Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

107th Congress                                            Rept. 107-231
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     Part 2

======================================================================



 
AMENDING THE ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996 WITH 
  RESPECT TO THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 
  SERVICES REGARDING BIOLOGICAL AGENTS AND TOXINS, AND AMENDING TITLE 18, 
  UNITED STATES CODE, WITH RESPECT TO SUCH AGENTS AND TOXINS, TO CLARIFY 
  THE APPLICATION OF CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM PRIVACY REQUIREMENTS TO NEW 
  CABLE SERVICES, TO STRENGTHEN SECURITY AT CERTAIN NUCLEAR FACILITIES, 
  AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

                November 6, 2001.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Tauzin, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, submitted the 
                               following

                          SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT

                        [To accompany H.R. 3016]

    This supplemental report shows the cost estimate of the 
Congressional Budget Office with respect to the bill (H.R. 
3016), as reported, which was not included in part 1 of the 
report submitted by the Committee on Energy and Commerce on 
October 9, 2001 (H. Rept. 107-231 pt. 1).
    This supplemental report is submitted in accordance with 
clause 3(a)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................     1
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................     1
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................     6
Exchange of Committee Correspondence.............................     7

                        committee cost estimate

    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                  congressional budget office estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, October 17, 2001.
Hon. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3016, a bill to 
amend the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 
with respect to the responsibilities of the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services regarding biological agents and toxins, and 
to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to such 
agents and toxins, to clarify the application of cable 
television system privacy requirements to new cable services, 
to strengthen security at certain nuclear facilities, and for 
other purposes.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Lisa Cash 
Driskill (for federal costs), Leo Lex (for the state and local 
impact), and Lauren Marks (for the private sector impact).
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 3016--A bill to amend the Antiterrorism and Effective Death 
        Penalty Act of 1996 with respect to the responsibilities of the 
        Secretary of Health and Human Services regarding biological 
        agents and toxins, and to amend title 18, United States Code, 
        with respect to such agents and toxins, to clarify the 
        application of cable television system privacy requirements to 
        new cable services, to strengthen security at certain nuclear 
        facilities, and for other purposes

    Summary: CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3016 would 
cost $2 million in 2002 and $64 million over the 2002-2006 
period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, for 
administering enhanced guidelines and procedures for the use of 
certain biological or toxic agents. The bill also would allow 
cable operators to provide law enforcement officials with 
information regarding subscribers' services without notifying 
customers, and it would strengthen security requirements at 
nuclear facilities. CBO estimates that enacting these two 
provisions would result in no net cost to the federal 
government. The bill could affect governmental receipts by 
increasing certain civil and criminal penalties; therefore, 
pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. However, CBO estimates 
that any resulting increase in receipts would be less than 
$500,000 annually. Any increase in criminal penalties would 
cause an increase in direct spending from the Crime Victims 
Fund, but CBO estimates that such spending also would be less 
than $500,000 annually.
    H.R. 3016 contains intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), but CBO estimates that 
the costs of those mandates would not exceed the threshold 
established in UMRA ($56 million in 2001, adjusted annually for 
inflation).
    H.R. 3016 also would impose private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA by requiring laboratories possessing designated 
biological agents to register with the Centers for Disease 
Control (CDC), prohibiting certain individuals from handling 
specific biological agents, and requiring security upgrades at 
nuclear facilities. CBO estimates that the cost of registering 
with the CDC would be small, and further that the cost to 
comply with new restrictions on handling biological agents 
would be minimal. The new requirements on nuclear facilities 
would depend on specific standards that would be established by 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Costs to nuclear 
facilities could be substantial but the NRC could not provide 
any information about the requirements that might be included 
in the new regulations. Thus, CBO cannot estimate the cost of 
compliance and cannot determine whether the aggregate direct 
cost of mandates in the bill would exceed the annual threshold 
for the private sector established in UMRA ($113 million in 
2001, adjusted annually for inflation).
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 3016 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 550 
(health) and 270 (energy).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2002      2003      2004      2005      2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION \1\

CDC spending: \2\
    Estimated authorization level.............................         7        15        15        16        16
    Estimated outlays.........................................         2        14        16        16        16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ H.R. 3016 also would affect revenues and direct spending, but CBO estimates that the amounts of such effects
  would be less than $500,000 a year.
\2\ A full year appropriation for the CDC has not yet been enacted for fiscal year 2002. In 2001 the agency
  received an appropriation of nearly $9 billion. H.R. 3016 would also increase costs for the NRC by $10 million
  over the 2002-2003 period, subject to appropriation of the necessary funds. The net budgetary effect of an
  increase in NRC costs would be negligible, however, because the agency is required to offset its costs through
  annual fees collected from the nuclear industry.

Basis of estimate

    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3016 would cost $64 
million over the 2002-2006 period, assuming appropriation of 
the necessary amounts. The bill would have an insignificant 
impact on revenues and direct spending.
            Spending subject to appropriation
    Bioterrorism Prevention.--Section 101 of the bill would 
expand the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Department 
of Health and Human Services (HHS) with regard to the 
regulation of certain biological agents and toxins. Under 
current law, HHS requires facilities that transfer or obtain 
certain biological agents to register with the government, 
disclose the type of agent being transferred or obtained, and 
state its intended use. HHS administers that registry through 
the CDC's Select Agent Transfer Program. The bill would require 
HHS to establish and enforce standards and procedures governing 
the possession and use of a broader set of biological agents 
and toxins. Under those new standards and procedures, 
facilities that possess and use those biological agents and 
toxins would be required to register with HHS. The bill would 
also create new criminal penalties for certain persons who 
violate new and existing registration rules.
    Although the bill does not specify that CDC would 
administer the broadened registry, CBO assumes that HHS would 
build on CDC's existing registry. The bill would substantially 
increase the number of facilities that are required to register 
from about 250 laboratories under the current CDC program to 
tens of thousands under the broader requirements of the bill. 
Although HHS does not know how many facilities would have to 
register under the bill, a recent article in The Wall Street 
Journal (October 11, 2001) suggests that there are 5,500 
laboratories that store large quantities of agents and an 
additional 150,000 clinical laboratories that hold smaller 
quantities of these agents.
    According to the CDC, administering the current registry 
costs about $1 million year. Based on that figure and on HHS's 
experiences developing and operating data banks of health care 
providers and practitioners, CBO estimates that it would cost 
HHS $7 million to develop the expanded registry and about $15 
million a year for operation and enforcement activities related 
to the registry. Assuming the appropriation of the necessary 
amounts, spending to implement this provision would total $2 
million in 2002 and $64 million over the 2002-2006 period.
    Cable Television Privacy.--H.R. 3016 would allow cable 
television operators to provide law enforcement officials with 
information regarding subscribers' services without notifying 
their customers that such information has been provided. CBO 
estimates that this provision would have no significant impact 
on the federal budget.
    Nuclear Facility Security.--H.R. 3016 would require the NRC 
to conduct a study of the vulnerability of nuclear facilities 
to certain threats, and report to the Congress. According to 
the NRC, the study would require testing the reaction of 
materials used at nuclear facilities to several types of 
destructive forces. Based on information from the NRC, CBO 
estimates that such studies would cost $7 million in 2002. The 
bill also would require a rulemaking to update the design basis 
threat (DBT)--the attack scenario the nuclear facilities must 
be capable of defeating. Based on information from the NRC, CBO 
estimates that updating the DBT rule to meet the new scenarios 
outlined in the bill would cost $3 million over the 2002-2003 
period. Because the NRC has the authority to collect annual 
charges from its licensees to offset the agency's general fund 
appropriation, the net cost of the provision would be zero.
            Direct spending and revenues
    H.R. 3016 would establish new civil and criminal penalties, 
which are considered governmental receipts (i.e., revenues). 
Specifically, the bill would direct the Secretary of HHS to 
establish regulations governing the possession and use of 
certain biological agents and toxins. Those who violate such 
regulations would be subject to civil fines. The bill also 
would strengthen the criminal penalties for the sabotage of 
nuclear production, utilization, or waste storage facilities. 
CBO estimates that enacting these new penalties would increase 
governmental receipts by less than $500,000 a year. Any 
criminal fines collected would be deposited in the Crime 
Victims Fund and spent in subsequent years. Any resulting 
change in direct spending from the fund also would amount to 
less than $500,000 annually.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures 
for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. CBO 
estimates that enacting H.R. 3016 would result in changes in 
direct spending and governmental receipts of less than $500,000 
a year.
    Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments: 
Section 101 of H.R. 3016 would require clinical and research 
laboratories that possess biological agents or toxins that 
could be used for terrorist or criminal purposes to register 
with the federal government. For laboratories affiliated with 
or operated by state and local governments, those requirements 
would be intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA. 
Laboratories that transport these agents or toxins are 
currently required to register with the CDC, but this provision 
would expand registration requirements to all laboratoriesthat 
possess agents or toxins, regardless of whether they transport or ship 
them. CBO estimates that the cost of complying with the new 
requirements would total about $10 million annually for state and local 
governments.
    Section 305 also contains an intergovernmental mandate 
because it would require the NRC to issue new regulations 
requiring security upgrades at nuclear facilities. These 
regulations would affect the small percentage (less than 5 
percent) of nuclear facilities owned by state and local 
governments and non-power-producing research reactors at public 
universities. While those regulations could impose significant 
costs, the number of nuclear facilities owned by state and 
local governments is small. According to information from the 
Nuclear Energy Institute, there are two power-producing 
reactors that are owned by a state entity, and a handfull of 
other such reactors with partial public ownership. In addition, 
the likelihood that public universities, which only house non-
power reactors, would face a significant cost increase because 
of heightened security measures is small.
    The remaining provisions of the bill contain no 
intergovernmental mandates and would impose no costs on state, 
local, or tribal governments. CBO estimates that the total cost 
of intergovernmental mandates in the bill would not exceed the 
threshold in UMRA ($56 million in 2001, adjusted annually for 
inflation).
    Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 3016 also 
would impose private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA by 
requiring laboratories possessing designated biological agents 
to register with the CDC, prohibiting certain individuals from 
handling specific biological agents, and requiring security 
upgrades at nuclear facilities. CBO estimates that the cost of 
registering with the CDC would be small, and further that the 
cost to comply with new restrictions on handling biological 
agents would be minimal. The new requirements on nuclear 
facilities would depend on specific standards that would be 
established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Costs to 
nuclear facilities could be substantial but the NRC could not 
provide any information about the requirements that might be 
included in the new regulations. Thus, CBO cannot estimate the 
cost of compliance.
    Section 101 would impose a private-sector mandate by 
requiring clinical and research laboratories in possession of 
biological agents or toxins that could be used for terrorist or 
criminal purposes to register with the federal government. 
Currently, laboratories--including universities, research 
institutions, private companies and commercial suppliers--that 
transport certain biological agents or toxins must register 
with CDC and certify that their laboratories meet certain 
safety standards. The bill would expand such registration 
requirements to all laboratories that possess the designated 
agents, regardless of whether they transport or ship them. CBO 
estimates that the cost for an individual laboratory to 
register with CDC would be minimal and, consequently, that the 
total cost for all affected laboratories to comply with the 
mandate would be small. Section 101 also would impose a 
private-sector mandate on certain persons engaged in handling 
specific biological agents or toxins in interstate or foreign 
commerce. The bill would make it illegal for restricted 
persons, as defined in the bill, to ship, transport, receive, 
or possess select biological agents. According to the CDC, the 
number of entities affected by this restriction would be 
limited. CBO estimates, therefore, that the cost to comply with 
the mandate would be minimal.
    Section 305 would require the NRC to issue new regulations 
addressing security threats at facilities licensed by the NRC. 
Licensed facilities that are privately owned or operated 
include power plants and other fuel cycle installations. In 
preparing the new regulations, the NRC would be required to 
consider, among other things, water-based and air-based 
threats, the use of explosive devices and other modern 
weaponry, and the protection of spent fuel storage pools and 
dry cask storage. NRC's rulemaking would be based upon the 
results of a nine-month study of facility vulnerability and 
consultation with other federal agencies. Because the agency 
could not give any indication as to the scope of the new 
regulations, CBO has no basis for determining the cost to the 
private sector of complying with the new regulations.
    Because the cost to comply with mandates imposed by the 
bill would depend in large part on future actions of the NRC, 
CBO cannot determine whether the aggregate direct cost to 
private-sector entities of complying with all of the mandates 
in the bill would exceed the annual threshold specified in UMRA 
($113 million in 2001, adjusted annually for inflation).
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Lisa Cash Driskill 
(NRC), Lanette J. Walker (cable television privacy provisions), 
and Jeanne De Sa (CDC); impact on State, local and tribal 
governments: Elyse Goldman; impact on the private sector: 
Lauren Marks (NRC), and Paige Piper/Bach (CDC and cable 
television), and Jen Bullard Bowman (CDC).
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                       federal mandates statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

                  exchange of committee correspondence

                          House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                  Washington, DC, October 16, 2001.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: In recognition of the desire to expedite 
floor consideration of H.R. 3016, the Committee on the 
Judiciary hereby waives consideration of the bill and consents 
to be discharged from further consideration of the bill. H.R. 
3016, as introduced and reported by the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, contains subject matter that falls within the 
legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary.
    The Committee on the Judiciary takes this action with the 
understanding that the Committee's jurisdiction over the 
provisions within the Committee's jurisdiction is in no way 
diminished or altered, and that the Committee's right to the 
appointment of conferees during any conference on the bill is 
preserved.
            Sincerely,
                               F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
                                                          Chairman.
                                ------                                

                          House of Representatives,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                  Washington, DC, October 16, 2001.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Rayburn 
        House Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: Thank you for your letter 
regarding to H.R. 3016.
    I appreciate your willingness not to exercise your referral 
of H.R. 3016. I agree that your decision to forgo action on the 
bill will not prejudice the Committee on the Judiciary with 
respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar 
legislation. Further, I recognize your right to request 
conferees on those provisions within the Committee on the 
Judiciary's jurisdiction should they be the subject of a House-
Senate conference.
    I will include your letter and this response in the 
Committee's supplemental report on H.R. 3016, and I look 
forward to working with you as we bring antiterrorism 
legislation to the Floor.
            Sincerely,
                                     W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin,
                                                          Chairman.