For our mark-up this morning, we have one bill that is bipartisan and two that I feel need major work.
I applaud Chairman Markey for working with me on the American Medical Isotopes Production Act. The changes being offered today reflect a bi-partisan compromise that improves this legislation. HR 3276, addresses a looming crisis in nuclear medicine by ensuring a robust and reliable supply of the most critical medical isotopes are produced in the United States.
Every year, 16 million medical procedures in the United States rely on the import of the isotope Moly-99. That’s 50,000 per day. We import 100% of our supply of this critical isotope. The Canadian reactor that, for decades, has been the source of over 60% of our Moly-99 is now off-line – and may never get back online. Without a proper supply of this critical isotope, tens of thousands of patients a day will be affected. And they will be affected in a major way. Among other uses, these isotopes are used in procedures for the detection and staging of cancer and the detection of heart disease.
But the important medical issues here at home are only half the story. This weekend, another story in the Washington Post, (“Iran Seeks Deal for Reactor”) points out how the production of medical isotopes is playing out in nuclear talks with Iran. Iran is seeking more fuel to produce medical isotopes to treat 10,000 patients a week in their country. If H.R. 3276 is successful in getting the technology on-line to create medical isotopes from low enriched uranium, instead of the more dangerous highly enriched uranium used today, Iran’s need to import more nuclear material will be diminished.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you as we move this important bill out of Committee and onto the House Floor.
Unfortunately, the next two bills -- H.R. 3258, the Drinking Water System Security Act of 2009; and H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009 – we are considering today are not without controversy. Like every member on this committee and in this Congress, homeland security is a concern and a priority. I am aware that the manager’s amendment makes some changes to these bills, but I still have a number of concerns.
There have been disagreements over how chemical facilities should be regulated to address security issues, but Congress was able to enact provisions to authorize the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to regulate security at designated chemical facilities. Rather than enact new legislation, we should give DHS the opportunity to fully enact the laws we have already passed. It is too soon for Congress to start over with new regulations. I support at three-year extension of the existing law to give DHS time to finalize implementation of the security regulations and allow Congress to determine what works and what doesn’t. I prefer this to what we’re looking at today.
We must legislate from a body of experience and accumulated evidence, not ideological notions of what sounds like a good idea, especially when it means stranding billions of dollars in investments at a time when we have a frozen domestic financing market and struggling economy.
While I have serous concerns about the jobs impact from this legislation, the problems extend beyond the economic realm. The citizen-lawsuit provisions in the Chemical Plant Security Bill – while toned down from the original text – are still inappropriate for national security legislation. Allowing these types of lawsuits could harm security at these facilities, not make it stronger. The citizen suit provisions in these bills are an example of why we should not be rushing, especially considering that terrorists hire lawyers and could use them. Citizen suits are not used in a national defense context and should not be used here. People should not be able to compel the release of roadmaps to destruction by simply using the legal discovery process.
In closing, my concerns remain that H.R. 2868 would increase costs and send jobs abroad without bolstering national security. Chemical manufacturers have already invested millions of dollars in chemical security upgrades to ensure that the communities where they operate are safe, secure and efficient. The requirements in this bill will not improve chemical security; it will only shift the security risk to other sectors such as transportation or manufacturing, while hindering the economic profitability in the process.
Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost over the past year resulting in plant closures and other facilities operating on the margins. We’ve lost one in five manufacturing jobs in just the last 18 months. Michigan’s unemployment is still hovering at 15 percent. The chemical industry has been hit hard by the economic recession and now is not the time to jeopardize more jobs, while weakening our own national security.
This is not the right prescription for making our country stronger. We need a bill that secures our economy, not just re-engineers and exports it.
I yield back.
