Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I will not be taking the full half hour. So the Senator from Nevada, if he wishes to make comments, might want to make comments following mine. It was 140 years ago today that the original Homestead Act was signed into law. I want to comment for a moment about that act and about legislation that was introduced in the Congress. Here is a copy of the stamp that was issued in 1962--a postage stamp commemorating the original Homestead Act. A sod house from North Dakota was commemorated on that postage stamp. President Lincoln signed the Homestead Act into law. The purpose of that was to encourage people who wanted to seek new opportunity to populate the middle part of our country--the heartland of our country. And people did go to the heartland of America. My great-grandmother, a Norwegian immigrant who lost her husband to a heart attack, along with her six children, got on a train and went to Hettinger County, ND, and pitched a tent. She raised her family, built a home, started a farm, and ran a family farm. That courageous Norwegian immigrant widow did what many Americans did. They just made an opportunity out of something that was there for them--the Homestead Act. Then she had a son. That son had a daughter and that daughter had me. And that is how I came from Hettinger County, ND. A lot of Americans have a similar story in their background about how they are living in this country. But the Homestead Act was successful in moving people out to start farms, ranches, and small communities in this country. One-hundred forty years later, this is what is happening to our country. You will notice that in the middle of our country--in the heartland of America--we are being systematically and relentlessly depopulated once again. As you will see, North Dakota has a substantial loss of population in almost all of its rural counties. In North Dakota, the chart shows what is happening. Ninety-one percent of our counties are suffering from substantial out-migration: Montana, 54 percent; South Dakota, 73 percent; and, Nebraska, 66 percent. There is this relentless depopulation of the central part of our country. Some wring their hands, gnash their teeth, and ask what they can do, and say perhaps nothing. I happen to think we can do something. Last March, the Bismarck Tribune ran an Associated Press story talking about the cycle of what is happening in many of these States, from North Dakota to Texas. Schools are closing. Farmers are giving up. Young people are moving out, leaving behind the elderly in communities struggling to keep their names on the map. The latest census number shows dozens of counties in South Dakota, North Dakota, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, and Illinois have lost people in the 1990s. The question is, What, if anything, can we do about that? I have introduced a piece of legislation here in the Congress with my colleague Senator Hagel from Nebraska. Very simply, our legislation is similar to the Homestead Act of 140 years ago, except we don't have land to give away anymore. So we say to people who would move in and stay in these local areas that are rural by nature and which have been losing population, here are the reasons for you to stay. There are incentives for you to stay. Much of the country aspires to have what they have in many of these rural counties and local communities: good places in which to live, great places to raise a family, good neighborhoods, safe streets, strong schools and other things that people aspire to have. Yet we are trying to recreate that in other areas of the country, even as we are losing it in the heartland. Again, the question is, What can we do about that? Senator Hagel and I have introduced a piece of legislation called the New Homestead Economic Opportunity Act. It says to people, if you live and work in these out-migration counties after you graduate from college, we will forgive part of your college loan. We will provide a tax credit for a home purchased by individuals living in these counties that are suffering from out-migration. We will protect home values by allowing losses in home value to be deducted from your Federal income tax. In many of these small towns, when you build a home, it is worth less immediately after it is built than the cost of construction. We will establish Individual Homestead Accounts to help build savings and increase access to credit if you are living in one of these rural counties. Then there are business incentives as well. Say you create or keep a business in one of these rural counties losing population, States can offer investment tax credits for newly constructed buildings and accelerated depreciation for equipment purchases. There are a whole series of things that represent business incentives, either to stay there and start a business or come there and create a business. The New Homestead Economic Opportunity Act also recognizes in order to be successful in starting or keeping business in rural areas, you have to have venture capital. Our legislation would establish a national venture capital fund in order to do that. The National Association of Counties has endorsed the New Homestead Economic Opportunity Act, saying: As you are aware, some of America's rural counties are facing critical hurdles . . . many rural counties are experiencing an out-migration of youth to more urbanized areas of the country due to a lack of economic opportunities . . . Your legislation is a good attempt to ameliorate this out-migration from rural America and we fully support your efforts. The same is true with many other organizations. I will put up a chart showing just a few of them: The National Telecommunications Cooperative Association, the North Dakota Association of Builders, the North Dakota Association of Realtors, bank groups, credit unions, and more. The question for this Congress is, Will we do something about what is happening to rural areas in the heartland of our country? When America's cities were suffering a crisis and inner-city blight, America went right to work. It put on its work clothes and said: All right, we're going to help America's cities, we're going to do a model cities program and an urban renewal program, and we will not allow our cities to fail. I supported that. Good for us. The fact is, many of our big cities have turned around completely, and they now have economic life and vitality. The question for the Congress and the country is, Will we do something to restore economic opportunity in the heartland of this country? I hope we will. So I wanted, on the 140th anniversary today of the original Homestead Act, to point out there is a new Homestead Act that has been introduced in Congress by Senator Hagel and myself. And we have done that for a very important reason. We hope our colleagues will join us in allowing us to move that piece of legislation in this Congress.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I want to say a word on another matter, if I might, about a speech given by President Bush this morning. President Bush, this morning, gave another speech about Cuba and said: No, our 40 years of embargo against Cuba really work. We want to continue this embargo. And we want to get even tougher now. The President is going to Florida this evening for a $25,000-per- person fundraiser. I suspect there is a lot of politics and probably very little policy in this speech. But let me say this: I do not think it does anything to hurt Fidel Castro to continue an embargo that has failed for 40 years. An embargo that punishes Americans for traveling in Cuba, an embargo that makes it impossible, and now difficult, for our farmers to sell into Cuba, is not an embargo, in my judgment, that represents this country's best policy interests. It does not make any sense for me to embrace policies that don't allow Fidel Castro to ever miss a meal. He has never missed breakfast, lunch, supper, or dinner because of these embargoes. It is just poor, sick, and hungry people in Cuba who have been injured by these policies. This 40-year embargo is at odds with everything else we are doing. We say, let's trade with Communist China. Why? Because China is a Communist country, yes. But trading with them will actually open up opportunities and bring democracy to China more quickly. We say, let's do that same thing with Vietnam. Yes, it is a Communist country, but engaging with Vietnam will have more impact than not engaging. If that is the case, why is that not the case with Cuba? The answer is, of course it is the case. It is just that there is a barrelful of politics and a teaspoonful of policy in these pronouncements we have heard this morning. My hope is just as the Senate has expressed itself with 70 percent of the Senate, saying that what we ought to do with Cuba is what we do with China and Vietnam: Open up that market. The quickest way to get rid of Fidel Castro, in my judgment, and move to democratic reforms is for Americans to travel in Cuba, for Americans to trade with Cuba, and that replacing the policy of failure for 40 years makes much more sense for this country. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for her work on this amendment. As I indicated before, this amendment has broad bipartisan support. The Senate has already expressed itself previously. By a wide margin, the Senate says we ought not to use food as a weapon. I understand that Fidel Castro has been sticking his finger in our eye for a long while. I don't stand here wanting to make life better for Fidel Castro. I want to bring democracy to Cuba. After 40 years of failure with an embargo that doesn't work, it seems that we ought to try something else. I have been to Cuba. What I learned there is that Fidel Castro says the reason the Cuban economy is in deep trouble is because the United States has its hands around the Cuban economy's neck. This embargo is what they blame for Cuba's economic troubles. I am not saying that Fidel Castro is right. I am just saying this embargo has been Fidel Castro's biggest and best excuse for all of the shortcomings of his regime. He uses it, has continued to use it, and he says to the Cuban people that is the reason they have this trouble. In any event, it seems to me at some point you would learn a lesson. Fidel Castro has been in power in Cuba through 10 U.S. Presidents. Clearly, what we have been doing has not been working. How about trying something different? My sense is that the more people travel in Cuba and the more investments you have in Cuba, the more Cuba's economy is open, the more likely it is that Castro will lose his grip on power in Cuba. My goal is to bring democracy to Cuba. But we don't, in my judgment, serve our interests, or anybody else's, by saying we want to use food as a weapon. Because I and others have fought to open the window just a bit, food is now going to Cuba, however slowly. Cuba is able to buy it from our companies and our family farmers. We now have chicken legs, turkey breasts, and dried beans being offloaded in Cuba because they bought them from the United States. Good for them and good for us. At a time when we are beset by terrorist threats, worrying about future acts of terrorism, those responsible for our nation's safety and welfare have much better things to do than to worry about shutting off the flow of chicken legs, turkey breasts, dried beans, wheat, and eggs to Cuba. We ought to worry a whole lot more about bombs from terrorists than about our farmers selling dried beans to Cuba. We just held a hearing in which we found that the Office of Foreign Asset Control and the Treasury, which is responsible for tracking down terrorist funding--has at least some of their staff tracking Americans who have traveled in Cuba. A fellow who testified at my hearing on travel to Cuba came from Senator Cantwell's State of Washington. His parents were missionaries to Cuba, and built a little church there. After Castro came to power, his family returned to America. A few years ago, this poor fellow's parents tragically died in a house fire. He decided to honor their memory by taking their ashes back to Cuba, to bury them in the little church that they had built decades earlier. He went to Cuba for just one day, and did just that. Upon his return, he told the Customs Service that he had been to Cuba, and explained the circumstances. Months later, he got a letter saying, guess what, you have to pay a fine of $7,500. I am just saying that when government officials responsible for tracking down terrorists are spending their time chasing down folks like this poor fellow, they just don't have their eye on the ball. The amendment we are offering today having to do with private financing of agricultural sales to Cuba is also a call to reason. This amendment is an amendment that deserves the support of the entire Senate. I hope we will be able to approve this amendment just as we did in the Senate version of the Farm Bill, and I hope this time the provision will survive conference. It is time for us to say it is not moral to use food as a weapon. This country is bigger and better than that. I have traveled to refugee camps around the world and I know their misery and share their pain. We all understand that using food as a weapon is not something that represents the best of this country. That is why in this instance, and every instance, I want this country to stop it. This amendment simply opens the door a bit wider so that the flow of food to Cuba--food purchased by Cuba--can be done through normal private financing. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have no objection.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Cuba suffered a hurricane that had a fairly significant impact on the island. The Cubans wanted to purchase American food, and they did. They purchased well over $100 million in food from our country: Corn, wheat, dried beans, eggs, and much more. However, the legislation that allows us to sell food to Cuba prohibits any financing of these sales--even private financing. Cubans have to pay cash, and it is illegal for U.S. companies or banks to be involved in the transactions. Now, this should strike most people as rather strange. We will allow our farmers to sell wheat or eggs or dried beans to Cuba, but they can't even use private financing to do the sale. So the ban on extending credit by U.S. private banks and companies to Cuba means transactions are carried out in cash. And the payments cannot even be made directly. When Alimport, the agency in Cuba that purchases this food on behalf of the Cuban people, makes a purchase, the money has to go through a French bank, in a transaction that takes 40-plus hours. Well, when we were putting together the Senate version of the Farm Bill, we decided to do something about this problem. We inserted a provision into the Senate version of the Farm bill that allowed private financing of agricultural sales to Cuba. No U.S. government financing-- just private financing. The vast majority of Senators voted for this amendment. Then the House of Representatives, by a vast majority, passed a resolution calling on the House conferees to accept this provision in conference. But the measure was taken out of the conference report anyway. The amendment we are offering today to the trade bill is identical to the provisions that were in the Senate version of the Farm Bill. Not one word has been changed. What we are trying to overcome here is a small group of lawmakers that are trumping the will of Congress. You know, when we passed the legislation that allowed our farmers to sell food from Cuba, a Congressman from Florida was quoted in the Miami Herald as saying that he was satisfied that the language in the legislation was restrictive, making it difficult for United States companies to do business in Cuba because they will have to go through third countries for financing. My colleague in the House of Representatives did not care about the intent of the legislation--he wanted to make sure that it was as difficult as possible for our farmers to sell food to Cuba. He said he was pleased with the outcome. Well, I am not pleased with that. I think it makes no sense. And it just defies belief that when the Senate recently tried to fix the problem, the will of the Congress was ignored again. The Senate version of the Farm Bill had a provision to allow private financing of agricultural sales to Cuba, which passed by a 2 to 1 margin. The House voted 273 to 143 to endorse the Senate provision for more trade with Cuba, and to have the House conferees accept it. But guess what? It was dumped out of conference anyway. So we are back, to offer the same amendment, word for word. The Senate has already voted on this. The bipartisan support is substantial. I mentioned cosponsors of this amendment, who are many, Republicans and Democrats. My expectation is we will continue to offer this amendment until the will of the Congress prevails. This measure is long overdue. Do you think Castro has ever missed a meal because we won't sell food to Cuba? The restrictions on food sales do nothing but hurt poor, sick, and hungry people. It is not a moral thing to do, to use food as a weapon, as a part of our foreign policy. And it is not a smart trade policy, not when we are depriving U.S. farmers of a market for their crops. In coming months, we are going to have to deal with a separate aspect of Cuba policy: the restrictions on Americans who want to travel to Cuba. I just held a hearing on that. Let me describe this policy through the eyes of a retired schoolteacher in Illinois. She was reading a cycling magazine published in Canada. She is a retired schoolteacher in her sixties, and she likes to bicycle. She saw an ad about a bicycling trip to Cuba, and she signed up. She went to Cuba with nearly a dozen other people, and they bicycled for 7 or 8 days. She loved it. She came back to this country, back to Illinois, and a year later she got a letter from the U.S. Department of the Treasury saying: guess what, we are fining you $7,500 for bicycling in Cuba. Is that an unusual story? No, it is happening all across the country. We are slapping around the American people, restricting their travel rights because we are upset with Fidel Castro. I want to bring democracy to Cuba. The wrong way to do that is to use food as a weapon and to penalize Americans who would travel in Cuba. The effective way to do it is to flood Cuba with American products and visitors. We are told in the Senate that the way to deal with China and move the Communist government in China in the right direction is to have greater engagement, more trade, more travel. The same is true with Vietnam. That is the way to deal with Communists, because they can't resist the relentless march of capitalism and freedom. But a small pocket of people in our country refuse to apply that same approach to Cuba. That makes no sense. The majority of the Members of the House and Senate know that. Our amendment today deals only with the private financing of sales of food. This amendment does what the Senate has already done on the previous occasion. There is not a word changed. I hope for its favorable consideration. And we will have more to say on the subject of Cuba policy in the weeks and months ahead. One final point: My colleague from the State of Washington has worked with me to construct this legislation and put it in this bill. I regret a number of the other cosponsors are not here. I wish we had had an opportunity to offer the amendment when they were all here. They have expressed similar sentiments in the past--Senators Hagel, Enzi, and Roberts, and others who believe as I do and as Senator Cantwell does. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, might I inquire of my colleague from Nevada, the disposition of the amendment that you just referenced would conclude at what point on Tuesday? In other words, what time would the vote be on the steel amendment?

Mr. DORGAN. Voting on cloture on the steel amendment?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I believe so. I am only concerned that we have time, prior to the filing of the cloture motion and a vote on cloture on this bill, to offer amendments. I have offered one amendment. I have two additional amendments. I certainly want to be able to offer them. As I understand it, the Senator from Nevada has indicated that, despite the fact there is a list of amendment, if we are able to be here today and/or Monday to offer additional amendments, nothing will preclude us from offering those amendments. Is that correct?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, could the Senator tell me, is there an established order on recognition following that vote for the purpose of offering amendments?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Enzi, Senator Cantwell, Senator Hagel, Senator Johnson, Senator Roberts, and Senator Murray.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will describe this amendment very briefly. It deals with the wheat trade dispute we have had with Canada. Wheat growers in my State, on behalf of wheat growers all around our country, brought a Section 301 case alleging unfair wheat trade by Canada. Following an investigation by the International Trade Commission, the U.S. Trade Ambassador's office came to the following conclusion, and I quote: The [Canadian Wheat Board] has taken sales from U.S. farmers and is able to do so because it is insulated from commercial risks, benefits from subsidies, has a protected domestic market and special privileges, and has competitive advantages due to its monopoly control over a guaranteed supply of wheat. The wheat trade problem is long-standing and affects the entire U.S. wheat industry. That is from the U.S. Trade Ambassador's office. When the U.S. Trade Ambassador decided that our farmers were victims of unfair trade from Canada, his office said they were committed to four trade remedies, but they would explicitly not impose tariff rate quotas as a penalty on the Canadians. They said, instead, that they would pursue other approaches. First, they say they will take the Canadians to the WTO. Of course, that means years and years and years of talk, and likely no action. Second, they said they would examine the possibility of initiating U.S. countervailing duty and antidumping petitions. They can self- initiate those cases. I don't think they will. They seldom ever self- initiate countervailing duty or antidumping cases. I hope they do. I would encourage them to do it. But I am not holding my breath. I expect they will--as most trade officials have over decades and decades--fail to self-initiate such a remedy. Third is to identify specific impediments preventing United States wheat from entering Canada and present these to the Canadians. Well, these impediments have been around for a long while. I have seen them firsthand in a trip I took to the Canadian border, riding in a little orange truck with a friend of mine. We were stopped at the border and couldn't take the durum wheat into Canada. We did it just as a demonstration. All the way to the border, we found Canadian 18-wheel trucks bringing wheat south, but you couldn't get any wheat into Canada. I think the Canadians know all about the impediments they have erected they don't need to have the U.S. trade ambassador coming to them with a list. Fourth, the trade ambassador hopes to seek a solution to the problem of the WTO agricultural negotiations, which are scheduled to be completed by 2005. A fair number of farmers will be out of business by then. My amendment today says what we would like is that a remedy be provided sooner than that. You know, when the U.S. Trade Ambassador announced that he was not willing to impose tariff rate quotas at this time, here is what the president of the Canadian Wheat Board president said: ``Since the United States did not impose tariffs, we have successfully come through our ninth trade challenge.'' In other words, he said that the fact that the United States found them guilty of violating trade rules meant nothing, because no tariffs have been imposed. Well, that does not sit right with me. My amendment expresses the sense of Congress that prompt action is in order. And it sets forth a reporting requirement: No later than October 1, 2002, the United States Trade Representative shall report to the Congress, first, a plan for implementation of specific trade remedies to provide United States wheat farmers with prompt relief from the unfair trade practices of the Canadian Wheat Board and, second, a specific timetable to seek long-term reform of the Canadian Wheat Board, ensuring there is no undue delay. It is just not acceptable for the U.S. Trade Representative to tell U.S. farmers who put together their own money to file expensive 301 petitions: Yes, you are right that Canada is playing unfairly, but we are not going to do anything about it anytime soon. This amendment says we demand action. We will expect a report on October 1 from the trade ambassador about what specific remedies he will propose on behalf of American farmers who are now victims of this unfair trade. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. With votes, Mr. President? I inquire, will there be votes tomorrow?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to try to understand also, the previous unanimous consent request of the Senator from Nevada, which he has withdrawn--is it the Senator's intent, with the subsequent unanimous consent request, that we move off the fast-track bill and on to NATO expansion? And if so, what would be the length of time we would be off the fast-track bill?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might continue to reserve my right to object, yesterday, we created a sequencing of amendments. I was not consulted in that. I was on the floor expecting to be recognized following the Gregg amendment. And then the Senator brought to the floor a sequencing of amendments that has me somewhere following some very big, lengthy amendments that are going to take a lot of floor time. I was surprised by that and not consulted about it. So if we are going to sequence amendments--I regretted it all the way to work this morning that I did not object yesterday. I think the way for us to do this, of course, is to consult with each other. Since I was on the floor expecting to be able to offer an amendment, and talked to the appropriate staff about doing so, I was very surprised about the sequencing that came yesterday. But I don't believe it is the fault of the Senator from Nevada. It is not my intention to suggest that. But if we are sequencing things, let's consult with everyone first.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, might I inquire of the Senator from Nevada, are these the three amendments that you would put following the list of amendments that were agreed to yesterday?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is not about being higher on the list. It is about, if there is going to be stage management here, then there should be consultation on how we are going to manage the stage. I was expecting to be, and was told I would likely be, recognized following the Gregg amendment. Look, I am where I am at this point because of the unanimous consent request that I should have objected to yesterday and did not. I only point out, as we proceed, it would be helpful to consult with the rest of us. If not, I will be constrained to object on future unanimous requests.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Gerald K. Olson on becoming the new Chairman of the American Association of Airport Executives. One of the most rewarding aspects of being a United States Senator is that I frequently have the opportunity to meet wonderful people who were born and raised in North Dakota and are making a difference in people's lives through their chosen profession. Although he may no longer reside in our great State, Jerry Olson is one of those individuals that North Dakotans are proud to call one of their own. Jerry grew up on a farm eight miles southwest of Minot where his parents still live and he graduated from the University of North Dakota in 1982. Although the aviation department started out with just two small aircraft and two faculty members, what is now known as the John D. Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences has evolved into one of the great aerospace programs in the country. It should not surprise anyone that Jerry Olson had a hand in shaping that successful program when he was a student in Grand Forks and when he later managed airports in Williston, ND and Cheyenne, WY. During his entire professional career, Jerry has been a strong advocate for continuing education and has spent a great deal of his time helping and nurturing students studying airport administration at the University of North Dakota. For approximately twenty years, Jerry has also worked hard to improve air service for those who live in small communities in North Dakota, Wyoming and around the country. People in rural areas who are fighting for better access to the commercial aviation system have no better advocate than Jerry Olson. And despite all the contributions he has made to aviation over the years, I suspect Jerry's most proud of the fact that he is a dedicated husband and father. I know I speak on behalf of all North Dakotans when I thank Gerald K. Olson for his service and congratulate him on becoming the new chairman of the American Association of Airport Executives.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, almost 20 years ago I had the good fortune of selecting Bill Muscha, a boy from Fargo, ND, as my nominee for the Naval Academy. He had been a member of his high school ROTC, a newspaper carrier, a Merit Scholar, an altar boy, a violinist, an Eagle Scout, a Sunday schoolteacher, a good kid. He was bright, well mannered, disciplined, dedicated to his career choice. I was pleased at the caliber of this youth and proud to be able to send him to Annapolis. Now, many years later, I have the painful duty of announcing to my colleagues here in the U.S. Senate, that Lieutenant Commander William Muscha has been killed in the line of duty. He was aboard a Navy Saberliner jet, out of the Pensacola Naval Air Station, which went down in the Gulf of Mexico on May 10. As my colleagues understand so well, one of the great joys of serving in the Congress is being able to appoint young men and women to the Nation's military academies. Inevitably, these are the best and brightest, star scholars, skilled athletes, shining patriots, engaging youngsters who are unusually mature, who already know what they want to do with their lives. When they are selected, their families are exuberant, their schools celebrate, and their hometowns swell with pride, and the students thank us warmly for the great favor we have bestowed on them. But the truth is that these youngsters are the ones that the Members of Congress should be thanking. Senators don't need any plaudits for doing their job. The tributes always ought go instead to these wonderful teenagers who volunteer to serve their Nation in positions that are difficult, challenging, and dangerous. America is extraordinarily fortunate to have these kids step forward every year and pledge to defend their homeland. Commander Muscha is a proud symbol of this Nation's tradition of citizen soldiers, the youngsters who come out of our high schools and neighborhoods, and pledge their lives to defend us. His sudden death is a sobering reminder of the hazards of military life. The perils of that career, dangers which led to the unhappy loss of Commander Muscha, are one reason why the men and women of the Armed Services are so respected by the American people. As their representative, I am both humbled and honored to stand here today, and salute this North Dakota patriot, and to send the Nation's sympathies to his grieving family. He leaves his wife, Tamara, and their six children, Kara, Riley, Andrew, Molly, Zachary, and Emily: his parents, Robert and Carol Muscha; a sister, Major Diane Jones, and her husband, Scott; and the American Nation.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, are there time agreements on these amendments?

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator restate the consent because I was not able to hear.

Mr. DORGAN. Can the Senator state it again? I apologize. I was unaware of this request. Can you tell me again the order of the amendments?