The Washington Times today editorially examines House passage of H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act, a seriously flawed piece of legislation that will raise costs for manufacturers and discourage creation of private-sector jobs.

The editorial, “Chemical insecurity,” argues that having the government, in this case the Department of Homeland Security, impose the substitution of chemicals under the theory of “inherently safer technologies” actually works against safety.

The forced switching of chemicals could result in companies having to replace products they have long used without incident with new chemicals and processes. There is wide agreement among corporate safety executives and outside experts that inexperience is one of the major causes of accidents.

Ill-considered mandates could slow the manufacture of products used throughout the economy, from fertilizer to pharmaceuticals, potentially creating shortages of some goods and even lost jobs when some products cannot be produced because key ingredients are outlawed.

The Times also notes the inclusion of provisions allowing private lawsuits against the Department of Homeland Security over its regulation of chemical manufacturing facilities, noting the similarities to the Endangered Species Act, in which lawsuits can stop projects and turn the federal government into a land-use planning agency. We ask: Jobs?

We wrote about the third-party lawsuit provisions at Point of Law, noting the defeat of an amendment by Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) to remove the language. McCaul said:

Allowing any third party–anybody– to sue the Secretary is both reckless and unnecessary. This provision would be a boon to trial lawyers and to environmentalists at the expense of the Department of Homeland Security and national security interests. Citizen suits have no place in a national security context, and this would be the very first time that Congress would be authorizing such suits in the homeland security arena.

Good online column from Hugh Hewitt, who sees the unintended but still damaging consequences of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act as persuasive grounds to fear expanded federal government control of health care. From “The CPSIA, The ESA, The CWA and Obamacare“:

What the CPSIA, the ESA and CWA all have in common is that the disastrous economic costs they are operating to exact from the private sector were not intended by the men and women who drafted them and were not foreseen by those who legislators who voted for them. Client after client arrives in our offices in various states of disbelief that Congress could have possibly intended the federal laws to operate in such destructive fashion.

The answer is always the same: Congress did not so intend, but activists, enthusiasts within bureaucracies, and the federal courts have all combined to take seemingly sensible efforts at apparently practical, small-step legislation and turn them all into regulatory behemoths with vast power to cripple or completely destroy private enterprise.

The Wall Street Journal also reached for historical comparisons — if a little further back in history — in its tough editorial today, “The Worst Bill Ever“:

Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi’s handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR’s National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.

That’s not bombast. The Journal cites specific economic catastrophes inherent in the bill, including the European levels of high taxation.

From the Department of Interior, “Salazar Retains Conservation Rule for Polar Bears“:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced today that he will retain a special rule issued in December for protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act, but will closely monitor the implementation of the rule to determine if additional measures are necessary to conserve and recover the polar bear and its habitat. …

“In our judgment, keeping the rule is the best course of action for the polar bear,” said Thomas L. Strickland, assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks.  “We will continue to reach out and listen to the public and a wide range of stakeholders as we monitor the rule, and will not hesitate to take additional steps if necessary to protect this iconic species.” 

From the Governor’s Office, State of Alaska, “Governor Lauds Secretary Salazar’s Decision“:

This decision will provide for continued monitoring and strong protections for polar bears under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and international treaties. This means that subsistence activities and oil and gas development on the North Slope will not be subject to the consultation requirements of the ESA. Governor Palin and the Alaska congressional delegation argued strongly for retention of the polar bear rule.

The Department of the Interior also announced the continuation of a policy disallowing a link between climate change and decisions made under the ESA. The governor has argued against such a linkage as an inappropriate use of the act.

“This is a clear victory for Alaska,” Governor Palin said. “We all want to preserve and protect the polar bear using the best possible tools, but there is absolutely no need to change the 4(d) rule to accomplish this purpose. I want to thank Secretary Salazar for his careful review of the science and the administrative record that led to this decision.”

The Department of Interior and Secretary Salazar have made several decisions that restricted or delayed development of domestic energy resources, and in doing so discouraged market-based efforts supporting U.S. energy security. It’s good to see some balance coming from the agency.