[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 64 (Monday, May 22, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4893-S4896]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 2919. A bill to amend title IV of the Employee Retirement Income 
Security Act of 1974 to establish a Director of the Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corporation and the Internal Revenue code of 1986 to increase 
certain penalties, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished 
colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, to introduce a bill making the 
position of executive director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
Corporation, or the PBGC, subject to the advice and consent of the 
Senate.
  Quite frankly, I was surprised to find out that this important 
position is not subject to Senate approval. The Secretary of Labor, the 
Chairman of the PBGC, simply appoints the executive director. This is 
too important a position not to be subject to Senate oversight.
  Jurisdiction over the PBGC rests with both the Committee on Finance 
and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, the HELP 
Committee. To recognize this, our bill would require both committees to 
approve the director.
  The Finance Committee, the HELP Committee, and indeed the entire 
Senate have spent considerable time over the last few years fighting to 
protect the pensions of millions of workers. And the deficit of the 
PBGC--now over $23 billion--has been growing.
  We now have a bill in conference that I hope will be brought back 
before the Senate soon. And I hope that the simple provision that I am 
introducing today can be added to that legislation.
  It is the perfect time to make the position subject to Senate 
approval. The current executive director is leaving the PBGC at the end 
of May. And his replacement should be subject to Senate confirmation.
  The PBGC is a government corporation that was created when ERISA was 
enacted in 1974. It is established within the Department of Labor. 
Labor controls PBGC for many administrative matters. But PBGC has its 
own budget, which goes through the PBGC Board, and PBGC's attorneys 
litigate their own cases. PBGC is controlled by a 3-person Board made 
up of the Secretary of Labor, as the Chairman of the PBGC, and the 
Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce.
  PBGC is run on a day-to-day basis by an executive director. This 
position is not mentioned in ERISA but is a creation of the PBGC by-
laws adopted by the board. The Secretary of Labor appoints the 
executive director, who is a political appointee. Executive directors 
have stayed on average a couple of years.
  The PBGC insures the pensions of 40 million workers and retirees in 
about 30,000 plans. These plans have trillions of dollars in assets. 
PBGC itself has more than $40 billion in assets, more than $63 billion 
in liabilities, and a $23 billion deficit. Even with the rush to 
terminate or freeze current plans, most of the Nation's biggest 
companies still maintain defined benefit plans. What happens with 
defined benefit plans has a big effect on America's competitiveness and 
affects the retirement security of America's workers and retirees.
  Making the executive director's position an advice and consent 
position would give the Senate say in what type of person serves in 
this position so that PBGC does not become another FEMA. It would show 
the importance that Congress attaches to the role of the PBGC for 
workers, retirees and employers. It would raise the attraction of the 
PBGC director position.
  I ask my colleagues to support making the PBGC executive director 
position subject to Senate approval.
  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. 2919

       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 ``PBGC Confirmation Act of 
     2006''.

     SEC. 2. DIRECTOR OF THE PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION.

       (a) In General.--Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by striking the second sentence of section 4002(a) and 
     inserting the following: ``In carrying out its functions 
     under this title, the corporation shall be administered by a

[[Page S4894]]

     Director, who shall be appointed by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate and who shall act in accordance with 
     the policies established by the board.''; and
       (2) in section 4003(b), by--
       (A) striking ``under this title, any member'' and inserting 
     ``under this title, the Director, any member''; and
       (B) striking ``designated by the chairman'' and inserting 
     ``designated by the Director or chairman''.
       (b) Compensation of Director.--Section 5315 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

     ``Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.''.
       (c) Jurisdiction of Nomination.--
       (1) In general.--The Committee on Finance of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of 
     the Senate shall have joint jurisdiction over the nomination 
     of a person nominated by the President to fill the position 
     of Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation under 
     section 4002 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
     of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1302) (as amended by this Act), and if one 
     committee votes to order reported such a nomination, the 
     other shall report within 30 calendar days, or be 
     automatically discharged.
       (2) Rulemaking of the senate.--This subsection is enacted 
     by Congress--
       (A) as an exercise of rulemaking power of the Senate, and 
     as such it is deemed a part of the rules of the Senate, but 
     applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed 
     in the Senate in the case of a nomination described in such 
     sentence, and it supersedes other rules only to the extent 
     that it is inconsistent with such rules; and
       (B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     the Senate to change the rules (so far as relating the 
     procedure of the Senate) at any time, in the same manner and 
     to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of the 
     Senate.
       (d) Transition.--The term of the individual serving as 
     Executive Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
     Corporation on the date of enactment of this Act shall expire 
     on such date of enactment. Such individual, or any other 
     individual, may serve as interim Director of such Corporation 
     until an individual is appointed as Director of such 
     Corporation under section 4002 of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1302) (as amended by 
     this Act).

     SEC. 3. PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO FILE AN ACTUARIAL REPORT.

       Section 6692 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``Beginning with 
     plan years beginning in 2005, in the case of a plan to which 
     section 412(l) applied for a plan year, there shall be 
     assessed, in lieu of the penalty in the preceding sentence, a 
     tax equal to 0.1 percent of the plan's unfunded current 
     liability under section 412(l)(8)(A) for the plan year to 
     which the report relates, but in no case less than $1,000 or 
     more than $5,000.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for Mr. Biden):
  S. 2920. A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to eliminate 
security risks by replacing the use of extremely hazardous gaseous 
chemicals with inherently safer technologies; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce the Community 
Water Treatment Hazards Reduction Act of 2006. This legislation would 
completely eliminate a known security risk to millions of Americans 
across the United States by facilitating the transfer to safer 
technologies from deadly toxic chemicals at our Nation's water 
treatment facilities.
  Across our Nation, there are thousands of water treatment facilities 
that utilize gaseous toxic chemicals to treat drinking and wastewater. 
Approximately 2,850 facilities are currently regulated under the Clean 
Air Act because they store large, quantities of these dangerous 
chemicals. In fact, 98 of these facilities threaten over 100,000 
citizens. For example, the Fiveash Water Treatment Plant in Fort 
Lauderdale, FL threatens 1,526,000 citizens. The Bachman Water 
Treatment in Dallas, TX threatens up to 2,000,000 citizens. And there 
are similar examples in communities throughout the Nation. If these 
facilities--and the 95 other facilities that threaten over 100,000 
citizens--switched from the use of toxic chemicals to safer 
technologies that are widely used within the industry we could 
completely eliminate a known threat to nearly 50 million Americans.
  Many facilities have already made the prudent decision to switch 
without intervention by government. The Middlesex County Utilities 
Authority in Sayreville, NJ, switched to safer technologies and 
eliminated the risk to 10.7 million people. The Nottingham Water 
Treatment Plant in Cleveland, OH switched and eliminated the risk to 
1.1 million citizens. The Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant 
switched and eliminated the risk to 1.7 million people. In my hometown 
of Wilmington, DE, the Wilmington Water Pollution Control Facility 
switched from using chlorine gas to liquid bleach. This commendable 
decision has eliminated the risk to 560,000 citizens, including the 
entire city of Wilmington. In fact, this facility no longer has to 
submit risk management plans to the Environmental Protection Agencies 
required by the Clean Air Act because the threat has been completely 
eliminated. There are many other examples of facilities that have done 
the right thing and eliminated the use of these dangerous, gaseous 
chemicals.
  The bottom line is that if we can eliminate a known-risk, we should. 
The legislation I am introducing today will do just that. It will 
require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in 
consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to do a few 
simple things. First, water facilities will be prioritized based upon 
the risk that they pose to citizens and critical infrastructure. These 
facilities--beginning with the most dangerous ones--will be required to 
submit a report on the feasibility of utilizing safer technologies and 
the anticipated costs to transition. If grant funding is available, the 
Administrator will issue a grant and order the facility to transition 
to the safer technology chosen by the owner of the facility. I believe 
that this approach will allow us to use federal funds responsibly while 
reducing risk to our citizens.
  Once the transition is complete, the facility will be required to 
track all cost-savings related to the switch, such as decreased 
security costs, costs savings by eliminating administrative 
requirements under the EPA risk management plan, lower insurance 
premiums, and others. If savings are ultimately realized by the 
facility, it will be required to return one half of these saving, not 
to exceed the grant amount, back to the EPA. In turn, the EPA will 
utilize any returned savings to help facilitate the transition of more 
water facilities.
  A 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office found that 
providing grants to assist water facilities to transition to safer 
technologies was an appropriate use of federal funds. The costs for an 
individual facility to transition will vary, but the cost is very cheap 
when you consider the security benefit. For example, the Wilmington 
facility invested approximately $160,000 to transition and eliminated 
the risk to nearly 600,000 people. Similarly, the Blue Plains facility 
spent $500,000 to transition after 9/11 and eliminated the risk to 1.2 
million citizens immediately. This, in my view, is a sound use of 
funds. And, this legislation will provide sufficient funding to 
transition all of our high-priority facilities throughout the Nation.
  Finally, I would like to point out that facilities making the 
decision to transition after 9/11, but before the enactment date of 
this legislation will be eligible to participate in the program 
authorized by this legislation. I've included this provision because I 
believe that the federal government should acknowledge--and promote--
local decisions that enhance our homeland security. In addition we 
don't want to create a situation where water facilities wait for 
Federal funding before doing the right thing and eliminating those 
dangerous gaseous chemicals.
  Last December the 9/11 Discourse Project released its report card for 
the administration and Congress on efforts to implement the 9/11 
Commission recommendations. It was replete with D's and F's 
demonstrating that we have been going in the wrong direction with 
respect to homeland security. One of the most troubling findings made 
by the 9/11 Commission is that with respect to our Nation's critical 
infrastructure that ``no risk and vulnerability assessments actually 
made; no national priorities established; no recommendations made on 
allocations of scarce resources. All key decisions are at least a year 
away. It is time that we stop talking about priorities and actually get 
some.'' While much remains to be done, the Community Water Treatment 
Hazards Reduction Act of 2006 sets an important priority for our 
homeland security and it affirmatively addresses it. I urge my 
colleagues to support this important legislation.

[[Page S4895]]

  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. 2920

       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 ``Community Water Treatment 
     Hazards Reduction Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. USE OF INHERENTLY SAFER TECHNOLOGIES AT WATER 
                   FACILITIES.

       Part F of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-21 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1466. USE OF INHERENTLY SAFER TECHNOLOGIES AT WATER 
                   FACILITIES.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Harmful intentional act.--The term `harmful 
     intentional act' means a terrorist attack or other 
     intentional act carried out upon a water facility that is 
     intended--
       ``(A) to substantially disrupt the ability of the water 
     facility to provide safe and reliable--
       ``(i) conveyance and treatment of wastewater or drinking 
     water;
       ``(ii) disposal of effluent; or
       ``(iii) storage of a potentially hazardous chemical used to 
     treat wastewater or drinking water;
       ``(B) to damage critical infrastructure;
       ``(C) to have an adverse effect on the environment; or
       ``(D) to otherwise pose a significant threat to public 
     health or safety.
       ``(2) Inherently safer technology.--The term `inherently 
     safer technology' means a technology, product, raw material, 
     or practice the use of which, as compared to the current use 
     of technologies, products, raw materials, or practices, 
     significantly reduces or eliminates--
       ``(A) the possibility of release of a substance of concern; 
     and
       ``(B) the hazards to public health and safety and the 
     environment associated with the release or potential release 
     of a substance of concern.
       ``(3) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security (or a designee).
       ``(4) Substance of concern.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `substance of concern' means 
     any chemical, toxin, or other substance that, if transported 
     or stored in a sufficient quantity, would have a high 
     likelihood of causing casualties and economic damage if 
     released or otherwise successfully targeted by a harmful 
     intentional act, as determined by the Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Secretary.
       ``(B) Inclusions.--The term `substance of concern' 
     includes--
       ``(i) any substance included in Table 1 or 2 contained in 
     section 68.130 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or a 
     successor regulation), published in accordance with section 
     112(r)(3) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(3)); and
       ``(ii) any other highly hazardous gaseous toxic material or 
     substance that, if transported or stored in a sufficient 
     quantity, could cause casualties or economic damage if 
     released or otherwise successfully targeted by a harmful 
     intentional act, as determined by the Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Secretary.
       ``(5) Treatment works.--The term `treatment works' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 212 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1292).
       ``(6) Vulnerability zone.--The term `vulnerability zone' 
     means, with respect to a substance of concern, the geographic 
     area that would be affected by a worst-case release of the 
     substance of concern, as determined by the Administrator on 
     the basis of--
       ``(A) an assessment that includes the information described 
     in section 112(r)(7)(B)(ii)(I) of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7412(r)(7)(B)(ii)(I)); or
       ``(B) such other assessment or criteria as the 
     Administrator determines to be appropriate.
       ``(7) Water facility.--The term `water facility' means a 
     treatment works or public water system owned or operated by 
     any person.
       ``(b) Regulations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Administrator, in consultation 
     with the Secretary and other Federal, State, and local 
     governmental entities, security experts, owners and operators 
     of water facilities, and other interested persons shall--
       ``(A) compile a list of all high-consequence water 
     facilities, as determined in accordance with paragraph (2); 
     and
       ``(B) notify each owner and operator of a water facility 
     that is included on the list.
       ``(2) Identification of high-consequence water 
     facilities.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), in 
     determining whether a water facility is a high-consequence 
     water facility, the Administrator shall consider--
       ``(i) the number of people located in the vulnerability 
     zone of each substance of concern that could be released at 
     the water facility;
       ``(ii) the critical infrastructure (such as health care, 
     governmental, or industrial facilities or centers) served by 
     the water facility;
       ``(iii) any use by the water facility of large quantities 
     of 1 or more substances of concern; and
       ``(iv) the quantity and volume of annual shipments of 
     substances of concern to or from the water facility.
       ``(B) Tiers of facilities.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clauses (ii) 
     through (iv), the Administrator shall classify high-
     consequence water facilities designated under this paragraph 
     into 3 tiers, and give priority to orders issued for, actions 
     taken by, and other matters relating to the security of, 
     high-consequence water facilities based on the tier 
     classification of the high-consequence water facilities, as 
     follows:

       ``(I) Tier 1 facilities.--A Tier 1 high-consequence water 
     facility shall have a vulnerability zone that covers more 
     than 100,000 individuals and shall be given the highest 
     priority by the Administrator.
       ``(II) Tier 2 facilities.--A Tier 2 high-consequence water 
     facility shall have a vulnerability zone that covers more 
     than 25,000, but not more than 100,000, individuals and shall 
     be given the second-highest priority by the Administrator.
       ``(III) Tier 3 facilities.--A Tier 3 high-consequence water 
     facility shall have a vulnerability zone that covers more 
     than 10,000, but not more than 25,000, individuals and shall 
     be given the third-highest priority by the Administrator.

       ``(ii) Mandatory designation.--If the vulnerability zone 
     for a substance of concern at a water facility contains more 
     than 10,000 individuals, the water facility shall be--

       ``(I) considered to be a high-consequence water facility; 
     and
       ``(II) classified by the Administrator to an appropriate 
     tier under clause (i).

       ``(iii) Discretionary classification.--A water facility 
     with a vulnerability zone that covers 10,000 or fewer 
     individuals may be designated as a high consequence facility, 
     on the request of the owner or operator of a water facility, 
     and classified into a tier described in clause (i), at the 
     discretion of the Administrator.
       ``(iv) Reclassification.--The Administrator--

       ``(I) may reclassify a high-consequence water facility into 
     a tier with higher priority, as described in clause (i), 
     based on an increase of population covered by the 
     vulnerability zone or any other appropriate factor, as 
     determined by the Administrator; but
       ``(II) may not reclassify a high-consequence water facility 
     into a tier with a lower priority, as described in clause 
     (i), for any reason.

       ``(3) Options feasibility assessment on use of inherently 
     safer technology.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date on 
     which the owner or operator of a high-consequence water 
     facility receives notice under paragraph (1)(B), the owner or 
     operator shall submit to the Administrator an options 
     feasibility assessment that describes--
       ``(i) an estimate of the costs that would be directly 
     incurred by the high-consequence water facility in 
     transitioning from the use of the current technology used for 
     1 or more substances of concern to inherently safer 
     technologies; and
       ``(ii) comparisons of the costs and benefits to 
     transitioning between different inherently safer 
     technologies, including the use of--

       ``(I) sodium hypochlorite;
       ``(II) ultraviolet light;
       ``(III) other inherently safer technologies that are in use 
     within the applicable industry; or
       ``(IV) any combination of the technologies described in 
     subclauses (I) through (III).

       ``(B) Considerations in determining estimated costs.--In 
     estimating the transition costs described in subparagraph 
     (A)(i), an owner or operator of a high-consequence water 
     facility shall consider--
       ``(i) the costs of capital upgrades to transition to the 
     use of inherently safer technologies;
       ``(ii) anticipated increases in operating costs of the 
     high-consequence water facility;
       ``(iii) offsets that may be available to reduce or 
     eliminate the transition costs, such as the savings that may 
     be achieved by--

       ``(I) eliminating security needs (such as personnel and 
     fencing);
       ``(II) complying with safety regulations;
       ``(III) complying with environmental regulations and 
     permits;
       ``(IV) complying with fire code requirements;
       ``(V) providing personal protective equipment;
       ``(VI) installing safety devices (such as alarms and 
     scrubbers);
       ``(VII) purchasing and maintaining insurance coverage;
       ``(VIII) conducting appropriate emergency response and 
     contingency planning;
       ``(IX) conducting employee background checks; and
       ``(X) potential liability for personal injury and damage to 
     property; and

       ``(iv) the efficacy of each technology in treating or 
     neutralizing biological or chemical agents that could be 
     introduced into a drinking water supply by a terrorist or act 
     of terrorism.
       ``(C) Use of inherently safer technologies.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), not later than 
     90 days after the date of submission of the options 
     feasibility assessment required under this paragraph, the 
     owner or operator of a high-consequence water facility, in 
     consultation with the Administrator,

[[Page S4896]]

     the Secretary, the United States Chemical Safety and Hazard 
     Investigation Board, local officials, and other interested 
     parties, shall determine which inherently safer technologies 
     are to be used by the high-consequence water facility.
       ``(ii) Considerations.--In making the determination under 
     clause (i), an owner or operator--

       ``(I) may consider transition costs estimated in the 
     options feasibility assessment of the owner or operator 
     (except that those transition costs shall not be the sole 
     basis for the determination of the owner or operator);
       ``(II) shall consider long-term security enhancement of the 
     high-consequence water facility;
       ``(III) shall consider comparable water facilities that 
     have transitioned to inherently safer technologies; and
       ``(IV) shall consider the overall security impact of the 
     determination, including on the production, processing, and 
     transportation of substances of concern at other facilities.

       ``(c) Enforcement.--
       ``(1) In general.--In accordance with the tiers and 
     priority system established under subsection (b)(2)(B), 
     subject to paragraph (2), the Administrator--
       ``(A) shall prioritize the use of inherently safer 
     technologies at high-consequence facilities listed under 
     subsection (b)(1);
       ``(B) subject to the availability of grant funds under this 
     section, not later than 90 days after the date on which the 
     Administrator receives an options feasibility assessment from 
     an owner or operator of a high-consequence water facility 
     under subsection (b)(3)(A), shall issue an order requiring 
     the high-consequence water facility to eliminate the use of 1 
     or more substances of concern and adopt 1 or more inherently 
     safer technologies; and
       ``(C) may seek enforcement of an order issued under 
     paragraph (2) in the appropriate United States district 
     court.
       ``(2) De minimis use.--Nothing in this section prohibits 
     the de minimis use of a substance of concern as a residual 
     disinfectant.
       ``(d) Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--In accordance with the tiers and 
     priority system established under subsection (b)(2)(B), the 
     Administrator shall provide grants to high-consequence 
     facilities (including high-consequence facilities subject to 
     an order issued under subsection (c)(1)(C) and water 
     facilities described in paragraph (6)) for use in paying 
     capital expenditures directly required to complete the 
     transition of the high-consequence water facility to the use 
     of 1 or more inherently safer technologies.
       ``(2) Application.--A high-consequence water facility that 
     seeks to receive a grant under this subsection shall submit 
     to the Administrator an application by such date, in such 
     form, and containing such information as the Administrator 
     shall require, including information relating to the transfer 
     to inherently safer technologies, and the proposed date of 
     such a transfer, described in subsection (b)(3)(B).
       ``(3) Deadline for transition.--An owner or operator of a 
     high-consequence water facility that is subject to an order 
     under subsection (c)(1)(C) and that receives a grant under 
     this subsection shall begin the transition to inherently 
     safer technologies described in paragraph (1) not later than 
     90 days after the date of issuance of the order under 
     subsection (c)(1)(C).
       ``(4) Facility upgrades.--An owner or operator of a high-
     consequence water facility--
       ``(A) may complete the transition to inherently safer 
     technologies described in paragraph (1) within the scope of a 
     greater facility upgrade; but
       ``(B) shall use amounts from a grant received under this 
     subsection only for the capital expenditures directly 
     relating to the transition to inherently safer technologies.
       ``(5) Operational costs.--An owner or operator of a high-
     consequence water facility that receives a grant under this 
     subsection may not use funds from the grant to pay or offset 
     any ongoing operational cost of the high-consequence water 
     facility.
       ``(6) Other requirements.--As a condition of receiving a 
     grant under this subsection, the owner or operator of a high-
     consequence water facility shall--
       ``(A) upon receipt of a grant, track all cost savings 
     resulting from the transition to inherently safer 
     technologies, including those savings identified in 
     subsection (b)(4)(B)(iii); and
       ``(B) for each fiscal year for which grant funds are 
     received, return an amount to the Administrator equal to 50 
     percent of the savings achieved by the high-consequence water 
     facility (but not to exceed the amount of grant funds 
     received for the fiscal year) for use by the Administrator in 
     facilitating the future transition of other high-consequence 
     water facilities to the use of inherently safer technologies.
       ``(7) Interim transitions.--A water facility that 
     transitioned to the use of 1 or more inherently safer 
     technologies after September 11, 2001, but before the date of 
     enactment of this section, and that qualifies as a high-
     consequence facility under subsection (b)(2), in accordance 
     with any previous report submitted by the water facility 
     under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)) 
     and as determined by the Administrator, shall be eligible to 
     receive a grant under this subsection.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $125,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.''.

                          ____________________