The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Agriculture was published in the Senate section on pages S4340-S4341 on May 10, 2006.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Chafee, and Ms. Murkowski):
S. 2781. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to enhance the security of wastewater treatment works; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2006. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Chafee, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildife and Water and Senator Murkowski, an important and influential member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, EPW. The bill being proposed is similar to legislation, S. 1039, that passed the Committee on Environment and Public Works last Congress on a strong bipartisan vote and a bill that passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 413 to 2. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues in the minority objected to bringing that important, bipartisan legislation to the floor. At an impasse with the close of the 108th Congress, I asked the Government Accountability Office to survey the wastewater community in order to determine what steps publicly owned treatment works, POTWs, had taken to assess their security and if need be, what steps they had taken to enhance security at their facilities.
In March 2006 we received GAO's report and the results confirm that the approach advocated by the House of Representatives and by the EPW Committee is the right approach. The Federal Government must work cooperatively with our counterparts at the state and local level to ensure our nation's infrastructure is secure. GAO found that without a federal requirement to do so, the overwhelming majority of the largest POTWs have conducted or are in the process of conducting vulnerability assessments. They did not need a heavy handed federal mandate to do the right thing. Of those who have not and do not plan to do a vulnerability assessment, a majority believed they had taken sufficient other security measures or believed that by updating their Emergency Response Plan the utility had a good understanding of its vulnerabilities.
While this is tremendous progress, it is important that all systems know what their vulnerabilities are and take steps to mitigate them. The legislation my colleagues Senator Chafee and Senator Murkowski and I introduce today builds upon the good work already taking place by working in collaboration with the publicly owned treatment works. For the few systems remaining who have not done an assessment, our bill provides them an incentive to do so by authorizing funding. Further, once these systems have completed their assessments and certified to EPA that they have done so, they can join their colleagues in seeking grants to address some of the security problems identified in the assessments.
During Hurricane Katrina, we saw how important emergency response plans are and how valuable mutual aid agreements can be. Our bill allows funding for the development, expansion or upgrading of an emergency response plan as well as for the voluntary creation of a mutual aid agreement or participation in such an agreement.
The GAO also found that the majority facilities had actually made significant security improvements prior to the tragedy of September 11. Of the 206 who responded, 149 had vehicle gates; 174 had security fences; 160 had redundant power sources; 133 had redundant pumping devices or collection bypass systems. Following September 11, 138 facilities now have safeguards for on-site delivery of materials and 112 have additional site lighting. It is important for all of my colleagues to note how much progress these entities have taken to secure their facilities and protect their communities.
The use of chlorine has been a topic of discussion for years. Chlorine is by far the most effective disinfectant available and it is the least expensive. During these times of aging systems, growing Federal regulations and limited resources, cost is an important consideration. In its January 2005 report on security at wastewater utilities, the GAO estimated it would cost a utility $12.5 million to switch from chlorine to sodium hypochlorite. There are other considerations that must be considered as well, such as downstream effects of a chlorine alternative. For example, the switch from chlorine to chloramines in Washington, DC's drinking water system was found to cause lead to leach out of service pipes and into the faucets of homes and businesses. Thus, decisions about chlorine must be fully evaluated and must be site specific. Many POTWs are already undergoing these evaluations. After careful review of cost, technical feasibility and safety considerations, and without the presence of a Federal mandate on technology, 116 of the 206 largest POTWs do not use gaseous chlorine. According to the GAO report, another 20 plan to switch to a technology other than chlorine. To sum, nearly two-thirds of the nation's largest POTWs are not using chlorine. Those who continue to use chlorine have taken steps to ensure the chlorine is secure.
While the GAO report found significant steps were being taken at the nation's largest wastewater utilities, the Office also found an area very much in need of assistance. Each POTW has a collection system that consists of the pipes to carry wastewater from homes and businesses to the treatment works. These pipes are often large enough for an individual to stand in and they provide an underground roadway beneath most major cities. In its January 2005 report, 42 of the 50 experts on GAO's panel identified the collection system as the most vulnerable asset of a POTW. However, in discussions with engineers and utility managers, there remain many questions and obstacles on how to effectively secure a collection system. Therefore, our bill authorizes a research program to identify how a collection system could be used in a terrorist attack, how to identify potential chemicals or explosives that could be placed in a collection system and how best to mitigate against these risks. Finally, our legislation asks EPA to examine the various drinking water technologies to determine how affordable and effective each is.
As GAO found, POTWs are taking the critical steps necessary to secure their facilities and develop appropriate response mechanisms in the event of an attack or natural disaster. We at the Federal level must continue to work with them, not against them by imposing one-size-fits-
all, heavyhanded unfunded Federal regulations. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation and that we can finally enact wastewater security legislation.
______
By Mr. TALENT (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Bond, and Mr. Lugar):
S. 2782. A bill to establish the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, to provide funding for the support of fundamental agricultural research of the highest quality, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, Senator Talent and I, along with a group of our colleagues, are introducing the National Institute of Food and Agriculture Act of 2006. In the 2002 farm bill, a research, education and economics task force within the Department of Agriculture, USDA, was established to evaluate agricultural research. A key recommendation of this task force was to create a National Institute for Food and Agriculture, NIFA, within USDA in order to support fundamental agricultural research to ensure that American agriculture remains competitive now and in the future. This bill does exactly that. The NIFA would be a grant-making agency that funds food and agricultural research through a competitive, peer-reviewed process. These funds would be in addition to, not as a substitute for, current research programs at USDA's Agricultural Research Service, ARS, and Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, CSREES.
American agriculture must ensure that our Nation continues to produce safe and nutritious food for an increasing population. Other challenges in the areas of food and agriculture are problems we are facing right now: renewable energy, rural development, overweight and obesity, and environmental challenges. Investment in fundamental research remains our best hope to finding solutions to problems confronting American farmers and consumers of food and agriculture products now and in the future. Our Nation's investment in research has produced remarkable tangible results in the medical field, but food and agricultural research lags far behind. USDA's task force noted that the amount of funding designated for competitively awarded, peer-reviewed agricultural research grants is outpaced 100 to 1 by the National Institutes of Health. Our entire Nation is reaping the benefits of past agricultural research, but more can be done, and research will become much more important in the future as we face increased globalization and competition from foreign markets. Increasing our investment in food and agriculture research is a necessity for the future of America's food and agriculture industry and consumers alike. And that is why I support the National Institute of Food and Agriculture Act of 2006. I encourage my colleagues to do so too.
____________________
