H.R. 2868 is expected to be considered under a structured rule making ten amendments in order. The bill was introduced by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) on June 15, 2009. H.R. 2868 was considered by both the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Homeland Security. Republicans on both panels opposed the bill. The legislation was reported by Energy and Commerce by a vote of 29-18 and out of Homeland Security by a vote of 18-11.

The rule for H.R. 2868 additionally allows for bills to be considered under suspension of the rules through November 7, 2009.

 

H.R. 2868 amends the authority of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect against acts of terrorism against chemical facilities, wastewater treatment works, and drinking water systems.  The bill also makes DHS' Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards permanent (see Background section below).

The bill authorizes a total of $900 million over three years for chemical security, including $325 million in Fiscal Year 2011, of which $100 million would be available for methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack, $300 million in Fiscal Year 2012, of which $75 million would be available for methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack, and $275 million in Fiscal Year 2013, of which $50 million would be available for methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack.  

Risk-Based Designation and Ranking of Chemical Facilities:  H.R. 2868 authorizes DHS to designate any chemical substance as a "substance of concern" and establish threshold quantities for each such chemical that is used, stored, manufactured, processed, or distributed by a chemical facility.  Considerations would include the potential for death, serious adverse effects to human health, the environment, critical infrastructure, national security, or the national economy from a terrorist incident.

The bill requires DHS to maintain a list of facilities that have more than a threshold quantity of a "substance of concern" and pose a security risk based on criteria such as the potential threat or likelihood of a terrorist attack at the facility, the potential harm from a terrorist incident, and the proximity of the facility to large population centers.  DHS could require a facility to submit information regarding the facility's substances of concern to determine whether it would be covered under the list. 

H.R. 2868 also requires DHS to assign each covered facility to one of at least four risk-based tiers, with Tier 1 being the highest-risk.  DHS would periodically review the list of substances of concern and the threshold quantities, and could at any time add, remove, or change the tier assignment for each facility.  DHS would be responsible for providing covered facilities with relevant information about probable threats.

Security Vulnerability Assessments & Site Security Plans:  H.R. 2868 requires DHS to establish risk-based, performance-based standards, and procedures for mandatory security vulnerability assessments and site security plans, and to set deadlines by tier for completion.  DHS would approve or disapprove the assessments and security plans within 180 days of receipt.  The bill directs facilities to review and resubmit their security vulnerability assessments and site security plans every five years.  Facilities would have to notify DHS if they change their use or storage of a substance of concern or modify operations.

Site Inspections:   The bill allows DHS a right of entry at reasonable times to chemical facilities to conduct security verifications and inspections.  For Tier 1 and Tier 2 facilities, DHS would also conduct unannounced inspections to evaluate compliance with requirements of the bill.  H.R. 2868 requires DHS to increase its number of chemical facility inspectors by at least 100 in Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012.  During inspections, DHS would be required to offer employees the opportunity to share information about the facility's compliance or non-compliance. 

Records:  The bill allows DHS to require the submission of, or access to, a chemical facility's records in order to review its security vulnerability assessment or site security plan.

Information Sharing:  H.R. 2868 requires DHS to provide information concerning a threat that is relevant to a specific chemical facility in a timely manner.  Likewise, facilities would be required to report any threat, significant security incident, or penetration of the facility's cyber or physical security to DHS.

Enforcement:  For owners or operators of facilities deemed to be in violation of the bill, H.R. 2868 allows the Secretary to issue a fine of $25,000 per day.  The Secretary may also issue an order to cease operations at the facility until compliance is achieved to the satisfaction of DHS.

Whistleblower Protections:  The bill directs DHS to establish a process for any person to report deficiencies or vulnerabilities at a chemical facility.  The identity of the person would be kept confidential and retaliation against whistleblowers would be prohibited.  Any employee who alleges retaliation occurred could seek review in district court.

Lack of Federal Preemption:  The bill allows any State or local government to issue a regulation, requirement, or standard or performance for chemical facility security that is more stringent than the federal statute.

Information Protection:  H.R. 2868 gives DHS authority to promulgate regulations and issue orders to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of protected information.  DHS would provide standards for the appropriate sharing of protected information with federal, State, local, and tribal governments, law enforcement and first responders, and designated chemical facility personnel.  Any person who discloses protected information in knowing violation would be subject to criminal penalties and removal from federal office or employment.  The legislation defines protected information to include vulnerability assessments and site security plans and portions of other security-related documents, and records that would be detrimental to the security of covered chemical facilities if disclosed.  The bill does not prohibit the sharing of information with Members of Congress.

Methods to Reduce Consequences of an Attack:  The bill requires the owner or operator of a covered chemical facility to include in its site security plan an assessment of methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack (more commonly referred to as "Inherently Safer Technologies."  The Director of a new Office of Chemical Facility Security could require a facility to implement methods to reduce consequences of a terrorist attack, if the director determines that certain conditions are met.  An owner or operator of a facility could provide a written appeal to DHS, within 120 days, explaining why it cannot comply with the determination.

Background Checks:  The bill requires DHS to issue regulations requiring chemical facilities to establish personnel background checks for individuals with access to restricted areas of the facility's critical assets.  The regulations would describe the appropriate scope and applications for security background checks.  If, as the result of a background check, a chemical facility finds that an individual is not legally authorized to work in the U.S., or meets certain criminal history disqualifiers, the owner or operator shall cease to employ the individual, subject to redress processes available to the individual.

Citizen "Enforcement" and Petitions:  The bill allows any person to bring a civil action in district court against any governmental entity allegedly in violation of the Act or against the Secretary for an alleged failure to perform any act or duty under the bill.

The bill also requires DHS to establish a petition process to receive, investigate, and respond to allegations of violations at covered facilities.  DHS would establish the parameters of the petition process and the procedures for the Inspector General's review of DHS' response to a petition.  DHS would be required to accept all petitions, investigate all allegations, determine whether an enforcement action is required, and respond to all accepted petitions in writing.

Drinking Water Security:  H.R. 2868 authorizes the EPA to regulate the security of community water systems serving more than 3,300 people, as well as other public water systems that EPA determines present a security risk.  The bill authorizes $315 million in Fiscal Year 2011 for grants to States and nonprofits to help develop security plans for covered public water systems.  $30 million of this total could be used for administrative costs incurred by the EPA or States, and $125 million could be used to implement methods to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from an intentional act at water systems.  The measure authorizes such sums that may be necessary in Fiscal Years 2012 through 2015.

The bill requires water systems to conduct a vulnerability assessment, develop and implement a site security plan, and develop an emergency response plan.  EPA would establish deadlines for these plans and for providing training to employees of water systems, and requires the EPA to consult with States exercising primary enforcement responsibility for public water systems and with DHS.  H.R. 2868 requires EPA to assign each water system to one of four risk-based tiers, with Tier 1 being highest-risk.  It requires the EPA to develop regulations to establish risk-based, performance-based standards and procedures for mandatory security vulnerability assessments and site security plans.  The bill allows each water system to select layered security measures that address the security risks identified in the vulnerability assessment and meet the risk-based performance standards.  

Under this bill, EPA would provide guidance, computer software, and other tools to water systems in Tier 3 and Tier 4 to streamline the process for other systems.  For a water system that is assigned to Tiers 1 and 2 that possesses a substance of concern, the State exercising primary enforcement for the system would be required to make determinations on methods to reduce consequences of a chemical release.  In States without primacy, the EPA would make such a determination.

The State with primacy could require a water system to implement methods to reduce consequences of a chemical release if it determines that certain conditions are met.  Such conditions include whether consequence-reduction methods would significantly reduce the consequences of a release of a substance, not increase the interim storage of a substance of concern by the water system, not put the water system out of compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, and remain feasible for the water system.

A water system that violates any requirement of this section would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $25,000 for each day after the violation occurs.

H.R. 2868 allows EPA to make grants to States, non-profit organizations, and water systems to assist them in implementing this section.  The bill also creates a new worker training grants program for training and education of employees with roles or responsibilities under the bill. 

Wastewater Treatment Works Security:  The bill establishes EPA as the lead agency for wastewater security.  It authorizes $1 billion over five years for EPA to make grants to States, municipalities, and other entities to conduct vulnerability assessments, providing security-related training to treatment works employees and emergency response providers, and install security improvements at publicly-owned wastewater treatment facilities.

The bill also requires treatment works with a capacity of at least 2.5 million gallons per day, or any facility deemed by the EPA to present a security risk, to conduct a vulnerability assessment, develop and implement a site security plan, and develop an emergency response plan for the treatment works.  H.R. 2868 requires EPA to assign each covered treatment works to one of at least four risk-based tiers, with Tier 1 being highest-risk.  It requires the EPA to develop regulations to establish risk-based, performance-based standards and procedures for mandatory security vulnerability assessments and site security plans.

The bill directs EPA to require the owner or operator of a covered treatment works that possesses a substance of concern to include in its site security plan an assessment of methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack, including the elimination or reduction of such substances.  The assessment would include the potential impact of the method on the responsibilities of the treatment works under the Clean Water Act.  It would also provide for the mandatory implementation of a method to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack for a treatment works that is assigned to the highest two risk-based tiers and possesses a substance of concern.

The bill requires the owner or operator of a treatment works to develop an emergency response plan that incorporates the results of the current vulnerability assessment and site security plan, and certify to the EPA when the plan has been completed.  

 

BACKGROUND

Chemical facilities affected by this legislation generate about $550 billion in revenues per year in the U.S.  Over half of these facilities employ less than 50 employees, and as very small businesses are vulnerable to burdensome regulations in the current economic climate.  National unemployment stands at 9.8 percent, while the rate for the manufacturing sector is 11.9 percent.  According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, chemical manufacturing employment is projected to decline further, with employment in the sector dropping by 16 percent.  According to experts, "Inherently Safer" Technologies (IST) mandated by this bill could cost anywhere from thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on the complexity of the facility.

Chemical facilities are often located in populated areas and hold chemicals that can cause harm to people and the environment if used maliciously, so these sites may be considered terrorist targets.  To address this issue, in 2006, Congress authorized DHS to establish risk-based security performance standards for chemical facilities that use or store chemicals that make attractive terrorist targets.  The Department issued final regulations in 2007 that resulted in the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards, for which legislative authority sunsets on October 4, 2009.  However, the authority to regulate chemical security was extended for one year through the Fiscal Year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, which was signed into law on October 28, 2009. 

The finalized Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards exempted drinking water and wastewater facilities from the program.  DHS and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claim this is a critical security gap.  Though not included in the legislation as reported by the committees, language dealing with water facilities is incorporated in the bill by the rule. 

Members may have several concerns with this bill, including those described below.  H.R. 2868 is opposed by several groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Trucking Associations, Chemical Producers and Distributors Association, and the National Association of Manufacturers.

"Inherently Safer" Technologies (IST):  The bill attempts to impose an unproven, "one size fits all" engineering philosophy known as IST on chemical facilities, drinking water systems and wastewater treatment facilities, all of which represent disparate and complicated sectors.  IST is a chemical engineering philosophy that suggests through changes in manufacturing or storage processes, modifying chemical ingredients, or through purchasing or other business practices, facilities with chemicals can reduce the number, amount, or form of dangerous chemicals used.  One example of IST is replacing chlorine gas with sodium hypochlorite to disinfect drinking water.

Under this bill, the federal government would impose mandates to adopt unproven technologies and chemical substitutions, but according to their own testimony, they lack the technical and personnel expertise to evaluate whether these alternatives are effective, productive, and safe across these sectors.  Members may be especially concerned about the costs of such technologies to farms, small businesses, drinking water systems, and wastewater treatment facilities.

Expansion of Civil Litigation:  The bill would allow citizen suits to be filed against federal facilities, drinking water systems, and wastewater treatment facilities for violations, and against DHS or EPA for failure to enforce the Act.  Some Members may believe that citizen suits are not appropriate in a national security context.  This bill would represent the first time Congress would be authorizing citizen suits in the national or homeland security arena.  The Department of Homeland Security has testified that these suits could result in the release of very sensitive security information through the legal discovery process that would be helpful to terrorists.  Non-U.S. citizens and environmental organizations would be able to file such suits.

Inadequate Sensitive Information Protection:  The bill rolls back information protection language standards that Congress has employed since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.  H.R. 2868 also eliminates penalties for people who recklessly, carelessly, or negligently disclose sensitive security information to the public.

Lack of Federal Preemption: Some Members may be concerned that the bill would allow States and localities to enact laws that hinder, pose obstacles to, or frustrate the purpose of the federal effort, undermining the purpose of having federal security programs for chemical, drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities.  Other forms of national security laws, including nuclear, hazmat transportation, aviation, and port security make the federal government the dominant regulator without State and local interference.

COST

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that H.R. 2868 would cost at least $1.1 billion over five years, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, according to its most recent estimate.  The bill would also extend private-sector mandates and impose new mandates on employers and on owners and operators of certain public and private facilities.

 

AMENDMENTS

1)    Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS):  Makes technical corrections and fixes typos and verbiage issues in the underlying legislation.

2)    Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX):  Places provisions in the bill allowing the new federal chemical facility regulations enacted by the bill to preempt State and local laws that hinder, pose obstacles to, or frustrate the purpose of the federal program.

3)    Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL):  Establishes a point of contact within the Office of Chemical Facility Security responsible for interagency coordination.  Requires the Secretary to liaise with State Emergency Response Commissions and Local Emergency Planning Committees to update emergency planning and training procedures.

4)    Reps. Dent (R-PA) and Olson (R-TX):  Strikes Title I, affecting chemical facilities, and replaces it with an extension through October 1, 2012, of DHS' current regulatory authority under section 550(b) of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007.

5)    Rep. Dent (R-PA):  Strikes a section from the bill (Sec. 2111) which requires assessments and implementation of methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack.

6)    Rep. Flake (R-AZ):  Prevents earmarking in the worker training grant program established in the bill, and would clarifies that Congress presumes that grants awarded through that program will be awarded on a competitive basis, and if they are not, requires the Secretary to submit a report to Congress as to why not.

7)    Reps. Schrader (D-OR) and Kissell (D-NC):  Requires DHS to conduct a study on the scope and potential impacts of the provisions that require the use of safer processes or chemicals on manufacturers or retailers of pesticide or fertilizer.

8)    Rep. McCaul (R-TX):  Strikes the citizen enforcement section of the bill (Sec. 2116).

9)    Rep. Halvorsen (D-IL):  Permits the Secretary to provide guidance, tools, methodologies, or software to assist small covered chemical facilities in complying with the security requirements.

10)  Reps. Foster (D-IL) and Lujan (D-NM):  Directs the Secretary to establish appropriate protocols and security procedures for covered chemical facilities that are also universities and academic labs, separate from commercial chemical facilities.

 

The Senate Amendment to H.R. 3548 is being considered on the floor under a suspension of the rules, requiring a two-thirds majority vote for passage on Thursday, November 5, 2009.  The bill was introduced by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) on September 10, 2009.  The bill was passed in the House on a suspension of the rules by a vote of 331-83 on September 22, 2009.  On November 4, 2009, an amended version of the bill was passed in the Senate by a vote of 98-0.

 

H.R. 3548 extends Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits for an additional 14 weeks for all States and provides an additional six week extension for States with total unemployment rates above 8.5 percent, giving those States a total of 20 additional weeks.  The bill would also extend an existing 0.2 percent Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) surtax through the first six months of calendar year 2011 to fund the UI extension.  H.R. 3548 would also extend and modify the first-time homebuyer tax credit at a cost of $10.8 billion over ten years and increase the carryback period of net operating losses (NOL) for all businesses at a cost of $10.4 billion, paid for mainly by a $20.1 billion delay in implementation of worldwide interest allocation.  A full summary of the legislation can be found below:

 

Unemployment Extension:  The bill provides an additional 14 weeks of UI benefits for all States and an additional 6 weeks of UI for states over 8.5 percent unemployment. This means that in high unemployment states, individuals could receive up to roughly 86 weeks of federal unemployment benefits.  A summary of the details of the extension follows below: 

•  Amends the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ("stimulus") to clarify that the additional $25 per week in UI benefits should not affect eligibility for the purposes of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) benefits.

•  Amends the "stimulus" to add domestic violence and sexual assault to the list of compelling family reasons which cause an individual to believe continued employment would jeopardize their safety.

•  Extends the 0.2 percent federal unemployment surtax for 18 additional months.  The surtax currently expires at the end of December, 2009.

•  Extends the eligibility window to qualify for extended benefits under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act for up to one additional year, to December 31, 2010. 

•  Provides $175 million for the extended benefits and $807,000 for administrative costs for the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act.  

 

Homebuyer Tax Credit:   H.R. 3548 extends the $8,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers for five months, from November 30, 2009 to May 1, 2010.  In addition, the bill provides a $6,500 tax credit for homebuyers that are not first time buyers, but have owned a primary residence at least five consecutive years in the last eight years.  According to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JTC), the provision will reduce revenus by $10.8 billion over ten years.

The bill would cap the eligibility for the credit on homes that cost $800,000 or more and raises the current income limit from $75,000, or $150,000 in the case of a joint return, to $125,000 or $225,000.  H.R. 3548 waives provisions to recapture the credit for military, intelligence, and Foreign Service personnel who are on qualified official duty and extends the tax credit for an additional year for those on qualified extended duty overseas for 90 days or more since 2008.

 

Five-Year Carryback of Net Operating Losses:  H.R. 3548 extends the net operating loss (NOL) carryback period from two years to five years for 2008 or 2009 for all firms.  A NOL is defined as the amount by which a company or taxpayer's business deductions are greater than its gross income in a given year.   Under the legislation, NOLs that are carried back by businesses  to the fifth taxable year would be limited to 50 percent of the taxpayer's taxable income and TARP recipients would excluded from the provision.  According to JCT, the provision would reduce revenues by $10.4 billion over ten years.   The "stimulus" provided a five year NOL carry back provision for businesses with receipts less than $15 million.  H.R. 3548 would provide the same carry back for all firms.

 

Delay of Worldwide Interest Allocation:  The bill delays the application of worldwide interest allocation provisions, first enacted into law but never implemented in 2004, through 2018.  The change, if not delayed, would allow certain U.S.-based multinational firms with interest expenses to change the way such expenses were apportioned between domestic and foreign source income for purposes of computing their foreign tax credit to more accurately reflect how firms account for interest expenses.  Delaying the change would require theses firms to continue to pay higher U.S. taxes.  Some Members may be concerned that, in addition to increasing taxes on businesses during a recession, further extension of these provisions would create undue uncertainty for many firms in an uncertain enough economic climate.  This implementation date was already delayed by two years in 2008.  According to the JCT, this provision, which is being used as an offset, would raise revenues by $20.1 billion over ten years.

 

Exclusion of Income for Base Realignment and Closure:  Expands the amount that military personnel who lose home value because of a military base closure are allowed to exclude from gross income for tax purposes at a cost of $243 million over ten years.

 

Failure to File Partnership Return:  Increases the penalty for failure to file a partnership or S corporation return by $106, from $89 to $195.  According to the JCT, this provision increases revenues by $642 million over ten years.

 

Electronic Filing Requirement:  Requires tax return preparers who file ten or more returns for others in a year to electronically file clients' tax returns.  According to the JCT, this provision has a "negligible revenue effect."

 

Corporate Estimated Payments:  Raises the estimated quarterly tax payments for certain corporations by 33 percentage points, from 0.25 percent to 33.25 percent, in 2014 and reduces the tax by the same amount in 2015.   This would impose a prepayment burden on certain corporations by requiring payments to be made in 2014 and relieved in 2015.  This provision, which raises $18.3 billion in the first five years and costs the same in the second five years, is included to satisfy Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) requirements.  According to the JCT, the provision is revenue neutral over ten years.  However, since the bill is being considered under a suspension of the rules, PAYGO compliance is not required. 

 

COST

The legislation offsets the $2.4 billion cost of UI benefits by extending FUTA taxes in 2010 and 2011. According to CBO, the bill would result in a net deficit reduction of $158 million over ten years.

According to the JCT, the net effect of the tax raises and decreases contained in the bill would result in a total cost of $121 million over ten years.

 

 

H.R. 1849 is expected to be considered under suspension of the rules, requiring a two-thirds majority for passage. The legislation was introduced by Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) on April 1, 2009. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform marked up the bill and ordered the bill to be reported by unanimous consent on September 28, 2009.

H.R. 1849 designate the Liberty Memorial at the National World War I Museum in Kansas City, Missouri, as the National World War I Memorial. The bill also establishes the World War I Centennial Commission to: (1) plan, develop, and execute programs, projects, and activities to commemorate the centennial of World War I; (2) encourage private organizations and state and local governments to organize and participate in such activities; (3) facilitate and coordinate such activities throughout the United States; and (4) serve as a clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of information about centennial events and plans.

The bill determines that the purpose of the Commission is to ensure a suitable observance of the centennial of World War I that promotes the values of honor, courage, patriotism, and sacrifice, in keeping with the representation of these values through the four Guardian Spirits sculpted on the Liberty Memorial Monument at America's National World War I Museum.

COST

A CBO score for H.R. 1849 is not yet available.

S. 748 is expected to be considered on the floor of the House on Thursday, November 5, 2009, under a motion to suspend the rules, requiring a two-thirds vote for passage. The legislation was introduced by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) March 31, 2009.

S. 748 would redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2777 Logan Avenue in San Diego, California, as the "Cesar E. Chavez Post Office".

BACKGROUND

Cesar Estrada Chavez founded and led the first successful farm workers' union in U.S. history. When he passed away on 23 April 1993, he was president of the United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO.

COST

According to CBO, any costs related to new post office designations, which include the cost of changing the name on the building, signs, and maps, are not significant.

H.R. 3788 is expected to be considered on the floor of the House on Thursday, November 5, 2009, under a motion to suspend the rules, requiring a two-thirds vote for passage. The legislation was introduced by Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-OH) October 13, 2009.

H.R. 3788 would designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3900 Darrow Road in Stow, Ohio, as the "Corporal Joseph A. Tomci Post Office Building."

BACKGROUND

Corporal Joseph A. Tomci died while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. He died on August 2, 2006.

COST

According to CBO, any costs related to new post office designations, which include the cost of changing the name on the building, signs, and maps, are not significant.

S. 1211 is expected to be considered on the floor of the House on Thursday, November 5, 2009, under a motion to suspend the rules, requiring a two-thirds vote for passage. The legislation was introduced by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) June 9, 2009.

 

S. 1211 would designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 60 School Street, Orchard Park, New York, as the "Jack F. Kemp Post Office Building."

BACKGROUND

Jack Kemp was an American politician and professional football player. He served as Housing Secretary in the administration of President George H. W. Bush from 1989-93, having previously served nine terms as a Congressman for Western New York from 1971-89. He was the Republican Party's nominee for Vice President in the 1996 election, where he was the running-mate of presidential nominee Bob Dole. Kemp had previously contended for the presidential nomination in the 1988 Republican primaries. He died on May 2, 2009.

COST

According to CBO, any costs related to new post office designations, which include the cost of changing the name on the building, signs, and maps, are not significant.

H.R. 3276 is expected to be considered under suspension of the rules, requiring a two-thirds majority vote for passage. The legislation was introduced by Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) on July 21, 2009. H.R. 3276 was approved by the Committee on Energy and Commerce by voice vote on October 21, 2009.

H.R. 3276 would authorize funding to support projects to produce molybdenum-99, a radioactive isotope used in certain medical procedures.

Specifically, the bill authorizes $163 million in Fiscal Years 2011 through 2014 for the Department of Energy to establish a program to evaluate and support projects for production in the U.S., without the use of highly enriched uranium, of significant quantities of molybdenum-99 for medical uses. The legislation also directs the Department to make low enriched uranium (LEU) available through lease contracts to producers of molybdenum-99. The contracts would allow the Department to retain financial responsibility for radioactive waste generated by the irradiation, processing, or purification of LEU.

 

BACKGROUND

Molybdenum-99 is an isotope whose decay product is used in approximately two-thirds of all diagnostic medical isotope procedures in the U.S., or about 16 million medical procedures annually. It is used for the detection of cancer, heart disease, and thyroid disease, investigating the operation of the brain and kidney, imaging stress fractures, and tracking cancer stages. The isotope cannot be easily stockpiled, so its production must be scheduled to meet the projected demand and any interruption of the supply chain from production, to processing, packaging, distribution, and use can disrupt patient care.

There are no facilities in the U.S. that are dedicated to the production of the isotopes for medical uses, so all supplies are imported from foreign facilities. Most reactors which produce molybdenum-99 utilize highly enriched uranium (HEU), which can also be used in the construction of nuclear weapons. This January, the National Academy of Sciences encouraged producers to convert from HEU to low enriched uranium (LEU), and found that there are "no technical reasons that adequate quantities cannot be produced from LEU targets in the future." The National Research Universal reactor in Canada, which is responsible for producing over half of U.S. demand for the isotope, was shut down unexpectedly earlier this year. As a result there is a shortage of molybdenum-99, and medical procedures requiring the isotope are being delayed.

 

COST

Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that implementing the bill would cost $130 million over five years.