Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Readiness.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 21, 2001
Mercury Storage and Safe Disposal Act of 2001 - Requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to: (1) acquire any store of mercury held by private sector Chlor-alkali plants, other facilities with amounts exceeding 35,000 pounds, and any other sources identified by the Task Force on Safe Mercury Disposal (Task Force) established by this Act; and (2) transfer such stores to the Secretary of Defense for storage, authorized by this Act, until the Administrator certifies to the Secretary that a satisfactory disposal method has been developed.Establishes the Task Force to identify the best methods to prevent release of mercury into the environment, assess such methods and safe disposal technologies, and identify necessary research and development of such technologies. Directs the Administrator to carry out such research and development and provide for disposal of mercury in accordance with a final plan developed by the Task Force.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Readiness.
Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 19, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.2266 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.2266 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.2266 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.2266 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.