Statement of Congressman John D. Dingell, Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HEARING ON "CONTROLLING BIOTERROR: ASSESSING OUR
NATION’S DRINKING WATER SECURITY"

September 30, 2004

Mr. Chairman, I welcome this oversight hearing to determine the effectiveness of the Administration’s implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments that were enacted as part of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002.

These provisions required drinking water utilities to assess the vulnerabilities of their distribution systems and water supplies to the potential threat of terrorist attacks. Water utilities were required to submit these assessments to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) so the government could ensure that they were properly conducted and that the drinking water utilities were taking the necessary actions to safeguard the public and protect drinking water supplies from potential terrorist threats.

While I look forward to Mr. Grumbles’s testimony today, I am very disappointed that the Department of Homeland Security chose to ignore the Subcommittee’s request to provide a witness. The hearing will also lack testimony from the EPA Inspector General’s Office. This omission is particularly disappointing because the EPA Inspector General has issued four separate evaluation reports on EPA’s performance and the assessments conducted by the water utilities.

The Inspector General’s findings are extremely disturbing, and are worthy of this Subcommittee’s careful review. For example, on September 23, 2003, the EPA Inspector General reported:

"The Bioterrorism Act requires community water systems to prepare for and assess vulnerability to terrorist and other intentional acts. However, based on our interviews, we believe that vulnerability assessments submitted may emphasize traditional, less consequential, and less costly threats, such as vandalism or disgruntled employees. Therefore, vulnerability assessments may not necessarily address terrorist scenarios or the events of 9/11 that motivated passage of the Bioterrorism Act."

The Inspector General evaluation report dated September 11, 2003, stated:

"EPA’s Strategic Plan lacks fundamental components, such as measurable performance results and information and analysis, to ensure the greatest practicable reductions in risks to the critical water sector infrastructure."

If the vulnerability assessments are not addressing terrorist scenarios, and if EPA cannot demonstrate the risk reduction and security enhancements that have been achieved by water utilities, then the public interest is not being served.

I also note that while Congress has provided the Administration with the tools to assure and enhance security for water utilities, airlines, ports, and nuclear facilities, nothing has been done for chemical plants -- one of our most vulnerable infrastructures that in the event of a terrorist attack could result in catastrophic loss of life. I urge the Committee to give this matter its full attention.

- 30 -

(Contact: Jodi Seth, 202-225-3641)