[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.
____________________