[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19257-19259]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS SECURITY ACT OF 2002

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 5169) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
enhance the security of wastewater treatment works.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 5169

       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 ``Wastewater Treatment Works 
     Security Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS SECURITY.

       Title II of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1281 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 222. WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS SECURITY.

       ``(a) Grants for Vulnerability Assessments and Security 
     Enhancements.--The Administrator may make grants to a State, 
     municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency--
       ``(1) to conduct a vulnerability assessment of a publicly 
     owned treatment works;
       ``(2) to implement security enhancements listed in 
     subsection (c)(1) to reduce vulnerabilities identified in a 
     vulnerability assessment; and
       ``(3) to implement additional security enhancements to 
     reduce vulnerabilities identified in a vulnerability 
     assessment.
       ``(b) Vulnerability Assessments.--
       ``(1) Definition.--In this section, the term `vulnerability 
     assessment' means an assessment of the vulnerability of a 
     treatment works to actions intended to--
       ``(A) substantially disrupt the ability of the treatment 
     works to safely and reliably operate; or
       ``(B) have a substantial adverse effect on critical 
     infrastructure, public health or safety, or the environment.
       ``(2) Identification of methods to reduce 
     vulnerabilities.--A vulnerability assessment includes 
     identification of procedures, countermeasures, and equipment 
     that the treatment works can implement or utilize to reduce 
     the identified vulnerabilities.
       ``(3) Review.--A vulnerability assessment shall include a 
     review of the vulnerability of the treatment work's--
       ``(A) facilities, systems, and devices used in the storage, 
     treatment, recycling, or reclamation of municipal sewage or 
     industrial wastes;
       ``(B) intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, sewage 
     collection systems, and other constructed conveyances;
       ``(C) electronic, computer, and other automated systems;
       ``(D) pumping, power, and other equipment;
       ``(E) use, storage, and handling of various chemicals; and
       ``(F) operation and maintenance procedures.
       ``(c) Grants for Security Enhancements.--
       ``(1) Preapproved security enhancements.--Upon 
     certification by an applicant that the applicant has 
     completed a vulnerability assessment for a treatment works 
     and that the security enhancement for which assistance is 
     sought is to reduce vulnerabilities of the treatment works 
     identified in the assessment, the Administrator may make 
     grants to the applicant under subsection (a)(2) for 1 or more 
     of the following:
       ``(A) Purchase and installation of equipment for access 
     control, intrusion prevention and delay, and detection of 
     intruders and hazardous or dangerous substances, including--
       ``(i) barriers, fencing, and gates;
       ``(ii) security lighting and cameras;
       ``(iii) metal grates, wire mesh, and outfall entry 
     barriers;
       ``(iv) securing of manhole covers and fill and vent pipes;
       ``(v) installation and re-keying of doors and locks; and
       ``(vi) smoke, chemical, and explosive mixture detection 
     systems.
       ``(B) Security improvements to electronic, computer, or 
     other automated systems and remote security systems, 
     including controlling access to such systems, intrusion 
     detection and prevention, and system backup.
       ``(C) Participation in training programs and the purchase 
     of training manuals and guidance materials relating to 
     security.
       ``(D) Security screening of employees or contractor support 
     services.
       ``(2) Additional security enhancements.--
       ``(A) Grants.--The Administrator may make grants under 
     subsection (a)(3) to an applicant for additional security 
     enhancements not listed in paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Eligibility.--To be eligible for a grant under this 
     paragraph, an applicant shall submit an application to the 
     Administrator containing such information as the 
     Administrator may request.
       ``(3) Limitations.--
       ``(A) Use of funds.--Grants under subsections (a)(2) and 
     (a)(3) may not be used for personnel costs or operation or 
     maintenance of facilities, equipment, or systems.
       ``(B) Disclosure of vulnerability assessment.--As a 
     condition of applying for or receiving a grant under this 
     section, the Administrator may not require an applicant to 
     provide the Administrator with a copy of a vulnerability 
     assessment.
       ``(d) Grant Amounts.--
       ``(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     activities funded by a grant under subsection (a) may not 
     exceed 75 percent.
       ``(2) Maximum amount.--The total amount of grants made 
     under subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) for one publicly owned 
     treatment works shall not exceed $150,000.
       ``(e) Technical Assistance for Small Publicly Owned 
     Treatment Works.--
       ``(1) Security assessment and planning assistance.--The 
     Administrator, in coordination the States, may provide 
     technical guidance and assistance to small publicly owned 
     treatment works on conducting a vulnerability assessment and 
     implementation of security enhancements to reduce 
     vulnerabilities identified in a vulnerability assessment. 
     Such assistance may include technical assistance programs, 
     training, and preliminary engineering evaluations.
       ``(2) Participation by nonprofit organizations.--The 
     Administrator may make grants to nonprofit organizations to 
     assist in accomplishing the purposes of this subsection.
       ``(3) Small publicly owned treatment works defined.--In 
     this subsection, the term `small publicly owned treatment 
     works' means a publicly owned treatment works that services a 
     population of fewer than 20,000 persons.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Administrator--
       ``(1) $200,000,000 for making grants under subsection (a); 
     and
       ``(2) $15,000,000 for providing technical assistance under 
     subsection (e).

     Such sums shall remain available until expended.''.

     SEC. 3. REFINEMENT OF VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 
                   FOR PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS.

       (a) Grants.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency may make grants to a nonprofit organization 
     for the improvement of vulnerability self-assessment 
     methodologies and tools for publicly owned treatment works, 
     including publicly owned treatment works that are part of a 
     combined public wastewater treatment and water supply system.
       (b) Eligible Activities.--Grants provided under this 
     section may be used for developing and distributing 
     vulnerability self-assessment methodology software upgrades, 
     improving and enhancing critical technical and user support 
     functions, expanding libraries of information addressing both 
     threats and countermeasures, and implementing user training 
     initiatives. Such services shall be provided at no cost to 
     recipients.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2007. Such sums shall 
     remain available until expended.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5169, the Wastewater 
Treatment Works Security Act of 2002.
  The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, made the identification 
and protection of critical infrastructure a national priority and 
taught our Nation to take a broader look at our vulnerabilities. A good 
deal of planning and protection of our Nation's crucial infrastructure 
is now under way as a result of those tragic events.
  Only limited attention has been given to security issues associated 
with our Nation's wastewater treatment plants. Sewer pipes form a vast 
underground network that can provide a terrorist with access to many 
public buildings, metropolitan centers, private businesses, residential 
neighborhoods, military installations, transportation systems and urban 
centers.

[[Page 19258]]

  A wastewater treatment system itself could also be a target of an 
attack, with significant public health and environmental impacts.
  H.R. 5169 will help communities address these security concerns by 
authorizing $200 million for grants to wastewater utilities to conduct 
vulnerability assessments and implement security enhancements at their 
facilities, $15 million for technical assistance to small wastewater 
facilities on security measures, $5 million for the further development 
and refinement of vulnerability self-assessment methodologies and tools 
for use by wastewater facilities. These authorizations are designed to 
help wastewater treatment utilities take immediate and necessary steps 
to improve security at their facilities.
  These authorizations do not create a new, ongoing infrastructure 
assistance program or create any new Federal mandates. I urge all 
Members to support this very bipartisan bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in support of the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 5169, the Wastewater 
Treatment Works Security Act of 2002. This is a bipartisan bill that 
would authorize $200 million in grants from the EPA to States and local 
government entities to conduct vulnerability assessments of wastewater 
treatment facilities and to take steps to reduce identified 
vulnerabilities. The legislation is similar to the approach taken for 
vulnerability assessments of drinking water facilities in the 
bioterrorism legislation signed into law earlier this summer.
  Mr. Speaker, in the wake of September 11, we have learned that the 
Nation's wastewater treatment plants are potentially vulnerable to 
terrorist activities. Many plants have treatment redundancies, but, 
often, they have single points of failure. These plants, in addition to 
the possibility of disruption and environmental catastrophe, often use 
hazardous materials in the treatment process, and those things 
certainly also need to be safeguarded.
  In order to alleviate these concerns, under H.R. 5169 the EPA would 
be authorized to provide grants for three purposes: conduct 
vulnerability assessments to publicly-owned treatment works; to 
implement certain pre-approved security enhancements that have been 
identified in a vulnerability assessment; and, three, to implement any 
other security enhancement measures identified in a vulnerability 
assessment.
  This legislation would also authorize $15 million to provide 
technical assistance to small communities, those serving fewer than 
20,000 individuals, and $1 million annually for 5 years development and 
dissemination of computer software, data and vulnerability assessment.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the funding provisions for vulnerability 
assessments and security enhancements contained in this legislation 
have been drafted as an amendment to the Clean Water Act with the 
intent of ensuring that the Davis-Bacon Act would apply to any 
federally funded work that meets the definition of construction. This 
approach has been confirmed through staff conversations with 
representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency, and I certainly 
would urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, we had also hoped to bring up under regular order other 
legislation which would go to the water infrastructure and economic 
security particularly of our Nation, the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2002. The bill itself is in pretty good form in terms of 
projects. Many Members have vital infrastructure projects included in 
that bill.
  The bill did not, because of some controversy and concern on the 
committee, include any amendments to the current authority of the Corps 
of Engineers to conduct these projects and did not go to concerns a 
number of Members have regarding the need for independent peer review 
of projects and better cost benefit analyses.
  That bill was scheduled to come up just prior to this legislation 
under suspension of the rules which would have been opposed on this 
side by the minority, and I am pleased to see that the bill has been 
pulled, but, hopefully, it has only been pulled to be brought up later 
in the week during regular order with amendments allowed from Members 
on this side of the aisle who have expressed concerns regarding, again, 
the peer review and independent analysis of projects.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my fellow Oregonian's 
courtesy in allowing me to speak on this; and I would rise first to 
express my appreciation for the leadership of our subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the chairman, for the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), for work that has been done on our 
subcommittee this session.
  This is important work, Mr. Speaker, dealing with the water resources 
of this country. The bill we have before us today, H.R. 5169, is an 
example of where we have been able to hone in on a problem to be able 
to deal with meaningful solutions, advance them in a bipartisan and 
expeditious fashion. I plan on supporting it today.
  I wanted to add my voice here publicly on the floor to what I have 
said before our full committee and before the subcommittee, where I 
have expressed my appreciation for the way in which the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) have 
been able to bring together the disparate voices dealing with water 
resources. These are areas that are not without controversy. They are 
complex, they are expensive, and they touch the lives and livelihoods 
of virtually every family and every business in America. I think 
because of my colleagues' good work it has been given more of the 
attention that it deserves, not just in the aftermath of some 
horrendous tropical storm where maybe we have dodged a bullet or in the 
course of some sad scandal that appears in a newspaper where the 
process has broken down and it brings disrepute on our system here, and 
my colleagues have focused the attention of the subcommittee on how to 
fix the problem.
  I am here today not just to support the bill and to thank them but to 
hope that the leadership of the full committee and of the House is 
mindful of what they have done, is mindful of the legislation that is 
in, if my colleagues will pardon the expression, the pipeline from the 
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

                              {time}  1115

  The most significant example of that is the Water Resources 
Development Act, which is 90 percent finished; and we were promised in 
subcommittee, at the staff level and at the full committee, an 
opportunity to bring these issues to the floor, to have a fair and 
honest debate and let the chips fall where they may.
  Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely convinced that as a result of the record 
that the chairman and ranking member have compiled before our 
subcommittee, as a result of the hard work that has been done 
throughout the Congress and frankly in the outside world with our 
friends, not just in the environmental community, I have had these 
conversations with General Flowers since soon after his appointment, he 
too wants to change the way that business is done; he wants to make 
sure that we are respectful of the tax dollar and of the environmental 
concerns to bring forward a new era of water resources activities with 
the Corps of Engineers and with the Federal Government. But in order 
for that to happen, we have got to bring these issues to the floor, and 
we need to realign what Congress is doing.
  I reject the notion that problems with water resources lie solely at 
the feet of the Corps of Engineers. There is over a 200-year history of 
that agency performing admirably. There have been problems. Some of the 
problems on the

[[Page 19259]]

floor we are dealing with. Again we did this with our committee last 
session, dealing with the problems in the Everglades. But frankly we 
are putting $8.5 billion in the Everglades as a down payment to change 
some of what we did to it in the first place. We need to have this 
discussion. We need to bring the product of our subcommittee to the 
floor and be able to deal with these issues meaningfully and honestly.
  It is time for Congress to get its act together, because frankly some 
of what people feel in some instances are scandals and problems with 
the Corps of Engineers I think are a result of past practices and the 
traditional cross-currents they face. In no small measure it is 
pressure from individual Members of Congress. We need to have this 
discussion here; we need to help the Corps of Engineers; we need to be 
part of the solution, not continuing to be part of the problem.
  I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by expressing again my appreciation to the 
subcommittee chair and ranking member. I pledge my efforts to continue 
to work with them, with a group of Members of Congress who have 
organized the Corps Reform Caucus, to be able to make sure that this 
Congress does not adjourn without considering the fruits of their hard 
work. It is time to allow that on the floor. I look forward to working 
with them so that we can have other successes like we have here with 
H.R. 5169.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  To conclude this, let me first of all just say that I would like to 
thank the gentleman from Oregon for his kind comments in regard to this 
legislation and the WRDA bill. Most of his concerns relate to the WRDA 
bill, the Water Resources Development Act, which was pulled; and it is 
still my hope that we can reach some type of consensus agreement on 
that bill before this session ends. There are very serious and 
heartfelt concerns that Chairman Young has concerning that bill and we 
will have to see if those can be addressed. But certainly the gentleman 
from Oregon has been one of the most hardworking and dedicated members 
of our subcommittee, and I appreciate that very much.
  Also, I want to thank Chairman Young, ranking member Oberstar, and 
also the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for their work on this 
legislation. This is an example of the bipartisan legislation of which 
our full committee is so proud. We have worked together to produce a 
very good bill, a very necessary bill that will help wastewater 
treatment facilities and municipalities and local governments all over 
this country. I think this is legislation that all of us can support.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5169.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________