Streamlining of Safety Act and Anti-Terrorism Technology Procurement Process

STREAMLINING OF SAFETY ACT AND ANTI-TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY PROCUREMENT PROCESSES

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov