Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.