[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 17]
[EX]
[Page 22798]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. RICHARD K. ARMEY

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 13, 2002

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Subtitle G 
of the Homeland Security bill, which is the Support Anti-terrorism by 
Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002--otherwise known as the 
``SAFETY Act.'' Briefly, the SAFETY Act ensures that U.S. companies 
will be able to develop and provide vital anti-terrorism technologies 
to help prevent or respond to terrorist attacks--without the threat of 
crippling lawsuits.
  Many technologies already exist that could be used to provide the 
American public with greater protection against a range of terrorist 
threats. However, due to concerns about potential lawsuits and 
liability, these technologies are not being made available to federal, 
state or local governments or to other commercial entities. Under 
current law, companies can only provide these technologies to a limited 
number of agencies of the Federal Government--but not to other entities 
with front line responsibility for protecting the public, including 
state and local authorities.
  The SAFETY Act ensures that these important technologies can be made 
available to help protect our cities, schools, hospitals, nuclear power 
plants, bridges, dams, and other critical areas.
  This legislation accomplishes this objective by providing litigation 
reforms and insurance guidelines for companies that help to prosecute 
the global war on terrorism. Without these protections, each time a 
technology or defense company puts its anti-terrorism technology to 
use, it becomes vulnerable to potentially unlimited and uninsurable 
liability. Such an enormous risk has an understandably chilling effect 
on the willingness and ability to research, develop, and deploy 
critical homeland security technology. The SAFETY Act guarantees that 
the best companies with the best products will come forward with their 
technologies and will not sit on the sidelines.
  The SAFETY Act helps to ensure that the most advanced anti-terrorism 
technology is put to use as soon as possible to protect American 
citizens through four mechanisms:
  First of all, the Act limits non-economic damages to the percentage 
of responsibility and limits the award of punitive damages.
  Second, the Act allows all providers of anti-terrorism technology to 
claim the ``government contractor defense.'' If a contractor or company 
follows the strict specifications set forth by the government, then 
that company will have a government contractor defense as is 
commonplace in existing law.
  Third, the Act applies to all providers of anti-terrorism technology, 
whether sold to the Federal government, state or local government, or a 
private sector entity that deals with the public safety. It also 
requires the companies to obtain liability insurance coverage. This 
provision balances the interests of potential plaintiffs and technology 
companies by requiring that the companies buy the maximum amount of 
reasonably available insurance without incurring unreasonable premiums. 
It is Congress' intent that the insurance that the contractor must 
obtain should be reasonably priced and the Act does not require the 
purchase of insurance that is priced at unreasonable or exorbitant 
levels which would distort the sales price of the technologies.
  Fourth, because any act of terrorism presents unknowable risks, 
liability for all claims against companies that provide anti-terrorism 
technologies are capped at the amount of the companies' liability 
insurance coverage required under the Act. We must not allow the 
litigation fallout from one act of terrorism to bankrupt a company that 
otherwise could have developed technology that could prevent another 
act of terrorism. This section is modeled after a similar provision in 
the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act. It is the 
intent of Congress that this provision limit the liability for any and 
all claims as detailed in the Act.
  Only those technologies designated by the Secretary of Homeland 
Security are covered under the SAFETY Act. Therefore, it is Congress's 
hope and intent that the Secretary will use the necessary latitude to 
make this list as broad and inclusive as possible, so as to insure that 
the maximum amount of protective technology and services become 
available. In addition, it is worth mentioning that the Act's anti-
terrorism technology criteria are not intended to be exclusive, and in 
order for a technology to merit coverage by the Act, it needn't meet 
all criteria. For instance, though prior U.S. government use or 
demonstrated utility is the first criterion listed, products new to the 
market are certainly eligible for coverage.
  Finally, all of the liability reforms and litigation measures of the 
SAFETY Act are intended to complement other government risk-sharing 
measures that some contractors can use such as Public Law 85-804. Thus, 
in those situations both types of measures could apply.
  Through this Act, we want to give the appropriate incentives to 
companies to provide the technologies that can protect the American 
people.

                          ____________________