PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Jan 23, 2007
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that 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 to determine whether such technologies may be designated or certified anti-terrorism technologies under the SAFETY Act.
Requires the Secretary to: (1) establish a formal coordination process that includes the official of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with primary responsibility for the implementation of such Act, the Chief Procurement Officer of DHS, the Under Secretary for Science and Technology, the Under Secretary for Policy, and the General Counsel of DHS to ensure the maximum application of the litigation and risk management provisions of such Act to anti-terrorism technologies procured by DHS; (2) promote awareness and utilization of the litigation and risk management provisions of such Act in the procurement of anti-terrorism technologies; and (3) issue a departmental management directive providing for coordination between DHS procurement officials and any other DHS official responsible for implementing such Act in advance of any DHS procurement of an anti-terrorism technology.
People & committees
Rep. Langevin, James R. [D-RI-2] · D–RI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 427 - 0 (Roll no. 47). (text: CR H855)
House roll call 47 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 427 - 0 (Roll no. 47).(text: CR H855)
House roll call 47 · Individual votesDEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 599.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H855-859)
Mr. Langevin moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.599 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.599 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.599 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.599 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.