Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, all of us who come to the floor of the Senate are like most Americans today. In anything we do or approach, we approach it with a heavy heart, recognizing the devastation that has gone on around us that has been inflicted upon some of our friends or some associates we know of as it relates to the devastation the terrorists brought down upon New York City and here in Washington, DC, with our Nation's military center, the Pentagon. As we all know, the President asked for support and authority. This Congress responded last week very appropriately. I was not able to be here at that moment. I was en route to my son's wedding in Washington State. The difficulty of all of that was that I was not here, but I was also traveling at a very difficult time. Thirty some hours later, both my wife and I were able to observe a fine wedding, and we were pleased to be with our family and have our family around us, as I think most Americans would wish they could at a moment of crisis. I am now, as most public people, wrestling with a variety of decisions that will ultimately be critical to our country and will spell out, in part, our future and the success of this great Nation. I am confident that the administration is doing everything within its power at this moment to either directly or indirectly deal with the issue and to respond as all Americans and as most freedom-loving people in the world would wish we would. I submit for the Record the story of two Idahoans, one now announced dead, the other still missing as a result of the plane crash into the Pentagon. Their names are Ron Vauk and Brady Howell. I recommended Ron years ago to his appointment at the Naval Academy. He was an accomplished Naval Reserve officer, a submariner and Academy graduate who was on watch at the Naval Command Center last Tuesday. His family lives in Boise, ID. I talked with his mother this morning. Brady, on the other hand, was a 26-year-old newlywed from Sugar City, ID. He was a civilian employee at the Pentagon, excited about his job, and starting a family. Our hearts go out to all of them. I visited with his wife last evening. Many of us are experiencing that kind of a circumstance or situation as this crisis reaches down and out across America to touch many, if not all, of our citizens in a fairly direct way. I am always caught in the great resilience of America. While we were bent for a moment, we now arise from that stronger than ever and more greatly committed to the phenomenal values we, as of last Monday, took for granted: The freedom of movement, the marvelous sense of human individualness we had in this country, as protected by a Constitution that had provided an ultimate shield of individual freedom in our country. To have that shaken to its very core on Tuesday, to find out that we were just a little less free and a great deal more concerned about the very freedoms we have. Our challenge now is to be able to deal with it in a comprehensive and responsible way, to secure and maintain our civil liberties and, at the same time, to be able to draw bright lines that establish a much clearer line and sense of security for our people and in a way to detect and control the kind of environment in which terrorists can live and ultimately prosper. That is going to be the role and responsibility of this Congress. I, as most Americans, still stand resolved and optimistic that that can be done. It can be done well. We in the Senate have a role to play in all of that. Over the weekend, I was struck by the comments made by the foreign minister of the Taliban Government in response to our comments, that Osama bin Laden be turned over to U.S. authorities. The head of that government stated that it is not consistent with our custom for a host to ask a guest to leave. The guest must leave on his own accord: the President of the Taliban said. This statement confirms what all of us have assumed: that bin Laden is in Afghanistan and they are harboring him even at the risk of their own ruin. It is equally unfortunate that individuals in the media are already posturing the American people for a no-collateral damage goal in our military objectives against these terrorists. Such posturing is dangerous, as it clearly undermines the support of our President to act both in the short term as well as in the long term to do one very simple but overpowering thing--that is, to secure our Nation's security and our citizens' security and our freedom. I am confident this President will not bow down to the suggestion that there might or there should be no collateral damage. If his mission becomes clear, he already understands his goal. There is no doubt that many new legislative proposals will be debated here in the Senate in the coming months to address issues of American security and the fight against international terrorism. One of the issues I hope we will discuss is that of U.S. energy dependence. Clearly, as we watch Americans line up in front of Red Cross centers to give blood to help the wounded, let us remember the very lifeblood of this country's economy is the energy that drives it. I am not talking about the energy of the human mind. I am talking about the physical presence of energy--gas, oil, coal, the kinds of things that have fueled the economy that were turned into the phenomenal piece of explosive power we all watched last Tuesday. Now more than ever before Americans recognize that once again the Middle East is the crucible that could spell our success or failure or might dictate to us the character of our economy in years to come, for one simple reason: not the politics of the region--that is daunting enough as we know it--but it is what they provide for the economy of the world. They are the oil barrel of the world. From that we ask at least 55 to 60 percent of our use on a daily basis. We now consume in excess of 700,000 barrels of oil a day from Iraq alone. Is it possible that some of our own oil money is being turned against us in the form of the resources that the terrorists used ultimately to bring down the Trade Center and to punch a hole in the side of our Pentagon last Tuesday? Yes, it is possible. It is possible in part because for so many years we have ignored the fact of a growing dependency on foreign oil while we have turned ourselves away from increased domestic oil production and increased efficiency that ultimately produce the ability for our nation to stand alone, stand tall, and stand secure in its energy supply. At least for the last 2 years, Congress has been doing the right thing. We have been struggling mightily with the shaping of a national energy policy. President Bush has established that as one of his top legislative priorities: to create greater energy independence on the part of this country so that now we know more than ever before that we can act with relative independence as we shape new foreign policy, and now, of course, as we shape an antiterrorist strategy for our Nation, for the world, and for freedom-loving people all around the world. It is a piece of the whole--that is, a national energy policy. Unlike almost any other policy except defense, and except intelligence, energy is the ultimate tool of a capitalist society. It is the strength of our economy. As I mentioned, struggling to get across the country to get into the State of Washington to my son's wedding on Friday and back on Sunday, I didn't ride on the wings of wind. I didn't walk. I rode on the force of energy, as do all Americans when they fly or when they drive or when they are transported around the world. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I rise today to express my extreme concern about developments in the Republic of Korea that have far reaching negative implications for United States semiconductor companies. I am referring to the massive and unjustified government bailout that the South Korean government is providing to Hyundai Electronics, now known as Hynix. Today, I am offering a sense-of-the-Senate amendment on this issue. I am joined by my colleague from Idaho, Senator Crapo, in this effort. To date, the South Korean government and the government-owned banks have given Hynix over $5 billion in loans and other types of financing which carry the guarantee of the government of Korea. This is a subsidy pure and simple. Now the Korean government is planning on giving Hynix additional loans to keep them solvent. In the year 2000, Hynix was the world's largest producer of dynamic random access memory--or D-RAM--an important type of memory semiconductor that is used in everything from personal computers to satellites. Hynix has captured over 24 percent of the world semiconductor market. However, Hynix achieved such a large share of the global market not because it is particularly good at making these semiconductor chips, but because it borrowed excessively and built up enormous capacity. Last year, Hynix became unable to service its debt. Hynix lost over $2 billion in 2000, and is expected to lose over $3 billion this year on sales of a little over $3 billion. By any reckoning, this company would have failed were it not for government assistance. Now, Hynix is broke and cannot repay the loans it took out to finance its expansion. Verging on bankruptcy, Hynix has been kept alive by the South Korean government through infusions of new cash. Far from solving the company's problems, however, these government subsidies are just plunging Hynix deeper into debt. This behavior circumvents normal market forces and has very severe implications for the companies in the U.S. and the rest of the world that are forced to compete with Hynix's illegally subsidized products. Over the past several months, the Korean government has given assurances to me, to my colleague Senator Crapo, and other Members of this body, as well as Ambassador Zoellick, Secretary Evans and Secretary O'Neill, that the Korean government will stop giving these subsidies to Hynix--subsidies that clearly violate our international trade agreements. Now, the Korean government seems poised to violate these assurances completely, destroying the U.S. semiconductor industry in the process. The Sense of the Senate resolution I am offering outlines these facts and calls upon the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative to request consultations with the Republic of Korea under Article 4 and Article 7 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures of the World Trade Organization. This amendment further asks that the Administration take any other actions that are necessary to assure that the improper bailout by the Republic of Korea is stopped, and its effects fully offset or reversed. I hope my colleagues will support this sense-of-the-Senate amendment and will join me in calling on the Korean government to stop subsidizing Hynix and to stop this dangerous distortion of the international semiconductor market.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for yielding. I must say, in all respect to him, I have always appreciated the Senator's legal mind and the way he works through very difficult processes, and it does not differ here. He and I are extremely concerned about the very broad authority that appears to be given to a new court if it becomes ratified. That is why early this week I moved to deny our participation in it. It is arguable, by those to whom I have listened, that even a preparatory commission's involvement is not going to allow us to change the jurisdiction as prescribed by the Rome treaty. The Senator has every right to be concerned about this broadened authority and efforts internationally to go after some of our officials for their responsible actions based on our public policy. The issue is that 30-some-odd nations have already ratified it. It takes 60 with or without our approval. It could become an operative court. It has an independent prosecutor who legitimately, by its actions, could go after anyone 18 years of age or older anywhere in the world. In other words, our sovereignty, our ability to protect our citizens, might only rest within our borders. It was not long ago that Henry Kissinger was in France and our Secretary of State had to intervene to protect him because a French judge was after him, trying to arrest him. This happened less than a few months ago. I think the Senator is right to be concerned at a time when our President is rallying internationally a coalition of nations to develop a strategy to go after international terrorism, that somewhere down the road that President might be held accountable by an international body, even though he had the express permission of this Nation and our people to protect this Nation and our people, and would choose to do so in an extraterritorial way. Those are very legitimate concerns. I do not know that our presence at the table can make the difference because it is my understanding we cannot change the basic premise or the intent of the Rome Treaty. I told my colleague from Pennsylvania that I will work with him in conference. Clearly, this has to be defined in a way that does not allow an arbitrary approach. I am concerned our presence at the Preparatory Commission in some way gives to the world an idea that we might be subliminally endorsing this concept. It must be clear we do not.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as our Nation mourns, my prayers--our prayers--are directed to the victims and the families of the victims who died yesterday at the hands of world terrorism. As many have noted today, America finds itself at war. The question still must be answered: Against whom? And what exactly will be our response? But the fact itself cannot be doubted. At this time, most observers suppose that yesterday's terrorist attacks were perpetrated by a well-known terrorist group. My remarks will be based on that reasonable supposition. It is further supposed that these attacks could not have been mounted without state complicity. There are strong suspicions as to which state has primary culpability. Once that determination is made with reasonable certainty, the U.S. response must include a strategic assessment toward that regime, or possibly regimes, as well as tightening domestic security and reassessing our attitude toward terrorism as war. In the comments about yesterday's events, it is good to note that most are talking about being at war rather than our usual tendency to look at these acts as exclusively criminal acts. For example, in past U.S. policy toward foreign-instigated terrorist attacks, such as the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the U.S. Embassy attacks in Kenya and Tanzania, Khobar Towers, or the U.S.S. Cole, they have been based on the ``criminal model.'' This is the notion that our main task is to gather evidence, identify and apprehend perpetrators, and build a case sufficient to convict them beyond a reasonable doubt in the court. This criminal model obscures the strategic implications, which should be our main concern. The criminal model should be replaced with a warfare model adapted to 21st century conditions in which war no longer means a confrontation along a defined front between armies fielded by industrial states. Instead, under conditions in which the distinction between state and private violence is not relevant, war means determining within a moral certainty the responsible actors--state or nonstate--and delivering a devastating punitive and exemplary reprisal. Consideration should be given to a congressional declaration of war against such state and nonstate actors. Based on past experience, it is inevitable that part of the response will involve a further tightening of security procedures right here in this country. These measures, which almost never are removed once they are put in place, have little utility, except to tighten Federal control over Americans, and it really should be minimized. That is not to say we ought not look at them, consider them, and where they are best used, estimate their value--but not overestimate the outcome. More importantly, they are a measure of our failure of strategic vision. Instead, we should concentrate on identifying the hijackers who flew the airplanes to their targets, and determining how they entered the United States. This is what we ought to be about. Misguided efforts to relax bars to aliens on whom security agencies have derogatory information should be shelved. Border controls should be tightened. While targeted reprisal is a necessity, it should be accompanied by a comprehensive reexamination of U.S. post-cold war strategy. Currently, that strategy is largely based on cold war inertia, consisting primarily of maintaining, extending, and perpetuating our status as ``the world's sole-surviving superpower''--in effect, exercising global hegemony, and preventing the emergence of any potential rival, such as China or Russia. This policy, with its focus on global dominance rather than domestic defense, where it should be, makes the United States more vulnerable to terrorist attack, not less. We have to look at global policy, but clearly we must focus now more than ever on domestic defense. This policy must be replaced by one that places a priority on the defense of our sovereignty, our people, and our territory. With regard to yesterday's attacks, our global strategy should be reexamined to include undermining the harboring regimes or regimes by diplomatic and possibly military means; adopting a more positive policy toward nearby countries opposed to such regimes; and pressuring countries with which the United States has friendly relations, but that may be supporting the harboring regimes, to cease that support. These efforts will require a thorough assessment of American policy. No part of it can be left out. We do not stand in a situation of isolation today. Our neighbors will gather around us. Let us examine ourselves into the 21st century. Let us use our ability in that context to shape a new foreign policy and resolve that what happened yesterday in this country shall never happen again. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Parent and Teacher Achievement Act of 2001. We spent much of the spring debating the Federal Government's role in education, and in the end we passed a bill which gives a lot of money to the education establishment. Now, however, it is time to work on a policy that addresses what we can do for parents and teachers, and how we can let them keep some of their money so they can start improving education from the ground up. This bill has many important provisions, but the most important is the tax credit for parents and relatives to use for education expenses. They can use this credit for any expenses they incur when they spend money on their children's education, such as school supplies, computers, private tutors, or other such expenses. This credit can also be used by parents who home school as well as to help offset tuition at private schools. This is not a voucher program nor is it a government subsidy for private schools. This tax credit is simply the Federal Government recognizing that parents know best how to educate their children. As education researcher Andrew Coulson has said, ``. . . parents have consistently made better education choices for their own children than state-appointed experts have made on their behalf.'' The Federal Government should not penalize them by taxing the money parents spend to further that education. It should be pointed out that this credit would also apply to relatives of students if they contribute money towards educational expenses. We all know that grandparents and aunts and uncles do a lot to contribute to children's education. It is only appropriate to recognize those efforts, too. The idea of the type of tax credit contained in this bill has been picking up steam recently, and many think tanks, such as the Cato Institute, the Mackinac Center, and the Buckeye Institute, have issued reports on tuition tax credits which clearly illustrate their benefits. A tax credit of this type has also begun to be enacted in the real world. Arizona has had an education tax credit for a few years, and it has proven to be remarkably successful. The Canadian province of Ontario also recently enacted a tax credit of this type. Of course, a tax credit is only available to people who pay taxes, but my bill also benefits low income individuals. To address the needs of these people, I have included a provision in this bill which would give individuals or corporations a tax credit when they donate money to organizations which give scholarships to lower income students. This would allow funds to go to private organizations so they award scholarships, while avoiding any church/state entanglements which concern so many who oppose vouchers. The state of Arizona has had success with this program, too. Another important tax component contained in this bill is one which allows teachers to take a credit for money spent on school supplies for their students. Nobody goes into teaching to get rich; they do it because they recognize their job is one of the most important in this Nation, preparing our youth for the future. And though teachers do not receive lavish salaries, many of them spend considerable sums for school supplies for their students. It is only fair that the Federal Government should not tax this money. The bill also contains a provision that would allow teachers and other school staff a tax deduction for expenses they incur while improving their education or job skills. Our teachers need to be the best trained teachers in the world, and we should encourage this all we can. The final section of this bill would empower teachers by allowing the Secretary of Education to give grants to States and school districts which set up merit pay systems in schools and implement teacher testing programs, as long as those states also have a continuing education requirement as part of their teacher certification process. It also has a provision which clarifies any Department of Education regulations and says that federal funds can be used for merit pay systems and for teacher testing programs. If States and school districts find the need to use their funds for these programs, the Federal Government should not tie them up in red tape and prevent them from meeting their needs as they see them. We all know that local educators have a much better view of the needs they encounter, and we in Washington should give them as much freedom as possible to meet those needs. By enacting this bill, the U.S. Senate will be making a firm commitment to helping parents and teachers achieve education success. Parents in this country need to have as much freedom as possible to choose the ways in which their children will be educated, and this bill is a modest step in that direction. To complement the efforts of parents, though, we need to have teachers who are the most qualified and the most able to meet the needs of the children parents send to them every day. Encouraging states to implement merit pay and teacher testing, and allowing teachers to have a credit for their educational expenses, will go a long way towards making this a reality. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Parent and Teacher Achievement Act of 2001. We spent much of the spring debating the Federal Government's role in education, and in the end we passed a bill which gives a lot of money to the education establishment. Now, however, it is time to work on a policy that addresses what we can do for parents and teachers, and how we can let them keep some of their money so they can start improving education from the ground up. This bill has many important provisions, but the most important is the tax credit for parents and relatives to use for education expenses. They can use this credit for any expenses they incur when they spend money on their children's education, such as school supplies, computers, private tutors, or other such expenses. This credit can also be used by parents who home school as well as to help offset tuition at private schools. This is not a voucher program nor is it a government subsidy for private schools. This tax credit is simply the Federal Government recognizing that parents know best how to educate their children. As education researcher Andrew Coulson has said, ``. . . parents have consistently made better education choices for their own children than state-appointed experts have made on their behalf.'' The Federal Government should not penalize them by taxing the money parents spend to further that education. It should be pointed out that this credit would also apply to relatives of students if they contribute money towards educational expenses. We all know that grandparents and aunts and uncles do a lot to contribute to children's education. It is only appropriate to recognize those efforts, too. The idea of the type of tax credit contained in this bill has been picking up steam recently, and many think tanks, such as the Cato Institute, the Mackinac Center, and the Buckeye Institute, have issued reports on tuition tax credits which clearly illustrate their benefits. A tax credit of this type has also begun to be enacted in the real world. Arizona has had an education tax credit for a few years, and it has proven to be remarkably successful. The Canadian province of Ontario also recently enacted a tax credit of this type. Of course, a tax credit is only available to people who pay taxes, but my bill also benefits low income individuals. To address the needs of these people, I have included a provision in this bill which would give individuals or corporations a tax credit when they donate money to organizations which give scholarships to lower income students. This would allow funds to go to private organizations so they award scholarships, while avoiding any church/state entanglements which concern so many who oppose vouchers. The state of Arizona has had success with this program, too. Another important tax component contained in this bill is one which allows teachers to take a credit for money spent on school supplies for their students. Nobody goes into teaching to get rich; they do it because they recognize their job is one of the most important in this Nation, preparing our youth for the future. And though teachers do not receive lavish salaries, many of them spend considerable sums for school supplies for their students. It is only fair that the Federal Government should not tax this money. The bill also contains a provision that would allow teachers and other school staff a tax deduction for expenses they incur while improving their education or job skills. Our teachers need to be the best trained teachers in the world, and we should encourage this all we can. The final section of this bill would empower teachers by allowing the Secretary of Education to give grants to States and school districts which set up merit pay systems in schools and implement teacher testing programs, as long as those states also have a continuing education requirement as part of their teacher certification process. It also has a provision which clarifies any Department of Education regulations and says that federal funds can be used for merit pay systems and for teacher testing programs. If States and school districts find the need to use their funds for these programs, the Federal Government should not tie them up in red tape and prevent them from meeting their needs as they see them. We all know that local educators have a much better view of the needs they encounter, and we in Washington should give them as much freedom as possible to meet those needs. By enacting this bill, the U.S. Senate will be making a firm commitment to helping parents and teachers achieve education success. Parents in this country need to have as much freedom as possible to choose the ways in which their children will be educated, and this bill is a modest step in that direction. To complement the efforts of parents, though, we need to have teachers who are the most qualified and the most able to meet the needs of the children parents send to them every day. Encouraging states to implement merit pay and teacher testing, and allowing teachers to have a credit for their educational expenses, will go a long way towards making this a reality. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, last December, President Clinton deposited his signature to the Rome treaty, thereby making the United States party to the creation of a permanent International Criminal Court with unlimited jurisdiction. Once created, this court will have the right to prosecute U.S. citizens without any of the guarantees or protections provided by the Constitution. This will also affect our ability to protect men and women of our uniformed services and meet our military commitments to our allies. President Clinton even acknowledged as he deposited his signature that the Rome treaty had, in his own words, ``significant flaws'' and would not send it to the Senate for ratification. In his confirmation hearing testimony, Secretary Powell made it clear that the administration would not send this treaty to the Senate for ratification. However, in my opinion and the opinion of others, this is not enough. Once the 60th country ratifies the treaty, the United States and her citizens will become subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC, regardless of Senate approval under the treaty's own terms. This is precisely why we cannot simply allow the treaty to just be confirmed and collect dust. I believe it is incumbent upon all of us to try to bring, in essence, the treaty down. U.S. Armed Forces operating overseas in peacekeeping operations could conceivably be prosecuted by the ICC for protecting the vital interests of the United States. In other words, the Senate of the United States could support our men and women going to war in a foreign nation only to have an international court rule them as criminals against the state or, in essence, criminals against the world. Furthermore, Americans prosecuted by the ICC will not be guaranteed any of the procedural protections to which all Americans are entitled under the Bill of Rights. I can recite those for us. We have heard them all of our lives: The rights such as the right to a trial by jury or the right to a jury of one's own peers and the right to question one's accusers--that is just to name a few of the very rights that we now walk away from for our citizens if we do not stand up boldly and say the International Criminal Court should, in fact, not become an arm of the United Nations. Currently, the Rome treaty already has 139 signatories, and over half of the necessary countries have already ratified it. In short, the ICC will soon become a reality unless we act now. The question is whether the United States will oppose it--and we have already opposed Kyoto, Biodiversity, CTBT, and other bad treaties--or whether we will simply acquiesce to it. The answer to that question is not only one of protecting our service personnel; it is also one of principle. Are we fundamentally committed to the sovereign rule of the domestic law of our country under the U.S. Constitution as opposed to global justice under the U.N. auspices? I think that is a question on which this amendment comes right to the point. And are we fundamentally committed to helping other countries establish and maintain their own constitutions and their own rule of law? The consequence of allowing this court to come to fruition stretches far beyond the threat of prosecution of American military personnel. It will also put some of our closest allies in direct jeopardy, as we have seen in the example of the World Conference on Racism that we have heard about over the last good many months. We have seen that action taken by the United Nations and its institutions are not always impartial in their findings. In fact, at the World Conference Against Racism, language was adopted hostile to Israel, and it is not limited to the text regarding Zionism. Reference to it has attracted much attention in light of the 1975 U.N. General Assembly Resolution 3379, which passed in November of 1975, which condemned Zionism in similar though not identical terms, as ``a threat to world peace and security,'' a ``racist and imperialist ideology,'' and as ``a form of racism and racial discrimination.'' Largely due to American efforts, the General Assembly finally revoked Resolution 3379 in 1991 with a substantial vote. Ironically, some nations that took part in the World Conference Against Racism, and who were supporters of language denouncing Zionism as racism, are currently still practicing slavery and the trafficking of human beings. As a result of this controversy over Zionism, one could easily see the International Criminal Court become nothing more than another U.N. forum for anti-Semitism where the same players that caused the United States and Israel to walk out on the World Conference on Racism would reappear. The result could be the extradition and prosecution of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on charges of crimes against humanity for taking actions to protect the citizens of Israel against terrorism within the sovereign boundaries of his own nation. Another document connected to the Durban conference charges Israel with ``genocide'' and ``crimes against humanity''--judicial terms that directly setting the stage for a future prosecution in an international criminal court. I will be the first to admit that atrocities are being committed in some parts of the world, and that the perpetrators of such atrocities must be brought to justice. And whenever possible the United States should serve as a facilitator for that justice to take place, and always be a shining city on a hill, a supreme example for all nations, particularly those with fledgling democracies and judicial systems. But the answer to that problem is not to create a permanent International Criminal Court with supra-national jurisdiction capable of undermining democratic governments, Constitutions, and judicial systems, just because the court is not satisfied with the outcome of a domestic ruling. Rather we should work hard to strengthen the rule of law within foreign countries, by helping them to establish their own impartial courts capable of ensuring justice for all. When the United Nations was founded in 1945, its primary mission, as stated in the preamble of the U.N. Charter, was ``to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.'' Initially composed only of countries that had been allied against the Axis, it soon became seen as a dispute resolution forum for all countries. In principle at least, the United Nations initially made no claim to supersede the sovereignty of its member states. Even its own Charter, Article 2, says that the U.N. ``is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members,'' and it may not ``intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.'' That is what its charter says. Let's remember what it has done in the last few years. Even in the U.N.'s premiere judicial body, the International Court of Justice, the principle of state sovereignty was maintained, with the Court only having limited jurisdiction in disputes between nations. It had no authority over individual citizens of those nations. Unfortunately, in recent years the U.N. has turned the principle of national sovereignty on its head. Through a proliferating host of conventions, treaties, conferences, commissions, and initiatives, the U.N. has intruded into virtually every aspect of human life once thought to be the exclusive preserve of national governments, not to mention private citizens. These include efforts to regulate resources and the economy, for example treaties on ``biological diversity,'' the use of marine resources, and climate change. They include claims over family life, such as conventions on parent-child relations and the role of women in society. They include, under the guise of anti-racism, demands that countries institute quotas and hate crimes and hate speech laws. While all of these on the surface appear to be good, and in many instances many of us would support them, we must stop short in saying that the U.N. has the right to bring them down on any nation and tread on that nation's sovereignty. Recently, under the pretext of fighting illicit trafficking in weapons, the U.N. has even set its sight on undermining American's constitutional right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment. Thankfully, many of these initiatives have been dead-on-arrival in the Senate, and successive Presidents have refused to endorse others. Moreover, despite the U.N.'s evolution toward governmental authority it had little to enforce its will. Ideas for global taxation and a standing U.N. army have so far gained little ground. But one key mechanism of global government began to be realized in 1998 with the adoption of the so-called ``Rome Statute'' establishing a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC). Once this dangerous treaty is ratified by 60 countries, the ICC will come into existence. For the first time, the U.N. will wield a judicial power not just over nations, but directly over every individual human being. It will even claim authority over citizens of countries whose governments have refused to join the ICC. While the ICC's stated mission is dealing with war crimes and crimes against humanity--which, since there is no appeal from its decisions, only the ICC will have the right to define--nothing prevents the U.N. from broadening its mandate later. Defendants will have none of the due process rights afforded by the U.S. Constitution, a speedy and public trial, protection against double jeopardy, or protection against self-incrimination, and others previously mentioned. As with other U.N. panels, it can be expected that it will include ``justices'' from countries notorious for their human rights abuses. It is tempting for many to suppose the ICC will only target the likes of a Slobodan Milosevic or the perpetrators of massacres in Rwanda, or maybe rogue state dictators like Iraq's Saddan Hussein, Libya's Muammar Qadhafi, or Cuba's Fidel Castro. But who can be sure that will be their only target? To some people, former Chilean Dictator Augusto Pinochet is a patriot who saved his country from a communist coup. Again, in the eyes of the beholder, what is he? There are different opinions and different attitudes. Who has responsibility? I would suggest that the U.N. should not be allowed to be the judge, or that the U.N. should not be allowed to be the court. Ultimately, the people of Chile; in this case, Pinochet. They were the people who made the decisions. They were the judges. In dozens of countries governments enjoy brutal force to suppress violent insurgencies. Should we empower the U.N. to decide whether the military authorities in Algeria, Turkey, Macedonia, Sri Lanka, China, and India should be put in the defendants' dock, and then commit the United States to employ sanctions or even military force to bring them there? How about Russia's Vladimir Putin for his war in Chechnya? Or Israel's Ariel Sharon for his war against the Palestinian intifada? Are we ready to trust the U.N. to tell us who should be prosecuted and who shouldn't? Critics of the ICC rightfully cite the danger it presents to the safety of U.S. military personnel. What will be the consequences for U.S. national defense and our alliance obligations? Since the death of even one person can qualify as a war crime or even genocide in the ICC, how can we be sure a U.S. soldier serving abroad will not be indicted for what we see as just doing their duty? The ICC applies not just to soldiers, and not just to acts committed abroad; it also would apply to acts ``committed'' by any American here at home. Let me suggest, Is this a stretch of my imagination? It is not. Statements are broad. The argument of authority within the Rome treaty is broad. Even today, our friends in the European Union join domestic critics in branding the death penalty in the United States as ``discriminatory'' and ``inhumane.'' My guess is some of our colleagues would agree with that, while others would not. Who can guarantee that an American Governor might not face an indictment by the ICC for ``crimes against humanity'' for signing a death warrant, or that someday, under some foreign judge's idea of ``arms trafficking,'' a U.N. court will not demand the extradition of a private American citizen for selling a gun to his neighbor? It has been suggested that Milosevic's extradition does not set an ICC precedent threatening U.S. citizens because they will be protected by the U.S. Constitution. But why? In the Milosevic case, we demanded that the newly established Yugoslav Constitution be trashed for the authority of the United Nations. We are not defending a constitutional right at that point; we are simply saying that an international body has a higher authority. Once the ICC is up and running, why should we assume that our Constitution would not be thrown in the trash as well as that of Yugoslavia? Nothing in the treaty requires them to respect us and to respect our Constitution and our citizens' rights. Trying to ``fix'' the Rome treaty's flaws so we can live with it is like zipping a silk purse out of a sow's ear or putting lipstick on that little piggy. Instead of mistakenly trying to fix the Rome treaty's flaws, the United States must recognize that the ICC is a fundamental threat to American sovereignty and civil liberty, and that no deal, nor any compromise, is possible. We need to make it clear that we consider the ICC an illegitimate body, that the United States will never become part of it, and that we will never accept its jurisdiction over any U.S. citizen or help to impose it on other countries. President Bush has flatly rejected the Kyoto global warming convention. It is no less urgent that we act as forthrightly on the ICC. According to the administration, the State Department is already engaging in what we call low-level participation in the ICC Preparatory Commission. Why are we helping to establish an institution that is created by a treaty that the administration has stated they will not send to the Senate for ratification? Any kind of participation that would lend legitimacy to the Rome treaty would be a mistake and would send a wrong message to our friends in the international community. That is why during my recent meeting with Secretary Powell, and in my own op-ed that was published on August 22 in the Washington Post, I have encouraged the administration to remove our signature from the Rome treaty and to discontinue assistance to the International Criminal Court's Preparatory Commission. Such a statement of policy would send a clear signal to those countries that are currently wrestling with the issue of ratification that the United States does not support the creation of the Court. This clear signal has already been sent by the House of Representatives earlier this year when they passed an amendment, with overwhelming bipartisan support, to the State authorization bill that prohibits cooperation with the International Criminal Court. To complement the administration's efforts, and the efforts of the House of Representatives, I am offering this first- and second-degree amendment to Commerce-State-Justice, and the Judiciary appropriations bill that would prohibit funding to the International Criminal Court and its Preparatory Commission. I have discussed this issue with Senator Helms. He and many others have indicated their strong support for the proposal. When we stand to cast a vote on these amendments, we literally are voting about American sovereignty. My guess is, when the dust settles and the stories are written and this amendment is analyzed, that is exactly how it will be viewed. It is a vote to protect the men and women of our Armed Forces--without question--and a vote to protect our allies that have become subject to the Court. I will be darned if American sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution become subject to an International Criminal Court on my watch. And I would hope all of my colleagues would agree. The creation of an international court is not a foregone conclusion. We can intervene. We can state a position. We can ask that we step back and withdraw our signatures from this critical action and say to all the world that we will not support an International Criminal Court's ratification, and we would ask other nations in the world to act accordingly. Madam President, at this time I know of no others in this Chamber who wish to debate this issue, so I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside my amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I take this time to address with my colleagues a matter that I believe has the most grave consequence on our national sovereignty. I also submit for the Record three articles that pertain to this issue that I think are fundamentally important for my colleagues to have and understand. One of those happens to be an op-ed of mine that appeared in the Washington Posts in August, another one from John Bolton, and another one from Mr. Lee Casey. I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk to the pending legislation.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I now submit a second-degree amendment to the amendment, which I think is at the desk as I speak.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, at this time I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Lincoln) Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendment No. 1536

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am on the floor of the Senate today to speak to an issue that is right in Washington D.C., in our midst. It is something that I think few of us realize, but it has begun to get the attention of the American public. We have seen several news articles on it in the last month. Mr. President, the Bush administration inherited an environmental mess from previous administrations over the past good number of years. As I have said, it is right here in the backyard of Washington, DC. The Washington Aqueduct, which is operated by the Army Corps of Engineers, is in violation of the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. Millions of pounds of sludge, laced with alum, are created when the Potomac River water is treated for drinking water for the Washington, D.C. and Northern Virginia area. I have a picture of the release of the aqueduct into the Potomac River. Rather than send the sludge to a landfill, as other cities are required to do, it is dumped back into the Potomac River. Strangely enough, Mr. President, it is dumped into the river at night. Why? I suspect so that the public will not see it or ask the question: What is it? Therefore, it is dumped through the Chesapeake and the Ohio Canal National Historic Park. The Corps claims that to alter this process so that it functions like other water treatment facilities will take years to plan, to build, and to become operational. The only problem is that they have been saying that now for decades. The Corps has stated that if it were prohibited from dumping millions of pounds of toxic sludge into the river to protect an endangered species would create a security crisis. What would the crisis be? Well, it would deprive the White House, the Congress, the courts, and the Pentagon of adequate drinking water. Mr. President, I have to be honest. That kind of an argument and that situation outrages me. I believe that no one should be above the law, including the Nation's Capital. Of all the places that I thought we would never hear the phrase, ``not in my backyard,'' we are hearing it repeatedly said right here in Washington by the Army Corps of Engineers. A situation of this nature would never have occurred in the West because the Endangered Species Act would have trumped all of the other needs first. In fact, a community would be taxed beyond its capacity to finance a new facility and that facility would be ordered to be built by a court. There would be no arbitrary frustration of national security or that we simply can't get there in a timely fashion. Let me give you an example in McCall, ID. The drinking water source from the community is cleaner than the standards of the Safe Water Drinking Act. However, the community has been struggling for the last decade to finance a new drinking water system in order to comply with Federal regulations. I strongly feel that no one entity should operate as if it was above the law and especially in our Nation's Capital. If changes need to be made to the Washington Aqueduct, then the Corps should be taking steps to work with the affected communities to establish a new plan. That is what is expected of all of the communities in my State, in the West, and across the Nation, and no less should be expected by our Nation's Capital. A new discharge permit would require the current illegal discharge to cease, and that, of course, is the problem. This new permit has not been issued because there is a concern by local residents who do not want the dump trucks hauling the sludge through their community; thus, a resulting belief that ratepayers would prefer that the sludge be dumped into the river rather than pay for the cost of the facilities to treat it. At least that appears to be the attitude at this moment. I have a hard time believing that the residents of any community would want to pollute the water of their community and especially through the middle of a national park. However, this is the typical response of ``not in my backyard.'' We now affectionately call it NIMBY or being ``NIMBYfied.'' Clearly, in this instance, Washington is silent in its NIMBYism. The situation, I repeat, would not be tolerated in the West because a Federal court would order a community to stand down and be responsible under the regulations of the law. According to the Army Corps, the volume of chemically treated sludge discharged into the primary, if not the only, spawning habitat of the endangered shortnose sturgeon is large enough to require 15 dump truckloads a day to haul it away from the area. This chart is a picture taken at dawn of the sludge pouring into the river. While it is hard to see, in the distance lies the natural quality of the water. This is the chemical sludge that pours into the Potomac River during the night. Of course, this is a picture that is not very handsome, and I am sure the Army Corps of Engineers would not like to have it dramatized, but in reality, this is exactly what goes on. This dumping represents 15 truckloads of material that should be hauled away on a daily basis. It has been concluded that a single enormous discharge that includes several million pounds of solids, often done under the cover of night, as I have mentioned, or in inclement weather, may contain the equivalent of a significant amount of the total annual discharge of phosphorous and nitrogen by the city's sewer treatment facilities. This gives you the magnitude of the problem with which we are dealing. In the mid-1990's, area residents managed to get the Congress to require that Federal agencies give special attention to the concerns of the local residents when the facility was repermitted and thwarted the EPA's issuance of a new permit that would have halted the dumping. In other words, there was an effort at one point, but local citizens and, quietly, the EPA in the mid-90'S winked and nodded and said--``Not In Our Backyard.'' This is the Nation's Capital and it would create a national security problem, and so you are permitted. No new permit, though, has been issued since the old one expired. They just let it roll on. The expired permit has no limits on the total suspended solids, alum, and iron, discharged by the aqueduct. No other city in the Nation would get away with that, nor would there be a wink and a nod. The aqueduct discharges under continuation of the old permit pending issuance of a new one. The Department of Justice contends this is not a violation of the ESA to dump millions of pounds of chemically treated sludge into the primary spawning habitat of an endangered species that may be present at the exact location of the dumping in the Potomac River. None of this is going on in the Columbia and Snake Rivers, and yet we have five listed endangered species of salmon there. That water must be maintained in a near or pristine quality, and we have all kinds of activities going on up and down the stretch of the rivers to improve the water quality, but not in Washington and not for the shortnose sturgeon. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have stated that the discharge may also result in chemo-sensory disruption and EPA documents state that the discharges may result in what we call bio-accumulation of harmful chemicals. I am getting a little more technical than is necessary. This picture is worth a thousand more words than I can express about the situation that is going on. The National Marine Fisheries Service is allowing the project to proceed on the basis that the fish has not been verified in the upper tidals of the Potomac. Yet the regional director of the National Marine Fisheries Service stated more than 2 years ago that studies funded by the Corps that were critical to the analysis of the sturgeon status in the Potomac would commence that spring. It was determined that the fish are in the river. Only four species have been verified, not counting reports of sturgeon caught by sports fishermen. In fact, at one time, sturgeon was so abundant in the river, along with other fish, that it created a commercial fishery. George Washington took advantage of that commercial fishery with his own fleet of fishing boats. In fact, I am oftentimes told, and I have even looked at the transcripts from Mount Vernon, that one of the most lucrative parts of the Mount Vernon operation was fishing in the Potomac. We know that cannot happen nor would it happen today. The National Marine Fisheries Service has concluded that the fish is present in the general area because commercial fishermen turned in the sturgeon they happened to catch in their nets in response to a reward program for another species of sturgeon that was known to be in the area. The bottom line is, there are threatened and endangered fish in the Potomac River, and yet the Army Corps has done nothing in response to the need to cooperate. In my State of Idaho, or any other State in the Nation, this is a practice that would not be tolerated, and that is why I have come to the floor today. We pass laws, you and I, Mr. President, and the administration writes the regulations to administer those laws. The Endangered Species Act over the last three decades has been touted by some to be the most progressive environmental law in our Nation, and clearly it has saved species of threatened and endangered plants, animals, fish. My State has been largely reshaped by it. Federal land use plans in my State are much more prescriptive today and controlled by the very issue of the Endangered Species Act. But here, by a wink and by a nod, nothing happens. It is a river that you and I, Mr. President, for years have worked to pass legislation that would progressively clean it up and improve it, moving it back toward a time when it was a viable fishery on the east coast. But with the millions of pounds of sludge dumped daily into this river in the dark of night under a permit that has not been reissued since 1994--really, how long do we allow something like this to go on? How long do we allow the Army Corps of Engineers to continue to operate because it is in our best interest in the Nation's Capital, the city that ought to lead by example but can get away with a direct violation of the law or by ignoring the enforcement of the law? I do not think that should be the case. That is why I stand in the Chamber to dramatize this issue and to speak more clearly to it. While I believe the Endangered Species Act needs to be reformed, there is not any way I could write it to reform it that would justify this, nor would I try. Nor would any Senator vote for that kind of a reform. Yes, we would expect the Endangered Species Act to be more practical in its application, and, yes, we would want a more cooperative relationship with local communities of interest, but never would we ever tolerate the kind of an aggressive act that goes on in Washington on a daily basis, as I have said, oftentimes in the dark of night by this city and by our own agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, which is primarily responsible for the water treatment of this city. The application of the Endangered Species Act, as we see it, is good for the country and good for the West. It ought to be the same act and it ought to be enforced in the same way in our Nation's Capital. This is simply not being done. I am in the Chamber to speak to that issue and to recognize I have been involved with others in trying to bring about the conformity of the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act as we rebuild the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. This is one of many issues where there seems to be this attitude, well, if it is the Government doing it, somehow the Government can get away with it, and if it is in or near our Nation's Capital, where national security and the importance of the Congress are involved, then surely we can wink and nod and we can let the law be bypassed. I think not, Mr. President, and I think you agree with me. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to express my extreme concern about developments in the Republic of Korea that have far reaching negative implications for U.S. semiconductor companies. I am referring to the massive and unjustified government bailout that the South Korean government is providing to Hyundai Electronics, now known as Hynix. To date, the South Korean Government and the government-owned banks have given Hynix over $4 billion in loans and other types of financing which carry the guarantee of the government of Korea. This is a subsidy pure and simple. As if this is not bad enough, however, two Wall Street Journal articles over the past week report that the Korean government is now planning on giving Hynix an additional billion dollars to keep them solvent. In the year 2000, Hynix was the world's largest producer of dynamic random access memory, or DRAM, an important type of memory semiconductor that is used in everything from personal computers to satellites. Hynix has captured over 24 percent of the world semiconductor market. However, Hynix achieved such a large share of the global market not because it is particularly good at making DRAMs, but because it borrowed excessively and built up enormous capacity. Now, Hynix is broke and cannot repay the loans it took out to finance its expansion. Verging on bankruptcy, Hynix has been kept alive by the South Korean government through infusions of new cash. Far from solving the company's problems, however, these government subsidies are just plunging Hynix deeper into debt. This behavior circumvents normal market forces and has very severe implications for the companies in the U.S. and the rest of the world that are forced to compete with Hynix's illegally subsidized products. Over the past several months, the Korean government has given assurances to me, to my colleague Senator Crapo, and other members of this body, as well as Ambassador Zoellick, Secretary Evans and Secretary O'Neill, that the Korean government will stop giving these subsidies to Hynix, subsidies that clearly violate our international trade agreements. Now, the Korean government seems poised to violate these assurances completely, destroying the U.S. semiconductor industry in the process. I call on the Korean government to stop subsidizing Hynix, to stop this distortion of the international semiconductor market, and to let Hynix sink or swim on its own.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, what is the status of the amendment in relation to when will it be voted on?

Mr. CRAIG. Let me finish my thought, and then I will be happy to give the Senator his time to debate. The reality is, it confirms the point that the program gets gamed. In 1978, in Baltimore, it did not work. Crime went up. In this city over 2,000 guns were purchased, many of them 15 years of age and older. They are not the current weapon used on the street in street crime. If a family finds a gun on their hands which they inherited and they do not know what to do with it, they could take it down to the local police department and hand it in. They could do that. They do not have to be paid to get rid of a gun. They can hand it in or they can take it down to a pawn shop and get a little money. I find this a fascinating quote, and I think the Senator from New York will find it fascinating also. The Boston Globe, Tuesday October 24, 2000: The threat was gun violence-- And I must say the threat today is still gun violence. the stakes, the lives of urban youth. The stakes today, in many instances, the lives of urban youth. Both the Senator from New York and I are concerned about that. The image was a body face down in blood and the sound was the wail of sirens, funeral hymns, and more gunfire. Amid the violence that gripped urban centers nationwide in the 1990s, America's call to stop the violence was a cry of civic activism: Everybody turn in your guns. It caught on with the made-for-television popularity. Guns for money. Guns for food. Guns for concert tickets. Guns for therapy, for shopping trips, and in one town in Illinois, firearms for a free table dance at a strip club. In this case, the offer was and I quote Buns for Guns. Around the country and in Boston, gun buybacks spurred intense publicity. Private sponsors poured money into the programs. Led by groups Citizens for Safety, Boston collected 2,800 guns in four years. With gun violence again on the rise this year-- That is the year 2000-- the cry to bring back the buyback is growing among some Boston activists. But almost five years after the last goods- for-guns event, crime specialists and some police officials are warning against them, saying gun buybacks were and are among the least effective tools for public safety. Studies of gun buybacks, including a Harvard analysis -- And I know the Senator from New York says statistics do not matter. This is just a feel good amendment, but we are talking about $15 million in taxpayer money of Boston's program, say unanimously that the programs don't work. In an interview yesterday, Boston Police Commissioner Paul F. Evans said that in retrospect, buybacks failed to produce the impact many had hoped for or expected. I could go on to quote more of the Boston Globe article. Whether it is food for guns, tickets for guns, or money for guns, it did not work. That is why the Bush administration has said it is a bad use of money. I do not care if one feels good or feels bad, or one does not want to believe in the statistics that come from Harvard University, the reality is we have to get at crime in our housing and it is not done by throwing $15 million at a program that flat out does not work. If someone has an old gun in their closet and they want to get it out of the hands of anybody in their family, take it to the police department and give it to them. They do not have to be paid, or they could take it to a pawn shop and get 5 or 10 bucks maybe. The problem is that much of what we were buying for $100 to $250 was not pawnable because it was old, it was antique, and it was nonfunctional. As the Senator from New York says, though, if it feels good, then maybe we ought to do it. We should not do it for $15 million, not when our budgets are tight and not when we are scrambling over where to get money to do all other kinds of programs that are important to the American people. I do not always agree with Harvard, but Harvard has studied the program in Boston and they say it does not work. Law enforcement says it does not work and ought not be used. My guess is, that is why President Bush and Secretary Martinez said, let's don't do it anymore. It is not a philosophical or evangelical reason. The reality is: It does not work. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG. Let me finish.

Mr. CRAIG. I think that is appropriate. I am not going to disagree with the Senator from New York on that proviso, because what is in the law today was done by the Clinton administration and not a mandate of the Congress itself. President Clinton and Secretary Cuomo did that by regulatory change. So there is flexibility. What is true in the law, which we are dealing with in this Chamber, is the option. The Schumer amendment would mandate a specific amount of money to be used for that purpose. Let me quote an article I found most fascinating from the New York Daily News Online, July 28, 2000: A gun buyback program to get illegal weapons off the streets had to be altered yesterday after a stampede of court officers [that is, law enforcement officers] tried to cash in. Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes ordered changes in the initiative when he found out that court officers--some of them in uniform--were handing in their old .38 caliber service revolvers. Because the program had pulled in only about 200 guns since the one-month window began on July 1, Hynes upped the reward on Monday from $100 to $250 per gun. In other words, it was not working, a point that has been driven home numerous times. The Senator from New York says: It feels good. So let us dump $15 million because it feels good, while we all know it is a whale of a photo-op. Here is what happened, and this is a quote from the district attorney: We had a surge last night of about 100 guns and they all seemed to be .38 [caliber] service revolvers. According to the article: One court officer collected $1,500 by turning in six guns. And even though people were gaming the system, officials had to pay for the guns because they had made the offer. The point is----

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am speaking on the motion to table the Schumer amendment. Mr. Schumer wishes to allocate $15 million of this appropriation to what we call gun buybacks. He is taking $15 million away from AIDS and the homeless and Native American housing and the revitalization of the public housing. I am telling you what the record says. Since 1978, law enforcement in America has clearly said gun buybacks don't work. They buy back old and obsolete and unused guns off the street, yes; out of homes, yes. Do they take away the semi-automatics or the .38s used in the commission of crimes? Absolutely not. That is why law enforcement in America today is backing away from gun buybacks. The commissioner of law enforcement in Boston said, ``We won't use our money there anymore because it is ineffective.'' Crime goes up. Yes, they are great photo opportunities, but it does not work. That is why, 2 weeks ago, the Bush administration said we will allocate money in HUD for those things that work, where we can get at crime through interdiction and law enforcement and not through a photo opportunity. I ask you to vote to table the Schumer amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. Or per side?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is my understanding there are 2 minutes equally divided?