PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 17, 2005
Safe Communities and Safe Schools Mercury Reduction Act of 2005 - Requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a grant program for projects to: (1) reduce free-flowing elemental mercury and mercury-added products from the environment; (2) safely dispose of or recycle mercury; (3) educate communities and citizens about mercury's harmful effects; (4) develop and carry out a plan for eliminating free-flowing mercury and instruments containing mercury from K-12 public and private schools; (5) carry out a mercury thermometer exchange program; or (6) facilitate the recovery, and safe disposal and management, of mercury-added components from automobiles.
Directs the Administrator to encourage States to develop programs that facilitate the recovery and safe disposal and management of mercury-added component parts from automobiles when components are being replaced or removed from scrapped vehicles.
Amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to: (1) prohibit the sale or supplying of mercury fever thermometers to consumers except by prescription; and (2) require manufacturers of such prescribed thermometers to provide instructions on careful handling to avoid breakage and proper cleanup in the event of breakage. Requires contractors who replace building thermostats in residential or commercial buildings to dispose of replaced thermometers through recycling programs established or participated in by building thermostat manufacturers as required by this Act.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Administrator to publish guidance to assist State and local governments in removing elemental free-flowing mercury and mercury-added instruments from public and private schools.
Directs the Administrator to issue regulations requiring dentists to capture 90 percent or more of mercury-laden amalgam when administering amalgam to or recovering amalgam from patients. Sets forth considerations that such guidelines shall take into account.
People & committees
Rep. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI-2] · D–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
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 15, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
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.
Analyze H.R.2391 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.
Examine H.R.2391 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.
Examine H.R.2391 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.
Examine H.R.2391 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.