[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 45 (Thursday, March 9, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S744-S747]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Lankford, and Mr. 
        Moran):
  S. 733. A bill to clarify that convictions for kidnapping or sexual 
abuse are grounds for inadmissibility and deportability under the 
Immigration and Nationality Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 733

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Reverse Entry for Migrant 
     Offenders and Violence Expulsion Act''.

     SEC. 2. GROUNDS FOR INADMISSIBILITY.

       Section 212(a)(2)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(F)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(F) Kidnapping; sexual abuse.--Any alien who has been 
     convicted of--
       ``(i) any offense under chapter 55 of title 18, United 
     States Code (related to kidnapping); or
       ``(ii) any offense under chapter 109A of such title 
     (related to sexual abuse),
     is inadmissible.''.

     SEC. 3. GROUNDS FOR DEPORTATION.

       Section 237(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(D)(i)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``chapter 55 (relating to kidnapping),'' 
     after ``espionage),''; and
       (2) by inserting ``chapter 109A (relating to sexual 
     abuse),'' after ``sabotage),''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THUNE (for himself and Mr. Warnock):
  S. 734. A bill to enhance the participation of precision agriculture 
in the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, agriculture may well be among the world's 
oldest ways of life, but it has never been stagnant. Farmers and 
ranchers have always looked for new and better ways to increase crop 
yields, conserve resources, and keep their land and livestock healthy 
and productive. Today's agricultural producers explore new farming 
practices, grow more resilient crops, and adopt new technologies to 
produce more and to use less. And the resilience of our food supply and 
America's ability to feed our country and the world are in no small 
measure thanks to these farmer-driven advances.
  As I said, farmers and ranchers are always looking for ways to 
improve their operations, but they can face challenges when they are 
looking for reliable data. While the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
collects a lot of data, little has been done to analyze and organize it 
so it is useful for farmers.
  Right now, many producers have to rely on anecdotal information to 
determine the value of things, like conservation and other production 
practices, and decide what to adopt on their farms and ranches. Better 
data would make it easier for farmers to decide what practices are the 
best option for them.
  A recent study of Department of Agriculture data from farms in 
several States confirmed anecdotal reports about certain conservation 
practices. It demonstrated that farmers who use these practices were 
more likely to be able to plant during an exceptionally wet spring. 
That is the kind of information farmers need to make informed decisions 
about their operations. We need to see more of this kind of analysis.
  That is why, earlier this year, I introduced my bipartisan 
Agriculture Innovation Act with Senator Klobuchar. Our bill would make 
it easier for producers to use USDA data to assess the impact of 
various conservation and production practices so that producers can 
choose the right practices for their farm and ranch operations. I will 
work to get the Agriculture Innovation Act included in this year's farm 
bill.

[[Page S745]]

  While the macrolevel data that USDA collects can provide valuable 
information, farmers are already beginning to look to the next 
frontier, collecting real-time microlevel data from their own fields.
  Imagine what a farmer could do with real-time information about soil 
quality, water uptake, and plant health. Imagine quickly knowing 
whether you need more nitrogen or less water in a section of your 
field. Imagine having real-time data about your land or livestock at 
your fingertips. This is the promise of precision agriculture: 
harnessing the power of technology to help producers manage their 
operations with real-time data.
  GPS can allow farmers to identify field characteristics, map out 
irrigation, and optimize crop production on their fields. Soil monitors 
can allow farmers to react to conditions as they change and apply 
fertilizers more precisely. And remote monitoring can help farmers keep 
tabs on everything from resource usage to livestock health and feed 
consumption.
  This precision agriculture represents a significant leap forward in 
farmers' long advance toward producing more and using less. It presents 
an opportunity to increase profitability by cutting down on inputs, the 
prices of which have spiked amid our inflation crisis. And it is a step 
toward broader use of conservation practices that will keep farm land 
in productive use for years to come.
  But for Americans to reap all of the benefits of precision 
agriculture, more work needs to be done.
  Today, I am introducing the bipartisan Promoting Precision 
Agriculture Act with Senator Warnock to help facilitate widespread 
adoption of precision technology. My bill would establish a partnership 
between government and the private sector to develop voluntary 
interconnectivity standards and prioritize cyber security for precision 
agriculture technologies. These standards will help enhance agriculture 
update and ensure reliability, usability, and security for producers 
and their data. It is an important element of ensuring these new 
technologies deliver the advances they promise and of making sure 
farmers and ranchers can trust that they are worthwhile investments.
  But as farmers look to precision agriculture future, the one thing 
that could still hold them back is the continued digital divide. 
Without a reliable internet connection, precision agriculture just 
doesn't work. Next-generation precision ag technologies will need 
stronger connectivity.
  Connecting unserved areas to reliable broadband has long been a 
priority of mine, and we made a good deal of progress through Federal 
investments and policies like my MOBILE NOW Act that removed regulatory 
barriers to broadband expansion.
  But we still have a lot of work to do.
  This year, I reintroduced my Rural Internet Improvement Act to 
streamline USDA's broadband authorities and ensure broadband funding 
goes to areas where at least 90 percent of households lack broadband 
access.
  We also need to ensure broadband investments we have already made are 
actually going to their intended goal, and that is expanding broadband 
access to areas that are currently lacking it.
  In the last 3 years, the Federal Government has allocated $79 billion 
to broadband programs. But all the money in the world is useless if it 
is not being spent properly, which is why I launched a broadband 
oversight initiative in December to ensure this funding is going toward 
delivering broadband to the Americans who need it most.
  It has been clear for a long time how critical an internet connection 
is to the future of everything from education and healthcare to 
business and everyday life. Connectivity has the potential to truly 
revolutionize how we grow food in America.
  I am proud that South Dakota has been a leader in precision 
agriculture. South Dakota State University was the first in the country 
to offer a 4-year precision agriculture degree. In 2021, the university 
opened the Raven Precision Agriculture Center where the next generation 
of farmers will work to advance the next generation of farming.
  Since opening its precision ag center, SDSU has also launched a 
precision ag and cyber program with Dakota State University, a leading 
cyber security institution.
  As I have said numerous times, agriculture is the lifeblood of South 
Dakota. And anything we can do to make agriculture more efficient and 
more productive is not only good for our Nation's food supply, it is 
good for South Dakota farmers and their families.
  Precision agriculture is one of those things. It has the potential to 
deliver the same kind of advance that crop rotation, the Farmer's 
Almanac, and crop engineering delivered for farming. It can make 
farming more efficient, more cost-effective, and environmentally 
friendly than it already is. And it can help our farms produce more 
food for more people with fewer resources and on less land.
  I will be working hard to ensure South Dakota farmers and ranchers 
and farmers and ranchers around the country have the resources they 
need to innovate and that this year's farm bill advances the next 
generation of farming.
  A farmer is a lot of things: a scientist and a laborer, an innovator 
and accountant, an engineer and a conservationist. I am proud to serve 
the extraordinary men and women who keep our rich agricultural heritage 
alive and thriving. And I will continue working to help them as they 
move it into the future.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 734

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Promoting Precision 
     Agriculture Act of 2023''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) 3GPP.--The term ``3GPP'' means the Third Generation 
     Partnership Project.
       (2) Advanced wireless communications technology.--The term 
     ``advanced wireless communications technology'' means 
     advanced technology that contributes to mobile (5G or beyond) 
     networks, next-generation Wi-Fi networks, or other future 
     networks using other technologies, regardless of whether the 
     network is operating on an exclusive licensed, shared 
     licensed, or unlicensed frequency band.
       (3) Artificial intelligence.--The term ``artificial 
     intelligence'' has the meaning given the term in section 
     238(g) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232; 10 U.S.C. note 
     prec. 4061).
       (4) Foreign adversary.--The term ``foreign adversary'' 
     means any foreign government or foreign nongovernment person 
     engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of 
     conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the 
     United States, or security and safety of United States 
     persons.
       (5) Precision agriculture.--The term ``precision 
     agriculture'' means managing, tracking, or reducing crop or 
     livestock production inputs, including seed, feed, 
     fertilizer, chemicals, water, time, and such other inputs as 
     the Secretary determines to be appropriate, at a heightened 
     level of spatial and temporal granularity to improve 
     efficiencies, reduce waste, and maintain environmental 
     quality.
       (6) Precision agriculture equipment.--The term ``precision 
     agriculture equipment'' means any equipment or technology 
     that directly contributes to a reduction in, or improved 
     efficiency of, inputs used in crop or livestock production, 
     including--
       (A) global positioning system-based or geospatial mapping;
       (B) satellite or aerial imagery;
       (C) yield monitors;
       (D) soil mapping;
       (E) sensors for gathering data on crop, soil, and livestock 
     conditions;
       (F) Internet of Things and technology that relies on edge 
     and cloud computing;
       (G) data management software and advanced analytics;
       (H) network connectivity products and solutions, including 
     public and private wireless networks;
       (I) global positioning system guidance, auto-steer systems, 
     autonomous fleeting, and other machine-to-machine operations;
       (J) variable rate technology for applying inputs, such as 
     section control; and
       (K) any other technology that leads to a reduction in, or 
     improves efficiency of, crop and livestock production inputs, 
     which may include--
       (i) seed;
       (ii) feed;
       (iii) fertilizer;
       (iv) chemicals;
       (v) water;
       (vi) time;
       (vii) fuel;
       (viii) emissions; and
       (ix) such other inputs as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       (7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.

[[Page S746]]

       (8) Trusted.--The term ``trusted'' means, with respect to a 
     provider of advanced communications service or a supplier of 
     communications equipment or service, that the Secretary has 
     determined that the provider or supplier is not owned by, 
     controlled by, or subject to the influence of, a foreign 
     adversary.
       (9) Voluntary consensus standards development 
     organization.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``voluntary consensus standards 
     development organization'' means an organization that 
     develops standards in a process that meets the principles for 
     the development of voluntary consensus standards (as defined 
     in the document of the Office of Management and Budget 
     entitled ``Federal Participation in the Development and Use 
     of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment 
     Activities'' (OMB Circular A-119)).
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``voluntary consensus standards 
     development organization'' includes the 3GPP, the Alliance 
     for Telecommunications Industry Solutions, the Agricultural 
     Industry Electronics Foundation, and the Global System for 
     Mobile Communications Association.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to enhance the participation of precision agriculture 
     in the United States; and
       (2) to promote United States leadership in voluntary 
     consensus standards development organizations that set 
     standards for precision agriculture.

     SEC. 4. INTERCONNECTIVITY STANDARDS FOR PRECISION 
                   AGRICULTURE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Director of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology, shall--
       (1) develop voluntary, consensus-based, private sector-led 
     interconnectivity standards, guidelines, and best practices 
     for precision agriculture that will promote economies of 
     scale and ease the burden of the adoption of precision 
     agriculture; and
       (2) in carrying out paragraph (1)--
       (A) coordinate with relevant public and trusted private 
     sector stakeholders and other relevant industry 
     organizations, including voluntary consensus standards 
     development organizations; and
       (B) consult with sector-specific agencies, other 
     appropriate agencies, and State and local governments.
       (b) Considerations.--The Secretary, in carrying out 
     subsection (a), shall, in consultation with the Federal 
     Communications Commission and the Director of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology, consider--
       (1) the evolving demands of precision agriculture;
       (2) the connectivity needs of precision agriculture 
     equipment;
       (3) the cybersecurity challenges facing precision 
     agriculture, including cybersecurity threats for agriculture 
     producers and agriculture supply chains;
       (4) the impact of advanced wireless communications 
     technology on precision agriculture; and
       (5) the impact of artificial intelligence on precision 
     agriculture.

     SEC. 5. GAO ASSESSMENT OF PRECISION AGRICULTURE STANDARDS.

       (a) Study.--Not later than 1 year after the Secretary 
     develops standards under section 4, and every 2 years 
     thereafter for the following 8 years, the Comptroller General 
     of the United States shall conduct a study that assesses 
     those standards, including the extent to which those 
     standards, as applicable--
       (1) are voluntary;
       (2) were developed in coordination with relevant industry 
     organizations, including voluntary consensus standards 
     development organizations; and
       (3) have successfully encouraged the adoption of precision 
     agriculture.
       (b) Report.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science, 
     Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives a 
     report that summarizes the findings of each study conducted 
     under subsection (a).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Cortez 
        Masto, and Ms. Klobuchar):
  S. 735. A bill to strengthen the United States Interagency Council on 
Homelessness; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I am pleased to join Senator Collins and 
Senators Van Hollen, Cortez Masto, and Klobuchar in introducing 
legislation that would permanently reauthorize the United States 
Interagency Council on Homelessness, the Council or USICH.
  The Council was established during the Reagan administration as part 
of the landmark McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. Over 
the last three and a half decades, it has brought Agencies from across 
the Federal Government together to coordinate efforts to address 
homelessness. In 2009, the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid 
Transition to Housing, HEARTH, Act, which I authored along with Senator 
Collins, expanded the Council's role, allowing it to work with public, 
nonprofit and private stakeholders to develop a national strategic plan 
to end homelessness. With a small budget and a small staff, the Council 
has helped guide Federal, State, and local stakeholders in deploying 
their resources in a smart, effective and coordinated fashion. The 
results have been evident. In the decade after USICH published its 
first plan, overall homelessness declined 9 percent. Family and 
veterans homelessness declined significantly, as well, with the total 
numbers dropping nearly 30 percent and 50 percent, respectively. In 
fact, the Council has been able to help 83 communities and three States 
effectively end veteran homelessness.
  Even with this progress, homelessness has persisted, and we have 
faced a growing challenge in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The 
Department of Housing and Urban Development's 2022 Annual Homelessness 
Assessment Report to Congress found that, on ``a single night in 2022, 
roughly 582,500 people were experiencing homelessness in the United 
States,'' while the majority of individuals experiencing homelessness 
were living on the street or in other unsheltered locations and were 
not in homeless shelters. The COVID-19 pandemic and its accompanying 
economic effects have also pushed homelessness rates higher in many 
parts of the country. Indeed, the number of individuals experiencing 
homelessness increased in the majority of States between January 2020, 
and 2022, including a staggering 48 percent jump in my home State of 
Rhode Island.
  USICH can help us meet this challenge by guiding how its 19 Federal 
member Agencies deploy and leverage their resources with nonfederal 
partners in order to help communities effectively address homelessness. 
We know that smart, coordinated investments in programs that address 
homelessness and increase affordable housing pay additional dividends. 
According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, ``Based on 22 
different studies from across the country, providing permanent 
supportive housing to chronically homeless people creates net savings 
of $4,800 per person per year, through reduced spending on jails, 
hospitals, shelters, and other emergency services.'' In short, helping 
people avoid homelessness not only helps them, it can also save 
taxpayers money, and USICH helps make our investments to address 
homelessness more informed and more effective.
  Indeed, the Council continues to prove that the government can work 
and save money in the process. That is why we should permanently 
authorize USICH and why organizations like the National Low Income 
Housing Coalition, the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the Rhode 
Island Coalition to End Homelessness, and HousingWorks RI have 
supported our bill. I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KAINE (for himself and Mr. Warner):
  S. 745. A bill to designate additions to the Rough Mountain 
Wilderness and the Rich Hole Wilderness of the George Washington 
National Forest, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, this bill authorizes additions to two 
existing wilderness areas within the George Washington National Forest 
in Bath County, VA. This text represents years of negotiation and 
compromise among Virginia stakeholders who rely on the GW Forest.
  In many parts of America, Federal land management is controversial. 
Some may view these lands as repositories for timber, energy, or 
minerals. Others may enjoy using recreational trails through them. 
Others may believe that they should be left undisturbed. The truth, of 
course, is that all of these uses are important; the conflict lies in 
deciding which lands are best suited to which purposes.
  In the lead-up to the latest multiyear GW Forest Management Plan, 
various forest users came together to see if they could find reasonable 
compromises that would avoid years of unproductive disagreement and 
litigation. This group, known as the George

[[Page S747]]

Washington National Forest Stakeholder Collaborative, ultimately 
succeeded and made joint recommendations to the U.S. Forest Service for 
forest management and protection. Preservation advocates consented to 
timber harvesting and other active forest restoration and management in 
certain areas, while forest products interests consented to wilderness 
and light management in other areas. Following this fruitful 
collaboration, the Forest Service convened the Lower Cowpasture 
Restoration and Management Project, bringing together the collaborative 
and other stakeholders to help develop management activities on this 
particular part of GW Forest in Bath County. Everyone got some of what 
they wanted, and everyone gave some ground.
  The collaborative has now come together to support the wilderness 
additions in this bill, which designates 4,600 acres to be added to the 
Rich Hole Wilderness Area and 1,000 acres to be added to the Rough 
Mountain Wilderness Area. I am proud to once again partner with Senator 
Mark Warner and follow the path blazed by Senator John Warner and 
Representative Rick Boucher, who led the original Virginia Wilderness 
Act in 1984. I am also proud that this bill has passed the Senate in 
previous Congresses, including by unanimous consent. I will be pushing 
to include this bill as part of the 2023 farm bill, and I hope that we 
can bring this effort to the finish line soon.
  Taking care of our Nation's public lands is good for the environment 
and good for the economy. Land disputes may often be contentious, but 
these efforts in the GW Forest show they don't have to be. When 
everyone comes to the table and invests the necessary time, we can find 
common ground. I hope this will be a lesson for us in other tough 
policy challenges, and I encourage my Senate colleagues to support this 
bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. King, and Mrs. Shaheen):
  S. 747. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to provide 
grants to States, territories, and Indian Tribes to address 
contamination by perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances on 
farms, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Relief 
for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act. My colleague Senator King joins me in 
introducing this important legislation that would assist farmers across 
America who have been harmed by PFAS contamination.
  PFAS are a class of man-made chemicals--sometimes referred to as 
``forever chemicals''--that can bioaccumulate in bodies over time. They 
are traditionally found in nonstick pans, clothing, furniture, and 
firefighting foam and have been linked to cancer, thyroid disease, 
liver damage, decreased fertility, and hormone disruption. PFAS 
contamination is a growing problem, and additional resources are needed 
to support affected communities.
  In Maine, PFAS contamination affecting many different sectors, 
including agriculture, has been discovered over the past several years. 
The presence of PFAS in wastewater sludge once spread as fertilizer has 
prevented some Maine farms from selling their products, thus leading to 
significant financial hardship for these family farmers. One such 
farmer is Fred Stone, a dairy farmer in Arundel, ME. In 2016, Fred 
discovered that the milk produced on his farm contained some of the 
highest levels ever reported for a PFAS contaminant at that time. More 
recently, a dairy farm in Fairfield, ME, found PFAS levels in its milk 
that were 153 times higher than the State's standard.
  Dairy is not the only agricultural sector affected by these harmful 
forever chemicals. Adam Nordell and his wife Johanna Davis, from Unity, 
ME, learned that PFAS had contaminated the soil and water in their 
organic vegetable farm, the result of sludge spread on their land in 
the 1990s. Tests last year showed that Adam and Johanna had levels of 
PFAS in their blood that were even higher than chemical plant workers 
who manufactured PFAS for decades and handled them daily.
  Currently, USDA provides limited support through the Dairy Indemnity 
Payment Program to dairy farmers who have been directed to remove their 
contaminated milk from the commercial market. This program falls far 
short of meeting the growing needs of all farmers in the State of 
Maine. Fred Stone, the farmer who first learned of contamination in 
2016, has still not been compensated adequately for the contamination 
he has experienced. What is more, this program helps only dairy 
farmers, excluding the farmers of other agricultural products who have 
had their livelihoods disrupted by PFAS contamination. While community 
organizations and the State of Maine have stepped in to provide some 
aid, USDA should do more to assist all farmers affected by these 
chemicals. That is what our legislation aims to do.
  Specifically, the funds authorized by the Relief for Farmers Hit with 
PFAS Act could be used for a variety of purposes at the State level, 
including providing financial assistance to affected farmers; building 
capacity for PFAS testing for soil or water sources; monitoring blood 
for individuals to make informed decisions about their health; 
upgrading or purchasing equipment to ensure a farm remains profitable 
during or after known PFAS contamination; developing alternative 
production systems or remediation strategies; developing educational 
programs for farmers experiencing PFAS contamination; and researching 
soil and water remediation systems, and the viability of those systems 
for farms.
  In addition to making new resources available, our bill would create 
a task force at USDA charged with identifying other USDA programs to 
which PFAS contamination should be added as a activity. This would help 
bring even more resources to farmers through existing programs. 
Additionally, the task force would provide technical assistance to 
States to help them coordinate their responses effectively.
  Mr. President, USDA needs to step up and provide support to farmers, 
who through no fault of their own are at risk of losing their 
livelihoods. This is not just a problem in Maine. A recent report 
released by the Environmental Working Group estimated that 
approximately 20 million acres of crop land in the United States could 
be contaminated from PFAS-tainted sludge, which had been used as 
fertilizer.
  Thus far, the Federal Government's response has failed to keep pace 
with this growing problem. I have urged USDA Secretary Vilsack 
repeatedly to come to the aid of these affected farmers, and the Relief 
for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act would direct the Department to help where 
it is needed most.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill. As the members of the 
Senate Agriculture Committee begin work on the 2023 farm bill, I hope 
that we can work together to pass the Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS 
Act into law.

                          ____________________