WASHINGTON – Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Joe Barton, R-Texas, today made the following statement during the Energy and Environment Subcommittee markup on the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2009, The Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009, and The Drinking Water System Security Act of 2009:

“I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Upton for holding this markup today. We appreciate regular order on the subcommittee. We hope this is something that becomes the rule rather than the exception.

“I wish I could share the enthusiasm for the three bills that we’re marking up today. I have no enthusiasm for the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act. I think we’re making a mistake. I think we’re making significant changes to a chemical facility security program that’s not even been fully implemented yet. I think we should wait before it is implemented before we decide to change it.

“The chemical facility security program applies to a broad swath of the American economy – from hospitals to farms to factories, and of course to chemical plants – and we should at least identify and understand the problem we are trying to fix before we rush headlong into legislation. We again seem to be approaching this from the perspective of crafting a solution in search of a problem. This is compounded by the fact that we’re playing catch-up with another committee in this Congress and, in my opinion on a matter where we should have had primary jurisdiction instead of the Homeland Security Committee.

“It is true that the current law will soon expire. We should not use the law’s sunset provision as an excuse to make radical changes to a program that the Department of Homeland Security is still working to finalize and that has not even been subject to a compliance inspection yet under the current law.

“Mr. Chairman, unemployment is closing in on 10 percent, and there are many challenges affecting new project financing right now. I don’t think it’s appropriate to cavalierly make changes to chemical plant security laws that could chill future capital investments and strand previous industry capital investments. Our multinational companies may or may not care whether they manufacture their chemicals but every American worker who works in one of these factories does care. It’s my opinion that if we implement this proposal and it becomes law, you’re simply going to see chemical plant manufacturing in the United States cease to exist over the next 10 years.

“It concerns me that H.R. 2868 is way too broad in its application. Chemical facility security is not a branch of environmental law. We have numerous laws on environmental issues and, by and large, our chemical plants are in compliance with those laws. Terrorism is not an environmental issue. Terrorism is just want it says it is – an act of war. It is the intentional infliction of death and destruction. If they’re going to be effective on security, those security decisions should be focused on efforts to protect first, the people who work in these plants, and then the property and equipment and physical infrastructure of those plants.

“So I can’t be supportive of H.R. 2868, Mr. Chairman. The bill that’s before this subcommittee would unquestionably impose new costs without increasing security at all. It is the product of a view that chemical facilities are a necessary evil instead of a national asset, and that they cannot be trusted to protect themselves from certain harm. This bill will result in an atmosphere where operators worry less about security, innovation and job creation, and more about lawsuits, conflicting regulations, and things of this sort.

“On the American Medical Isotope Production Act of 2009, the goal is to develop a domestic capacity to produce the medical isotope molybdenum-99. I do have some concerns that the proposed seven- to 10-year timeline for bringing these facilities online may not be realistic, given the significant challenges that building these facilities encompasses, such as technology availability, facility siting, regulatory approvals and waste management. I have an amendment prepared to offer to give the secretary of Energy the opportunity to extend this deadline. I’m aware there are concerns on extending the deadline so I may not offer it depending on how that particular markup goes.

“On the other bill before us, I believe we are supportive and I don’t believe that bill should be too controversial.

“With that, Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired and I yield back.”