To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to streamline the SAFETY Act and anti-terrorism technology procurement processes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), my friend and colleague.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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.