John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I did want to ask the Senator a question, but I appreciate that.

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KERRY. Yes.

Mr. KERRY. I wish we had time to pursue it. I do not now, but I will when I speak.

Mr. KERRY. One minute.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish to engage the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Chafee, in a colloquy. The colloquy relates to a freestanding amendment that I have offered which would deauthorize portions of a navigation project at Cohasset Harbor, MA. This deauthorization provision is clearly and wholly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. I recognize that it would most appropriately be dealt with as an amendment to the 1995 Water Resources Development Act. However, this deauthorization is a purely technical action which requires no expenditure of funds. In addition, I have recently been informed that the necessary dredging of Cohasset Harbor, which cannot proceed without this deauthorization, will lose an existing appropriation of funds if this technical action is not approved by the Congress expeditiously. The amendment simply provides for a modification to the existing coordinates of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Cohasset Harbor dredging project.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair and the distinguished minority manager of the bill. Mr. President, I just heard one speaker say that this will be the most important vote in the Senate in 15 years. I respectfully disagree. I think the most important vote in the Senate in 15 years will be the vote when we return with a reconciliation package that has been negotiated and which fairly reflects the administration, the minority and the majority in the Senate, as an expression of all of our desires to balance the budget. That will be the most important vote. But I do not want to quibble or deny the notion that this is not an important statement. I would like to say that, from at least this Senator's perspective, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle deserve credit. I think it is appropriate for us to talk more honestly about what is at stake here and, perhaps, depart from some of the partisan rhetoric, though it is hard because of the circumstances. The fact is that the majority is proving what many of us said as we opposed the balanced budget amendment. What we said was that we do not need an amendment, we simply need legislators with the courage to balance the budget. And indeed, the Republicans have picked up that challenge and they deserve credit for having returned to the floor with a budget that, in their view, expresses their values and their direction for the country. So they are offering a balanced budget. Regrettably, their choices, which are more unilateral than most of us would have hoped we would arrive at because in effect it represents exclusively the Republican House and Republican Senate to the exclusion of most of the efforts of the rest of us. Theirs is a statement of values. Their budget sets forth the Gingrich-Republican view of how America ought to be. And the fact that some of us oppose that view does not mean that we oppose coming to the floor and voting for a balanced budget. I will vote ``no'' on this view of America, with the hopes that after the President has vetoed it we will return with a more compromised, centrist, and hopefully more diverse, shared view of where this country should go in this important statement of a budget. It is my hope that many of us who want to balance the budget and do it responsibly, with a fair reflection of the values of this country, will have an opportunity to do so after the real negotiations take place. Mr. President, I have already voted for a balanced budget. It was the so-called Conrad plan. It was a plan that I did not agree with every part of, but I think it was far more fair than the plan or any other plan that we have had on the floor. It was a plan that gave tax breaks to middle-class working families. It closed tax loopholes, reduced corporate welfare. But instead, in this plan we are now confronted with, contrary to the fairness that we tried to achieve previously, the Republicans are raising $32 billion worth of taxes from Americans earning less than $30,000 a year. I voted for a balanced budget plan that was honest about the need to do something about Medicare. I agree with my colleagues. There has been a lot of heightened rhetoric about it. The truth is that we have to restrain the growth on entitlements generally, and we have to retain the growth particularly in Medicare and Medicaid the fastest-growing portions of the budget. I voted for a budget, Mr. President, that was fair in what it asked seniors to do in sharing that burden. It saved the Medicare plan without cutting twice as much as we need to, twice as much as is currently reflected in this budget. I voted for a commonsense reduction in Medicare to save the system. The Republicans are essentially, in order to give a tax cut, taking the heart out of Medicare with the $270 billion reduction. I voted, Mr. President, for a balanced budget that would preserve access to health care for those people with disabilities, for pregnant women, and for children. While we reduced--in our budget--Medicaid by about $125 billion, the Republicans have come to the floor with a budget that reduces it by $182 billion over 7 years. I voted for a balanced budget that invested in our children's education. It saved educational access, vital for job growth and competitiveness. But the Republicans now want to cut student loan programs by more than $5 billion, at a time when it is harder and harder for average Americans to send their kids to college. They also are going to wind up taking 1.8 million kids off of student loan rolls, and reducing by 1,250 the number of colleges that can participate in a direct lending plan. That is good for banks, Mr. President, but it is not good for students or for our colleges. I voted for a balanced budget that would feed hungry children in this country, and it added back more than half of the funds for food and for children. But instead the Republicans are going to slash $46 billion over the next 7 years that would leave literally millions of children hungry in this country. I voted for a balanced budget that would honor the service of veterans, not leave them scot-free, because we did in our budget reduce veterans' payments by about $5 billion, but the Republicans want to recklessly cut those [[Page S 17256]] programs in a way that may close 35 of 170 hospitals, and certainly five next year. Mr. President, this budget process is the truest statement about any party's priorities or any individual's sense of what is fair. The bottom line is that this budget is about people. With this Republican budget tonight, they reverse some 60 years of a certainty that was built into the fabric of the American political structure--a certainty that our senior citizens would not grow old and be left with nothing--a certainty that families would be part of a community and that we would care for people, even if they were in the street, even if they were suffering or in need of help. I wonder whether this budget is really representative of what America has become in 1995, because if it is, then I think this Senate will long be remembered as the Senate that took away the good part of the certainty of American life, not the bad part, not the part that we know with respect to welfare and other programs has distorted values. I am talking about the good part, the part that allowed people to lift themselves up by their bootstraps, that allowed people in a nursing home to not have to get rid of every cent they had in order to stay there, the part that guaranteed that we are not going to suddenly have seniors strapped into wheelchairs again because nursing home standards are lifted. Those were certainties that we built into American life. This budget takes away those certainties, Mr. President. With this budget, thousands and thousands of women and children, our fellow citizens, thousands of families, thousands of seniors, who are struggling to pay for food or pay for health care, or simply meet the rent or save something for the future, they will be hurt. As my friend from North Dakota pointed out, they will be hurt in juxtaposition to countless millions of people who do not need that help, who will be helped. This budget violates everybody's fundamental sense of fairness, Mr. President. And that is something that we ought to care about as we care about the fabric of values and of life in this country. There will, as a result of this budget, no longer be a certainty in America that children will not go hungry. There will no longer be a certainty that an elderly widow in a Massachusetts hospital will not lose everything that she has. There is no longer a certainty that their children, who are already struggling, getting more and more behind, will be able to pay for her care without jeopardizing their future. There is no certainty in this budget that American children will get a better shot at a decent education or a better shot at a job, and there is no certainty that a pregnant mother or a disabled veteran will get the helping hand that we have always promised. There is not even the certainty that our drinking water will get cleaner or our wilderness will be protected or that toxic waste will be cleaned up or that we will hand down to our children a better country, Mr. President. I think the least we can do in a budget is express our responsibility to protect the certainties that those who came to this floor before us fought for. I can only say to my colleagues who tell us this budget is a sure thing that in the words of Robert Burns, ``There is no such uncertainty as a sure thing.'' This budget will create uncertainties, uncertainties with respect to the environment, uncertainties with respect to people's capacity to strive to make the best of their own opportunities to get an education, to try to touch the new marketplace. Mr. President, there is an enormous giveaway to mining companies in this budget. There is oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There are water subsidies to America's largest agricultural corporations. There is a royalty exemption from oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico. There are lots of little goodies in this budget which do not speak to the issue of fairness in this country. I might just say, Mr. President, with respect to some of the most important things we hear talked about on the Senate floor, values with respect to children, this budget is not friendly. We have heard a lot of talk about the number of children who are born out of wedlock, the number of kids who desperately need an opportunity through Head Start, or who desperately need a hot lunch. This budget creates an enormous shift of wealth from those who are at the lower end struggling to make ends meet and working families, not people on welfare but working families, and it takes that wealth from those struggling and gives it to people at the upper end who do not need it. Mr. President, in the name of fairness, I am pleased that the President has said he will veto this budget. The most important vote will be the vote that occurs after we have the negotiations that will take place in the next weeks, and I hope it will not take longer than weeks. It is my fervent plea in the course of that process more voices of America be heard and reflected in our budget. Again, I say, Mr. President, there are many on this side of the aisle who looked forward to the ability to be able to help shape that process. It is our hope we will join together around reasonable figures, perhaps some combination of CBO or OMB--figures that are reasonably arrived at and reflect the future economic growth of this country, and that we will use those figures to come up with an intelligent budget that all of us can take to America as we ask people to share the sacrifices necessary to balance the budget. It is my hope that day will come soon. That will be the most important vote in the U.S. Senate. I yield back my remaining time to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the National Highway System (NHS) that would be designated by the conference report before us today is an important piece of our Nation's highway transportation system. I wholeheartedly support enactment of legislation to designate the National Highway System as directed by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTAE). The $6.5 billion authorized by this legislation is a needed investment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure. Just look around. There is a clear and pressing need for maintaining and upgrading our roads. In Massachusetts, for example, two-thirds of our bridges need replacement or repair. But as important as this investment is, it has been overshadowed in this legislation by other policy changes. The final product has strayed too far from the bill I supported when it passed the Senate, and it is therefore with regret that I am unable to support the conference report. One of the most important components of the bill that passed the Senate was the so-called Roth-Biden provision relating to our Nation's passenger rail system. Without the funding necessary to sustain Amtrak and without giving States the flexibility to spend their NHS funds to maintain passenger rail service, it is almost certain that many critical passenger rail routes--routes that offer important environmental, energy and traffic congestion benefits--will be eliminated permanently. The conferees did not include this provision in the report. Another provision that was included in the conference report but was not in the Senate bill relates to billboards. This matter was not considered in the Senate and reflects the worst type of special interest lobbying. It has no place in this bill. Yet another provision included in the conference report that was not part of the Senate's bill is the exemption for some three and one- quarter million so-called ``unit trucks'' and their drivers from all Federal motor carrier safety regulations. The regulations cover activities ranging from driver hours-of-service restrictions and driver medical qualifications to safety equipment and maintenance requirements and roadside driver and equipment safety inspections. An exemption from safety regulations for these trucks, which are used frequently for delivery services, will seriously threaten safety on our roads. This class of truck is involved every year in 15,000 injury-producing accidents, and in 1994, was responsible for nearly 700 deaths. I fear we will witness more accidents as a result of the changes proposed in the conference report. Of equal concern is the repeal of the nationwide maximum speed limit, and the elimination of the Senate provision that sought to retain the limit for trucks. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration expects this action will increase the number of Americans killed on our highways by about 4,750 each year, and cost taxpayers $17 billion annually in lost productivity, taxes and added health care costs. Maximum speed limits also produce important environmental benefits and savings in fuel consumption. There are several other provisions that concern me, including the repeal of the requirement that Federal highway contractors pay their workers the prevailing local wage. While some reasonable reform of the Davis-Bacon requirement should be explored, this legislation is not the appropriate venue. Mr. President, it is not clear whether the President will accept or reject this legislation. It is my hope that the President will allow us to revisit the designation of the National Highway System so that we may proceed with a simple designation that many members support and eliminate the controversial provisions that detract from the significance of this legislation. I am aware that the conference report is the product of many long hours of negotiation and I want to recognize the effort put into developing this legislation by Chairman Chafee and Senator Baucus, who serves as the ranking minority member on the Environment and Public Works Committee. I appreciate the hard work they put into this legislation and would hope we have a chance to reconsider the Conference Report so that I might support it.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I call to the attention of my colleagues two people who have made a difference and saved someone's life. Everyday in communities across America men and women come face to face with life-threatening situations. In most cases, and usually without fanfare or widespread recognition, people make the quick decisions and take the actions that make a difference and save lives. This is the story of two of those people. On July 14 of this year, Sharon Mann and Thomas Prezkop of Andover, MA were enjoying a Friday night cruise aboard the Desperado in Gloucester Harbor when they noticed something out of the ordinary. They heard the sound of an engine racing out of control and in the darkness turned to investigate. From a distance they saw the lights of a small vessel circling and knew that something was wrong. Upon approaching the location they heard a man's cries for help. Closing in on the man's voice, they found Kevin Govoni in the cold water, threw him a life preserver and then pulled him aboard their vessel. Mr. Govoni was in bad shape. The circling vessel had hit him and the propeller had badly slashed his legs. Compounding Mr. Govoni's serious injuries, he was suffering from hypothermia from being immersed in the 50-degree water. Working as a team, Ms. Mann tended to Mr. Govoni by removing his soaked shirt, covering him, and applying first aid to stop the severe bleeding while Mr. Prezkop headed the Desperado toward the nearest Coast Guard station and called ahead to have an ambulance waiting. Upon their arrival at Coast Guard Station Gloucester, Mr. Govoni was transferred by ambulance to a local hospital. In hindsight, it becomes clear that with no other vessels in the vicinity, if Ms. Mann and Mr. Prezkop had simply decided not to get involved, a life could have been lost. However, due to their quick action and excellent judgment, a life has been saved and Mr. Govoni is recovering from his injuries. Thomas Prezkop and Sharon Mann are real heros--like heros who appear every day in this country. They are the ones whom we should be recognizing and admiring before so-called stars and celebrities. I recognize and salute the actions of Mr. Prezkop and Ms. Mann and I am glad to see that the service that specializes in such rescue, the U.S. Coast Guard, also recognizes a job well done. This Monday, November 30, 1995, the Coast Guard will award Mr. Prezkop and Ms. Mann the Public Service Commendation for demonstrating courage and initiative in saving lives, qualities in keeping with the highest traditions of the Coast Guard. These awards are well deserved. On behalf of the people of Massachusetts, I wish to acknowledge our debt to them and express profound appreciation for their unselfish actions. [[Page S 17189]]

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Washington. Shutdown of the Government Mr. President, I had hoped to have time later today to talk about the situation we find ourselves in with respect to the budget and the so- called shutdown of Government. Regrettably, we hear that the majority leader is going to, at least it appears, put the Senate into recess after the discussion on this bill. I think it would be unfortunate to deprive the Senate of the debate it is supposed to have on issues of great concern, and I hope it is not true that the majority leader intends to recess the Senate as a way of silencing voices that want to talk about what is happening to this country. Mr. President, what we find ourselves in is a moment of entirely predictable, crass, brazen, craven, basic political trickery. What we are living out at this moment is a simple choice by the Speaker of the House to confront America, and to confront the Senate, with either [[Page S 17027]] bowing to the will of one group of people, without the legislative process duly working its will, or suffering the consequences of a shutdown. That is what has happened. It is fundamentally a form of blackmail. It is a hard term. It is a tough term. But that is exactly what is happening. It is either, you accept our way or everybody is going to pay a big price. Either you buy on to those things, which we are not able to pass through the normal legislative process, or we're willing to shut the Government down. Now, our colleague from North Dakota shared with us earlier this morning some very important statements that simply document what I have just said. If you do not want to believe the partisan words of a Democrat, fine. But listen to what Newt Gingrich himself said. On April 3, in the Washington Times, Newt Gingrich vowed to ``create a titanic legislative standoff with President Clinton by adding vetoed bills to must-pass legislation, increasing the national debt ceiling.'' On April 3, again the Washington Times, Speaker Gingrich boasted that the President ``will veto a number of things, and we'll then put them all on the debt ceiling. And then he'll decide how big a crisis he wants.'' On June 3, Speaker Gingrich, in the Rocky Mountain News, said, : We're going to go over the liberal Democratic part of the government and then say to them: `We could last 60 days, 90 days, 120 days, five years, a century. There's a lot of stuff we don't care if it's ever funded. What is the ``stuff'' they do not care if it is ever funded? Well, evidently it is money for veterans because $15 billion is going to be cut right after we just marched around and celebrated Veterans Day. Perhaps as many as 35 out of 172 hospitals will be shut over the next 7 years; 5 in the next year. I have veterans all over my State saying to me, ``What are you guys doing? Don't you remember the contract, the real contract with America?'' Evidently, what they are willing to shut down is education, making it more expensive for kids to go to school, at the same time as they give people earning more than $300,000 a tax break; a fundamental breach of fairness. Now, I am not the only one who feels that fundamental breach of fairness. Let me read what one of their own, David Gergen, wrote just yesterday in the U.S. News & World Report. The headline: ``The GOP's `Fairness Doctrine'.'' And what he says is: U.S. News reported last week that internal studies by the executive branch estimate that the lowest 20 percent of the population would lose more income under these spending cuts than the rest of the population combined. At the other end, the highest 20 percent would gain more from the tax cuts than everyone else combined. It goes on to say: Ronald Reagan is often invoked as the patron saint of this revolution. How soon we forget that as president, Reagan insisted that seven key programs in the safety net--Head Start, Medicare, Social Security, veterans, Supplemental Security Income, school lunches, and summer jobs for youth-- would not be touched; now, six of those seven are under the knife. So, Mr. President, what we have here is a fundamental confrontation with fairness, a fundamental confrontation with how we should do our legislative business. We Democrats are prepared to vote for a temporary extension immediately and are prepared to negotiate a fair budget. But Newt Gingrich and his soul mates want to come down here and say, ``Oh, no, no, no, no, that is not good enough. You're going to have to accept programs that we want to pass that we're not able to pass through the normal process. And if you don't do that, we're willing to continue to keep the Government shut down.'' So, they have huge Medicare cuts included in here. Mr. President, I ask for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senator sought time on the bill but not speaking specifically to the subject matter.

Mr. KERRY. I yield back, if there is any time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, here are these massive Medicare cuts, the largest ever in recent--I think ever in American history, $270 billion, so you can have a $245 billion tax cut. We have had 1 day of hearings on the impact of those cuts, and yet we have had in the House 42 days of hearings on Whitewater, Waco, and Ruby Ridge, and in the Senate we have had about 48 days of hearings on Whitewater and Ruby Ridge. One day of hearings on Medicare, which will affect millions of citizens, and day after day after day of hearings on Whitewater and Ruby Ridge. And now they are trying to ram that through with increases in Medicare payments on senior citizens by holding the entire Government hostage. Mr. President, it just violates most Americans' sense of fairness. It violates the tradition in this institution of legislating and of letting the votes fall where they may in trying to decide something. It really violates, I think, everybody's sense of how we ought to do business here. I tell you, as you look around the country, this is a very different revolution from what most Americans wanted. Most Americans voted for common sense. We are prepared to balance the budget. We are prepared to try to do it in 7 years or whatever. We are prepared to do that, Mr. President. But we are not prepared to succumb to a kind of political blackmail that forces people to do things that are against the Constitution of this country. And I hope that in the hours ahead, we will get back to a levelheadedness, a reasonableness that is the higher standard of how we should do business in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. In that case, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for such time as necessary, until the Senator has an answer, as in morning business.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be set aside temporarily for purposes of speaking as in morning business. I ask the distinguished Senator from Mississippi how long he thinks it might be before we make a decision.

Mr. KERRY. I do not need to have that additional part of the request. I think it would be sufficient simply to set it aside, and I would be happy to go back in a quorum call.

Mr. KERRY. I beg your pardon?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished acting majority leader for his attention. I ask unanimous consent the pending resolution be temporarily set aside.

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut is absolutely correct. The continuing resolution is simply an extension of the budget that takes place because the budget has not been done by the people who are responsible for doing the budget.

Mr. KERRY. I would be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from California on her comments with respect to the budget. I would like to just say a few words. About a month ago, I came to the floor of the Senate and suggested that, as every Senator here knew, we were headed towards this inevitable moment that we are now in. I think a lot of us felt then that the American people would have been much better served if we had been able to come together on all sides of the aisle, as well as on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, in order to try to work out the differences between us. But all of us understand there is a different dynamic that is working here. And that dynamic, I feel, is underscored by those things that had been attached to the debt ceiling and to the continuing resolution. Most Americans are sitting at home today sort of scratching their heads. They are saying to themselves, what in God's name is going on in Washington yet again? We thought that in 1994 we voted for a ``change.'' Yet, here is Washington caught up in this paroxysm of business as usual. For the average Americans who thought they voted to get rid of gridlock in 1994, here they are with a kind of gridlock revisiting them. And a lot of people are probably saying a pox on both of your houses, all of you. Undoubtedly, tomorrow, a lot of people are going to be confused as they see this definition of nonessential employees. All of a sudden the Government is going to shut down for a little while and nonessential employees are going to be sent home. I would not blame most Americans for sitting at home and saying, ``What is this? They are nonessential employees. The Government is going to function adequately for a few days--what are we doing with these people who are nonessential employees every other day of the year?'' So a whole lot of further confusion sets in by virtue of this absolutely predictable moment. Why is this happening? As the Senator from California pointed out, it is happening because our friends on the other side of the aisle have had a responsibility to pass 13 appropriations bills. Last year, under the Democratic leadership, we passed those bills. We sent them to the President on time. Now only five of those bills have been passed, so we need to have what is called a continuing resolution, a temporarily spending measure, because they have not done their work. Instead of just coming before the Senate and saying, give us a clean, temporary spending measure--what ``clean'' means is just pass a temporary spending measure; give us 2 more weeks to do our work. That is essentially what it means. We have not done our homework. So you go to the teacher and say, ``I need another 2 weeks.'' But, instead of just getting another 2 weeks to do the homework, they have brought back other conditions and attached conditions to the temporary extension that they simply could not get passed any other way. They have had a regulatory relief bill here which the Senator from Kansas has introduced, which the Senate refuses to pass. The Senate refuses to pass it because it wants to attack things like letting citizens know, in their communities, what kind of toxic chemicals are released in their communities. It is just a voluntary knowledge issue. Should Americans know that a chemical company in the town in which our good citizens live is emitting X, Y, or Z toxics into the sky? It is a very simple issue. It is totally voluntary. Once people have learned that they are emitting this, it does not forbid the emissions. It does not punish anybody. It just lets people know what they are breathing. Our friends want to do away with that. We have not allowed them to do away with that because we think it is important for Americans to know what they are [[Page S 16994]] breathing, and what a chemical company might be putting into the sky. They do not. Since they could not pass it in the normal course of business in the U.S. Senate, they have attached that kind of measure to the temporary debt ceiling, to the continuing resolution. The result is we are not going to let them pass it. The President says, no. I am not going to have legislative blackmail. I am not going to have a gun held to my head which holds hostage the default of the United States of America to an agenda that cannot be passed otherwise. That is part of what is at stake here, Mr. President. It is only part of what is at stake here. The other part of what is at stake here is a great difference that is now seeking definition in the debate in this country about what our priorities are as a Nation. I listened today. And I listened to the Speaker of the House. I listened to the majority leader. They stood up in front of the country, and they said, ``We want to balance the budget. They do not.'' I heard people say we want to just get the fiscal condition of this country under control, and they just want to spend money. That is not what this debate is about. That is not an accurate framing of what is at stake for this country. The issue is not whether or not we want to balance the budget. The issue is not whether or not we want to get control of the fiscal mess which no Republican President in the last 12 years vetoed. The issue is how are we going to balance the budget? Are we going to keep faith with the fundamental notion of fairness in America, or are we going to trample on every notion of fairness which has been part of the debate in this country since we were founded? Is it fair to cut the money that provides summer jobs for kids who see no opportunity in their lives? Is it fair to ask senior citizens to pay a double amount in their premiums even though they are on a fixed income while you give a tax break to people earning more than $300,000 a year?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would say to my friend, there is certainly no legitimate or fair rationale. I can certainly explain to my colleague a political and craven rationale but not one that I think would meet the test and standard of fairness. Now, I know that the acting majority leader wanted to ask a question. I would be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator withhold?