Off-site Links

To Legislation and Other Information

THOMAS.gov

Bill Data--The Library of Congress

The Congressional Budget Office

Non-partisan  Budget & Spending Information

The White House

NEWSPAPERS

National and International Resources We Use

PollingReport.com

Does Your Opinion

Match the Polls?


Legislation News & Report (TM) 

TheWeekInCongress.com (TM)

Managing America: War on Terror


 Home

Contact: House / Senate

Newest Public Laws

Monthly  Budget Review

Perspective

Contact Us

Legal

Previous Editions

Search & Research

Archives

Legislation in the Spotlight

Privacy

About Us


TheWeekInCongress.com (TM)

Week Ending August 1, 2008

 

H.R.5531 To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to clarify criteria for certification relating to advanced spectroscopic portal monitors, and for other purposes.

 

Congress finds that in developing criteria for Advance Spectroscopic Portal (ASP performance, special consideration should be given to the unique challenges associated with detecting the presence of illicit radiological or nuclear material that may be masked by the presence of radiation from naturally occurring radioactive material or legitimate radioactive sources (Such as those associated with medical or industrial uses).

 

Public law passed by this Congress requires a report to Congress certifying that ‘a significant increase in operational effectiveness will be achieved with ASP before funds appropriated shall be obligated for full-scale procurement of ASP monitors. The report must include a quantitative definition of ‘significant increase in operational effectiveness regarding all relevant threat materials and scenarios, a cost benefit analysis. The Secretary may consider relevant reports on the ASP, reports from independent review, and consultation with the National Academies.

 

Congress concludes that ASP has the potential to provide improved detection capabilities while reducing the number of nuisance alarms caused by legitimate transport of non-threat-related radioactive material.

 

The bill authorizes and directs the Director of Domestic Nuclear Detection Office and the Commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection to enter into an agreement regarding the minimum standards of operational functionality in order to deploy ASP systems. The agreement must be signed and sent to Congress within 60 days.

 

The bill indicates that ASP’s may not be as efficient as desired but must have the potential for improvement without limits. The suggestion is that an system that is not completely effective is better than none at all.

 

Sponsor:  Rep. Peter King (NY-3rd)

Vote: Passed House by voice vote July 30, 2008

Cost to the taxpayers: $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2009 and such sums as may be necessary for each subsequent fiscal year for the Securing the Cities Initiative. “CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost about $180 million over the 2009-2013 period”

Earmark Certification:   In compliance with rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of the rule XXI.

 

## All Rights Reserved. © 2008 TheWeekInCongress.com(TM)

No reproduction, language translation or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)

 

MORE INFORMATION

`SEC. 1908. ADVANCED SPECTROSCOPIC PORTAL MONITORS.

`(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

`(1) The consequences of radiological or nuclear terrorism would be catastrophic.

`(2) A system such as the Advanced Spectoscopic Portal (ASP) is intended to improve the process of screening passengers and cargo to prevent the illicit transport of radiological and nuclear material.

`(3) A system such as the ASP can always be improved, even after it is deployed.

`(4) There is no upper limit to the functionality that can be incorporated into an engineering project of this magnitude.

`(5) Delaying deployment of the ASP to increase functionality beyond what is minimally required for deployment may limit the ability of the United States to screen passengers and cargo for radiological and nuclear material.

`(6) There are operational differences between primary and secondary screening procedures. Consideration should be given to the implication these differences have on the minimum functionality for systems deployed for use in primary and secondary screening procedures.

 

All Rights Reserved. © 2008 TheWeekInCongress.com(TM)

No reproduction, language translation or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)