? Are we going to confirm judges who take what they want, twist the Constitution into what they believe, and change the basics of how we operate in this country or are we going to put judges on the courts who understand that they have a very limited role to interpret the Constitution, interpret the treaties, and interpret the statutes of this country? The reason we were sent here, the seven of us, the vast majority of the impact of that election, was to have an impact on what kinds of judges we were going to put on the courts. This is that same debate coming from a different angle. Do we want a 5-to-4 decision where five Members of the Court determine and twist what the real words of our Constitution say--speech, not behavior; it says ``speech,'' not behavior, not expressive conduct; it says ``speech''--and do we want to allow that to continue to be twisted or do we want to reserve the right for Congress to go through the method that our Founders allowed to bring about a constitutional amendment that says we have the right to control whether somebody can do that. To vote against this amendment will limit the ability of this body to hold on to its balanced share of one-third of the power of this Government. This is about restoring the power of this body and the House to, in fact, represent what the people in this country want in an overwhelming majority in all 50 States. It is not about burning the flag. It is about reestablishing the proper role of the balance of the three branches that run this country--the executive, the judiciary, and the legislative. We are going to miss a great opportunity if we don't do this. It will do two things: One, it will reestablish the power, but it will send a signal that when judges take an oath, they have to follow the oath and the oath is not to determine what they think is best based on what they believe. Their oath is to follow the Constitution, not change it but follow it; and No. 2, interpret the statutes and interpret the treaties. We have to reestablish a balance. This resolution is about reestablishing that balance and sending the message that we are serious that judges take their oath seriously, that they don't get to play games with what they would like but they, in fact, have to uphold their oath. They also have to follow what the Constitution says, and the Constitution says the same thing as their oath. They don't get the privilege of deciding what they want. They have the privilege of only deciding what the Constitution says, what the statutes say, and what the treaties say. I remind the Members of this body that our Founders put the word ``speech'' in the first amendment on purpose. They didn't put the words ``expressive behavior.'' They used the word ``speech,'' and we ought to establish the right of the Congress to establish within itself the right to do what the American people want and to follow the Constitution. That is what this is about. There have been a lot of statements made about what would you do with a flag; what about a bathing suit? The way you judge what is a flag is what you drape over the coffin of one of our fallen soldiers. That is how you judge what it is. That is what it means. You can't define what it is other than the value of service and sacrifice that is part of the heritage of this country. To say we cannot preserve the value of that and bring back our constitutional responsibility to do that--No. 1, which does follow the Constitution and, No. 2, is the desired will of this country--means that we won't stand up to the obligations of our office, and we ought to be very serious about it as we do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would like to call up amendment No. 4491 again.

Mr. COBURN. I ask for its consideration.

Mr. COBURN. I call up amendment No. 4370.

Mr. COBURN. I ask for its consideration for the purpose of a vote.

Mr. COBURN. There were violations in contracting law with this. There were promises made last year when we had this same discussion in the Senate that certain things were happening that did not happen in terms of this contract. There is no question there has been some improvement, but they have not achieved a level that would say we are anywhere close to the level of making this an efficient system.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I want to spend a few minutes, first of all, praising the chairman and ranking member of this committee. It is important, I think, that we see the relationships that develop, as well as the standards that have been developed on this bill, the fact that Chairman Warner was here very late last night, the fact that we are moving forward in an expeditious way. I have several areas and several amendments I am going to call up. I will try to be cooperative as to whether we have votes. But I think the issues are important enough that the American people ought to hear the debate about them. I am not under any illusion that will necessarily win some of them. But I think we need to pay attention to them and the debate needs to be a part of the Record. With that, I call up amendment No. 4454 and ask unanimous consent to modify it with the language of 4491, which I have here in my hand.

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