Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, first I would like to thank Chairman Kohl and Senator Cochran for the hard work they have put into the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. It is a challenging process, and they have done an excellent job balancing competing interests within the confines of a balanced budget. I wish to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee regarding the appropriation for the Department of Agriculture's Rural Development Programs. The committee has encouraged the Department to continue to support the National Rural Development Partnership (NRDP) and its associated State Rural Development Councils within existing funds. It is my understanding that an allocation of $5.5 million would provide Federal funding to 40 State Rural Development Councils (SRDCs) at the level they received in fiscal year 2001 and that it would cover other necessary program support for the NRDP/SRDCs. I would ask that this need be considered when this bill goes to conference. The National Rural Development Partnership is a nonpartisan interagency working group whose mission is to contribute to the vitality of the Nation by strengthening the ability of rural Americans to fully participate in determining their futures. Although the Partnership has existed for 10 years, it has never been formally authorized by Congress. Thirty seven members of the Senate have joined on legislation to formally establish the NRDP and SRDCs, S. 1111, the National Rural Development Partnership Act. This legislation authorizes or formally recognizes the existence and operations of the Partnership, the National Rural Development Council, and SRDCs. In addition, the legislation gives specific responsibilities to each component of the partnership and authorizes it to receive Congressional appropriations. It is essential that the current network of SRDCs remain viable while we work to pass this legislation. The core components of S. 1111 have been included in the House version of the farm hill and we are working to have S. 1111 included in the Senate version of the farm bill. In addition, a task force, which includes significant representation external to the NRDP, is currently considering questions related to the mission, structure, and operations of the NRDP and SRDCs. Fiscal year 2002 is a transitional year during which fundamental issues related to the NRDP and SRDCs will be addressed. During fiscal year 2002, unique role of helping to coordinate rural development policies and programs must be preserved.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I am heartened by the amount of cooperation I have witnessed among my Senate colleagues and the expeditious way they have addressed our national security concerns in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11. The passage of the Airline Security and Anti-Terrorism bills will give the administration necessary tools to combat terrorism here at home. Whether the anthrax attacks of last week on our Nation's Capitol prove to be connected to Al Qaeda, it is certain that the attempt to bring our government to a standstill has failed. To be sure, the quarters here have been cramped but our commitment to work together has not been affected. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the postal workers who lost their lives this week, but this sad chapter only strengthens our resolve to find the culprits of these heinous acts and bring them to justice. I commend the administration for its success in forming an international coalition on such short notice. The President's visit to Shanghai last week, and Secretary Powell's visit to India, were fruitful in getting us needed support from the two most populous countries in the world. I join the President in admonishing all nations who want to be a part of the civilized world to either side with us, or side with the terrorists. The time to be lukewarm is gone; we need to draw a line in the sand. I believe we are entering into a ``New Cold War,'' where the stakes are no less grave than they were in the cold war of the twentieth century. The fight against radical Islam, like the fight against communism, is a fight to preserve the republican ideals that made our Nation so great. May we look to President Reagan and the example he set for American courage and American resolve to win in this ``New Cold War''. Many of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee know that I am not a big fan of foreign aid, particularly when there are many vital projects that deserve attention here at home. The Foreign Operations Appropriations bill has many flaws, the worst of which has incited a Presidential veto threat due to provisions that would allow federal funding for international family planning organizations that perform abortions overseas. American taxpayer dollars should not be used to subsidize groups that do not respect the life of the unborn. This sends the wrong message to our children and cheapens the value of life. Other flaws include the onerous certification requirements that the administration must fulfill in order to assist in the rebuilding of vital infrastructure that we destroyed in Yugoslavia during the Kosovo war. Yugoslavia has made tremendous strides towards democracy, as can be witnessed by the free and fair elections that peacefully removed the Milosevic regime. Rather than further harm the Yugoslav people who are in need of such basic things as clean water, and heating for the coming winter months, we should allow the administration to grant assistance as it sees fit in this area. I also have a problem with a bill that is over a half a billion dollars larger than last year, but is over $160 million below the funding level requested by the administration for programs to curb illicit narcotics trafficking in the Andean region. How can we justify a spending increase of this magnitude at the expense of important programs that help to prevent the flow of illegal drugs into this country? Where is this increase in spending going? Despite these flaws, however, the events over the past 6 weeks have understandably changed Americans' outlook on international affairs, and our need to stay engaged. I recognize the responsibility the United States has in leading the fight to defend democracy and Western Civilization and, as such, the United States must remain involved in the international arena. This is not the time to isolate ourselves. The administration must have a complete arsenal at its disposal for the war against terrorism, and that includes having the ability to use foreign aid as a means to reward and reinvest in those nations who actively support us in this fight. Therefore, I will support the passage of this bill on condition that its most grave flaws be remedied in conference with the House. However, should the conference report be sent to the Senate floor ``unremedied,'' I will be forced to consider opposing the report and urging my colleagues to do likewise. Lastly, as a complement to the ongoing efforts to strengthen our national security, I urge the speedy passage of a revamped Intelligence Authorization bill that will give our intelligence community the capability it needs not to not only streamline the gathering and sharing of information among various agencies, but to have the discretion to act on that information as well. Our agents in the field should not be more worried about getting reprimanded for the methods they use in collecting information, than they should about ensuring the safety of our Nation. I would also like to reiterate the importance to our national security of passing an energy bill that will allow us to explore other sources of energy domestically. As the prospects of a widened war in the Middle East becomes more likely, it is crucial that we take steps now to wean ourselves away from foreign sources of oil. We currently consume up to 700,000 barrels of oil a day from Iraq alone. If the American people are worried about the state of the economy now, just wait until we have a real energy crisis, and we will all see the economy go into a tailspin. The eyes of the free world look to us for direction. We must not fail them.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I again rise to focus the Senate on an issue that is without question a high priority one for the Congress and for the American people and one I hope we can deal with before we recess or adjourn this first session of the 107th Congress. I am talking about the critical need for a national energy policy. For over a decade, we have wandered in the energy world without a policy that truly directed our resources and our public policy toward assuring that our Nation was self-reliant on its primary energy sources. Over that time, we have grown increasingly dependent upon foreign sources for those primary resources. As a result, if what is now going on in the Middle East were to erupt in a broader shooting war, it is possible we could see a curtailment of supplies out of those oil-rich countries that could not only create a critical crisis here but would drive up fuel prices at the pump dramatically. It is not happening right now. It is not happening largely because of a flat economy, less use, and because the OPEC nations recognize that the world economy is soft at this moment and have chosen not to turn the spigots on their oil wells down; therefore, driving up the price. It is temporary, and we all know that it is temporary. Over a year and a half ago, they made it very public that it was their intent to drive the world price of crude oil up to $28 to $30 a barrel and to try to sustain that price. It is now below that. It is obvious to me and to all of us who watch this issue that they are intentionally holding the price down because of the world economy and their fear of its softening. That is one side of the issue. The other side of the issue for us is a quick examination of our infrastructure and the systems of our infrastructure and the failure of that to deliver the kind of energy our growing economy and our growing Nation needs. We saw that for almost a year in California with rolling blackouts that truly crippled the economy of that great State, largely because they had chosen the wrong policy as it related to continuing to develop energy sources and to upgrade the infrastructure that served the public. As a result of all of that, we had a new President come to town not quite a year ago and say that without question one of the most critical needs of this Nation is a national energy policy. He established that as a very high priority. Well, while he was doing that, we in the Senate, and our colleagues on the other side of the rotunda in the House, were busily working at the crafting of such a policy. We have spent countless hours and over 3 years in the Senate, with literally 100 or more very detailed investigative kinds of committee gatherings for the purpose of trying to determine how that policy ought to look, how we ought to shape it, and how we ought to present it to the American people. All of that work has been done. In fact, the House worked rather quickly. They sensed the urgency, as we did, and before the August recess they had produced their version of a national energy policy. It appeared to me--and I think to all of us--that by late fall we would have a similar bill and we would be voting on it on the floor of the Senate because the Energy Committee, under the guidance of Chairman Bingaman, was working its will, starting a markup. Our attempt was going to be considerably more extensive than that of the House. But that work was well underway. Then comes September 11. We are refocused for a moment, as you know, and for all the right reasons. But this Senate is not a single-action Senate. There are 100 Senators, and there are multiples of committees and lots of chairmen, and there are hundreds of staff people. Clearly, the Energy Committee of the Senate should have been, and could have been, continuing its work toward the production of a bill to come to the floor of the Senate. Then, in a rather unprecedented move, over a week and a half ago, the majority leader of the Senate basically told the chairman of the Energy Committee to cease and desist. No longer was he to mark up a bill and get it to the floor. Why? The argument was that it was politically too divisive. Too divisive to talk about a national energy policy, to tell the citizens that this Senate was going to work with the President to develop a policy to move us toward energy self-sufficiency, that is divisive? I don't think so. I think that is leadership. I think that is what our country calls out for at this moment, and people certainly are getting it in most instances. But in the area of national energy policy, the leader of the Senate is not leading at this moment. Now he says he has instructed the chairman of the Energy Committee to craft a bill that they will build up through the office of the majority leader and it will come to the floor, or it could come to the floor, or it is possible to have a vote on it prior to a recess or adjournment of the first session. Well, that is not good enough. I don't believe so. I believe a strong majority of the Senate agrees with me that it is time we dealt with a national energy policy and let the chips fall where they may, let the votes fall where they may. As a result of that, Frank Murkowski, our ranking member of the committee, I, having served on the committee for a good number of years, and a lot of other folks are engaged in trying to craft an energy bill. It won't be as broad or expansive as it might have been had we had the will to work the committee and had the committee not been instructed to stand down and desist, but we will introduce that bill. We believe that can be done on Monday. We are working with the administration. Now we are asking in a very straightforward way, and I think an honest and responsible way, for the majority leader of the Senate to give us time to bring his bill to the floor; let us bring our bill to the floor and let us work out our differences. Everyone knows the issues at hand and all of us have a pretty good idea of what a national energy policy ought to look like. Then we can work with the House. Prior to adjournment, or following adjournment, we can rest assured that a national energy policy bill will be on the desk of the President of the United States, so that if there is a dramatic energy shock in the future, we will have done the right thing. We will have prepared the country, directed our resources, directed the infrastructure of this country toward the development of a greater sense of self-reliance because my guess is that if we fail and gas lines mount in a time of crisis, this Senate will be scrambling to make up politically what they are now trying to dodge. It is not a time for politics. We have worked very cooperatively together on a lot of issues since September 11. Energy should not be one issue that is politicized. But by the very action of the majority leader himself, he is on the verge of risking that possibly happening. So I ask him to honor his commitment that he made publicly--and I have no reason to believe he would not--to get an energy bill to the floor, allow us to get ours to the floor, allow us to offer amendments, and let the Senate work its will. Two or three days of debate, don't we have time to do that when we are standing idle, waiting for decisions to be made, waiting for judicial nominees to come to the floor, and waiting for appropriations bills to come to the floor? Remember, there are 100 Senators. There are numerous chairmen. This Senate can work in multiples of ways beyond just a single issue and a single action. I think it is time that we as Senators insist that the leadership of the Senate allow us to bring what I believe is one of the top issues in America today, a national energy policy, to the floor so that the American people will know we did the right thing in trying to protect them and their future and the economy of this country from any major shock, should we ever get into a situation in the Middle East, or in those primary production areas on which we are now so reliant, which are well beyond our border and well out of our control. With those comments, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a wonderful man, Master Sergeant Evander Andrews, whose life was cut short on October 10, 2001, while in the service of his country. He was on deployment and became the first casualty of Operation Enduring Freedom, paying the ultimate sacrifice in our Nation's war on international terrorism. He was an active duty Air Force member with the 366th Civil Engineering Squadron from Mountain Home Air Force Base, Master Sergeant Andrews loved the Air Force, working on heavy equipment, and riding in the cab of an 18-wheeler. But, his family and faith were his true compass and the most important things in his life. He will forever be remembered in the hearts and minds of a loving family, the Mountain Home Air Force Base community, the 366th Civil Engineering Squadron, and many loyal friends. Evander, or Andy, as he was affectionately known, was a devoted husband and good father, born to Odber and Mary Andrews. He grew up in Solonn, ME, which was little more than a country store, tack ship, old hotel, gas station and cemetery, but a great place to grow up. Andy's three sisters, Carol, Tara and Dulci, remember that he was especially close to his father, who was a farmer, but also worked as a mechanic. His dad taught him to fix engines and other big equipment and how to ride motorcycles. Andy was a strongly built young man, on the quiet side, and everyone thought he would become a farmer. But, after graduation from Carrabec High School in 1983, he left the family farm to join the Air Force and experience the world. He met his wife, Judy, in 1987, at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, where Andy was an instructor for construction equipment operators, and she was a student at Central Missouri State University. After Judy's graduation from college, they married in 1990 and two years later left Missouri for Mountain Home Air Force Base. Andy and Judy were married for 11 years and have four beautiful children. Their oldest child is Ethan, age 9, followed by Leah age 6, Courtney, age 4, and Mackenzie, age 2. I know they will miss their father very much, and always remember him for the joy and commitment that he had for the church and strong family values that he shared with them all. Everyone will remember his passion for working on vehicles, and his compassion for people. He was the kind of guy that would give you the shirt back off his back, and was always there for you if you needed help, especially if it involved fixing your car. He was truly loved by everyone he touched. In the Air Force, Master Sergeant Andrews was the Chief of the Pavements Repair Team, operating a multitude of huge vehicles. He felt at home around heavy equipment, knew how to do every job in the shop, and was willing to teach others, just as his father had once taught him. He was always volunteering, especially if a road trip was required. He loved driving those 18-wheelers, but was willing to ride shotgun, in order to show others what he knew best. Master Sergeant Andrews truly was a great person who was moved to defend a great Nation and bring peace and security to the world. Rest assured, this war on terrorism will be won and the United States will continue to lead the world in protecting freedom. And it will be because of military members like Master Sergeant Andrews who bravely did what they believed in and accomplished what needed to be done. He was a thorough professional who was dedicated to his country and his duties as an Air Force Civil Engineering Non-commissioned Officer. Master Sergeant Andrews will be buried at Arlington National Cemetery on 22 October 2001. It is about halfway between his and Judy's families, who were the absolute love and joy of his life. I am very proud to recognize Master Sergeant Andrews and tell him and his family: Thank you from a grateful Nation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I speak not only as part of the Republican leadership in the Senate but as a member of the Energy Committee, a committee on which I have served for the 11 years I have been in the Senate. During those 11 years, I have had the opportunity to serve under three Presidents. For 8 of those years, I served under a Democrat President. During that time, he, I, his administration, and certainly all Members, attempted to shape a national energy policy for our country that never really got accomplished. During that time, we continued to grow very rapidly as a nation. We continued to consume up to a 2\1/2\ to 3 percent increase in energy each year, although our country was only producing a 1\1/2\ percent increase of total need. Of course, we know what happened as a result of that timeframe over the last 8\1/2\ years: We grew increasingly dependent upon foreign sources of energy for our existence, at least in oil. Our infrastructure grew older, our transmission lines and pipelines; our ability to generate electrical energy did not increase very rapidly. But workers found the demand of the new high-tech economy even required greater abundances of electricity and energy than we originally suspected. It is why it became an issue in the last presidential campaign and it is why this President, George Bush, immediately developed a national energy task force to began to work on a national energy policy. They completed their work and sent their information to the Hill. While that has been going on, the Energy Committee, now chaired by Senator Bingaman, once chaired by Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska, has been working on a national energy policy. We have spent the last 3\1/2\ to 4 years in hearings, looking at all sides of this issue. We clearly have a vision as to what we need and what we need to do. It is really not very difficult, although it is politically contentious. We need to produce more energy, in electricity and in gas and oil. We need to put more research behind new technologies and continue to advance the technologies for electronic cars and alternative forms of electrical generation--wind and solar. We have invested millions of dollars in those alternatives over the last couple of years. We need to continue. At the same time, there is no question for the next 15 to 20 years we will be increasingly dependent upon foreign sources for oil-- predominantly oil--ultimately the greatest form of energy that moves the American economy, whether it is the cars we drive, the trucks that deliver the goods and services to our communities, the trains that run upon our tracks, the airplanes that fly across our skies, or our ships at sea, our aircraft carriers and the planes that are now flying day and night over Afghanistan. All of those are driven by oil, by energy. When we started this debate a decade or more ago, we were around 50 percent dependent upon foreign sources of that energy. Today we are at times over 60 percent dependent. We understand the issue. We clearly understand the urgency. We awakened to that energy problem last year when the lights went out in California. We all said: My goodness, why is that happening? What happened that caused all of this--for elevators to stop operating and traffic lights to stop operating, for the economy of California to nearly go in the tank as a result of not having the energy base they needed to feed their growth and demand? We knew they had launched a policy some time back that was not allowing them to produce. While it was a wake-up call for California, it truly was a wake-up call for our Nation. As a result of that, this Senator's effort, the committee's effort, and the President's effort, the House moved an energy bill and was able to pass a fairly comprehensive new policy toward production and infrastructure development and the kind of refinement that a new, dynamic energy policy for our country needs. They did their work. They got that work done before the August recess. We were working, and with credit to Chairman Bingaman, although we had the transfer of leadership in the Senate, he continued to work. He was looking at a much broader bill to deal with the issue of energy than the House produced. We were working with him in a very bipartisan manner. Sure, there were differences of opinion. Yes, there are several issues on which we clearly disagree. But in the general sense, we were moving toward a national energy policy. Along comes September 11. We all know that day now; It is seared into our minds, our world stopped for a time and thousands of Americans lost their lives. We began to rethink who we were and what we were all about as a country. Up until that time Americans, if they were polled, said that, yes, a national energy policy was necessary because it meant the strength of our economy and the growth of our economy and it meant that future generations would have an opportunity to have a supply of energy. But about third or fourth on that list of reasons for a national energy policy was national security. It did not register but third on some polls, or fourth. September 11--the world changes; the American mindset changes. All of a sudden, by nearly a 60 percentile polling factor, energy and energy policy and energy supply for our country--reliable, abundant, stable-- became the No. 1 issue. National security, national security, national security. Why, then, do I read in a press release from Chairman Bingaman yesterday that the majority leader of the Senate has directed the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to suspend any further markup on energy legislation for this session of Congress? What? A No. 1 national energy policy, being now a No. 1 national security policy in our country, and the leader of the Senate is saying stop, don't go forward? The House has done its work, but the Senate cannot do its work? He says he wants to write his own bill. OK. I have been involved with this issue for a long time. I know why he wants to write his own bill. I understand the politics of the issue. I understand the other side lost a component of the battle on September 11. Actually, they had lost it much before then. They lost it when the House voted to include oil exploration in the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in August. They were not willing to admit it at that time. They thought they still had the votes, but the House had already made that decision because America was sensing a need for a broader national energy policy. But on September 11 that issue was gone. When it says down here that Senator Bingaman went on to say, ``the Senate leadership sincerely wants to avoid quarrelsome, divisive votes in the committee,'' what the chairman is saying is he can't control his own people anymore in the committee because September 11 convinced them that we have to have a national energy policy because national security and energy is paramount. So he went to his leader and said: Leader Daschle, I can't give you the energy bill that I thought I could. I have lost the votes on a couple of key issues and you won't like what comes to the floor. Some on the other side are saying if you bring that kind of a bill to the floor, we will filibuster, we won't let it pass, and we don't want to see that kind of partisanship on the floor post-September 11. So they are stopping any effort to develop a national energy policy and to allow the Senate to address the issue. I come to the Chamber today because this is not only a distressing press release from the chairman of the Energy Committee, I am amazed the majority leader has pulled that authority away from the authorizing committee chairman who has, over the last good number of years, truly become an expert in the energy issue. He and I do not always agree, but we think it is the responsibility of that committee to produce a bill, not for the majority leader to go into his back office and write a bill that is politically correct for his side of the aisle. Is that--will that be--could that be a comprehensive national energy policy? I don't think so. But let's say it could be. I ask unanimous consent for no more than 5 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. I am going to give the majority leader the benefit of the doubt at this moment--because I should. I am going to say to the majority leader at this moment: OK, if that is your decision--and I understand the timing here; I understand we are in the last month to a month and a half of this session of Congress and that national energy policy is truly a national security issue and all Americans now believe that. All the polls show that. It is something the House has dealt with and we should deal with. So I say to Leader Tom Daschle at this moment: If you are going to craft an energy bill in your office and bring it to the floor as the prerogative of leadership, get on with it. Do it now. Don't tell us you are going to do it and then wait 3 or 4 or 5 weeks, knowing that it cannot get done and it cannot get conferenced with the House. That way you have given your people a vote, but you have not faced the issue and you have not put a bill on the President's desk. That is not leadership. That is politics. The majority leader and the chairman of the full committee say they want to avoid quarrelsome, divisive votes. They don't want to allow partisan politics to come to the floor. I suggest if he crafts a bill and brings it to the floor, he avoids that. But if this is a ploy, if this is simply rhetoric to get the bug off their back--because it is now squarely on the majority's back; they have canceled the committee from acting; the majority leader has said: I'll do it. So if we do not have a national energy policy for the energy security and the national security of this country by the close of business of this first session of this Congress, then it is Tom Daschle's fault. I believe that is quite clear. I think that is plain and I think that is simple and I think he has said it just that way when he has said that he will craft a bill and bring it to the floor under the leadership prerogative. Comprehensive, balanced energy legislation can be added by the majority leader to the Senate calendar for potential action prior to adjournment: so speaketh the leader of the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, I am going to support my leader. But I am going to insist, as all other colleagues will, or at least many will, that he act and that he act in a timely fashion so it can be conferenced with the House and put on the President's desk. It is an issue of national security. It is every bit as critical as an airport security bill--and the ranking member of the Commerce Committee is on the floor now trying to get that bill up. It is every bit as important as an antiterrorist bill. If we get into a greater warlike problem in the Middle East and our flow of oil is cut off from the Arab nations, from Iraq--believe it or not--from Iran, from which we are now getting oil, and if we do not have a national energy policy that begins to move us toward a higher degree of national energy independence, then shame on us but, more important, shame on the majority leader of the Senate, who has chosen to take away from the authorizing committee the authority to craft a bill and bring it to the floor, if the majority leader himself does not honor the commitment he has now made to us, that he will divine--define and maybe divine--a balanced energy policy and bring it to the floor for a vote. That is an obligation that the Senate of the United States should deal with before we adjourn or before we recess this first session of this Congress. I recognize the importance of this issue, as do many of our colleagues. I am phenomenally disappointed in the form of leadership that says we cannot let our committees work in this instance because this is not something new, as I said. We have been at the business of trying to write a bill for 3\1/2\ years. We have held 25 or 30 hearings on it. It is not a new issue, but it is a timely, critical issue to our country. I hope the statements of the majority leader represent the clear intention of bringing the bill to the floor within the next several weeks, that we can deal with it and move it off to conference and have a national energy policy on our President's desk by close of business. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. If Senator Dorgan isn't cranky, and I am not cranky, wherein lies the problem? He and I agree on the importance of airport security. We ought to be debating it right now, right here in this Chamber. Are there some disagreements? Yes, there are some disagreements. Are they big? To some, they are. I don't happen to disagree with all of them. The Senate is working its will, and the leader from the other side who is speaking on the floor right now is doing what he ought to be doing. But he also knows how the Senate works. At this very moment, we are very close to coming to the floor now with an agreement that cleans up and allows us to focus on airport security. I hope it is sooner rather than later. The American people deserve an airport security bill. But what I was saying on the floor a few moments ago--quoting from the chairman of the Energy Committee on which the Senator serves--he no longer can craft a bill. He has been disallowed by your leadership from doing so. He is going to, therefore, submit a bill to the majority leader and the majority leader is going to bring it to the floor for our consideration. What I said on the floor--and I will repeat it--is this: Please do that. Bring that bill to the floor, and sooner rather than later. I will say that it is no longer the responsibility of the chairman of the committee. I serve on that committee along with the Senator from North Dakota. We know that. The majority leader has spoken. The burden is on the majority leader to get an energy bill to the floor. I believe it is third in the line of actions that should be taken up on the floor. Airport security ought to be done right now. I hope we can do it this week and also do the antiterrorist bill this week. The Senator and I are in total agreement on that. I hope we sort this out sooner rather than later. But once those two bills are done, my guess is that I will be on the floor every day saying: Majority Leader Daschle, where is your energy bill? Where is your energy bill? You have taken the authority away from the committee. If you are going to produce a bill, do it, and we will debate it. Agree to get it to the floor with a couple of amendments on either side, or with no amendments, and then get it to conference, get the conferees appointed so we can get a bill on the President's desk. I believe and the public believes if we get into a shooting war in the Middle East and we sever our ties to our dependency on Middle East oil, we send this economy into another tailspin that should be avoidable, but it is not. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona knows that he and I are not too far apart on the issue on which he is speaking. I had hoped we would come to the floor this week and deal with two critical national issues: Airport security and antiterrorism. I think we were very close to being ready to do that. I had hoped we could deal with them cleanly and up front--airport security and terrorism issues. Generally, I have supported the Senator from Arizona on this issue, and continue to do so, and will work with him. I did not come to this Chamber today to suggest a national energy policy go in front of this. I suggest we do airport security, and we ought to be doing it right now in this Chamber. The Senator ought to be down there at the lead desk on this issue carrying the debate on this side, but he is not being allowed to do so. And it is not his fault; that is very clear. But what I am suggesting is that in the next month that this Congress will be in session, instead of sitting here marking a clock, with the lights on, the staff engaged, and nothing happening, we ought to also be debating and voting up or down on a national energy policy. I believe it is of high priority. Is it as high as airport security in the current blend of things? No, it isn't. I agree with the Senator from Arizona. We have to get the confidence built back in the American people on airport activity and security on airplanes, and get them flying now for the long-term economy, but also into the holiday season. It is critical for our airlines and their economic stability, no question about it. We need to give our Attorney General, and others in law enforcement, greater tools to track the terrorists, to track the criminals. And that is ready to go now. I do not understand why we were not able to switch over and double track. The Senator from Arizona agreed to that. But that is not the call of the minority; that is the call of the majority. They have not let us do that or we could be dealing with both of those critical bills--get at least one of them done this week. The clock is now running out. Having been able to do both of them--as we should have done--there would be ample time to do a national energy policy bill, to engage for 2 or 3 days on the floor, if need be, in the debate of that issue, because I have to think when you scratch the surface of all of these, you get to the bottom line: Airplanes do not fly without fuel; people do not get to the airports without it; our ships that are at sea at the moment, and our pilots who are flying those aircraft off those decks, work with a huge chunk of energy underneath them. We all know that. That is my point. I agree with the Senator from Arizona. It is not a matter of shoving in to the front; it is a matter of this Senate being capable of dealing with all three of these issues in a timely fashion. That was the point I wanted to make to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this afternoon I want to speak to the issue that many of my colleagues have spoken about. For the first time since September 11, I have heard an interesting word used by the majority leader of the Senate, the word ``obstruction.'' I am disappointed Senator Daschle has decided that is a word he needs to use to express his concern about where we are in the Senate at this moment. What I will say this afternoon to the majority leader is there is an awful lot about trying to get the work product we are going to offer to the American people next week right correct, well done, before we bring it to the floor. For example, if Senator Daschle had suggested we bring the antiterrorism package to the floor yesterday, we would not have had a completed product. Somebody would have had to stand up and object and say, wait a moment, Tom, somehow you have the cart before the horse. If we spend another 24 hours on it, maybe we can resolve our differences. You know what happened in that 24-hour period? Differences were resolved. The Senate stood in a bipartisan way last night and crafted an antiterrorism package, and the House voted out of committee unanimously in a bipartisan way to resolve it. There is not a great deal of difference between that and the airport safety package that came to the floor without clear instructions and a bipartisan unity that would have led us to resolve it in the correct fashion. Many of our colleagues were lining up, and rightfully so, to offer a variety of amendments that could have taken us well into next week, substantially changed the character of an airport safety package, and sent a very confusing message to the American public. The public has a right to be concerned at this moment because current airport safety failed us on September 11. They want to make darn sure that whatever we do this time we get it right. In getting it right, my guess is the first question you would ask is, Are you going to use the old model that failed us on September 11 and throw more money at it and throw more people at it, or are you going to think differently? Are you going to step out of that box and look at something new that really is an awful lot about law enforcement and a lot less about hiring the cheapest kind of personnel you can get to fill what is required by the FAA? That really is the debate that is going on behind the closed doors that the majority leader has not been willing to expose to the American people this afternoon. He has simply stood on this floor, wrung his hands, and used the word ``obstruction.'' Let me say what is going on in the back rooms at this moment: The White House, the Secretary of Transportation, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, and a good many others are trying to craft a final product that is a hybrid, that is out of the box, that is different, that is unique, that we can bring to the floor next Tuesday and show to the American people we can get it right and they will, from that day forward, as this new product gets implemented, have the kind of airport security they want, demand, and are going to require of their government. Is it more of a model of law enforcement, maybe like the U.S. Marshals Service that has a cadre of professionals that allows contracting out but does so with very strict parameters? The White House has said they do not want to federalize all of it. They recognize you cannot make all of these people Federal employees and expect the best product, but if you do, then you have to change the character of the way you hire a Federal employee, and you have to allow hiring and you have to allow firing. You have to be able to proscribe and demand and inspect and make sure the end product, the inability to penetrate security at all of our Nation's airports, is absolute. I suggest to the majority leader the reason we are not debating this issue on the floor this afternoon is not a matter of obstruction; it is a matter of getting it right before it is brought to the floor. It is an awful lot more about airport security in the long term because we only have one more bite at this apple. If we get it wrong this time, shame on us. We heard the Senator from New Jersey talk about a very important issue: rebuilding the infrastructure of the rail delivery system of the east coast. Should it be a part of airport security or should it be a part of an infrastructure bill that has long been needed that addresses the refurbishing of a very antiquated rail system? How much money is it going to cost? Should we rush to judgment and spend a few billion dollars more when we are on the verge of spending beyond what we now have available to spend? September 11 awakened us to a great many needs, but it does not mean we do them all overnight or we spend hundreds of billions of dollars into deficit to accommodate it. It says, though, that we have some immediate needs. One of the most immediate is airport security. While Americans are beginning to return to our airports because they know security has been substantially heightened, what we are going to offer them in the package that is brought to the floor next week is a new model that creates a new paradigm of thinking, that clearly allows the American people to see on an annual basis, as we review it, as it is implemented by this administration, an airport security system that has the integrity not to allow the penetration, not to allow a September 11 to ever happen again in this country, and to say to them, as I should as a policymaker in a legitimate way, we have offered the best product available to guarantee security and a sense of well-being when one steps on an airliner at any airport in this country. So should we be rushing now to get it out or should we be trying to do it right? Our President spoke about being calm, about missiles or bombs not flying the day after September 11, about going out and finding out where the enemy is, building coalitions and doing it in a progressive, constructive way that forever would rid this world of terrorism. He preached calmness and he asked us to unite. The kind of divisive word, ``obstruction,'' that I heard this afternoon does not serve this body well. It does not bring us together. It divides us. It divides Members along a line that says: there is somebody for something and somebody against something. I suggest there isn't anything that we can all be unanimously for at this moment because there are very legitimate questions about the integrity of the proposal and how it will work and who will manage it-- FAA? Department of Transportation? Department of Justice? Is it a transportation issue? Is it a law enforcement issue? They are reasonable questions to be asked, not after the fact but before the fact, before you get to the floor, before you have a final product, so we can stand united, together, as the American people are expecting in this time of national crisis, and not to divide along party lines. As a result of that need that I think is critical and that my leader thinks is critical, we had to say: Wait a moment; back off for just a little bit. Let's finish that product and let the chairman of the committee, who has worked hard and had a good idea, and the ranking member and the White House, and others, come together. It is true there was a bill and the bill they tried to present and bring forward yesterday afternoon had not been before the committee, had not had hearings, had not worked the process. I understand that. We all understand that. It is a time of urgency. But in that urgency, in the very critical character of what we do, we cannot do it wrong. We cannot rush to judgment and load it down with everything else, including social agendas, unemployment agendas, a whole infrastructure, transportation system for Amtrak. That is for another day and another issue. Darned important, yes. We need time to debate it on the floor. Let the committee work its will. I am not going to suggest I understand exactly how any of these systems ought to work. I understand when we take our time and involve all of our colleagues and use the process appropriately, we produce better public policy. Clearly, the White House engaged us yesterday in a much more direct way with some examples of things they believed were necessary that were not in the bill, that the leader was trying to bring to the floor, that he now accuses us of having obstructed. Mr. Leader, of course you speak out as you wish, but I will suggest that come next Tuesday or Wednesday we will have a better product. We will be more united. We will stand together as the American people ask. We will craft out of a box, out of the old failed paradigm, a new product, and we will be able to turn to the American people and say, in the collective best thinking of the U.S. Congress, the President of the United States, the Secretary of Transportation, and all of the experts we could assemble, we are creating an airport security system in this Nation that will work. Following that, I hope we can move to antiterrorism and the kind of package that was crafted in an unhurried but aggressive environment which the House voted out unanimously last night from their committee, and Senators came around yesterday evening in final draft to say that is a product that will work, that will give the FBI, that will give other law enforcement agencies in our country the kind of seamless web and communications system that allows them to know what the right hand is doing for the left hand, and vice versa, and the ability to track in a modern, electronic way those who might be brewing ill will for our Nation and our Nation's citizens. Let us stand together in this Nation's time of need. ``Obstruction'' is not a constructive word. It is not the glue we need. My guess is, getting it right is what we are about and what the American people expect. For tomorrow, for Saturday, and for Monday, our work is all about getting an airport security bill right. When we do, then we can turn to the American people and say we are putting in place a security system second to none. And from that, we can suggest the skies of America and America's air carriers are safer than they have ever been. That is our goal. It is our charge. Frankly, it is our responsibility. We are up to it in a bipartisan fashion with the whole Senate speaking as one voice. Next week we will be prepared to do that. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, today I wish to pay tribute to a wonderful man, Lieutenant Commander Ronald James Vauk, whose life was cut short on September 11, 2001, while he was doing what he loved to do, serving his country. He was a Reservist on duty as Watch Commander at the Naval Command Center when terrorists attacked the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. This tragedy was not only a savage blow to the United States, but will forever be remembered in the hearts and minds of a loving family, a strong Idaho community, and many loyal friends. Ron was a devoted husband and good father who was born to Dorothy and Hubert Vauk and raised in Nampa, ID. He was the youngest of nine children and attended St. Paul's Catholic School and Nampa High School, graduating in 1982. I had the pleasure of recommending Ron for an appointment to the United States Naval Academy after he served a year as an enlisted sailor. He graduated the Naval Academy in 1987 and married an incredible young women by the name of Jennifer Mooney. Ron had an exemplary career as a Naval Officer and submariner, serving on both the USS Glenard P. Lipscomb and the USS Oklahoma City. His love for the Navy continued with his service as a Reservist and a project manager for the Delex Corporation and then as an assistant group supervisor in submarine technology for the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Ron's work at Johns Hopkins was extremely important, but he was always ready to serve our Nation as a Naval Reserve Officer whenever called upon. He was a quiet genius who wasn't afraid to work hard to get the job done. And, he was a very good man who loved his family and was devoted to his wife Jennifer and their pride and joy, Liam, who is almost four years old. The entire family is excited and looking forward to the upcoming birth of Ron and Jennifer's second child, expected in November. Ron will also be sorely missed by his parents, Dorothy and Hubert, and their eight other grown children. Ron's brothers and sisters all came together to be with Jennifer and son Liam at their home in Mt. Airy, MD. They are Charles Vauk, of Boise, Teri and Bill Masterson, Carson City, NV; Celia and Ken Shikuma, Huntington Beach, CA; David and Suzie Vauk, Nampa; Lynne and Alan Caba, Nampa; Gary and Julie Vauk, Grapevine, TX; Patricia Vauk and Paul Wilson, Minneapolis, MN; and Dennis and Donna Vauk, Houston, TX. Ron is also survived by his father and mother-in-law Patrick and Carol Mooney of Baltimore, and sister and brother-in-law Alissa and Chris DeBoy of Mt. Airy, MD, and 18 nieces and nephews. I know I speak for all my colleagues in the Senate in expressing my profound sorrow to the Vauk family for their loss. LCDR Ronald James Vauk was awarded the Purple Heart in the name of the United States President for his ultimate sacrifice. General George Washington, this Nation's Founding Father, established the Badge of Military Merit in 1782 as a means of recognizing courage and steadfastness in actual combat against the enemies of our Country. From the original three Badges of Military Merit awarded by General Washington, we now have the Purple Heart. LCDR Vauk was one of the first casualties of the War on Terrorism. Rest assured, this war will be won and the United States will continue to lead the world in protecting freedom. Ron was at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, because he was bravely doing what he believed in and what needed to be done. He was a thorough professional who believed in his country and his duties as a Naval Officer. On Monday I visited Jennifer, Liam and members of the Vauk family. Jennifer is a remarkable woman, who bears the burden of this tragedy with tremendous grace and dignity. I am very proud to recognize LDCR Ronald Vauk and tell him and his family, Thank you from a grateful Nation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in reviewing S. 1438, I came across a provision that would have disastrous consequences, no matter what its original intentions might have been. I am talking about section 1062, making it unlawful for individuals to possess any ``significant military equipment'' ever owned by the Department of Defense that is not demilitarized and giving the Attorney General the authority to seize such items. ``Significant military equipment'' can mean a wide variety of goods; for example, it can include military vehicles, aircraft, ammunition, firearms and parts. ``Demilitarization'' can mean a number of things, too, including cutting or destruction. The Department of Defense already can, and does, demilitarize some military equipment before surplusing it. I am not advocating a change in that current authority. However, section 1062 of S. 1438 goes well beyond this current authority. By making possession of such equipment illegal, it would create tens of thousands of lawbreakers overnight, veterans, collectors, sportspeople, even museums that have been legally purchasing surplus equipment from the government for decades. Worse, this section provides for the confiscation and destruction of items that are now private property. Consider the chaos and injustice that would result from enactment of this provision. Veterans service organizations across the country who have acquired military firearms to use for ceremonial purposes, they would be criminals. Americans who learned to shoot and acquired a firearm through the government's own Division of Civilian Marksmanship program would find themselves being served with a warrant by the same government for the same firearm. Museum displays or airshows featuring military vehicles or crafts would be threatened. A firearm containing a military surplus replacement part would now be subject to confiscation and destruction or begin rendered inoperable. In my own state, a collector of military Jeeps would risk losing his investment and his collection through no fault of his own. This provision is breathtaking in its reach and unfairness, capturing millions of items and their law-abiding owners. This is why an even less-onerous provision in the last DOD Authorization bill was dropped during the House-Senate conference on that bill. That same conclusion must be reached by the conferees on S. 1438; this provision must be dropped in order to prevent certain harm. Private Insurance Products of BRAC Installations

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand the postcloture situation we are now in and the germaneness argument that the Senator from Virginia has just placed. I stand in support of the concept and the intent that Senator Helms brings to the floor as it relates to the International Criminal Court. I, along with Senator Helms and a good many others, have worked for some time to clarify this Nation's position in relation to the Rome treaty and the International Criminal Court. We became signatories to that in the final days of the Clinton administration and even then President Clinton spoke about it with concern. We are now faced with participating or not participating in something that we believe, as the Senator has just spoken to, puts our men and women in uniform at risk and the possibility that an international body, as adjunct of the United Nations, might choose to prosecute them, even though they were under the direct orders of our Commander in Chief in the execution of their duties. If we were to gain on an International Criminal Court a rogue prosecutor, it is also arguable that civilians serving at the behest of the United States could become subject to the same prosecution. In other words, what is happening, by engaging in and/or participating in what we believe to be an illegitimate body and the formation of that body, it appears we are beginning to agree or to associate ourselves with it for certain purposes. I don't believe we ought to be doing that. In fact, when we were dealing with Justice-State-Commerce appropriations, we passed, by voice vote, an amendment that would prohibit any moneys being spent for the purpose of the ICC preparatory commission and/or direct participation in the International Criminal Court. What is at question? Our sovereignty, the right of this country to protect its citizens under our judicial system, but to hand that system and the absence of that protection off to an international body. Senator Helms has spoken to what we deem are rogue adjuncts of the United Nations--the conference that was held in Durban, South Africa that we had to withdraw from, along with the State of Israel, because of racist expressions that that conference was willing to make concerning certain nations with which we could not agree. The International Criminal Court stands alone by the characteristics of the defining language within the Rome treaty. In other words, once it is ratified, it isn't just a question of our men and women in uniform becoming subject to it. It is a question of any citizen of the world 18 years of age or older or any nation in the world becoming subject to it. That is why I believe we ought to disassociate ourselves and, in fact, reverse our policy and work to deny its ratification. I have a second-degree amendment I would offer, but I understand there will be a question of germaneness. If that question fails, then I would offer that second degree. It does not disallow the protection the Senator from North Carolina has brought but says that we protect others--and that is, citizens --in that we don't associate ourselves with the International Criminal Court, nor do we allow on special cases confidential information to flow from our Government to the court. In other words, we should not be facilitators to a court that by its very definition denies our citizens the right of sovereignty and the protection under our judicial system. That is what is at issue. None who study it deny that. Those who have joined with me in my second degree are Senators Lott, Nickles, Allen, Smith, Crapo, Kyl, and a good many others. It is a subject that deserves a stand-alone debate on the floor and full consideration by the Senate. At stake, I believe, are everything Senator Helms has spoken to and, additionally, what I have just spoken to. That is why it is important that at some time this Senate collectively speak out against the whole of the ICC and the illegitimacy that we think it creates and the denial of the sovereignty of our citizens within the construct of the judicial system of our country.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. If I could for a few moments talk about something that is near and dear to my heart, that is public lands. My State of Idaho is 63-percent public land. Last Saturday was a time for all Americans to recognize the value we have in our public lands and a time for all of us to give a little something back, by volunteering a Saturday to lend a helping hand to improve our public lands. Last Saturday was National Public Lands Day. This year, National Public Lands Day focused on ``Keeping the Promise'' by asking Americans to come together to improve the nation's largest resource, our public lands, and to honor the work and sacrifice of the members of the Civilian Conservation Corps. They are unsung heroes who built over 800 of America's national and state parks. Between 1933 and 1942, 3.5 million Corps members planted almost 4 billion trees, and they built parks, roads, and hiking trails. They laid the foundation for the public lands system that America enjoys today. This year the Corps held their final national reunion on National Public Lands Day. The ceremony remembered the efforts of the Civilian Conservation Corp at Virginia's Shenandoah National Park, and the Corps Alumni symbolically passed the responsibility of caring for public lands to a new generation of concerned citizens. This year, this new generation totaled approximately 50,000 volunteers, who took some of their precious time and performed over a million dollars worth of improvements to our public lands. I believe National Public Lands Day is an opportunity to build a sense of ownership by Americans--through personal involvement and conservation education. In recognition of National Public Lands Day and this sense of ownership we should all have for our public lands, I want to spend a few minutes today and reflect on the value of our public lands and on what the future holds for them. There are around 650 million acres of public lands in the United States. This represents a major portion of our total land mass. However, most of these lands are concentrated in the West, where as much as 82 percent of a state can be comprised of Federal land. In fact, 63 percent of my own home state of Idaho is owned by the Federal Government. This can be beneficial, as our public lands have a lot to offer. For starters, there is a great deal of resources available on our public lands--from renewable forests to opportunities to raise livestock to oil and minerals beneath the surface--public lands hold a great deal of the resources we all depend on and that allow us to enjoy the abundant lives we live in this country. Having resources available on public lands affords us the opportunity for a return on those resources to help fund government services, from schools to roads to national defense, and ease the burden on taxpayers. Just as important, though, is the recreation opportunities our public lands offer. Every day, people hike and pack into the solitude of wilderness areas, climb rocks, ski, camp, snowmobile, use off-road vehicles, hunt, fish, picnic, boat, swim, and the list goes on of the abundance of recreation on these marvelous lands. Because the lands are owned by all of us, the opportunity has existed for everyone to use the land within reasonable limits. However, times are changing. We are in the midst of a slow and methodical attack on our access to public lands. It started with the resources industries. It will not stop there. At the same time some radical groups are fighting to halt all resource management on our public lands, they are working to restrict and, in some cases, eliminate human access to our public lands for recreation. Yes, we must manage our public lands responsibly, which includes restrictions on some activities in some areas. What we must not do is unreasonably restrict or eliminate certain activities. Some people like to hike in backcountry areas where they can find peace and solitude while others prefer to ride ATVs into the wilderness. Some prefer to camp in more developed facilities while others prefer primitive spots. The point is that recreational opportunities on our public lands should be as diverse as the American public's interest. On the same note, we can use the natural resources we need in an environmentally responsible manner and still have plenty of opportunities to recreate. In fact, recreation resource, and environmental interests can team together to help each other out. In my own State of Idaho, on the Nez Perce National Forest, representatives of these interests and many others have come together though a stewardship project. These groups are working with the Forest Service to implement a project that works for everyone and addresses all of their needs in some fashion. In order to achieve such success, each group has had to compromise to agree on a prescription that works for everyone. No one gets their way all of the time. This is just one example of differing interests working together to help each other out and improve the opportunities on our public lands for everyone and to secure a sound environment. We need to see more of this around the country. Public land management has become embroiled in fights, appeals, and litigation. The result is that the only ones who are winning are those who want to ensure we don't use our public lands. This must stop. Differing interests have to come together and realize that we all have one common goal--use of the land in a responsible and environmentally sound manner. We can not continue to make the same mistakes of the past on these marvelous public lands. That being said, I would like each of my colleagues to think about how public lands benefit their State and how they might work to support the new generation of Americans who are just beginning to find the wonders of our public lands. Last Saturday was National Public Lands Day, and many walked upon those lands and rode water equipment on the lakes of those lands. Some even cut down a few trees to make a home or to provide saw timber to a sawmill. Some were herding cattle on the public lands of Idaho, taking them from the summer range to the fall range and heading them home for the winter season. Soon many will be hunting on the public lands of the West--hunting the elusive elk, or the deer, or other forms of wildlife species that are abundant and managed both in balanced and purposeful ways. That is the great story of our Nation's public lands. It is not simply to lock them up and look at them, to call them, as medieval Europe once used to call them, ``the King's land.'' The lands of the public are not the King's lands, and they are not the Government's lands; they are the people's lands. These lands must be managed in a way that ensures their environmental integrity while allowing all Americans to enjoy them in their lifetime and in their style. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

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.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send to the desk a second-degree amendment to the Helms amendment and ask unanimous consent that it be considered in context with the Helms amendment on the DOD authorization bill when we return to the bill.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will speak briefly to it because I know there is other business to be conducted. It is, first and foremost, very important that I say I agree with the general premise of the amendment that Senator Helms has offered this afternoon. It is clearly of utmost importance that we speak as a nation to the world and say that our men and women in uniform may never and will never become subject to an International Criminal Court. That is the sovereign right of this Nation. We, in general, object to what the Criminal Court under the Rome Treaty proposes. In fact, in the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill, just 2 weeks ago I offered an amendment to strike all necessary moneys that would bring about our activity in the Preparatory Commission and the implementation of the Criminal Court. My amendment goes a step beyond what Senator Helms has proposed because the International Criminal Court is not specific to men and women in uniform. It says all citizens of the world in essence; anyone over 18 years of age. Is it possible to assume that a rogue prosecutor under the Criminal Court of the United Nations could suggest that Colin Powell is in violation and, therefore, to be prosecuted before the Criminal Court for his conduct as it relates to pursuing international justice in relation to terrorists? Yes, it is. As a result of that, my amendment proposes to protect all citizens, not just those men and women in uniform. That is critically necessary and important. We have spoken out as a nation in general opposition to the ICC, and when the treaty was signed by former President Clinton, he talked about the inequities and the problems. My amendment also addresses those problems, and it would remove language indicating that the United States may eventually become a party to the ICC. There is a gratuitous endorsement of the U.N.'s ad hoc tribunals. We have just been through one of those episodes in South Africa where the United States and Israel had to walk away because of an intent to suggest that charges of racism be pursued against one of those nations. Ad hoc tribunals and the very principle with which we are trying to deal in the ICC should suggest that we do not necessarily endorse or support the U.N.'s ad hoc tribunals. There is a new section 1411 that has been added to permit U.S. cooperation with the ICC on a case-by-case basis, including that of giving classified information to the ICC. We reject that. Lastly, there is no mention of American sovereignty. I think it is always important when we are addressing international bodies or our relationship to them that we speak so clearly to the right of this Nation to determine its own destiny and, more importantly, that we will not be signatories to, nor will we endorse as a Senate or as a Government, concepts in the international arena that take from us our right of American sovereignty and the right, therefore, of our judicial system over the citizens of this country away from that of an international body. That is the intent of my second degree. Without question, and I have discussed this with Senator Helms, he and I stand strongly together in support of the protection of our troops, our men and women in uniform, in not being subject to an international criminal court of justice. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment appear in the Record as presented.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his consideration. I had asked my second-degree amendment to the Helms amendment be considered in that context upon returning to the DOD authorization bill. Mr. President, I send that amendment to the desk as a second degree.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed as in morning business for no more than 10 minutes.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I certainly conclude that that ought to be a priority--a national energy policy--and that we ought to be able to shape one in reasonable fashion in a couple of weeks. The House has already moved legislation. They have passed a national energy policy. Well over a month and a half ago, we began to mark up an energy policy bill for the Senate. I hope our leaders, Senator Daschle and Senator Lott, will ask the Energy Committee to come together and stay together for the next couple of weeks to produce a bill to be debated on the Senate floor. Our President deserves a national energy policy as part of our overall national security strategy at this moment on his desk, acceptable and ready to sign. I also believe we need to take a hard look at our intelligence community to make sure the shortcomings in predicting the events of the first Trade Center bombing, and the embassy bombing, and attack on the U.S.S. Cole and, of course, last week's attack do not recur. We must do better. We cannot accept past performance. I agree with the assessments of my colleagues that a major reinvestment in our human intelligence capabilities is needed and it must take place through a reorganizational effort. We have the world's best when it comes to technological advancement. We can look down on any part of the world with such detail that from miles high we can read the watch on the arm of someone on the ground. But we cannot read what is in that person's mind. That is impossible with the technology of today. That comes from the human side of the capability I talk about, which we have been under-investing in, or divesting of, for the last several decades. Clearly, we must get back into the minds of the citizens of the world--those who would do us damage and view our country as an enemy or an evil. It is only then that we can use the look-down from 3 miles high to determine where that person is going and when he or she may be there. But we must access the mind as well as observe the movement. If we can accomplish all of those things--and I believe we can, and I believe our President will ask us to invest in those--then we will all stand in a bipartisan way to support it, because what is at stake here is the very strength of our country and the very freedom of our citizens. I have never once questioned the fact that we will not only stand for the test, but in the end, without question, we will win. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Victims of Terrorism Relief Act of 2001, to provide tax relief for the innocent victims of the terrorist attacks against our Nation last Tuesday, September 11. Last week's attack was unlike any event in our Nation's history. It was an act of war committed on U.S. soil, and more, with innocent civilians cold-bloodedly selected as the principal targets and even strapped to the weapons. I am confident that, under the leadership of our Commander-in-Chief, and with broad and deep support, across our country and, on a bipartisan basis, here in Congress, we will win this war decisively. A significant part of our response also must be compassion for the survivors of those victims of the first day of this war. Our tax code has long recognized that compassion demands we extend a helping hand by providing relief to our military heroes killed in combat. Today, sadly, we recognize the need to extend similar comfort and relief to the families of civilian victims whose lives have been taken. The other body has already passed emergency legislation along these lines. The bill I am introducing is identical to that legislation. The main provisions of this bill would extend the same relief to individuals killed in last week's terrorist attack as is currently provided for members of our armed forces, with regard to the death tax, and currently provided for Federal military and civilian employees, with regard to Federal income taxes. I fully realize that my Senate colleagues, including knowledgeable members of the Senate Finance Committee, will propose additional tax relief provisions to meet additional needs that are still being identified. But I want to add my voice, early and urgently, to emphasize the importance of acting swiftly and decisively to provide this relief to our fellow Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record, as well as a brief summary of its provisions.