Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent if I might find my way into the order so I might also offer an amendment. I see the Senator from Wyoming, who I expect is wanting to speak, and because we will probably go back and forth, I wonder if I might get unanimous consent to be recognized following the presentation from the Senator from Wyoming. I know the Senator from South Dakota has now offered an amendment. My expectation would be the Senator from Wyoming will speak next, but might I receive consent to be recognized following the presentation from the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague from South Dakota, Mr. Daschle, has proposed his amendment. I would like to speak in support of that amendment. Other colleagues have already spoken. This is an important amendment to consider. Let me talk about the issue. We call it, this debate in the Congress, country-of-origin labeling: COOL. That does not mean anything to anybody. The question with this amendment and this issue is, Should the American people be able to determine where the meat they are purchasing at the meat counter comes from? Should they be able to know where this product comes from? We have a roomful of people wearing neckties in this Chamber. If anyone looks at their necktie, they can find from the label where that necktie comes from. The same is true with shirts and shoes and trousers. The same is true with much of what we use in our daily lives. We require labeling. We demand it. Why? Because the consumer is advantaged by having it. Except meat and meat products. Go to the grocery store; take a look at the grocery store shelf and evaluate the meat. Consumers do not have the foggiest idea where the products came from--none. Why is it important to be able to identify the origin of meat or meat products you purchase in this country? For a number of reasons. We produce the highest quality food in the world by far. Why? Because we have the highest standards, and we demand conformance to those standards. The American people, if they want to choose U.S.-grown beef, U.S.-produced beef or beef products or meat or meat products, at this point they cannot do it because the labeling does not exist. Now, the labeling of meat and meat products has been done routinely in many other areas of the world. Other countries do it. It is not impossible. It is not even prohibitively expensive. It is just if you have the will to do it, you do it. In our country, at this point, we have not had the will. Finally, the Congress passed a piece of legislation saying you must. We have a requirement that there be country-of-origin labeling, meat and meat products be labeled as to their origin, where they were produced. Now the House of Representatives has passed an amendment that says they are going to shut off funding for that at a time when the Department of Agriculture has already dragged its feet in implementing it because they do not want to implement it. Let me describe where this is important. Let me describe a May 1999 inspection in Hermosillo, Mexico, when inspectors went into a plant in this little town in Mexico. I will tell you what they found. U.S. inspectors paid a rare visit, we are told, to the plant in May 1999 and were greeted by filth and flies. They cut off trade at once--or at least they thought they did. From the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Shanks and briskets [were] contaminated with feces . . . . In the refrigerator . . . . A disease-condemned carcass was observed ready for boning and distribution in commerce. Even before the inspectors left Mexico, Mexican officials were at work to restore this plant's right to sell meat to Americans. Over the following months, this plant regained its export license, switched owners, changed names, and yet the USDA has never returned. So an American consumer buying meat from this plant, can they know it? Will they know it? Will they have information that tells them this is where the meat comes from? The answer at this point, regrettably, is, no, they will not know whether that meat comes from the most regulated laboratory or most inspected plant in the United States or from this plant in Mexico where inspectors were greeted by filth and flies and a disease-condemned carcass ready for boning and distribution in commerce. Is it important for the American people to distinguish between cuts of meat that come from an inspected facility in this country that meets rigorous standards and a facility as described in this article that comes from that community in Mexico? What about the issue of BSE or mad cow disease? We now hear this week we have another case of mad cow disease in Japan; a 21-month-old bull is the country's ninth known case. It is devastating for the Japanese, I know, to have cases of mad cow disease or BSE. We know our neighbors to the north have had a case of mad cow disease. In January, a sick cow, staggering in a lot, was nonetheless slaughtered with other cows. They severed the head and put the head on a shelf, and that head sat on the shelf for 4 months. Finally, they sent it away for testing, to discover that the cow they slaughtered in January, in May was determined to have had mad cow disease. As a result, the Secretary of Agriculture cut off shipments of live cattle from Canada into this country. Why is that important? Because our beef herd is free of mad cow disease and has always been free of it. It is devastating to a beef industry, an industry in just North Dakota worth $500 million--half a billion. It is devastating to that industry to have an outbreak of mad cow disease. We want to protect our industry. That is why I offered the amendment earlier this afternoon that has been accepted. But we had USDA moving quickly last week to create what is called minimum risk for classification for Canada so younger animals from Canada can move into this marketplace. Should the American people, can the American people, determine where their meat comes from--Canada, Mexico, Japan, or the U.S.? The answer, for those of us who strongly support country-of-origin labeling laws, is the American people deserve that opportunity and need the right to know where their meat and meat products come from; they need to be able to make selections as consumers in a thoughtful, intelligent way. Regrettably, that is not now the case. That is why the Congress previously passed legislation. Regrettably, the Department of Agriculture is dragging its feet, and the House of Representatives, in my judgment, has caved in to the big economic interests that want to scuttle this all together. They don't want to have anything to do with meat labeling. They say it costs too much. Only in this town would we not laugh out loud at the cost estimates that come from the USDA. They are a joke. Only in this town would it become part of legitimate debate and thoughtful discussion about how many billions--yes, billions--of dollars this would cost, they claim, to administer. That is complete, sheer, utter nonsense and USDA knows it. The question for this Congress is, Will it stand behind its previous decision and its previous judgment to require country-of-origin labeling on behalf of the American consumer? Will it stand behind that? I hope the answer is yes. If that answer is yes, then we need to support this bipartisan amendment that is offered by my colleague from South Dakota. One final point. In the haste to try to discredit the country-of- origin labeling, the Department of Agriculture put out a notice that this would cost billions of dollars and they also indicated that it would have zero benefits. Does anyone really believe an estimate of the cost of the implementation of this law would provide no benefits--no benefits--to this country and the consumers of this country? That is why this attack on the country-of-origin labeling is a joke. It is why we must adopt this amendment. We must stand for the American consumer. I know big economic interests swing big clubs in this area. I have been in conference committees where we thought we had this done before long ago and we had folks from the meat industry out in the halls buttonholing people. The fact is, we need to get this done, and it needs to be done now. That is why I support the amendment offered by my colleague from South Dakota. While I have the floor, might I also indicate that the amendment I indicated to the Senator from Utah that I intended to offer is ready. I can offer it at the pleasure of the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Wisconsin. Senator Burns from Montana and I are both in the Chamber, and both of us would like to speak in support of our amendment. We very much hope the manager and the ranking member will be taking the amendment. But if not, of course, we will want a record vote. I will certainly offer the amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Burns at your pleasure. So I would be happy to hear what the Senator from Utah would like to have happen with respect to that amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. DORGAN. If Senator Harkin arrives on the floor, I will begin slowing down, if that is the question, and come to a complete stop at an appropriate moment. I do not intend to speak at great length on this amendment. I know my colleague, Senator Burns, also wishes to speak, as well as my colleague, Senator Conrad, wishes to speak. My expectation is that the presentations will all be relatively brief, but I certainly would respect the interests of the Senator from Utah.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me understand, the 30 minutes would be under my control?

Mr. DORGAN. I understand. Amendment No. 2117

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I can send the amendment to the desk if we wish to consider it now. My thought was it would be accepted and probably be put in a managers' amendment. I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might describe this amendment--and I will do so rather briefly because I spoke about it yesterday--I think we are on the road perhaps to having this amendment accepted, in which case we would not need a recorded vote. As I indicated, I offer this amendment with my colleagues, Senator Burns of Montana and Senator Conrad of North Dakota. This amendment deals with a provision we put in the farm bill having the rural utility services create a broadband loan program. During consideration of the farm bill, which we enacted in the Congress, we provided a very important provision that will provide for loans for the build-out of broadband capability throughout rural areas of our country. The build-out was part of $100 million in direct spending to subsidize $3.5 billion of loan funds at good interest rates that would entice those who are interested in building out the infrastructure of broadband capability to rural areas to begin doing so. Now, why is that important? It is important because if someone is on the wrong side of the digital divide and they do not have broadband capability in rural areas, their opportunity for economic development is gone. So we have been trying to find ways to help develop the build- out of the infrastructure for broadband capability in all areas of the country, especially and including rural areas. The $100 million in that bill was going to provide an opportunity for $3.5 billion in broadband loans over the 6 years, as I indicated. The Rural Utility Service announced they were going to combine $40 million in the farm bill for the first 2 years and package that up. They said they would make $1.4 billion in loans available for broadband buildout. As a result of that, they would provide not only loans but $80 million in loan guarantees, and so they would have $1.295 billion of loans at the Treasury rate of interest. This is easily the biggest broadband loan program in the history of this country. Why is it important? Let me give an example, going back to the 1930s. In the 1930s, very few farms and rural areas were wired for electricity, so we created the Rural Electrification Act, the REA Program, and began stringing lines to the rural reaches of America. That program was remarkably successful in providing to small towns and family farms in this country the capability of using electricity to enhance their productivity. When we electrified rural America, we dramatically increased the productivity of America's family farms. We now are in a circumstance where we talk about the information revolution and the new technology and information and something called broadband. Broadband simply describes the diameter of the pipes through which information flows. If you have dial-up connections, you have a computer, and you know there is a certain timeframe moving around your computer and moving around the Internet. If you have broadband or advanced communications services, it is a bigger pipe and you can move vast amounts of data very quickly. The opportunity to do that is critically important to small areas, rural areas of the country in order for them to attract economic opportunity and economic development. Without it, they are consigned to a future without that kind of economic opportunity. That is why we are trying to provide it here, just as we did in the underlying 1996 act which I helped write. We talked about advanced services then, comparable services at comparable rates. You have broadband in most big cities now. The question is, will rural areas have the same opportunities? What happened was RUS put this money together and they were going to put out nearly $1.3 billion of loans at 4.9 percent. Again, easily the most significant program of building out information infrastructure. What happened was they set a July 31 deadline for applications. They received applications for $1 billion in loans. That means there are people out there very anxious to move this capability out to rural areas. That is a big deal. This is not just some theoretical argument. This is talking about whether, in the rural reaches of America, you will have economic opportunity and jobs and growth again. We have $1 billion in loan applications. Now the language that has been included in the Agriculture appropriations bill essentially eliminates the broadband section of the farm bill. It will put some money into loans, yes, but does so without the mandatory spending for it and would essentially cut in half the loan levels. That is particularly bothersome because what is going to happen is they are going to have to start over down at USDA with a much smaller amount of money and much less impact on broadband capability. The proposal I offer with my colleagues would provide an additional $6 million. This does not make us whole, but instead of going from $20 million down to $9 million, roughly we go back up to $15 million. It is not the full money we need, but it would increase the $9.1 million to $15.1 million. This is not a massive amount of money, given the bill we are talking about. It just is not. But it is very important for us to pass this amendment because otherwise we will have had a significant start, with great promise, and will have brought this to a grinding halt, and we will have the promise of broadband buildout all across rural America only to find out Congress put the brakes on it. That is not something we want to do. I mentioned yesterday, recently when I was in my hometown of 300 people, a small community in northwestern North Dakota, I walked into what used to be my old boyhood home. I asked the folks if I could just stop in and see it. I hadn't been there for many years. The young woman who now lives there with her husband and children said she was happy to show me my old home. I looked around. In her kitchen--I hope she won't mind me saying this--on the shelf she had a piece of equipment. I couldn't recognize it at first, but it had a camera attached to it, and the camera was taking a picture of something on a spool, hanging on a metal spool. It was a bracelet. She said: I am taking a picture of this bracelet. Then I scan it and put it on the Internet, on eBay, because I sell things on eBay. Here is a woman in a very small community in western North Dakota who is a merchant selling products on eBay. It shows that all over this country people have enterprising hopes about what they want to do, what kind of business they want to be engaged in. But if we do not have the capability to build out broadband services to rural areas, we will forever consign them to a dismal economic future. Let me make one final point. That little town I grew up in, Regent, ND, a wonderful community, is part of Headinger County. My home county is larger than the State of Rhode Island. When I left it, there were 5,000 people living there. There are now 2,800 citizens living in Headinger County. The State demographer says in the year 2020 they expect it to be 1,800 people; 5,000 to 1,800 in a county the size of Rhode Island, slightly larger. Those people want opportunity. They want to build and grow. They want some hope for the future. That woman, in that little home selling on eBay, represents that spark of enterprise, that hope that maybe things can be better. Maybe you can build businesses in those rural areas. But you simply cannot do it if you don't move ahead with this program we put in the farm bill. I introduced legislation about 3 years ago. Much of it was put in the farm bill to create these loan funds. I was astounded to learn this appropriations bill effectively emasculates the funding that would have been automatic for the 6-year period, that would have created this aggressive broadband buildout. That is why we have to restore some of this funding. It is important. People say it is a little issue. It is not a little issue to people in my hometown or other hometowns all across this country, living in rural areas, who want to make a living and want to have some hope for the future. That is what this is about. We have already had a pattern and a template for how this works. It is the old REA Program. It worked in a wonderful way to electrify rural America and offer people light and hope. This is the same proposition. Let's not miss this opportunity. Mr. President, I indicated Senator Burns, Senator Conrad, Senator Clinton, and Senator Leahy are cosponsors. I ask unanimous consent they be added.

Mr. DORGAN. I yield some time to the Senator from Montana, followed by time to my colleague from North Dakota. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Montana and if he wishes more, there is certainly more available.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Conrad from North Dakota.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will take one final minute, and I think we are finished speaking on this side. And I will yield back the remainder of my time when we are finished. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have to chair a Democratic Policy luncheon in a few moments. I say to the manager and ranking member, I have two amendments to this bill. This is one. I will come back posthaste following the luncheon and offer the other. I don't want to hold up this bill. I want to have both amendments considered. I know you want to complete work on this important appropriations bill. Let me describe the amendment that I have now offered dealing with something I think is very important. We have in this country a livestock industry that is $175 billion. It is a very large industry, an important industry. In North Dakota, it is roughly $500 million, and it is important to our State. Ranching and farming, of course, represent the bread and butter of our economy in North Dakota. Let me talk about some of the difficulties we face in the beef and livestock industry. We have had in some recent years outbreaks of something called BSE or more commonly referred to as mad cow disease. It is devastating. It is heartbreaking to see the consequences of an outbreak of mad cow disease on producers in a country where it occurs. I hold up a chart that shows a pretty graphic picture of piles and piles of dead cattle with a fellow up here who is looking at all these cattle that have been slaughtered as a result of mad cow disease. This was in March 1997. The costs to that industry in England were devastating. Our neighbor to the north, Canada, had one animal diagnosed with mad cow disease, an animal that appeared sick when it was slaughtered in January. They apparently severed the head and put it in a cooler, and some 4 months later they tested it and discovered that the animal, slaughtered in January, had mad cow disease or BSE. As a result, we closed our border to the live import of cattle from Canada. It has been a devastating time for Canadian producers. Our hearts go out to them. It is a difficult situation for them. But what is important for us is to protect our industry, our beef industry, our livestock industry. Last week the Secretary of Agriculture indicated that she is moving now toward putting Canada to a ``minimal risk'' status with respect to the import of cattle which would set up the capability of importing live cattle from Canada. We are not now importing them. We import some slaughtered beef products but not live cattle. The amendment I offer is rather simple. The United States, with most other countries, belongs to the World Organization for Animal Health. That organization has protocols, describing the timeline for when you might allow imports into your country from a country that has mad cow disease or BSE. Let me read the sense of the Senate: It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Agriculture should not allow the importation of live cattle from any country known to have BSE, better known as mad cow disease, unless the country complies with the animal health guidelines established by the World Organization for Animal Health, and, No. 2, should abide by the international standards for continued health and safety of the U.S. livestock industry. What are those guidelines? The guidelines may be changed. I am told there are discussions to do so. I am not necessarily opposed to changing them. But whatever the guidelines are, they are. At the moment those guidelines talk about a country or zone with minimal BSE risk: The cattle population of a country or zone may be considered as presenting a minimal BSE risk should the country or zone comply with the following requirements: The last indigenous case of BSE was reported more than seven years ago. There is another category more than 4 years ago. In this case, the case of mad cow disease occurring in Canada, it was some 10 months ago, and it was disclosed only 6 months ago. We are talking now about opening the border to imports of cattle from Canada. That could be a devastating risk to our livestock industry. We have a lot of ranchers trying to make a living. We ought to care about the risk posed to them if we import cattle from a country that had a case of BSE within recent months. We have a lot to lose. Let me describe a circumstance, for example, with Japan. In the year 2000, beef consumption in Japan was at 1.577 million tons carcass weight equivalent. BSE was discovered in Japan in September 2001. That beef consumption dropped by 16 percent in 1 year. Compounding those problems, Japan just announced its second case of BSE in an animal less than 30 months of age. The most recent case is a cow 21 months of age. USDA is proposing a rule that would allow cattle 30 months or younger to be imported to the U.S. We have organizations that say, well, it is not going to be a big problem. In fact, a Harvard risk assessment on BSE and its effects came to the conclusion: Even if infected animals entered into the U.S. animal agricultural system from Canada, the risk of it spreading extensively within the U.S. herd was low. I am sorry. If we have a case of BSE, mad cow disease, in this country, the risk is dramatic for our beef industry, just as it was for Japan--a 16-percent reduction in beef consumption. It is a devastating blow to our industry if it occurs. I believe at this point we ought to proceed with caution. We are not talking about 4 years or 7 years, which represents the guideline of the International Organization for Animal Health. We are talking just a matter of months past the time when a case of BSE was disclosed by our neighbors to the north. I regret that has happened to them. I know it is heartbreaking for them. I know they would like to move cattle into our marketplace as early as possible, but the fact is, our obligation is to try to find every way possible to prevent an outbreak of mad cow disease in this country because it would be devastating to a significant, vibrant industry, devastating to a lot of ranchers out there trying to make a living today. We ought not have USDA move as quickly as they want to move. First, it is an abrogation of the guidelines we signed up for. The guidelines of the International Code of Animal Health don't describe a circumstance in which you change the rules and allow the importation of live cattle from a country which has had an experience with mad cow disease in just a matter of recent months. The World Organization for Animal Health is made up of 164 nations, our Nation included, and Canada. One of the missions is to develop guidelines that relate to the rules that member nations use to protect themselves against diseases without setting up unjustifiable sanitary barriers. I agree with all that. But I am saying that the guidelines in this organization of which we are a member and to which we are a party are explicit. They do not include a circumstance in which we decide, some 6 months after the disclosure of mad cow disease, that we will take live cattle imported from that country into our marketplace. That poses significant risks to our producers. The National Cattleman's Beef Association, NCBA, supports the amendment. The R-CALF organization supports this amendment. These are the two largest beef organizations in the United States. I offer it today hopeful for its consideration. It is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. As I indicated when I started, I have to chair a Democratic Policy Committee lunch in about 1 minute. So what I would like to do is have this amendment be pending, and it would be preferable, if you want, to set it aside and take other amendments while I am at lunch. I will come back to the floor at 2 o'clock and say a few more words and perhaps I can get the ranking member and manager to agree to accept this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. That is an offer I cannot refuse, although the not- talking proviso will not relate to my second amendment. I will come back--actually for the courtesy of the manager and ranking member, as I know they want to move the bill--and offer my second amendment. I am happy to do that if he is willing to take the amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I missed the comment by the Senator from Utah.

Mr. DORGAN. Let me finish this discussion by adding another point. There is a book titled ``Distance is Dead.'' The book describes the information revolution. From almost anyplace you are a click away from anywhere. In North Dakota, we are a click away from the Hudson River. We are as close to Manhattan as the Hudson River with telecommunication and new technologies. But that is only the case if you have the buildout of broadband, if you have the capability to allow people to use this Internet in the way that most urban areas are able to do it. We have in rural areas--I have mentioned my hometown--much that others aspire to recreate in our country: strong schools, good neighbors, great places to raise kids. We have a lot of things that make these small towns in rural areas wonderful places to live. But we need jobs there. We need economic opportunity development there. If distance is dead, then opportunity is born in rural areas with information technology. If we are a click away from anywhere, if we are a nanosecond away by clicking a mouse and providing information anywhere, any time, then we have opportunities to attract businesses and create jobs in these wonderful areas of America's heartland. But if we do not have the buildout of the infrastructure, if you do not have similar opportunities with broadband development in rural areas, then you have what is called a digital divide. If you are on the wrong side of that digital divide, if you live on the wrong side of that digital divide, you are in big trouble; your community is going nowhere. That is why this is an important issue. It is why we have been working on it for some long while and why this amendment deserves to be approved. We have no further speakers. I know Senator Bennett has other things he wishes to do with the bill. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. DORGAN. The southeast region of North Dakota is very unique. It has one of the largest concentrations of wetlands. As a result, most of the research that has been conducted on conservation cropping systems does not adapt well to this region. Crops in this region can range from flax to alfalfa to edible peas to corn to wheat. Further, previous studies have not included many of the crops that can be grown in this region or shown how different cropping systems can be made profitable. With the high cost of crop inputs and low commodity prices, producers are looking for ways to make a profit. This study will provide producers with a very good tool to measure one crop rotation against another, thereby increasing their profitability.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator from Utah will yield for a question.

Mr. DORGAN. I am not certain exactly what the status of the bill is. I know we have been working on it all day. My understanding is that we have had the last vote of the day so that may suggest that other amendments will not be offered, or certainly not voted on. I did want to inquire of the Senator from Utah about his plans for this bill. I have a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that deals with the importation of live cattle from Canada. As my colleagues know, last week the Secretary of Agriculture took some action to put Canada on a minimum risk category. This is a country within the last 6 or 8 months that has had one case of mad cow disease. I am very concerned about that, and I want to offer a sense-of-the-Senate amendment dealing with the importation of live cattle from Canada and my concerns about that. I would certainly be available to do that in the morning or at a time appropriate. I wanted to inquire what the Senator anticipates may happen on this legislation this evening.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from Utah, it is my intention to offer an amendment. I would like to speak about a subject that is going to prompt the amendment and then discuss with my colleague, Senator Burns from Montana, who will be joining me with an amendment. There are several ways we might offer this amendment. I would like to have a discussion with Senator Burns and also with Senator Kohl and Senator Bennett about the specific amendment because my hope is we can work things out as this bill is on the floor. It is my intention to offer an amendment with my colleague, Senator Burns from Montana. I would like to speak about it, and he would probably want to speak as well.

Mr. DORGAN. Might I inquire of the Senator from Utah? First of all, I would like to speak for perhaps 5 to 7 minutes initially. I guess the Senator from Montana may want to speak for a very short time. Following the presentation by Senator Feinstein and perhaps after a meeting I will attend, I will speak at greater length, if I could be recognized--I would be very brief--in order to describe to the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Utah what Senator Burns and I want to try to achieve this afternoon on this piece of legislation. I think we can introduce that very shortly and then perhaps discuss it at greater length at a later time.

Mr. DORGAN. I yield.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as I said, I will speak about this at greater length this afternoon, but I did want to advance the topic Senator Conrad Burns and I wish to advance, an amendment on this bill dealing with something called the Broadband Loan Program. Let me describe what that is. Let me describe it by telling you I was recently in my hometown, a town of fewer than 300 people, in southwestern North Dakota. I visited a home there. I stopped by to say hello, and there was a woman in that home who had a little device on her counter. It looked different to me. It had a camera mounted on it. It was no bigger than a shoe box. She had a bracelet hanging on a little round projectile on it. I said: Well, what are you doing there? She said: I am taking a picture of this bracelet. I said: Why are you doing that? She said: I sell on eBay. Here in my hometown is a woman who sells on eBay, and she takes a picture of those products and puts them on her computer. She told me she has been supplementing her income by doing business on eBay. It describes the need, even in a town of 300 people, for computer access, the need for broadband, the need for the big pipes in which you can do business on the Internet in a way that does not take you a day to download something others are downloading in 5 minutes. So the question of the building out of broadband to rural communities all across this country, including rural areas especially, is a very important question. Because if you do not build out broadband capability, then what happens is you leave some parts of the country behind. You have an Internet divide. You have people on the right side of it and you have people on the wrong side. The people on the wrong side will never have any economic development opportunities because when you talk to somebody about building a business in this town, they will ask: Do you have the capability to connect us by computer with some reasonable speed? When you say: No, we don't, they will say: Well, so long. We're going elsewhere. That is why this is so important. Let me describe quickly what we did. In the farm bill, a group of us--Senator Burns, myself, and others--included a provision that deals with a broadband loan program. It is the first and the only program in this country designed to spur the development of the buildout of broadband capability to rural areas. It was scheduled to use $100 million in direct spending to subsidize $3.5 billion of loans over the 6 years of the farm bill. Pursuant to that, RUS, down at the Department of Agriculture, put together the first 2 years $40 million, and they announced they would make $1.4 billion in loans available. As a result of that, they set a July 31 deadline. They received $1 billion in loan applications because we have people with interests and businesses really interested in building out this broadband capability to rural areas, very much like the old REA program. Prior to REA, there was no electricity on America's farms. They were dark. When the Sun went down, you could not plug into anything because no one built electricity infrastructure out to America's farms. We created the Rural Electrification Act, and all of a sudden America's farms got electricity. It created dramatic explosions in productivity on America's farms. That is what this is about: the buildout of the infrastructure for broadband to our small rural communities and to our farms. So what happened was the USDA put together this program. The loans were requested. We have applications for loans. They came in by July 31. What happened, however, is the language that is included now in this appropriations bill eliminates the broadband section of the farm bill--it eliminates it--and in its place puts a $9.1 billion appropriation, which is less than half the amount that should have been available this year. If we move down this road, it appears to us the money that has been applied for, for loans will not be at this point continued. They will have to start over. You will have half the money. There is no assurance the additional money will be available in future years because this will be an appropriated amount rather than being in the farm bill which authorized this for 6 years. This is very important. This is about the haves and have-nots in this country with respect to access to the Internet and with respect to broadband capability. If we decide that access to the Internet, with pipes that are of reasonable circumference so you get some decent speed, does not matter to rural areas, we will have, in my judgment, economic development only in areas of the country where we have broadband, and small towns and rural areas are going to be told: So long, Charlie. Just tough luck. You are not going to be developed because we have a digital divide, and we support that digital divide. That is a terrible message to come from the Congress. What I would like to do, with my colleague, Senator Burns, is to work with Senator Bennett and Senator Kohl to try to deal with this problem that is created in the appropriations bill. We have two problems. One is a language problem. We need to restore the language that existed in the farm bill that calls for this Broadband Loan Program. We should not kick that out in this appropriations bill, No. 1. No. 2, we should restore the funding that was there that was promised and upon which applicants now have applied for $1 billion in investment funds to build out broadband capability to rural areas of the country. I know rural areas are sometimes looked at as kind of the ``back 40.'' Well, it is not the ``back 40.'' It is a wonderful part of this country. It is small towns and good families trying to make a living, often in circumstances where they are losing population. These are places with strong schools, places in which you can raise kids without worrying about their safety, with good neighbors, good places to be. But if we decide, as a country, in the age of information technology and information revolution, that only the big cities are going to have the aggressive, robust buildout of broadband, then we are consigning rural America to a pretty desperate struggle for their future. That is not what we want. That is not what Congress decided. Congress already made this judgment when it passed the farm bill. It said: Rural America matters as well. Small towns matter, too. That is what the Congress decided. As a result of that decision, it made a specific, deliberate investment to say we are going to fund, through loans, and we are going to encourage, through loans, the buildout of broadband infrastructure to help small towns and family farms in this country. That promise was well underway, and now what has happened is, in this bill, we have a problem that derails it. We want to fix it. I want to work with my colleagues, Senator Bennett and Senator Kohl, to do that. I will return this afternoon to see if we can do that. I yield the floor.