[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 185 (Friday, December 18, 2015)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1835]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. BOB GOODLATTE

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, December 17, 2015

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the cybersecurity measures in the 
legislation before us today results from a bill passed unanimously by 
the House Homeland Security Committee and the House Select Committee on 
Intelligence, who both worked closely with the Judiciary Committee to 
craft the liability provisions included in the House-passed bill, and 
in the bill before us today. I rise to discuss its liability provisions 
in particular.
  It is increasingly clear that government at all levels must rely on 
the private sector to help counter more and varied threats to its 
citizens by those who would do them harm. Those threats can come in the 
form of terrorist mass shootings, suicide bombers, and cyber-attacks 
that steal people's personal identification, money, and credit. At the 
same time, abusive lawsuits have made the private sector less and less 
willing to take action to reduce public risks because of the fear of 
frivolous lawsuits.
  To date, Congress has enacted two federal statutes, the SAFETY Act 
and the PREP Act, to provide private entities that are on the front 
lines in the war with terrorists with protection from debilitating 
litigation that would otherwise deter them from acting at all. The 
legislation before us today is a logical extension of those vital 
efforts.
  Soon after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the federal 
government appealed directly to the private sector for help in 
combating terrorism. Shortly thereafter, a team of the nation's leading 
scientists called for a comprehensive rethinking of our anti-terrorism 
infrastructure, underscoring the need to encourage private activity so 
existing technologies could be quickly brought into use. According to 
their report, conducted under the auspices of the National Academies, 
``Research performed but not exploited, and technologies invented but 
not manufactured and deployed, do not help the nation protect itself.''
  As part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress enacted 
liability protections that the Department of Homeland Security could 
extend to providers of effective anti-terrorism technologies. The 
SAFETY Act has resulted in the deployment of tens of thousands of anti-
terrorism technologies to protect innocent Americans that would not 
have been deployed absent the Act's lawsuit protections.
  The SAFETY Act was initially opposed by the trial lawyers and their 
allies. But it soon came to enjoy broad bipartisan support. So much so 
that in January, 2007, just after the Democrats took control the House, 
a bill directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to streamline the 
SAFETY Act and anti-terrorism technology procurement processes passed 
by a vote of 427 to zero. During the debate on that legislation, the 
Democratic Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Bennie 
Thompson, said during debate on the bill: ``Today I rise to support a 
bill that reaffirms our commitment to ensuring that safe and effective 
antiterrorism technologies are being deployed . . . 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 . . . We must enable the private sector to deliver the 
revolutionary, breakthrough technologies that will help win the 
Nation's fight against terrorism.''
  In 2005, Congress enacted the Public Readiness and Emergency 
Preparedness Act, the ``PREP Act.'' Under the PREP Act, covered 
entities are protected from lawsuits when they engage in federally 
approved efforts to create vaccines and other means of stopping the 
spread of pandemics and other biological threats, including biological 
attacks by terrorists. Again, the PREP Act was initially opposed by the 
trial lawyers and their allies. But after it became law, President 
Obama, along with his predecessor, applied the PREP Act's protections 
many times, including to cover those making and administering influenza 
vaccines. Just last December, President Obama's Secretary of Health and 
Human Services applied the PREP Act's lawsuit protections to those 
manufacturing and distributing vaccines to help prevent the spread of 
the Ebola virus. In a press release announcing the application of the 
liability protections to those companies, the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services stated, and I quote, ``The PREP Act was designed to 
facilitate the development of medical countermeasures to respond to 
urgent public health needs, including the development of critical 
vaccines like those to prevent the spread of Ebola . . . My strong hope 
. . . is that other nations will also enact appropriate liability 
protection . . .'' Indeed, one of the vaccines the President protected 
from excessive liability under the PREP Act was able to quickly advance 
through its testing phases such that, by this August, it was declared 
``highly effective.''
  Today, I am proud to continue the bipartisan tradition of protecting 
the private sector from lawsuits when it's necessary to help the 
federal government do its job in protecting our nation's citizens from 
attack.

                          ____________________