[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 167 (Monday, November 9, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2753]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 2009

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. MARK E. SOUDER

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, November 5, 2009

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration of the bill (H.R. 2868) to 
     amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to extend, modify, 
     and recodify the authority of the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security to enhance security and protect against acts of 
     terrorism against chemical facilities, and for other 
     purposes:

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2869. I voted 
against the bill during committee consideration. Unfortunately, the 
bill before us today is even worse than the version reported out of the 
Homeland Security Committee.
  This legislation gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the 
authority to require farms, manufacturing plants, timber companies, 
hospitals, and thousands of other facilities across the United States 
to change the way they do business. The Secretary will be able to 
dictate what chemicals are used, how they are used and how they are 
stored. The bill tries to cover this government take over of the 
private sector with terms like ``inherently safer technologies'' and 
``methods to reduce terrorists attack.''
  The Federal Government could impose mandates to adopt unproven 
technologies and chemical substitutions, but lacks the technical and 
personnel expertise to evaluate whether these alternatives are 
effective, productive, and safe across these sectors.
  There are over 3,000 facilities in the U.S. that would be covered 
under this legislation that employ 50 or fewer people. According to 
experts, mandating inherently safer technologies, IST, could cost 
anywhere from thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Companies 
in my district do not have excess funds to alter how they do business 
because some bureaucrat in D.C. thinks there is a better way to do it.
  Another unprecedented measure in the bill is the establishment of a 
system allowing any person, even nonaffected persons, to file a lawsuit 
against the Secretary of Homeland Security if IST is not implemented. 
This bill might as well be called the Homeland Security Trial Lawyer 
Employment Act.
  Citizen suits are not appropriate in a national security context and 
this would be the first time Congress would be authorizing such citizen 
suits in the national or homeland security arena.
  The Department of Homeland Security has testified that these suits 
could result in the release of very sensitive security information 
through the legal discovery process that would be helpful to 
terrorists.
  This legislation is misguided and interrupts actions on-going at DHS 
to evaluate and enhance security at chemical facilities. I urge a 
``no'' vote.

                          ____________________