[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Page 18133]
[From the U.S. 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 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.

                          ____________________