[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 96 (Friday, July 21, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7437-S7441]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last evening, the Senate completed action on 
the Fiscal Year 2001 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural 
Development, and Related Agencies. The bill was passed by a vote of 79 
to 13. I commend Senator Cochran, Chairman of the Subcommittee, and 
Senator Kohl, the Ranking Member, for crafting this very important 
legislation.
  This bill includes many ongoing programs that are vital to the 
American people. It also includes a number of items to deal directly 
with problems that our farmers and rural residents are facing this year 
as they struggle to recover from natural disasters last year, and are 
now faced with the reality of continuing drought.
  Overall, in Division A, the bill provides a total of $75.6 billion in 
non-emergency spending for fiscal year 2001. Of that amount, a little 
more than $60 billion is for mandatory programs, such as Food Stamps 
and reimbursements to the Commodity Credit Corporation which funds a 
wide array of commodity, conservation, and international trade 
programs. The balance of the non-emergency appropriations in this bill, 
$14.8 billion, is directed toward discretionary programs and represents 
an increase of nearly $900 million above last year's level. In addition 
to the $75.6 billion in Division A of the bill, Division B, as passed 
by the Senate, contains approximately $2.2 billion in emergency 
agricultural disaster assistance for the nation's farmers and rural 
communities. I will discuss these vital programs in more detail later 
in these remarks.
  America's farmers have made this nation the breadbasket of the world. 
Our ability to produce plentiful safe, wholesome, and nutritious food 
is one of the basic foundations of economic and national security. The 
term ``food security'' may be little more than a vague concept to most, 
unfortunately not all, Americans; but in much of the world, it is an 
everyday reminder of the struggle to survive. The prosperity and the 
fate of nations throughout the history of the world are closely tied to 
their agricultural production capabilities. When the fields of Carthage 
were sown with salt by the legions of Rome, that once-great nation of 
northern Africa soon disappeared into the sands of the Sahara.
  This appropriations bill includes many of the tools American farmers 
need to sustain their historically high levels of production. Research, 
conservation, credit, and many more items important to agriculture 
receive much-needed funding in this bill. Programs to promote exports 
of U.S. agricultural products throughout the world are included in this 
bill. American producers, and consumers alike, benefit from the work of 
the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, and we should all join in 
supporting their efforts.
  Agriculture exists in every part of the nation, and every Senator 
knows the important contributions farmers make to his or her state. 
When one thinks of farming, instant images of broad, flat fields of 
wheat or corn, spreading from horizon to horizon, easily come to mind. 
Visions of combines combing the Great Plains and of massive grain 
elevators reaching to Midwestern skies are a solid part of our national 
consciousness. But farming does not only exist in the flat plains of 
Kansas or the rolling hills of Iowa or in many of the other states most 
familiar to Americans as ``Farm Country.'' Agriculture exists in the 
tropics of Hawaii and the bogs of Maine. Agriculture exists in the 
orchards of the Pacific Northwest and in the groves of Florida. 
Agriculture even extends to the vegetable fields and reindeer herds of 
my Chairman's state, Alaska.
  West Virginia is not famous as an agricultural state, but West 
Virginia agriculture is changing to meet the new demands of consumers. 
The future of agriculture includes diversification to meet the changing 
demands of consumers at home and abroad. Farmers in West Virginia, 
through the help of the Appalachian Farming Systems Research Center at 
Beaver, West Virginia, and the National Center for Cool and Cold Water 
Aquaculture at Leetown, West Virginia, are but two examples of the 
diversification of agriculture in my state and I am glad this bill 
provides increased funding for these two facilities.
  In addition to the regular programs funded in this bill, I would also 
like to mention a few of the items included to address special problems 
farmers and rural residents have to face this year. Last year, Congress 
provided more than $8 billion in emergency funding to help farmers and 
rural areas respond to adverse weather and depressed commodity prices. 
This year, all indicators point to continuing drought conditions and 
prices for some commodities have fallen more than ever in history.
  While it is important for Congress to respond to emergencies, it is 
equally, or perhaps more, important to prepare for them. Last year, 
many livestock producers in West Virginia suffered horrible losses from 
drought and, in many cases, had to liquidate their herds at depressed 
prices. Congress finally provided assistance to cover the

[[Page S7438]]

costs of feed, but in many cases the assistance was too little and, 
more tragically, too late.
  Accordingly, I met with USDA Secretary Dan Glickman this spring and 
outlined for him my plan to put in place a program that will help 
prevent a repeat of some of the losses suffered by West Virginia 
farmers and farmers all across America last year. The Secretary agreed 
that action now is proper to provide him the tools necessary to 
mitigate losses that are likely to occur this summer. While it is 
beyond the power of the Congress to overcome the awesome powers of 
nature, it is within our power, and our responsibility, to provide 
assistance to the American people in the most effective manner 
possible. Where the likelihood of drought is certain, where acts of 
prevention are possible, there lies our responsibility and I want to 
thank my colleagues for supporting an amendment I offered to put these 
preventive tools in place.
  Pursuant to my amendment, this bill provides $450 million for 
livestock assistance this year in the event drought conditions continue 
to worsen. These funds will only be available in counties which receive 
an emergency designation by the President or the Secretary. In the 
event no emergencies are designated, none of these funds will be spent. 
On the other hand, the ounce of prevention we provide in this bill may 
easily outweigh the costs producers, and possibly taxpayers, will later 
realize unless we act now to help mitigate losses that are likely to 
occur.

  Drought conditions not only affect production agriculture, they drain 
water resources necessary for basic community services in rural areas. 
Currently, drought conditions in part of the nation are so severe that 
rural water systems are at risk from depleted supplies, wells will not 
function, and the increased demand for water have compounded this 
problem to the point of crisis. I am pleased that my amendment also 
provides $50 million for rural communities that are at-risk due to 
natural emergencies or due to threats to public health or the 
environment. Similar to the livestock provision mentioned above, a 
portion of these funds would be limited to counties which have received 
an emergency designation by the President or the Secretary and for 
applications responding to the specific emergency.
  In addition to addressing problems related to drought, my amendment, 
as contained in this bill includes a number of other provisions. 
Included is $443 million to help dairy farmers recover from the current 
collapse in market prices. Also, $58 million is provided for 
compensation to producers from losses due to pests and disease such as 
Plum Pox, the Mexican Fruit Fly, Pierce's Disease, and Citrus Canker.
  During floor consideration of the bill, a manager's package of some 
fifteen amendments was adopted to provide additional emergency 
agricultural assistance to farmers across the nation. That package of 
manager's amendments total approximately $1 billion, the largest 
portion of which, $450 million, will provide emergency assistance to 
producers who have suffered losses from recent natural disasters. This 
assistance will help offset losses from the heavy rains that recently 
affected more than one million acres of farmland in North Dakota, as 
well as losses in other parts of the country affected by drought. 
Additionally, $175 million was included to assist apple producers who 
have suffered from a combination of both market and quality losses; $40 
million was provided to help compensate for losses due to citrus 
canker; $70 million was provided to fund emergency watershed operations 
in a number of states; an additional $50 million was included for 
community facility needs associated with losses from Hurricane Floyd 
and related storms; and the balance of items in this package will 
assist producers and rural communities across the nation in a variety 
of ways.
  Overall, this bill strikes a good balance for providing funds to meet 
regular, ongoing needs and to prepare for problems that we are likely 
to experience later this year. I especially thank Senator Stevens and 
Senator Cochran, Chairmen of the Appropriations Committee and the 
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, respectively, and all members 
of the Appropriations Committee for their support of provisions which I 
authored that will provide the Secretary of Agriculture the ability to 
meet the developing drought conditions this summer. By meeting this 
challenge head on, we will be helping producers avoid a repeat of some 
of the terrible losses incurred last year. I support this bill, and I 
urge all Senators to support this bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                     oyster industry in connecticut

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to describe a distressing 
situation that 23 Connecticut oyster farmers found themselves in 
earlier this summer, and to offer my thanks to Mr. Cochran and Mr. Kohl 
for helping Mr. Dodd and myself correct an injustice to these 
hardworking individuals. In early June, the United States Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) informed twenty-three Connecticut oyster farmers by 
letter that they must repay approximately $1.5 million total in federal 
disaster aid payments that were granted due to a federal error. I am 
pleased to say that Mr. Dodd's and my amendment to forgive that 
repayment was included in the Agriculture Appropriations bill.
  The oyster industry is important to Connecticut's economy--prior to 
1997, Connecticut's annual oyster crop was second only to Louisiana's. 
However, between 1997 and 1999, our oyster industry was devastated by a 
disease known as MSX, resulting in massive losses. The market value 
plummeted from a 1995 high of $60 million to just $10 million.
  In the face of this severe loss to the oyster industry, the 
Connecticut Farm Service Agency (FSA) approved and distributed modest 
disaster payments to the oyster farmers in 1999. The payments were made 
pursuant to the 1998 Crop Loss Disaster Assistance Program (CLDAP), 
which is administered by the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance 
Program (NAP). With this critically needed assistance, the oyster 
farmers began to rebuild their livelihoods.
  Earlier this year, long after the funds had been invested and for 
purely technical reasons, USDA determined that the payments were made 
in error because most Connecticut oyster farmers grow their oysters in 
open beds rather than controlled environments. On June 2, 2000, USDA 
sent each of the 23 farmers a letter stating that they must repay the 
disaster assistance that they received the previous year. The oyster 
farmers were understandably frustrated and distressed by the message. I 
note, Mr. President, that only a small portion of oyster farming 
nationwide is done within controlled environments, and that production 
in a controlled environment was not a prerequisite for disaster 
assistance following damage to Florida and Louisiana oyster farms by 
Hurricane Andrew.
  USDA has acknowledged that it bears responsibility for the error in 
disaster aid payments. However, USDA strongly believes that it would 
have ``no legislative authority to waive ineligible disaster aid 
payments'' without specific Congressional direction. Consequently, the 
Connecticut delegation has worked closely with USDA legal counsel to 
draft legislation exempting the oyster farmers from repaying the 
ineligible disaster aid. Earlier this month, the House of 
Representatives included such an amendment in the House Agriculture 
Appropriations bill; the Congressional Budget Office scored the 
amendment as neutral.
  Today, I am pleased that the Senate has also recognized the injustice 
of holding hardworking oyster farmers responsible for federal error by 
including an amendment to forgive these payments in the Senate 
Agriculture Appropriations bill. Again, I thank Mr. Cochran and Mr. 
Kohl and their staffs for assisting Mr. Dodd, myself, and especially 
the Connecticut oyster farmers in correcting an unfortunate situation.


                          disaster assistance

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to today offer my support and 
cosponsorship of the Dorgan amendment providing additional disaster 
assistance to producers hit hard by floods, drought, and other severe 
storms that have resulted in crop destruction and disease. In 
Minnesota, floods in the northwest and southern portions of the state 
have devastated many farmers causing some crops to rot in the field.
  This is yet another hit for the struggling Minnesota farm economy. 
Portions of my state have faced heavy

[[Page S7439]]

rains and flooding for several years now, and things aren't getting any 
easier for these hardworking farmers also hit with low prices. In 
northwest Minnesota, FSA estimates that nearly 50 percent of the 
acreage has been affected by floods. In nine counties in Minnesota, 
there have been nearly 1.2 million acres affected. In Mahnomen county, 
100 percent of the acreage has been impacted by floods.
  FEMA funding and disaster assistance under the Small Business 
Administration and other programs do not provide these farmers the help 
they need. If we are willing to help farmers who are suffering from 
falling prices, as we have already done this year through supplemental 
spending, we should also come to the aid of those suffering from 
natural disaster, as we do on a routine basis each year as we 
experience such disasters.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
amendment.


               emergency meth lab cleanup funds amendment

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wanted to thank the managers of the FY 
2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill for their cooperation in including 
the amendment for emergency methamphetamine lab cleanup funds that 
Senator Hutchinson and I had offered as part of the bill's FY 2000 
supplemental package.
  This amendment, also cosponsored by Senator Bingaman, Senator 
Brownback, Senator Nickles and Senator Thomas--provides $5 million in 
emergency lab cleanup funds for state and local law enforcement.
  A similar provision I had offered was included in the emergency 
package from June but it was dropped before it was attached to the 
Military Construction Appropriations conference, which gained final 
passage with a voice vote. There was strong support for this provision 
from both Democrats and Republicans. And it was included in both the 
House and Senate supplemental packages.
  So, it didn't make sense why it was suddenly dropped--especially when 
we're talking about dangerous chemical sites that are left exposed in 
our local communities.
  Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas and I last week sent a letter to the 
Appropriations leadership that was signed by 30 Senators, calling for 
this emergency funding. Our states desperately need this money or they 
will be forced to take money out of their own tight law enforcement 
budgets to cover the high cost of meth lab cleanup.
  Over the years, Iowa and many states in the Midwest, West and 
Southwest have been working hard to reduce the supply and demand of the 
methamphetamine epidemic. But meth has brought another unique problem 
to our states-- highly toxic labs that are often abandoned and exposed 
to our communities.
  The Drug Enforcement Agency has provided in recent years critical 
financial assistance to help clean up these dangerous sites, which can 
cost thousands of dollars each.
  Unfortunately and to everyone's surprise, the DEA in March ran out of 
funds to provide methamphetamine lab cleanup assistance to state and 
local law enforcement. That's because last year, this funding was cut 
in half while the number of meth labs found and confiscated has been 
growing.
  Last month, the Administration shifted $5 million in funds from other 
Department of Justice Accounts to pay for emergency meth lab cleanup. 
And I believe that will help reimburse these states for the costs they 
have incurred since the DEA ran out of money. My state of Iowa has 
already paid some $400,000 out of its own pocket in cleanup costs since 
March.
  But, this is not enough to get our states through the rest of the 
fiscal year.
  This $5 million provision will ensure that there will be enough money 
to pay for costly meth lab clean-up without forcing states to take 
money out of their other tight law enforcement budgets to cover these 
unexpected costs.
  If we can find the money to fight drugs in Colombia, we should be 
able to find the money to fight drugs in our own backyard. We cannot 
risk exposing these dangerous meth labs to our communities.
  Again, I appreciate the managers of this bill, Senator Cochran and 
Senator Kohl for their cooperation on this important provision and I 
look forward to working with them to making sure it is maintained in 
conference.


                       emergency sugarcane relief

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to express my gratitude to 
Chairman Thad Cochran, Ranking Member Herb Kohl, and Minority Whip 
Harry Reid for their efforts yesterday in passing Amendment 3976 to 
H.R. 4461, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 
2001. This amendment, which was offered by my colleague, the Senior 
Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, and myself will provide emergency 
relief to the Hawaii sugarcane industry.
  Since 1990, the Hawaii sugarcane industry has experienced a dramatic 
decline in its sugar production, from 55 sugarcane farms operating on 
approximately 162,000 acres to three sugarcane farms operating on 
60,000 acres.
  Compared to other sugarcane growers in the United States, Hawaii 
growers are at a disadvantage due to higher transportation costs 
incurred in shipping raw sugar to California for refining. In addition, 
Hawaii growers are precluded from participating in certain relief 
provisions of the 1996 Farm bill, such as the United States Department 
of Agriculture's sugar loan program, which are available to other U.S. 
sugar growers. Hawaii sugar growers have demonstrated a strong 
commitment to remain in sugar production.
  They continue to be on the forefront of sugarcane production and are 
working to diversify its capabilities by venturing into other 
agricultural commodities such as fiberboard products, energy products, 
seed corn, and low caloric sweeteners. Without emergency funds to help 
Hawaii's sugar industry compensate for extraordinary low prices and 
high transportation costs, this distressed sector of Hawaii's 
agricultural industry will cease to exist.
  This amendment will designate $7.2 million as emergency funding for a 
grant from the Commodity Credit Corporation to the State of Hawaii. It 
will provide the necessary relief to this distressed sector of Hawaii's 
agriculture industry. This provision will provide compensation for 
extraordinary low prices and high transportation costs incurred by this 
industry.
  Again, I wish to thank my colleagues for their support of this 
important amendment.


    bison meat and more nutritious indian reservation food supplies

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, last night the Senate passed the Fiscal 
Year 2001 appropriations bill for the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
and Related Agencies with my support. Today I would like to take this 
opportunity to thank the Manager of the bill, Senator Cochran, for his 
willingness to accept my amendment to require that funds available in 
the Food Stamp Program be used for the purchase of bison meat for use 
in the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). This 
amendment was cosponsored by Senators Dorgan, Conrad and Domenici.
  The buffalo has always played an important role in Native American 
culture, religion and history, providing Indian people with clothing, 
tools, and food. Bison meat is extremely healthy, low fat, and high 
protein meat source that in the past was a staple of nutrition for 
Indian people. However, when our own government decided it was best for 
tribes to be placed on reservations, often far away from their 
traditional lands, tribes lost this nutritious food source and from 
this, we are seeing some severe and devastating effects on the health 
of our Native communities.
  Today, Native Americans suffer from diabetes and heart disease at 
five times the rate of any other group in the United States. Diabetes 
is a killer and the cure for it is elusive. One of the things we can do 
is to encourage a better diet for Native people. This is awfully hard 
to do when the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations is the 
main source of food for nearly 125,000 Native Americans and most of the 
meat that they do receive is canned and high in fat and sodium.
  Two years ago USDA purchase $2 million in bison, and then another $6 
million in 1999 through a bonus buy purchase and had enormous success

[[Page S7440]]

with it. My office has received numerous requests from Tribal Food 
Distribution Program Directors, tribal recipients and buffalo producers 
to help secure additional of bison. I sent a letter to Secretary 
Glickman requesting such purchases and his response is not encouraging.
  Mr. President, the amendment I offered will direct USDA to use $7.3 
million of the Food Stamp Program to purchase bison meat.
  The Food Stamp Program, funded at around $21 billion, is expected to 
have a substantial surplus from lower participation given our healthy 
economy and low unemployment rate. It only seems reasonable that we 
could use a very small portion of those funds to help provide a 
healthier and culturally preferred choice of food for Native Americans.
  I yield the floor.


                          explanation on votes

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I regret that I was ill and unable to 
vote on the Senate floor yesterday during consideration of H.R. 4461, 
the FY01 Agriculture Appropriations Act.
  Had I been here yesterday, I would have voted in the following 
manner.
  On Rollcall Vote Number 218, the Harkin Amendment, I would have vote 
``Aye'' on the motion to table.
  On Rollcall Vote Number 219, the McCain Amendment, I would have vote 
``Aye'' on the motion to table.
  On Rollcall Vote Number 220, the Wellstone Amendment, I would have 
vote ``Aye'' on the motion to table.
  On Rollcall Vote Number 221, the Harkin Amendment, I would have vote 
``No'' on the amendment.
  On Rollcall Vote Number 222, the Wellstone Amendment, I would have 
vote ``Aye'' on the amendment.
  On Rollcall Vote Number 223, the Specter Amendment, I would have vote 
``No'' on the amendment.
  On Rollcall Vote Number 224, on the question of germaneness of the 
Amendment, Number 3980, I would have voted ``no''.
  On Rollcall Vote Number 225, final passage of the H.R. 4461, the FY01 
Agriculture Appropriations Act, I would have voted ``Aye''.
  I yield the floor.


                                telework

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
is designed to make information technology--IT--jobs a part of diverse, 
sustainable rural economies while helping IT employers find skilled 
workers. The goal of this bill is to link unemployed and underemployed 
individuals in rural areas and on Indian reservations with jobs in the 
IT industry through telework.
  We are in the midst of an information revolution which has the 
potential to be every bit as significant to our society and economy as 
the industrial revolution two hundred years ago. But in recent months 
there has been much discussion of the ``digital divide,'' the idea that 
one America is not able to take advantage of the promise of new 
technologies to change the way we learn, live, and work while the other 
America speeds forward into the 21st Century. As advanced 
telecommunications and information technology become the new engines of 
our economy, it is critical that no communities are left behind.
  Many rural communities and Indian reservations are already facing 
severe unemployment, underemployment, and population loss due to a lack 
of economic opportunities. A study last year by the Center for Rural 
Affairs reports that widespread poverty exists in agriculturally based 
counties in a six-state region including Minnesota. Over one-third of 
households in farm counties have annual income less than $15,000 and, 
in every year from 1988 to 1997, earnings in farm counties 
significantly trailed other counties. Unemployment on many Indian 
reservations exceeds 50 percent and remote locations make traditional 
industries uncertain agents for economic development.
  There are troubles ahead for the new economy as well: the information 
technology industry reports that it faces a dramatic shortage of 
skilled workers. The Minnesota Department of Economic Security projects 
that over the next decade, almost 8,800 workers will be needed each 
year to fill position openings in specific IT occupations. 
Approximately 1,000 students graduate each year from IT-related post-
secondary programs in Minnesota, not anywhere near enough to fill the 
demand, according to this same state agency. This shortage is reflected 
nation wide, with industry projecting shortfalls of several hundred of 
thousand IT workers per year in coming years.
  Rural workers need jobs. High tech employers need workers. This 
legislation would create models of how to bring these communities 
together to find a common solution to these separate challenges.
  My amendment is very straightforward. It would simply add $3 million 
to the very popular and successful Distance Learning and Telemedicine 
Program operated by USDA's Rural Utility Service for the purpose of 
promoting employment of rural residents through telework.
  Mr. President, telework is a new term that may be unfamiliar to 
colleagues so I want to take a moment to explain what it is. According 
to the International Telework Association and Council, telework is 
defined as using information and communications technologies to perform 
work away from the traditional work site typically used by the 
employer. For example, a person who works at home and transmits his or 
her work product back to the office via a modem is a teleworker, also 
known as a telecommuter; as is someone who works from a telework 
center, which is a place where many teleworkers work from--often for 
different companies.
  The nature of IT jobs allow them to be performed away from a 
traditional work site. As long as workers have the required training, 
and a means of performing work activities over a distance--through the 
use of advanced telecommunications--there is no reason that skilled IT 
jobs cannot be filled from rural communities.

  Because it essentially allows distance to be erased, telework is a 
promising tool for rural development and for making rural and 
reservation economies sustainable. Very soon, a firm located in another 
city, another state or even another country need not be viewed as a 
distant opportunity for rural residents, but as a potential employer 
only as far away as a home computer or telework center. Likewise, 
telework arrangements allow employers to draw from a national labor 
pool without the hassles and cost associated with relocation.
  Many businesses and organizations are already using telework or 
telecommuting as a tool to reduce travel and commuting times and to 
accommodate the needs and schedules of employees. Many metropolitan 
communities with high concentrations of IT industries are already 
looking to telework as a means of addressing urban and suburban ills 
such as housing shortages, traffic congestion, and pollution.
  However, the IT industry does not currently view rural America as a 
potential source of skilled employees. Nor do many rural communities 
know how to turn IT industries into a viable source of good jobs to 
revitalize local economies. Moreover, many rural community leaders fear 
that providing IT job skills to rural residents--when there are no 
opportunities for using those skills in the community--will lead to 
further population losses as retrained workers seek opportunities in 
metropolitan areas. At the same time, management of off-site employees 
requires new practices to be developed by employers and in some cases, 
dramatic paradigm shifts. Rural areas and Indian reservations are in 
danger of being left behind by a revolution which actually holds the 
most promise for those communities which are the most distant. IT 
employers risk missing a pool of potential employees with a strong work 
ethic.
  Receiving one of the teleworking grants provided for by my amendment 
will give rural communities access to federal resources to implement a 
locally designed proposal to employ rural residents in IT jobs through 
telework relationships, linking prospective employers with rural 
residents. This amendment will allow these communities to create 
locally developed and implemented national models for how telework can 
be used as a tool for rural development.
  The necessary vision to of how to make telework a reality already 
exists in some employers and in some rural communities. In Sebeka, 
Minnesota--a town with a population of little more

[[Page S7441]]

than 600 people--a small firm called Cross Consulting was founded. That 
company employs over 20 people through a contract with Northwest 
Airlines to provide programming on Northwest's mainframe computers. 
These people are rural teleworkers. The new economy is not leaving 
Sebeka behind and we need to incubate that kind of innovation in rural 
areas and Indian reservations across this country.
  On April 13 along with Senators Baucus and Daschle I introduced the 
Rural Telework Act of 2000. That legislation is a more comprehensive 
means to the same ends as this amendment I am offering today. I mention 
this legislation because it is broadly supported by private industry, 
rural communities, educational institutions and tribal governments.
  For many jobs, in many industries, telework may be the future of 
work. It may also be the future of diverse, sustainable rural 
economies. This amendment offers an early opportunity to invest in 
local innovation to harness this potential and I urge its adoption.

                          ____________________