Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Bosnia amendment introduced by the junior Senator from Texas. Before I discuss the reasons for my opposition, I would like to commend the Senator for her continuing interest and involvement in U.S. foreign policy. The Senator is one of this body's most active Members, and while I have often opposed her legislative initiatives, which seemed to me unnecessarily to limit American involvement abroad, I value her enthusiasm and engagement. The amendment that Senator Hutchison has proposed today sets arbitrary caps on our troop strength in Bosnia and micromanages their duties from the vantage point of Washington, D.C.--4,000 miles from Bosnia and Herzegovina! The amendment is fatally flawed. Mr. President, the Hutchison amendment is predicated upon a false assertion: that the U.S. contribution to SFOR is inequitable and disproportionately large. I will return to that inaccurate claim in a moment. Moreover, the amendment makes several incorrect claims about the current situation in Bosnia, for example that NATO forces participate in law enforcement activities there. In circumscribing future activities, it also incorrectly implies that NATO forces are transferring refugees or that refugees are relocating in order to control the territory of the other Bosnian entity. But, Mr. President, the core of my opposition to the Hutchison amendment is the same as was my opposition last month to the Thurmond amendment to the Defense authorization bill. Put quite simply, if the United States wishes to remain the leader of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, then it must continue to lead! Mr. President, leadership means being present in all aspects of NATO operations and sharing in the risks. The Hutchison amendment is a prescription for ``NATO a la carte.'' By February 1999 it would allow exceptions in Bosnia to the arbitrary troop limits in Bosnia only for self-protection as we withdraw our forces, to protect U.S. diplomatic facilities, or in advisory support roles. That might work for a junior member of the Alliance, but not for the United States of America. Not for the leader of NATO. Let me return to the false assumption that underlies the Hutchison amendment--that our participation in SFOR is disproportionately large. As a matter of fact, Mr. President, while the U.S. contribution to SFOR remains the largest single national contribution, the proportion of U.S. forces within NATO forces in Bosnia has declined dramatically since initial deployment in December 1995. At the outset, U.S. troops made up fully one-third of IFOR. As a result of steady, measured reductions, U.S. participation has dropped to one-fifth of SFOR. In other words, our allies and other SFOR partners have agreed to the U.S. taking disproportionate cuts in force numbers at each milestone, while continuing to accept U.S. command of the overall force. At the current time, our European allies alone contribute more than three-and-one-half times the number of troops in SFOR than we do. Attempting to lower the U.S. proportion to equal or below that of any single European ally would almost certainly cost us our command position. Some Members of the Senate might welcome such a development. I would not. I want the United States to retain command of SFOR in order to ensure that the pace of implementing the Dayton Accords holds steady or accelerates. I want the United States to retain command of SFOR in order to maximize the effectiveness and protection of the U.S. forces in Bosnia. We are in Bosnia because helping to resolve the Bosnian problem is in our national interest. As was repeatedly pointed out by this Senator and many others during the debate on NATO enlargement last spring, that is the reason we are in Europe at all. In political, security, and economic terms, we are a European power. Our engagement in Europe, including Bosnia, is not a charity operation. Stability in Europe benefits us. The European allies of the United States are playing a major role in Bosnia. Because of our leadership role in NATO, and because of our superior logistical capabilities, we have maintained command of SFOR. This is how it should be. Like my colleagues, I am in favor of the speediest fulfillment of the Dayton Accords so that Bosnia and Herzegovina will have a self- sustaining democracy and all foreign troops may be withdrawn. American command of SFOR is the best guarantee that we can rapidly achieve this goal. The Hutchison amendment would, I submit, gravely undermine that American command in Bosnia and would set in motion a process that could ultimately result in loss of the position of SACEUR, the command of NATO land forces in Europe. For all these reasons, I oppose the Hutchison amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating it. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. President, I will take no more time. I know my friend from Arizona is about to make some comments. Last spring this was a bad idea. Nothing has caused it to become a good idea in the summer. It was a bad idea then; it is a bad idea now. I hope it will be tabled. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment with Senator Hatch to reauthorize the Drug Director's Office. Senator Hatch and I have been assisted by several other Senators in this effort, and I would just note that the reauthorization bill reported by the Judiciary Committee last year was cosponsored by Senators Thurmond, DeWine, Coverdell, and Feinstein. I would also note that since then, we have worked closely with Senator McCain to meet some concerns that he had raised relating to the Drug Director's budget certification powers. And, the language we have negotiated with Senator McCain is incorporated into the text offered in this amendment. This bipartisan legislation will, I hope, result in speedy action to keep the Drug Director's Office in place--no matter what perspective any of us have on any specific drug policy, this legislation is about whether we will have a Drug Director and Drug Office to be responsible for--and accountable to--a national drug policy. In 1987, before my legislation creating the Drug Office finally became law, There was no official in charge of the administration's drug effort; and, because there was no Cabinet official in charge, every Cabinet official could duck responsibility to talk about tough drug policy issues--and, guess what, that meant no administration talked about drugs and no administration was accountable on drugs. Just as with my original drug czar legislation, the Hatch-Biden amendment retains its central goal--holding every administration and every President accountable on the drug issue. The Hatch-Biden amendment does so in several ways: First, and this was one of Chairman Hatch's top priorities, Hatch- Biden requires the Clinton administration to identify measurable objectives for the National Drug Strategy, and provide on February 1, 1999, specific answers about whether these objectives have been met; Second, Hatch-Biden retains the current law about the administration submitting a detailed annual drug budget--every line of which is reviewed and changed in the annual congressional appropriations process. To this, Hatch-Biden adds a requirement--called for by General McCaffrey--for budget projections covering the next 4 years. In other words, this prevents any ``pie-in-the-sky'' promises, which are not backed up by specific budget projections. Third, and this is the major change proposed by General McCaffrey and included in Hatch-Biden, instead of the overall drug strategy, it requires a detailed annual report which will focus the administration and the Congress on the ``nuts and bolts'' of implementing the strategy. As Senator Hatch points out--instead of a strategy in which an administration tells us what it is going to do about drugs; this report will force any administration to tell us what they have accomplished against drugs. Hatch-Biden includes specific language requiring: That the annual report include any necessary modifications of the drug strategy; A whole new strategy if the current strategy proves ineffective; An annual assessment of the progress on the specific, measurable goals identified in the drug strategy; Goals that are required by law to address--current drug use; availability of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana; drug prices, and purity among many others; and That any new President or new Drug Director submit a new drug strategy. Finally, the key addition of the annual report included in Hatch- Biden is the ``performance measurement system''--which would add nearly 100 detailed measures, each with a definite timetable. These measures are all about holding the 50 drug agencies and offices accountable to the drug policy goals of the administration--the one task that all Drug Directors have found exceedingly difficult to actually implement. Just to identify a few of these specific measures: Increase asset seized from drug traffickers by 15 percent; increase drug trafficking organizations dismantled by 20 percent in high intensity drug trafficking areas; and reduce worldwide coca cultivation by at least 40 percent. Of course, we would all like each of these measures to be achieved immediately--but, even if we could do this efficiently, the costs would be staggering--an additional $60-$90 billion over just the next 3 years. So, achieving these goals will take time. One final point on the general's performance measurement system--if we are to give him a fighting chance to increase the accountability of all the drug agencies, we have to put this system in law. For, if we do not, mark my words, the general will be defeated by all the career officials in all the drug agencies who want to stop this increased accountability. Another element of General McCaffrey's proposal which has been included in Hatch-Biden is to require that the No. 2 official in the office--the Deputy Director--have to come before the Senator for confirmation just like the demand deputy, supply deputy and State and local deputy. I favor this because the hearing, committee, and floor votes on the Deputy Director would give the Senate another important opportunity to hold any administration accountable on drugs. In addition, the key mission of the Drug Office--holding the nearly 50 agencies and offices with drug policy responsibilities accountable-- requires having officials with the credentials of Senate confirmation. The Hatch-Biden amendment also includes specific language calling for ``scientific, educational, or professional'' credentials for whomever is nominated for the demand deputy job. This is an issue that Senators Grassley and Moynihan have really been the leaders on--and I just acknowledge their key role in this aspect of Hatch-Biden. I also note that, at the chairman's insistence, the length of time of this reauthorization has been drastically shortened. While the general initially proposed to authorize the office for 12 years, Hatch-Biden reauthorizes for 4 years through September 30, 2002. In closing, I would point out that this legislation has been through a long process here in the Senate and that this process has resulted in a strong, bipartisan bill. I understand that the two managers of the bill, Senators Campbell and Kohl, are willing to accept this amendment. I appreciate their support, and the support of the full Senate for the reauthorization of the Drug Director.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, it is with some reluctance that I rise this afternoon to speak of the tragic occurrence, where two fine officers were gunned down here in the Capitol. The reason I say it is with reluctance is because, like many of us in this Chamber, I know from personal experience that when a wife or husband or son or daughter is taken from a family as a consequence of a totally unexpected violent event, that there is little that anyone can say or do, no matter how well intended we may be, that can in any way ease the pain of the family members who survive--the children, the spouses, parents. So I debated with myself today whether or not to say anything at all. Much has been said about the heroism displayed in the performance of duty, and much more will be said about the lives that these two men, in giving theirs, probably saved. All that need be said, but none of that in any way is likely to produce any sense of relief on the part of the children of the officers, on the part of their spouses, on the part of their families. As a matter of fact, it is likely to produce, initially, a sense of anger; a feeling of ``Why my father?'' a feeling of ``Why did it have to be my husband?'' So, in a few moments each of us in our own ways will, as we attend the memorial service, demonstrate our high regard for and pay respects to the families as well as the deceased officers. But I also note one other thing from personal experience. Notwithstanding the fact nothing that we say today can ease that horrible void that seems to occupy the chest of the family members who can't fathom why this occurred to their father or to their husband--nothing we do will make them feel any better today--but, as time goes on, they will find a sense of comfort knowing that so many people held their father, their spouse, in such high regard. It will not occur for months, but it will occur. It will occur. And when it does, it will at that time help ease, ever so slightly, that sense of loss. The pain will never go away. The sense of loss will never be completely abated. But it will become easier to live with. So, as I said, although a lot of us in this Chamber know from similar experiences the feeling, it is hard when you are going through it to know one other thing that occurs and that is that time, time will not erase the pain, but time will make it livable. At this moment, I expect, family members feel that nothing--nothing-- nothing that will happen to them from this point on will make life as worth living as it has been for them. But, again from personal experiences, all of us know, who have gone through similar things, that the time will come when the memory of J.J. or John, the memory of their father or husband, will bring a smile to their lips rather than a tear to their eyes. My only prayer, on behalf of my wife Jill and me--we talked a lot about this morning before I came down--my prayer for the family members is that moment will come sooner than later. It will come. It will come. But that it will come sooner than later. We ask a lot of those who serve this Nation. But few of us, few of us ever have to give what these two officers gave. Even fewer family members have to live with the sacrifice they have made, the void that is created and the pain that will endure for some time, like the families of the two fallen officers. So, again, I have no illusions that my words, as inadequate as they are, or the words of any of us, will at this moment give much comfort. But in time, in time I hope they will find some refuge in what has been said, in the outpouring of respect, the outpouring of emotion, the outpouring of just simple, plain gratitude on the part of the staff, the Senators, and all Americans for what these two men did. They did their duty. They did their duty. And, in doing so, they clearly saved the lives of other innocent people. That is no comfort now, but it will, in time, be some comfort. Let me close by saying, once again, in time the pain will ease. In time, when they think of their father, when they think of their husband, they will, in fact, smile rather than cry. All that we can hope is that time will come sooner than later. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I say to my good friend and colleague, the distinguished Chairman of the Finance Committee, that I note with interest that the report on the bill before us provides funds in the amount of $1 million for the upgrade of safety systems on all locomotives operating between New Haven, CT, and Boston, MA.

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise this evening on behalf of myself and my distinguished colleague from Delaware, Senator Bill Roth, to note the importance of a project at the New Castle County Airport in Delaware that involves the Federal Aviation Administration, and to ask the help of the managers of this bill. In an extraordinary--and what is believed to be the first-of-its-kind offer--the owners of the New Castle County Airport--a bi-state compact known as the Delaware River and Bay Authority--has agreed to pay the approximately $5 million it will cost to construct and equip a new control tower. This facility will replace the 43-year old existing tower which does not meet federally-mandated safety and environmental standards. The FAA, however, has now taken the position that not only should the Delaware River and Bay Authority finance the cost to design and construct a new control tower, but also pay $2.3 million for the FAA's overhead, equipment and administrative costs to oversee the project. In addition, the FAA wants the sponsor to reimburse the agency $1 million for costs related to the relocation of the FAA's Very High Frequency radar system (VOR) at the Airport--even though the FAA's current lease indicates the FAA should bear such costs. With the Airport sponsor willing to finance the significant cost of constructing a new control tower for the FAA, the agency should not impose additional overhead costs on that sponsor. The owners of the Airport have worked diligently and cooperatively with the FAA for the past three years on this project, but continue to encounter further financial demands and bureaucratic delays. Clearly, this new control tower will help the FAA. Not only will the FAA get a new, state-of-the-art tower at no cost, if the New Castle County Airport is able to expand, it will help the FAA solve the growing problem of air traffic congestion at major commercial airports in Philadelphia, Baltimore and New York. We believe it is in the best safety interests of all parties--the FAA, the Delaware River and Bay Authority, and most importantly the flying public--that this critical airport in Delaware be allowed to construct a new control tower facility for the FAA, without additional financial demands and delays. It's our understanding that the House Appropriations Committee Report accompanying the FY'99 Transportation Appropriations bill specifically directs the FAA to assume the approximate $3.3 million in overhead costs. I rise today to bring this important issue to the attention of the Chairman and Ranking Member and to seek your help in working to include this House language in the Conference Report.

Mr. BIDEN. These new speed monitoring systems are important to the operation of the Northeast Corridor and we want to ensure that the installation is done at a facility where the workers have the skills and experience to do the job right.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, that is the first part. Read the second part. It says, a little phrase says exceptions: Exceptions--Otherwise lawful bets or wagers that are placed, received or otherwise made wholly interstate for State lotteries, racing or parimutuel activity. Exceptions. Let me point out one other thing. Under current Federal law, it is illegal to take a bet using a telephone wire, which means that under current law, basically all Internet gambling is illegal because you use a wire. Under the Kyl amendment, it would become legal to take a bet on the Internet if the States where the bettor placed and received authorized the bet and the bettor is a subscriber of a gambling company's network. This is an expansion. Expansion. If you want to do something about the Internet, strike exceptions, and I promise you, the sponsors will vote against this. Strike exceptions. If you don't want any betting using the wire, strike ``exceptions.''

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let's get it straight what this does. All of you came to me and said, ``I can't vote for the Craig amendment because it expands gambling on the Internet.'' What the Kyl amendment does is expands gambling. Right now it is illegal to use the wire to place a bet. U.S. Code 18, section 1084, Transmission of Wagering Information Penalties. Read it. I don't have a minute. It is illegal now. What the Kyl amendment does is make what is now illegal legal for certain carved-out exceptions which benefit--and there is nothing wrong with this, depending on your interests--which benefit certain segments of the gambling industry. That is what this does. If I had more than a minute, I would explain in more detail. This expands gambling. It does not cut back on gambling. It expands it. What is now illegal in certain areas becomes legal.

Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object, only if I have a minute in response.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 included vital provisions to protect abused immigrant women--so they wouldn't have to choose to stay in an abusive marriage or be deported from America This has helped a relatively small number of battered women--a few thousand each year--but it was important that we--on a bipartisan basis--took this moral step. Since 1994, we have found other ways in which we in effect force women to remain in abusive marriages and rely on their abusive husbands for their immigration status. This amendment restores the protections of the original Violence Against Women Act in four key ways: By ensuring that battered women are included in the narrow immigration provision already included in this bill. By preventing the roughly 1500 women per year who complete the full process of proving that they are in fact battered from being deported solely because of some arbitrary limits. By allowing the Immigration and Naturalization Service to permit a battered woman to remain in the U.S. even though she has left the country for a brief period--provided that she has an understandable reason (such as in the case of a woman who was literally taken to Mexico against her will). And by requiring the Immigration and Naturalization Service to give a battered woman an opportunity to prove that she was battered and eligible for Violence Against Women Act relief before deporting her under an order issued without her notice. This is an important amendment--even though it will affect a modest number of battered women. I am pleased that this amendment is cosponsored by Senators Abraham, Kennedy, Leahy, Wellstone and others. I am also pleased that this amendment has been accepted and will be adopted by the full Senate unanimously.

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator for his interest in this matter and for his clarification of the Committee report. Western Slope Drug Enforcement

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, as we close debate on the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill, I would like to make a few comments on the funding for the foreign affairs agencies. I want to express my appreciation to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee for their efforts to provide adequate funding for the foreign policy agencies within the tight allocation they have. The United States is a great military and economic power, with extensive interests overseas. To protect those interests, we need both a strong military and a strong diplomatic corps. ``Diplomatic readiness'' is more than a slogan; it represents a commitment to ensure that our diplomats, who stand on the front lines of our national defense, have the resources to perform the many tasks we entrust to them. I commend the Committee for providing, in particular, the necessary funding to modernize the Department of State's information technology. The Department made some bad choices in previous years, and is now saddled with antiquated computer and telecommunications technology. Information is central to the task of diplomacy, and we are undermining our interests substantially unless we properly equip the Department with modern technology. I'd like to say a few words about the Bureau of Export Administration in the Department of Commerce, which performs several functions that are vital to the national security of the United States. The managers of the bill before us were unable to find $2.5 million for three of those vital functions. I appeal to the managers to make every effort to find those funds in conference, so that we can continue to safeguard the national security as the American people expect us to do. These important Export Administration needs are as follows: Ten new positions (8 full-time equivalents) to fully staff Export Administration field offices, so that they can mount more intensive enforcement of U.S. controls over dual-use items that could otherwise be diverted to military or terrorist uses; Three new positions (2 full-time equivalents) to enhance the enforcement regarding shipments to Hong Kong, so as to prevent or stop any diversion of strategically-controlled goods to China; and Six positions (4 full-time equivalents) to maintain the Nonproliferation Export Control teams that help countries in the former Soviet Union to improve their export control systems. The first two items, which require a total of $2.2 million, are self- explanatory. At a time when we have legitimate concerns regarding the possible Chinese diversion to military purposes of machine tools and high-speed computers, we must give the Bureau of Export Administration the funds and positions it needs to fully enforce U.S. law and regulations that control such exports and provide for follow-up monitoring of their overseas use. The Nonproliferation Export Control teams require a word of further explanation. This function--which is part of the Cooperative Threat Reduction program--has proceeded for some years with funding from the Department of Defense and the Department of State. The Department of Commerce agreed last year, however, to assume the costs of its participation in that program. The State and Defense budgets no longer include funding for the Nonproliferation Export Control teams. If Commerce Department funds are not found for this purpose, this valuable program could well be lost. What would we lose if the Nonproliferation Export Control teams were to go away? Those teams have performed incredibly well, fostering ties at the customs agent level and helping the former Soviet states to establish export control laws and institutions to can prevent the loss of sensitive goods and information to rogue states or terrorist groups. For example, the Government of Ukraine wants a team to help brief members of its parliament on inadequacies in Ukraine's current law. The Government of Slovakia wants help in developing regulations to implement its new export control law. Export Administration's teams support these efforts in full cooperation with other U.S. departments and agencies. I realize that resources are tight, but it would be a grave mistake, in my view, to let this valuable non-proliferation resource slip away from us. So I urge my colleagues, the managers of this bill, to find the $1.3 million needed to keep the Nonproliferation Export Control teams alive and well in Fiscal Year 1999. I also urge them to find the $1.2 million needed to improve our own export enforcement regarding dual-use goods that we must prevent from being used against U.S. interests. I realize these are small amounts in a bill that funds three large cabinet departments, but they could go a long way in advancing our non-proliferation interests. In closing, I want to again express my appreciation to the managers of this bill. They had a very difficult task in balancing all the competing interests in this bill, and I believe they did an excellent job in balancing those interests.

Mr. BIDEN. I appreciate that clarification. I understand that the Chairman and Ranking Member have a very tight allocation this year, but I hope that they will do what they can to try to restore the funds that were reduced in the Committee mark for broadcasting activities.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would like to briefly discuss the funding levels for international broadcasting in this legislation. I am disappointed by the considerable reductions in the Senate bill in this account. We have important priorities in this account. Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), and the Voice of America are critical instruments of American foreign policy. For a relatively modest cost, these broadcasting agencies project American values and promote American ideals. RFE/RL was of critical importance during the Cold War in undermining the tight control on information imposed by the communist states in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Although the Cold War is over, RFE/RL still have an important function in a region where independent media are not yet firmly established, and, in many countries, is barely adequate. I authored the legislation in 1994 which created Radio Free Asia--which broadcasts news about local events to China and the other dictatorships in the region--and I want to ensure that it has the necessary resources so that it can perform its function. It is my understanding that Committee has assumed that the bill fully funds Radio Free Asia at the requested level of $19.4 million. Is that the understanding of the Chairman?

Mr. BIDEN. Additionally, I would note that the Committee report makes reference to the fact that the statute authorizing Radio Free Asia provides for a sunset a year from now. That is true, but the Senator from New Hampshire should understand that, in my view, it is quite likely that Radio Free Asia will be reauthorized next year. I plan to introduce such legislation early in the next Congress, and I would expect that it would be included as part of next year's Foreign Relations Authorization Act.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would ask to engage the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, in a brief colloquy regarding a portion of the report which accompanies the bill, calling on the COPS office to direct $175 million to the Safe Schools Initiative, for the hiring of additional police officers to improve the safety of our school children. I strongly support the Committee's effort, lead by Chairman Gregg and ranking member Hollings, to meet this highly important duty. I just wanted to get a clarification about the Committee's intent--is it the Committee's intent that D.A.R.E. police officers would be eligible to be funded under the Safe Schools Initiative?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BIDEN. Well, let me say to the Senator that I, quite frankly, admired--disagreed, but admired--my Republican colleagues when they made no bones about the fact that they did not want any interference in any way by the Government to do anything about HMOs. At least theirs was a principled stand. They said, ``Look, the insurance companies, in driving down costs, are more important than all these other factors. We're not going to do anything.'' What bothers me--and this is me; you are not saying this, I know it, but I am saying it--what bothers me is the apparent cynicism of picking four items which most often my constituency speaks to, to say they are covered, and nothing else. And even when you look into those four items, they are not really covered. They are going to be going around--and the insurance companies are spending tens of millions of dollars in ads--saying, ``We want you to have the right to choose a doctor.'' Wait a minute. That is what they said before. But under the Republican bill, the American people can't choose their doctor, if the doctor they happen to need is a specialist, if the doctor they happen to need is in an emergency room and they don't meet the standard that the HMO sets. I have not been nearly as involved in this debate as my friend from Massachusetts. And as the old joke goes: He has forgotten more about health care than I am going to learn. But I would feel better about what is going on here if the Republicans said what they truly believe, ``Hey, look, we're not changing our position. We don't think you should be able to choose your own doctor. We don't think there should be an antigag rule. We don't think you should change the requirements to get emergency room access. We don't think that a woman should be able to choose her gynecologist as her primary physician.'' Let me tell you what I think they figured out. I know of no wrath like that of the wrath of a woman who says, ``I can't go to the doctor that I need and trust the most.'' And so they seem to be yielding only in places--and only in part--where the loudest cries are coming from. But, there are so many, many, many, many loopholes in what they say they are doing, and so much they leave out. I kind of yearn for the day when they just stood up on the floor like they do on guns and say, ``Hey, look, guns are not bad. You know, guns don't kill people. People kill people.'' I kind of like that. I admire it. But this, I don't know. There will be a multimillion-dollar campaign we are all going to endure, and you do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out where this is going before this is all over. And I expect I am going to hear your name mentioned a couple hundred thousand times before this is over, too. But at any rate, I thank you for answering my question.

Mr. BIDEN. I know the Senator knows a great deal about this, but I watched the press conference our Republican colleagues held hailing their Patients' Bill of Rights. You just went through and will continue to go through all the things they left out. I find it very curious the things they say are in their bill, which, in fact, are not in their bill. One, they say that a woman can pick as a primary care physician an ob/gyn. Second, they advertise that this means you have access to the emergency room. Third, they talk about continuity of doctors so they say you can choose your doctor. And fourth, they say no gag rule. This is the party of gag rule, and now they say no gag rule. I kind of respected them when they were just flat out saying they were just against any of this. Does the Senator have an explanation as to why they would pick the four most often stated complaints of the American public and suggest that their bill covers those things? It just seems strange to me that the party of the gag rule says they want an antigag rule, and yet there still is no antigag rule; that the party that said when they were going after Clinton's health plan, you should be able to choose your own doctor, will not allow you to choose a specialist or choose the doctor you need; that the party that suggested the costs of the Clinton plan were too high and everyone could just go to the emergency room are not, in fact, providing access to emergency room care the way in which the American public is looking at it. Why did they pick these four things to say they were for and not any of the rest? Is there some strategy here I am missing?

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama be willing, on an unrelated matter, on the vote we just had, to yield me 2 minutes to make a brief comment before he begins?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I think local authorities should make that judgment. They should decide. I don't think you should discriminate, whether it is at risk or not at risk. It should be after-school programs in which everyone is entitled to participate. Let the States make those decisions, not us; but let's spend the money. My point is, spend money on after-school programs. All of the other programs the Senator listed do impact indirectly on youth violence. The problem is, 14 million kids with nothing to do for 3 hours, where 40 percent of the crime is committed. None of those programs are directed at that. We don't deal with that. We don't deal with the problem, in my opinion.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, as they say, reserving the right to object, I don't think there is a problem; we may be able to work it out. But you mentioned two amendments Senator Grams of Minnesota has regarding the United Nations. If we can't work out the second one relating to U.N. arms, I would want a second-degree amendment, or else I would object.

Mr. BIDEN. I do want to finish this at some point, but I will be happy to yield.