>> In Washington, the Environmental Protection Agency just released recommendations for drinking water standards contaminated with forever chemicals known as PFAS, setting them at four parts per trillion.

Wisconsin standards are currently set at 70 parts per trillion.

The new standards will regulate public water systems, but not private wells.

Earlier, we spoke with Wisconsin US Senator Tammy Baldwin whose new bill would provide grants to households dealing with PFAS.

Senator Tammy Baldwin, thanks very much for being here.

>> It's my pleasure.

>> So the new EPA recommended standards and remediation funding under the Infrastructure Act covers public water systems only.

Is that where your bill comes in?

>> Yes, the Healthy H2O Act really focuses on rural communities where so many households depend upon private wells for their source of water.

And right now a lot of folks who use private wells don't test the water quality on a frequent basis.

It's actually rather expensive.

And so this will encourage, through use of grants, communities to up the level of well testing that goes on.

And what's really promising about this legislation is that if contaminants are found like PFAS, or others, that the grants also then cover the cost of filtration so that you can uncover the issue and address the issue in the same program.

>> Because how concerning is this kind of PFAS contamination across the state of Wisconsin for you?

>> You know, it wasn't so many years ago, I had never even heard the term PFAS, and then community after community is testing their water.

Oftentimes, the communities doing the testing have a public water utility, and so they're testing water that's going to be distributed among hundreds if not thousands of people.

And we're seeing PFAS contamination in communities across Wisconsin.

But I'm really worried about those with private wells who may also have contamination.

But again, because of the high cost of testing, there's not necessarily an understanding in real time that filtration or other remediation is necessary.

>> So according to the bill language, the appropriation for this would be 10 million nationally annually until 2028.

How far does that go when Wisconsin alone has 1 million private wells?

>> Yeah, so not far enough, but we have to start somewhere.

And right now there's very little, if any, assistance for those who are dependent upon water from private wells.

And yet we know we have communities in Wisconsin right now who have PFAS contamination and are served by private wells.

A perfect example of that is on French Island adjacent to the city of La Crosse where all the wells have discovered PFAS contamination, and they're struggling as a community of homeowners with each their private well of, how do we go forward?

We need to make sure that we're equipping as many folks as possible.

And these grants as we start up the program assuming we can get it passed in the Farm Bill or as freestanding legislation, these grants can come to community organizations that can help organize private well testing and the follow through if contaminants are found.

>> Moving on to another issue, you've also reintroduced a bill that includes provisions like prohibiting states from limiting abortions if the health of the mother is in danger.

Why is that important to you in Wisconsin now?

>> Well, the Women's Health Protection Act, which we've introduced with a record number of senators on board, would first of all codify Roe versus Wade at the federal level.

But as you say, go on to tell states and other governmental units that you cannot restrict or limit access to these freedoms and rights, you know, at the state level.

And it's really important for those of us in Wisconsin where an 1849 criminal abortion statute has nearly totally eliminated access to abortion care and left many in crisis.

We need to restore these freedoms and these rights nationally, but it's also so important for people in states that have virtually, you know, eliminated all access to abortion care to have restoration of these rights.

>> Exactly what would the bill call for?

>> So the bill starts by codifying Roe versus Wade at the national level.

Meaning it would apply in all states, not just states that don't have local level or state level bans.

And it means that pre-viability, the state cannot interfere in any way with access to reproductive care, including abortion care.

But post-viability consistent with Roe versus Wade, states can act as long as they're acting in a way that is consistent with protecting the health and life of the mother.

In Wisconsin, these rights have disappeared in an instant when last summer the US Supreme Court reversed Roe versus Wade.

>> Will it pass?

>> We have to work on all fronts.

That means at the local level, state level, and at the national level.

Yes, ultimately, it will.

And we have to make progress.

We have now additional co-sponsors, and we haven't quit.

We haven't stopped trying to seek others, but we need to recognize that the situation is urgent.

14 states, including Wisconsin, have virtual bans on abortion care.

And that's not acceptable that a whole generation is living with fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers enjoyed.

>> Speaking of the state of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Assembly was circulating a bill calling for exemptions for rape and incest, and in situations where the mother's health was in serious jeopardy, though the Republican led Senate said they wouldn't take it up.

What is your reaction to all of this action that's happening at the state level in our legislature?

>> Yeah, well, on one hand, there needs to be a recognition that the status quo in Wisconsin is unacceptable.

We have a pre-Civil War era criminal abortion ban, and I can't help but think that was 70 years before women got the right to vote.

There were no women in the Wisconsin legislature in 1849 participating in the debate.

And we know so much more in terms of science and medicine today.

It is unacceptable that that is the law of the land in the state of Wisconsin, but I don't think tweaking around the edges of this 1849 law is acceptable.

And I stand with Governor Evers who said that he would veto such tweaks.

And instead, we need to call for modernizing, and frankly, to act in line with the Women's Health Protection Act, which I lead at the federal level.

>> We turn to another matter.

And that is your introduction of the bipartisan RESTRICT Act.

And I'm going to read what that stands for, restricting the emergence of security threats that risk Information and communications technology.

So it directs the Department of Commerce to keep the US safe from foreign government threats to sensitive data flowing from communications technology.

What kind of communications technology are we talking about?

>> Well, everything from the very well publicized social media TikTok to hardware in our communications systems that present threats such as Huawei, which is a Chinese owned company that has many of the hardware features that would be used to build a 5G system.

But we're talking about technologies that might be introduced in the future that aren't even on our radar screen today.

The idea is that if a foreign adversary is able to store, access our data, participate in surveillance of US persons activities, that poses a threat.

And we need as consumers to have expert information when we purchase product, whether it's hardware or download an app, that is not posing a risk to our security or putting our personal information at risk of identity theft or the like.

>> We know that Republican Congressman Mike Gallagher of Green Bay wants to ban TikTok altogether in the US over its Chinese ownership.

Would this RESTRICT Act accomplish that?

>> Yes, and it would be a broader act in many ways.

And it is a bipartisan bill in the United States Senate.

You can certainly focus on one technology.

There's some legal impediments in doing that.

But I think what we really need as consumers and as a country is to be informed about the risk of the risk that certain products pose.

And that would be the case whether it's something you would buy off the shelf, buy online, or download, that we need to know where information is being stored and what information is being collected.

And we need to know whether we're being surveilled or made prone to identity theft or other risks that are posed by these technologies, again, from foreign adversaries.

>> All right, Senator Tammy Baldwin, we leave it there.

Thanks very much.

>> Thank you.