[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 129 (Monday, October 1, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9946-S9947]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor in morning business to
talk about National Public Lands Day, but before I do that I want to
respond to my colleague from North Dakota, ever so briefly, to suggest
that the Defense authorization bill can and should move on the floor
just as he said.
There are not a lot of amendments that are holding it up, but there
is one important one--that has not yet been offered--in an effort to
try to cause the Senate to shape a direction and establish a time
certain when the Senate can debate a national energy policy.
The Presiding Officer happens to be chairman of the Energy Committee
in the Senate. He and I have worked long hours already, trying to
determine what might go into a national energy policy bill that could
come from his authorizing committee.
As we know, the House acted before the August recess on a national
energy policy. At that time, the American people said we ought to have
a national energy policy for the stability and strength of our economy,
because of the long-term need for energy, and, last, because of
national security needs.
Since September 11, there has been a literally cataclysmic change in
the thinking of the American people as it relates to energy. Issues
that once resided in the 35-percent positive range are now at 65-
percent positive, relating to certain aspects of energy and energy
development. I say that because in looking at a poll that was taken on
December 15 and 16, the pollster told me--the poll is still sequestered
yet for certain purposes--that in his opinion the events of September
11 changed the mindset of the American public in a greater way than
ever in the history of modern-day polling.
No longer is energy an issue of economic stability. It is now, by a
factor of 15 points, an issue of national security. Why? Because the
American people now well understand we are nearly 60-percent dependent
upon foreign oil, and a dominant amount of that oil comes out of the
Middle East. In fact, just last week the OPEC ministers decided not to
turn down their valves to force up the price of crude oil because they
were afraid they would dump the world economy. That was exactly their
thinking. I had a phone conversation with our Secretary of Energy,
Spence Abraham, who had gone to Vienna to talk to the ministers. They
had concluded they would not force the price up by forcing the volume
down.
If we are going to decide we cannot deal with a national energy
policy for the next 3 or 4 months when in fact we have already spent 2
years looking at policy before the committee--the Presiding Officer,
the chairman, has a bill out, the ranking member has a bill out, and
there are other versions. We might not be able to do a large bill that
is fully comprehensive. But I believe in this time, when America is
asking us to unite and stand together and has said that energy is now a
national security issue of the utmost importance, that we in the next 2
weeks on the Energy Committee, if we chose to work 4 or 5 days a week
and have our staffs working hard, could do just that: Produce a
comprehensive energy bill, bring it to the floor, vote on it, and begin
to work with the House to find out our differences.
If we recess in late October or early November--or adjourn, whatever
our
[[Page S9947]]
leadership decides--an energy bill ought to be on the President's desk
waiting for his signature. Any less performance than that is an
inadequate performance on the part of the Congress.
I think we do have that opportunity. The reason we have a colleague
on the floor saying he wants to put one on the Defense authorization
bill is to cause the leadership of the Senate not to stonewall the
issue but to give us a time certain when that issue can come to the
floor.
____________________