[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 23, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H855-H859]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STREAMLINING OF SAFETY ACT AND ANTI-TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY PROCUREMENT
PROCESSES
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 599) to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to
streamline the SAFETY Act and anti-terrorism technology procurement
processes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 599
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. STREAMLINING OF SAFETY ACT AND ANTI-TERRORISM
TECHNOLOGY PROCUREMENT PROCESSES.
(a) Personnel.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
ensure that, in addition to any personnel engaged in
technical evaluations that may be appropriate, a sufficient
number of full-time equivalent personnel, who are properly
trained and qualified to apply legal, economic, and risk
analyses, are involved in the review and prioritization of
anti-terrorism technologies for the purpose of determining
whether such technologies may be designated by the Secretary
as qualified anti-terrorism technologies under section 862(b)
of the SAFETY Act (6 U.S.C. 441(b)) or certified by the
Secretary under section 863(d) of such Act (6 U.S.C. 442(d)).
(b) Coordination Within Department of Homeland Security.--
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall--
(1) establish a formal coordination process that includes
the official of the Department of Homeland Security with
primary responsibility for the implementation of the SAFETY
Act, the Chief Procurement Officer of the Department, the
Under Secretary for Science and Technology, the Under
Secretary for Policy, and the Department of Homeland Security
General Counsel to ensure the maximum application of the
litigation and risk management provisions of the SAFETY Act
to anti-terrorism technologies procured by the Department;
and
(2) promote awareness and utilization of the litigation and
risk management provisions of the SAFETY Act in the
procurement of anti-terrorism technologies.
(c) Issuance of Departmental Directive.--The Secretary of
Homeland Security shall, in accordance with the final rule
implementing the SAFETY Act, issue a Departmental management
directive providing for coordination between Department
procurement officials and any other Department official
responsible for implementing the SAFETY Act in advance of any
Department procurement of an anti-terrorism technology, as
required under subsection (b).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
General Leave
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks, and to
insert extraneous materials relating to the bill under consideration
into the Congressional Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Rhode Island?
There was no objection.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Today, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of legislation I introduced,
the SAFETY Reform Act of 2007, which will help ensure that safe and
effective antiterrorism technologies are being deployed by the
Department of Homeland Security to bolster our security throughout the
country.
{time} 1330
The Support for Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies
Act of 2002, or SAFETY Act as it is known, was designed to provide
incentives for development and deployment of antiterrorism
technologies.
The SAFETY Act was intended to address the liability concerns of
businesses and to pave the way for innovative development of key
antiterrorism technologies. Unfortunately, a lack of personnel within
the Office of SAFETY Act Implementation, an excessively burdensome
application process, and a lack of communication between the
Department's procurement and management divisions made for difficult
implementation of the SAFETY Act.
This legislation which I have introduced, along with Chairman
Thompson, Subcommittee Ranking Member Rogers and many other members of
the Homeland Security Committee, should fix many of those shortcomings.
Last year the Homeland Security Committee held a subcommittee hearing
highlighting some of the problems that arose from the SAFETY Act's
implementation. We heard from a variety of industry leaders and experts
that the application process was overly burdensome, and that it took
far too long for the Department of Homeland Security to properly
evaluate and approve many of the applications that businesses
submitted.
[[Page H856]]
While I am pleased to see that many companies with new and innovative
technologies have already applied for the SAFETY Act program, the
program can be effective only when the applications are properly
approved.
My legislation, therefore, takes three important steps to improve the
effectiveness of the application process. First, this bill will help
facilitate communication between the Department of Homeland Security's
procurement sector and the Department's Office of SAFETY Act
Implementation, which is the entity tasked with reviewing the
applications. This approach will allow officials at DHS to thoroughly
review applications while also maintaining quick turnaround times.
Second, the bill would require that the Secretary employ a sufficient
number of analysts in the Office of SAFETY Act Implementation who can
deal with the ever-growing number of applications. Appropriate staffing
will help ensure that the applications are being processed in a timely
manner, thereby allowing us to deploy the newest and best technologies
as quickly as possible.
Finally, this legislation will help raise awareness of SAFETY Act
risk management provisions among procurement officers across Federal,
State, and local levels, and throughout the private sector.
Contributions made by private enterprises are an extremely important
component of our Nation's security, and our governmental policies
should continue to encourage innovation, not stifle it.
By passing the SAFETY Reform Act, I am optimistic that we will be
able to effectively streamline the application process and encourage
participation in this program across all levels of government and the
private sector.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the SAFETY Reform Act
of 2007.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), my friend and colleague.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I want to thank Chairman Langevin and Ranking Member Rogers for their
leadership on this issue, and I am proud to have been a coauthor of
this bill.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 599, a bipartisan bill
to help protect and encourage companies that develop antiterrorism
technologies. This bill helps implement the Support Anti-Terrorism by
Fostering Effective Technologies, or SAFETY Act. The SAFETY Act was
passed as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and basically it
encourages companies to develop antiterrorism technology by limiting
their liability in the event of a terrorist attack.
As part of the oversight provided in the 109th Congress, the Homeland
Security Committee determined that the SAFETY Act better protected the
American people, and over 60 new technologies have been approved for
coverage under the SAFETY Act in areas such as radiation detection,
facility protection and passenger screening.
Unfortunately, in order to qualify for SAFETY Act protection,
companies must go through a cumbersome application process rife with
red tape. This bill cuts that red tape by requiring DHS to streamline
their process and make it more effective.
In my district there are a number of companies developing
antiterrorism technologies, including detection and identification
systems. By limiting their potential legal liability, this bill will
help them develop new technologies to address the real and constant
threat of a terrorist attack.
This bill represents a commonsense, bipartisan approach, and I
applaud my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, an approach to
streamline government and make it friendlier to the American people. By
doing this, we will make it easier for government and the private
sector to work together to make America safer.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important
legislation.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the
chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Langevin.
Today I rise to support a bill that reaffirms our commitment to
ensuring that safe and effective antiterrorism technologies are being
deployed by the Department of Homeland Security.
This bill, offered by my colleague Mr. Langevin, will provide much-
needed reforms to the SAFETY Act process within the Department.
In conducting oversight over the Department's implementation of the
SAFETY Act over the last several years, it was apparent that there was
several significant disconnections within the Department.
It became clear that the Office of SAFETY Act Implementation and the
private sector were working on separate wavelengths. The right hand
simply was not speaking to the left.
The private sector struggled to fulfill the lengthy paperwork
requirements of the SAFETY Act, while the SAFETY Act office often
seemed nonresponsive to private sector requests.
While the Department's adoption of final regulations this summer
implementing the SAFETY Act appears to be an encouraging step forward,
still more must be done to ensure that the government is being
responsive to developments in the private sector.
This bill would require that the Secretary employ a sufficient number
of analysts in the Office of SAFETY Act Implementation who can deal
with the ever-growing number of applications. This will ensure that
applications are being processed in a timely fashion to bring more
technologies to the table earlier than ever.
Perhaps more importantly, this bill will also ensure the proper
coordination between the Department's procurement and implementing
offices and raise the awareness of SAFETY Act risk management
provisions among procurement officers across Federal, State and local
government, and throughout the private sector.
In order to generate revolutionary breakthroughs in antiterrorism
technologies, the Department must actively promote awareness of SAFETY
Act protections not only among private sector, but across government
procurement agencies. This legislation will help achieve those goals.
I congratulate Mr. Langevin for offering this legislation and
strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. We must
enable the private sector to deliver the revolutionary, breakthrough
technologies that will help win the Nation's fight against terrorism.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Meek).
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, let me just say that this piece
of legislation is an outstanding bipartisan piece of work. I know that
it has bipartisan support, something that is going to help the private
sector and be able to help us move forward in securing America.
I would like to thank my good friend Mr. Rogers for his outstanding
work and also on the Republican side. We have had a great discussion.
As you know, in the last Congress I was the ranking member on the
oversight committee, and all of us that are involved in this bill have
heard hours and hours of testimony on why this is important. Even going
as far back as the 108th Congress in the select committee, we were
hearing from members of the private sector, saying that we want to
participate in protecting America, need it be bio or what have you, but
we also do not want to end up losing our shirts in the process or
giving away secrets.
So I think this legislation is going to help us move forward. I hope
it has a speedy process in the Senate. I look forward to coming to the
floor later on to vote on this very good piece of legislation.
I just wanted to come by and say, once again, this is another example
on how we have and we are now working in a bipartisan way on behalf of
securing America for future generations and this generation so that we
can continue to move forward hand in hand.
I want to thank the bill's sponsor from Rhode Island for bringing
this
[[Page H857]]
legislation to the floor quickly, and also Mr. Thompson, the chairman
of the committee, and ranking member of the committee on the Republican
side for bringing this to the floor for speedy consideration.
I rise today in strong support of this legislation. H.R. 599, the
Support for Antiterrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies or
``SAFETY'' Act would provide greater incentive to US companies that
develop and produce domestic, antiterrorism technologies and would
better ensure the integrity of our national security.
Congress enacted the SAFETY Act in 2002 to limit the liability of
manufacturers of qualified, antiterrorism technologies. This was seen
as an essential step to promote innovation in technology, and to ensure
that our first responders received the very latest and best equipment.
However, the methods used by the Department of Homeland Security to
implement the original legislation were markedly slow and burdensome to
applicants. This created disincentive to companies to participate in
the program, and negated the original intent of the legislation.
I raised this issue and others during a September 2006 joint hearing
before the Homeland Security Subcommittees on Management, Integration,
and Oversight and Emergency Preparedness, Science and Technology. In
that hearing, questions were raised addressing these issues; however,
little was done in the closing days of the 109th to enact sufficient
change. The Department did take positive steps to alleviate some of
these issues, by issuing improved application ``kits'' and approving
the final rule.
Still more is needed, and H.R. 599 would be a significant step in
that direction. Because procuring these vital technologies as they
become available is imperative to national security, SAFETY Act
certification must happen at the same time as production.
To ensure that both our companies and our first responders are
protected, this bill would require the Department to formalize the
coordination between its procurement office and the Office of SAFETY
Act Implementation. This would stand to greatly improve the efficiency
of the program and the application process. Moreover, this bill would
also ensure that sufficient staff be made available for reviewing
applications. Delays in certification can dissuade companies from
bringing life saving technology to market for long periods of time.
The SAFETY Act, as it is named, is about the security of the American
people. Improving this process will ensure that our Federal, State, and
local authorities have the tools they need to protect the American
people.
I urge my colleagues, to support this bipartisan measure and to
further strengthen our defense from terror.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
The bill we consider today will streamline the procurement process of
the Department of Homeland Security by implementing the SAFETY Act. The
SAFETY Act was enacted in November 2002 as a part of the Homeland
Security Act. At that time it was the intent of Congress to spur the
development and deployment of innovative antiterrorism technologies.
The act does this, in part, by limiting the liability exposure of
companies that provide those technologies in the event of a terrorist
attack.
Since the law was enacted, however, the number of applications to DHS
for SAFETY Act protections has fallen well below expectations. Critics
charged that this result is due to a number of factors, including the
Department's slow evaluation and approval process, the understaffing in
key DHS offices, and the lack of full coordination between the SAFETY
Act office and the procurement office in the process at DHS.
To address those concerns, the Committee on Homeland Security
included bipartisan provisions in the DHS authorization bill for fiscal
years 2006 and 2007, but time ran out, and neither bill came to law.
Last summer DHS issued its final rule to implement the SAFETY Act.
The Department revised the application kit to make it easier for
companies to apply for SAFETY Act protection.
To review those materials and hear from the private sector, I
cochaired a hearing in the Management, Integration and Oversight
Subcommittee with the former Chairman Reichert and his subcommittee on
September 13, 2006. We heard from the Under Secretary for Science and
Technology and the chief procurement officer at DHS.
We also heard from leading industry representatives, including the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Homeland Security and Defense Business
Council, and the Professional Services Council. The feedback we
received from industry about the revisions DHS made to the process was
mostly positive. Progress has been made.
DHS reports a 100 percent increase in applications, from 14 to 28,
over 1 year since the fourth quarter of 2005, but more can be done to
further streamline and improve the SAFETY Act procurement process.
The bill we consider today continues our work from the 109th Congress
and makes those improvements. First, the bill would ensure DHS has a
sufficient number of properly trained analysts to review and prioritize
antiterrorism technologies that could qualify for SAFETY Act
designation.
Second, the bill would establish a formal coordination process within
DHS and involve the Under Secretary for Science and Technology, the
Under Secretary for Policy, the chief procurement officer and the
general counsel.
And third, the bill would require that SAFETY Act issues are fully
considered in advance of procurement by DHS of an antiterrorism
technology.
This bill would improve implementation of the SAFETY Act so the
private sector can do more to protect our Nation from terrorist
attacks. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to thank the speakers
who have come forward. I want to thank Members on the other side of the
aisle for working with us in a bipartisan fashion to bring this bill to
the floor. I want to particularly recognize the leadership of Chairman
Thompson and his due diligence in seeing that this act was put together
in such a timely fashion and brought to the floor so quickly.
{time} 1345
It is the responsibility of every level of government, whether it is
the local, State or Federal level, first and foremost to protect our
citizens. Our Nation is at war, and homeland security must be our top
priority. The quicker that we can get these new and vital technologies
in place that will better protect the American people, the better off
we will all be.
So it is my intent that this act will clarify some of the problems
with the original SAFETY Act and with the implementation that has been
witnessed by the Department of Homeland Security, and I am pleased that
we have brought this act to the floor today.
Madam Speaker, I move its passage.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I request that the following letters be
made part of the Congressional Record.
Professional Services Council,
Arlington, VA, January 22, 2007.
Hon. James Langevin,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity,
Science and Technology.
Hon. Mike Rogers,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Management, Investigations
and Oversight.
Homeland Security Committee,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Langevin and Congressman Rogers: On behalf of
the Professional Services Council (PSC), the leading national
trade association representing the professional and technical
services industry selling to the Federal Government, I am
writing to endorse the legislation introduced by you and
others (H.R. 599) to streamline the SAFETY Act and anti-
terrorism technology procurement processes.
We appreciated the bipartisan leadership of Chairman
Thompson and Ranking Member King during the 109th Congress to
provide strong oversight of SAFETY Act implementation,
including the execution of the responsibilities of the
Secretary of Homeland Security and the Under Secretary for
Science and Technology in administering the Act. We are
confident that the Committee's support for the full
implementation of the law and for extending the coverage of
the Act to appropriate anti-terrorism technologies will
remain strong through your Subcommittees' leadership. '
PSC has been a strong and active supporter of the SAFETY
Act since its development in Congress in 2002. We have
commented extensively on the Act, on the implementing
regulations, application kits, and operating principles. We
have met repeatedly with key leaders within the Department
and other offices in the Executive Branch. We testified
before your Committee last year on the Act. We are pleased
with the recent progress made in providing the regulatory and
administrative framework for implementation, and with DHS's
renewed commitment to moving
[[Page H858]]
that implementation forward. However, more can and should be
done.
While the Department is fully committed to robust
implementation of the Act, we see your bill as an important
step in helping the Department achieve that goal--whether
through the allocation of additional full-time DHS employees
to carry out the functions assigned under the Act or ensuring
that the Department's internal procurement and policy
organizations are aligned with and use the authorities
provided under the Act. In addition, the Department plays an
important role in providing guidance and information to other
federal agencies and to other stakeholders about the Act.
Each of these important items is addressed in H.R. 599.
We appreciated the opportunity to comment on the draft bill
and are pleased to offer PSC's support for the legislation as
introduced. We strongly support passage by the House early in
the legislative cycle and look forward to further legislative
and administrative action to fully implement the goals and
objectives of the SAFETY Act. We also look forward to working
with your Subcommittees and others on this important homeland
security initiative.
In the interim, if you or your staffs have any questions or
need any additional information, please do not hesitate to
let me know.
Sincerely,
Alan Chvotkin, Esq.,
Senior Vice President and Counsel.
____
Crowell Moring,
Washington, DC, January 22, 2007.
Re Proposed Legislation for Streamlining of SAFETY Act
Processes
Representative James R. Langevin,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Langevin: Your proposed legislation--
``Streamlining of SAFETY Act and Anti-Terrorism Technology
Procurement Processes''--represents a critical step forward
to enhance the implementation of the SAFETY Act. This
legislation recognizes the clear Congressional purpose
embodied in the SAFETY Act--save lives through anti-terrorism
technology.
One of the continuing impediments to more aggressive
implementation of the SAFETY Act has been the concern that
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not fully
synchronized SAFETY Act approvals with major procurements for
anti-terrorism technology. Your legislation squarely
addresses this concern by requiring the DHS Secretary to
establish a formal coordination process to assure more
effective implementation of the Congressional directive to
accelerate the availability of anti-terrorism technology.
Thank you for promoting the SAFETY Act's core purpose and
clearing the path for moving anti-terrorism technology to the
Nation's front lines.
Sincerely,
David Z. Bodenheimer,
Homeland Security Practice Chair,
Crowell & Moring LLP.
____
Chamber of Commerce of the
United States of America,
Washington, DC, January 23, 2007.
Hon. James R. Langevin,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity,
and Science and Technology, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Langevin: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the
world's largest business federation representing more than
three million businesses and organizations of every size,
sector, and region, supports H.R. 599, the ``SAFETY Act
Reform Bill,'' which you introduced with Rep. Michael D.
Rogers (R-AL), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
Management, Investigations and Oversight. This bipartisan
legislation provides an incentive to develop and deploy anti-
terrorism technologies and services.
The Chamber applauds your leadership on this critical
national security issue and looks forward to working with the
Committee to ensure the SAFETY Act of 2002 is fully
implemented.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten.
____
January 23, 2007.
Re Support for H.R. 599
Hon. James R. Langevin,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity,
and Science and Technology, House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Langevin: I am writing to you in my personal
capacity to express my support for the goals expressed in
H.R. 599. H.R. 599 is intended to encourage the Department of
Homeland Security to streamline the Support Anti-Terrorism By
Fostering Effective Technology Act of 2002 (SAFETY Act)
application and procurement processes. The bill is drafted to
ensure that the Department utilizes a sufficient number of
trained personnel to review any individual application, that
the various components of the Department coordinate in
implementing the Act, and that Department issues a management
directive to coordinate procurement and SAFETY Act
implementation efforts.
In light of my experience in drafting numerous SAFETY Act
applications, I support the goals enumerated by the
legislation, particularly as related to Department-wide
coordination and coordination in procurement policy and
implementation. Through my experiences with the SAFETY Act, I
believe the Department has taken a number of solid steps in
ensuring that such goals are met, and any encouragement from
the U.S. Congress to meet those goals is welcome. The
widespread utilization of the SAFETY Act is critical to
defending our nation from terrorist attacks, and so I welcome
the efforts of the U.S. Congress to support the Department's
efforts at full implementation.
Thank you for your consideration, and I welcome any queries
on this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Brian E. Finch
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 599, to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to streamline
the SAFETY Act and anti-terrorism technology procurement processes.
I would like to thank my friend from Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin, for
introducing H.R. 599 which is essential to the exercise of our
oversight responsibility over the Department of Homeland Security and
critical in ensuring our great Nation's preparation for future
terrorist threats and attacks.
This bill serves largely to rearrange and streamline the Support for
Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies (SAFETY) Act of
2002. The SAFETY Act was implemented to protect the American people
from terrorism by providing incentives for the development and
deployment of anti-terrorism technologies for homeland security by
limiting the liability of providers of qualified anti-terrorism
technologies from claims arising out of acts of terrorism.
Despite our legislative intent that the SAFETY Act would pave the way
for innovative development of key anti-terrorism technologies by
addressing businesses' liability concerns, unfortunately industry was
skeptical about the burdens imposed by the SAFETY Act's application
process as implemented by the Department of Homeland Security.
Regrettably, our high expectations for the SAFETY Act were not met and
issues were raised about the excessively burdensome and slow evaluation
and approval of applications by the Department's Office of SAFETY Act
Implementation, OSAI, during the September 2006 joint hearing before
the Homeland Security Subcommittees on Management, Integration, and
Oversight and Emergency Preparedness, Science and Technology.
Significant improvements have been made to make this process more
user-friendly, less time-consuming, and less costly for business with
the SAFETY Act Application Kit, Kit, and final rule. However positive
these improvements implemented may have been, additional improvements
are of paramount importance to ensure that Congress' legislative intent
of the SAFETY Act is met.
H.R. 599 will better address our legislative intent of the SAFETY Act
and facilitate the following improvements: Make the application process
more user-friendly, less time-consuming, and less costly for
businesses; make the review process more swift, efficient and
effective; result in a significant increase in the volume of SAFETY Act
applications; more closely integrate the application and review process
with the procurement of such technologies and services; and bolster
awareness of and confidence in the efficacy of the SAFETY Act program
among producers of anti-terrorism technologies as well as Federal,
state, and local government purchases of these technologies.
While implementing the SAFETY Act, DHS has faced substantial
criticisms about delays and insufficient personnel. It is critical that
the Department continue to address these persistent issues and increase
the number of highly trained, full-time personnel dedicated to
reviewing and approving SAFETY Act applications. It is imperative that
quick turnaround times are maintained when responding to operational
needs. The link between the SAFETY Act office and the procurement
office must be improved. If a product meets a test for procurement
officials, there is no reason why the SAFETY Act office should have to
run through a new process to test the effectiveness of the product.
I commend Congressman Langevin for sponsoring this legislation that
requires the issuance of a Department directive to formalize the
coordination between the Department's procurement office and OSAI.
Thus, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R.
599, to direct the Secretary of Homeland security to streamline the
SAFETY Act and anti-terrorism technology procurement processes. It is
my hope and expectation that the passage of H.R. 599 will ensure the
proper and timely implementation of the SAFETY Act of 2002.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Jones of Ohio). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) that
the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 599.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
[[Page H859]]
those voting have responded in the affirmative.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 599 will
be followed by 5-minute votes on motions to suspend the rules with
respect to House Resolution 51, H.R. 476, and House Resolution 57.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 427,
nays 0, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 47]
YEAS--427
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Buyer
Carson
Gordon
Lucas
Manzullo
Norwood
Pickering
Wynn
{time} 1410
Mr. HELLER of Nevada, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida and Mr.
CALVERT changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms. CARSON. Madam Speaker, I was unable to record my vote for
rollcall vote 47. Had I been able to record my vote, I would have voted
``yea.''
____________________