[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1950-1954]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 1951]]

for the Department of Homeland Security to properly evaluate and 
approve many of the applications that businesses submitted.
  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.

[[Page 1952]]

  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 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.
  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.

[[Page 1953]]

       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 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

[[Page 1954]]

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 
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.''

                          ____________________