Congressional Record: June 26, 2002 (House)
Page H3936-H3948
HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION SHARING ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 458 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4598.
{time} 1057
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4598) to provide for the sharing of homeland security information
by Federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies with State and
local entities, with Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) each will control 20 minutes. The
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), and I ask
unanimous consent that he be allowed to control the time that is
allowed to us on behalf of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the distinguished
chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for
the great work that he and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), have done in leading our Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, not just post-September 11, but even before
that.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has been a very level-headed
individual, who has carried us forward in some difficult times with
respect to dealing with our intelligence community; and since September
11 he has particularly provided the strong leadership that this
Congress needed and that this Nation has needed in order to be able to
ensure the American people that Congress and our intelligence community
is doing everything we possibly can to ensure that another act like
September 11 never occurs again.
{time} 1100
Since September 11 of last year, Congress has enhanced the
capabilities of the Federal, State and local officials to prepare and
respond to acts of terrorism. Information sharing is the key to
cooperation and coordination in homeland security, and it has become
abundantly more clear that better information sharing among government
agencies and with State and local officials needs to be a higher
priority.
The intelligence community of the Federal Government does a great job
of gathering information on terrorist activity, but we do a very poor
job of sharing that information both horizontally and vertically within
our agencies and with State and local officials.
In the public hearings which our Subcommittee on Terrorism and
Homeland Security held last September and October, we heard a recurring
theme from witnesses ranging from New York City Mayor Rudolph Guiliani
to Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating. They stressed the importance of an
increased level of information sharing between Federal intelligence and
law enforcement agencies and local and State law enforcement agencies.
Governor Keating even told us a story about his State Adjutant
General, a gentleman that he appointed, who informed the governor he
could not share some information with him because, as governor, he did
not have the right security clearance.
The case in Oklahoma is no exception. These same types of
communication gaps exist in every State, including my home State of
Georgia. The result is that sheriffs and local officials do not have
the same information as the governor, who does not have the same
information as the FBI, who does not have the same information as other
local officials.
As we fight this war on terrorism, we must make certain that relevant
intelligence and sensitive information relating to our national
security be in
[[Page H3937]]
the hands of the right person at the right time to prevent another
attack and more needless loss of life. Critical homeland security
information which Federal agencies and departments collect need to be
quickly disseminated to State and local law enforcement officials and
others who play key roles in protecting our communities.
For these reasons, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and
I, along with several of our colleagues, including the leadership of
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as well as the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman
of the Subcommittee on Crime, introduced the Homeland Security
Information Sharing Act.
This bill will help to eliminate the stovepipes that exist in the
intelligence and law enforcement worlds with respect to sharing of
vital information and will assist officials across government to
communicate with each other. Our bill will increase the level of
cooperation between State, local and Federal law enforcement officials.
Only when these organizations begin communicating on a more regular
basis and sharing the information that they have with each other in
relevant communities can we begin to effectively prepare for and defend
ourselves against future attacks.
I have traveled all across my State of Georgia and listened to the
concerns of many of our community leaders and emergency responders, and
I am more convinced than ever that we must pass this legislation. Our
police officers, our firefighters, our sheriffs and other local
emergency officials need to be informed about the threats that may
exist to their communities.
Georgia sheriffs like John Cary Bittick of Monroe County, who serves
as the president of the National Sheriffs Association, or Bill Hutson
of Cobb County need to know when there is information relevant to their
community that will help them do their jobs better and prevent any type
of terrorist attack. This bill has the support of all major law
enforcement groups and other organizations of local officials.
The events of September 11 left us staring into the eyes of our own
shortcomings. In the days following, we began to connect the scattered
and vague messages that in hindsight seemed to point to the
devastation, but hindsight is 20/20. Now we must take the information
and move forward. We must act, and our bill will go a long way toward
helping our law enforcement officials protect us by giving them the
tools they need to better protect us.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important
legislation.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee for yielding.
I wanted to take just a second to briefly thank publicly the chairman
of the subcommittee and the ranking member, the vice chairman of the
committee, for doing extraordinary work on behalf of our Nation on the
subject of terrorism and homeland security.
This really was the first body in Congress that dealt with this
subject after the tragedies of 9-11. They have done an amazing job of
gathering material, having the right kind of hearings, talking to the
right type of people.
We have a report that I guess is going through classification review
or something at this point to make sure we can get as much as possible
available to the public as we can do, but this has been hard work. It
has been well managed, and it shows Congress doing something positive
when there is a critical need for the people of the United States.
So I want to return very much the compliment of the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Harman), and thank them very much for the fine work. They do the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence proud.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) be allowed to manage the time
on this bill. She is one of the valuable members of the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence and one of the key authors, along with
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
There was no objection.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) with whom I have
had a long and productive partnership on the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence. I would also like to thank the chairman of
the full committee for the comments he just made. He is graceful, he is
competent, he is bipartisan, and I think much of the progress we have
been able to make on this problem and many others has to do with the
kind of leadership he exhibits as the chairman of the full committee,
and I really want to say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) that
I am one of his biggest admirers.
For those wondering, Mr. Chairman, what Congress' response to the
intractable problem of information sharing is, the answer starts with
this vote. I am pleased to speak on behalf of H.R. 4598, the Homeland
Security Information Sharing Act of 2002. I introduced this legislation
with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the chairman of the
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Subcommittee on
Terrorism and Homeland Security, some months ago. This bill, like our
subcommittee, is a bipartisan effort, and I appreciate his cooperation
and real leadership.
Our subcommittee held a hearing last October in New York City to
learn the first lessons of the September 11 tragedies. Former Mayor
Rudy Giuliani testified that our critical priority should be to get
information on terrorist activities to mayors and local responders. In
addition, the National League of Cities, several first responder
associations and my governor, Gray Davis of California, agree and
support this effort to get information into the hands of those who need
it; and not only to get the information there but, hopefully, to give
them information on what to do in the event of a terrorist threat or
terrorist attack.
That is what our bill does. It directs the President to create new
procedures to share information on terrorist threats across the Federal
government and down to the local government and first responders. After
these provisions are put in place, police, fire, public health, EMTs
and other first responders will know when the FBI or the CIA has
critical information on a threat to their communities.
Governor Tom Ridge, in talking about the new Department of Homeland
Security, says all the time that homeland security begins with hometown
security, and that is what we are talking about. This information will
empower the local communities to protect themselves.
The information will supplement the administration's homeland
security advisory system by giving responders actionable information.
If, for example, the CIA uncovers a threat to California's suspension
bridges, that threat information will be relayed to the governor, to
mayors, to police, to Coast Guard and transportation officials in
California. Local teams can then react in a systematic, intelligent way
to prevent the threat and notify the public appropriately.
The Homeland Security Information Sharing Act recognizes two
realities, that sharing of information is more effective when
unclassified and that we do not need to reinvent the wheel.
Intelligence on terrorist threats collected by our intelligence
community will be classified. The first responders, the feet on the
ground, do not need to know how it was collected. They need to know
what to do with it. That is why the bill relies on stripping the
sensitive sources and methods and transmitting the information through
unclassified means.
Not only does this get critical information out to our States and
cities, it protects the dedicated workers of our intelligence
community. It prevents leaks of classified information, and it saves
every police and fire department
[[Page H3938]]
across the country from having to invest in security clearance
investigations and special facilities for handling secret information.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, the United States already shares
intelligence with our allies. The legislation directs use of existing
technology used in sharing information with NATO allies and Interpol.
These techniques will be borrowed and used after this legislation
becomes law. The information can then be shared through existing
information sharing networks, such as NLEST, the National Law
Enforcement Telecommunications System or the Regional Information
Sharing Systems. These systems already reach 18,000 law enforcement
offices across the country.
Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to support H.R. 4598. It is the
right bill at the right time. We take the step towards solving the
problems we faced on 9-11 today. It starts with this bill. It starts
now. I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) for authoring
the bill with me.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a former FBI agent.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the
gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the time, and I want to commend
him on his work and his leadership on this issue, and I have to tell
him, as an agent who worked in the field, next to the PATRIOT Act and I
think at equal stature is this bill. I think the bill is that important
to the future security of the United States of America. I want to again
applaud him from every agent in the field who is struggling to make a
difference today. This bill will make a difference for the safety and
security of this Nation.
I want to tell this story. We often forget, and sometimes in this
town we are so quick to find a villain we forget about finding the
solution. Over time what we have done to the agents in the field was,
and we would hear the arguments, well, they are not cooperating because
one agency thinks they are better than the other. Simply not so.
When we were agents, there are barriers that were put in place that
prohibited us from communicating information to local law enforcement
officials. I had a case as a new agent where I was able to work a State
police officer undercover into a group of self-proclaimed anarchists
who were going to do some damage by building bombs and delivering these
bombs to kill Federal judges in institutions owned and operated by the
Central Intelligence Agency.
Here is the dichotomy we got into. Because of the information we were
developing in this case, we were not allowed by law, by rule, to share
some of the information that we were developing with the very agent who
was risking his life from the State police to go undercover to help us
solve it. We had meetings with general counsel and a room full of
lawyers trying to figure out if this was the right thing and what
information could we or should we, and we always erred on the side of
caution, saying we better not share that information.
This bill helps eliminate those very ridiculous rules that for years
put fear in the agents who are trying to do the right thing. That is
why this bill is so important. It will empower agents there through
their own good judgment and common sense to deliver the information
that they need and they know they need to deliver to our local law
enforcement, our local sheriff offices, our local State police
institutions, other Federal agencies. This bill will make that
difference and will take down the fear that these agents have of losing
their jobs or worse, in some cases losing everything they have through
civil liability.
This bill is that important, Mr. Chairman, and I, again, I cannot
tell my colleague, from the agents that I have talked to, how important
this bill is and what freeing ability this is going to have to them to
in a responsible way communicate the kinds of information that is going
to make it safer for firefighters and EMT folks out there, for
emergency room workers who are going to deal with some of these
tragedies, for every level of law enforcement in this country.
This is that last bastion, that last hurdle that is going to stop us
from doing good things. Had this bill been in place, we could have
shared a lot of information with the State police and maybe even
broadened our net a little bit and protected him to a degree that we
really were not allowed under the law to do when I was an FBI agent.
Again, I would hope that this body would have quick action on this
bill and stand up and salute the work of all, from the minority to the
majority party, who worked so hard on this bill to make a difference
for this country and the agents that are doing the work.
{time} 1115
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), who is a member of our
subcommittee and one of our hardest-working partners on issues like
these.
(Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all commend the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman) for their hard work on this bipartisan
legislation. The gentleman from Georgia has been a leader from his
position on the subcommittee, and the gentlewoman from California has
shown dogged determination and real intellectual insight in helping
craft this legislation and putting it forward before this body, and I
thank her for her hard work.
This is important for our rural and urban communities that want to
partake in preventing terrorism in the future, and so I rise in strong
support of this legislation and want to thank the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and
particularly the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), for their
support in helping improve the legislation as well.
My reading of this legislation, Mr. Chairman, reveals that it is
quite simple and quite productive in what it does. It says to the
President of the United States that he must help us devise a system to
share information from the Federal, national, level with our local
communities.
We have seen some of the problems in communication between the FBI
and the CIA, between national and local field offices, and this will
help change the culture and deal with the hurdles and some of the
barriers that have been put up in the past to make this system work
better in the future.
We also see that the President has two steps that he can take in
devising this system: one is to declassify information, to declassify
this information and, therefore, make it more shareable, if that is a
word, a better sharing system with the local community; secondly, is to
provide clearances for the local community so that they can get this
information, glean from it, get it out, and hopefully prevent the next
terrorist act from happening.
I think this is very important, very intelligent; and I think the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman) have really come up with a good system to
provide a way to fill in some of the gaps and the seams and the holes
that exist in the current system.
I do want to say that I think this legislation also answers two
important questions for the future. One is we have a lot of information
out there. How do we make this information knowledge? How do we provide
this information so it is actionable for our local communities rather
than simply a color code of red or yellow? How does this information
get translated into actionable information that helps the local
community move forward to prevent terrorist activity?
The second question is how do we devise this system for the homeland
security department to actually implement this in the future? The more
information we get out there on these merging questions, the
integration questions, the intelligence and analytical questions for
the homeland security department, the more we have to move
intelligently and wisely to get it right, rather than simply moving to
get it done by September 11.
This is a very, very big question for us in the future, and I hope
that this
[[Page H3939]]
legislation will help us move forward to get the homeland department
right in the future; and so again I congratulate the gentlewoman from
California and the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this country is at war against a craven enemy:
terrorists. Their main purpose is to kill Americans, whether they are
babies or the elderly. We know that this enemy is living here in the
United States as well as abroad.
As a result, this country is at war with no borders or fronts. Thus,
it will often be the first responders, local police, firefighters,
emergency responders, that will confront this enemy when we are
threatened or attacked at home.
First responders, however, cannot adequately prepare and respond to
such threats without receiving appropriate threat information, nor will
the Federal Government be able to respond appropriately without
receiving information from State and local officials. We must have a
comprehensive information-sharing system that involves all levels of
government.
In order to better be able to prevent, disrupt, and respond to a
terrorist attack, the Federal Government must improve, first,
information sharing; second, analysis of the information; and, third,
coordination. All three are interdependent and vital for a strong
homeland security system.
Congress recognized the information-sharing problems immediately
after 9-11 and passed the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act that provided for enhanced
investigative tools and improved information sharing for the Federal
law enforcement and intelligence communities. The enhanced law
enforcement tools and information-sharing provisions have assisted in
the prevention of terrorist activities and crimes which further such
activities.
To protect privacy, the PATRIOT Act, first, limited disclosure to
foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information, as defined by
statute; second, restricted disclosure to only those officials with the
need to know the information in the performance of their duties; and,
third, maintained the limits on public or other unauthorized
disclosure.
What the PATRIOT Act did not do was address the need to share
homeland security information with State and local officials. The
process by which Federal agencies share information with State and
local officials is complicated due to the classified and sensitive
nature of much of the information and the need to provide the States
and localities with this information in an expedient manner.
This bill helps to address this perplexing issue. This important
legislation was reported out of the Committee on the Judiciary on June
13, 2002, after an extensive markup. It requires the President to
establish procedures for Federal agencies to determine the extent to
which classified and unclassified, but sensitive, information may be
shared with State and local officials on a need-to-know basis.
To share this information with State and local officials, Federal
agencies must use information-sharing systems that are capable of
transmitting both unclassified and classified information in a
restricted manner to specified subgroups and be accessible to the
appropriate State and local personnel and Federal agencies.
During consideration of H.R. 4598, the Committee on the Judiciary
adopted an amendment to ensure that the new procedures contained
adequate privacy protections. The bill directs the President to include
conditions in the procedures that, first, limit the redissemination of
such information to ensure that the information is not used for an
unauthorized purpose; second, ensure the security and confidentiality
of such information; third, protect the constitutional and statutory
rights of any individuals who are subject to such information; and,
fourth, provide data integrity through the timely removal and
destruction of obsolete or erroneous names and information.
Additionally, the committee adopted an amendment which was a modified
version of H.R. 3285, the Federal Local Information Sharing Partnership
Act of 2001, a bill introduced by the New York delegation. This
amendment extends the information-sharing provisions in the PATRIOT Act
to State and local officials. Currently, Federal officials cannot share
surveillance and intelligence information with State and local
officials. This amendment allows for such sharing.
Current law does allow a Federal Government attorney to disclose,
with a court order, grand jury information to State and local officials
related to Federal criminal law matters. The amendment expands the type
of grand jury information available for sharing to include information
pertaining to foreign intelligence, foreign counterintelligence,
foreign intelligence information, and domestic threat information.
Domestic threat information is not covered in the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act.
This information needs to be covered, but often it is not clear as to
whether threats result from international or domestic terrorism. The
amendment also authorized Federal criminal law information to be shared
with foreign officials with court approval.
The amendment contains safeguards against the misuse of grand jury
information. The information may only be disclosed for the specified
purpose of preventing and responding to a threat. Additionally,
recipients may only use the disclosed information in the conduct of
their official duties as is necessary, and they are subject to the
restrictions for unauthorized disclosures, including contempt of court.
State and local officials will be the first to respond to a terrorist
attack. It goes without saying that the Federal Government must be able
to provide homeland security information to those officials. H.R. 4598,
as amended, will help to disseminate homeland security information
quickly and efficiently while protecting classified sources and methods
information.
This legislation is vital to improving homeland security, and I urge
my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary for that outstanding explanation of the
bill, and I thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Chambliss) for his expert opinion on this issue and his hard work and
dedication, and I want to take a moment to single out two Floridians.
There has been a lot of concern about terrorist activities in our
country, and some people have been second-guessing some of our great
agencies. There have been two notable Floridians, Senator Bob Graham
and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), who are Chairs of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on the House side and the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on the Senate side, and I have
to praise them for their handling of this information and the way they
have been able to work together as colleagues across the aisle and
across the Chambers in trying to develop a comprehensive terrorism
strategy and a homeland security strategy.
I also want to applaud the agencies themselves. It is time that
America lifts up its heart and wishes the best for every agency and
every American, rather than the cynical second-guessing of people and
the Monday morning quarterbacking and the reflections in the rear-view
mirror. Let us look forward as a Nation to provide for the common
defense, to protect our communities, to salute the fine men and women
who make up these agencies. Let us not sit here and have a pity party.
Let us work together.
I also want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman),
who has done a tremendous job explaining on national network some of
the intricacies of what we are dealing with. I know my constituents are
very, very pleased and proud when they see Democrats and Republicans
explaining to the American public what we are doing relative to
homeland security, to give us security, to make us feel better, and to
also let us know we are fighting terrorism.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Bishop), another member of our committee and I will also
thank him for his leadership, and, at the same time, thank my colleague
from Florida for his kind comments.
[[Page H3940]]
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill, H.R.
4598.
Mr. Chairman, the great failure of September 11 was our failure to
methodically analyze and share among our Federal and local authorities
critical intelligence information. The task before Congress today is to
provide greater transparency in the information-sharing process so that
police officers, sheriffs, elected officials and other emergency
responders can exchange vital information while also protecting the
critical sources and methods that are used in gathering such
information.
The bill before us today, the Homeland Security Information Sharing
Act, answers this calling. Specifically, it directs the President to
develop procedures by which Federal and local agencies and personnel
share security information. It ensures adequate security in the
dissemination and transmission of classified or unclassified
information based on a recipient's need to know. It protects the legal
and constitutional rights of individuals by requiring that shared
information is current, factually accurate, and used only for the
authorized purpose for which it was obtained or disseminated.
Finally, it safely and responsibly provides authorized State and
local officials access to certain types of sensitive information,
including foreign intelligence and grand jury information, consistent
with the Justice Department and CIA agency guidelines.
Mr. Chairman, transparency must be the goal of any homeland security
proposal. This legislation fulfills our responsibility to the American
people by providing authorized professionals with the best, safest, and
most accurate information available in the most efficient manner
possible.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism and Homeland Security of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4598, the Homeland Security Information Sharing
Act, was approved by the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland
Security on June 4 and by the full Committee on the Judiciary on June
13.
This bipartisan bill was introduced by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Chambliss), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and
Homeland Security of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the
ranking member of that subcommittee.
{time} 1130
This bill does not mandate the sharing of information but rather
removes the barriers for doing so. The discretion will still remain
with the Federal entity that possesses the information. This bill as
amended and reported out of the Committee on the Judiciary focuses on
procedures to strip out classified information so that State and local
officials may receive the information without clearances.
The bill also removes the barriers for State and local officials that
prevent them from sharing intelligence information with Federal
officials.
The September 11 terrorist attacks made it clear that the Federal
Government must improve its ability to collect, share and analyze
information. The USA PATRIOT Act and this bill address that pressing
need.
Mr. Chairman, America must have a comprehensive information exchange
system that will allow those on the front line, our State and local
officials, to detect and prevent a terrorist attack. H.R. 4598 helps to
create just that system.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), a cosponsor of this legislation.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise not only as a cosponsor of this bill and also
supporter of the bill but also to urge my colleagues to support this
vital legislation as we vote on it today in this body. There has been a
growing theme, Mr. Chairman, that Congress must take this opportunity
to address the lack of information sharing among some of our Federal
agencies.
As a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I have
heard testimony about how some of these agencies do not share
information in a way that best protects our homeland. To put it another
way, not all of the dots are being connected. Internally, some
agencies, like the FBI, may connect some of the dots, the CIA may
connect some of the dots, and the Border Patrol and Customs may connect
some of the dots. But if all of our efforts fail to present a complete
picture, we are likely to face a tragedy perhaps worse than those we
faced on September 11.
The current stovepipe barriers that prevent timely information
sharing must stop. Never before in our Nation's history has
communication sharing among our national security agencies been as
imperative nor as important as it is today.
While information sharing horizontally must improve, our local law
enforcement and first responders demand that we achieve vertical
integration in information sharing as well.
As we have all heard from our constituents back home, the first
responders are the people who play key rolls in protecting the
communities in which they serve. Our police, firefighters, medical
personnel must be informed of the threats that exist within their
communities so they are able to prepare and protect those in their
communities.
H.R. 4598 ensures that information sharing, both horizontally and
vertically, exists by directing the President to develop procedures by
which Federal agencies will share security information with State and
local personnel. Further, it ensures that information-sharing systems
have the capability to transmit classified and unclassified
information.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) and
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) for their hard work on
this legislation.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time and also her leadership and the leadership that the caucus
has brought to this important issue.
I believe this is one of the singular, most important issues next to
the development of the homeland department, is to make sure that this
coordination of information happens.
We know first hand in Portland, Maine, where a couple of the
terrorists had boarded the plane, to have gone through the security
screening and not to have that information disseminated to the local
law enforcement that was available at the Federal level with Federal
law enforcement is just completely unacceptable.
I think this legislation which I am cosponsoring directing the
administration to develop procedures for Federal agencies to share this
information, both declassified and classified, is appropriate with
State and local authorities. This bill requires the CIA and the
Department of Justice to prescribe procedures in accordance with
Presidential directives with Federal agencies to share homeland
security information with State and local authorities. These Federal
agencies would also be required to provide to State and local
authorities an assessment of the credibility of such information.
This legislation is going to go a long way to further enhancing the
relationship between the Federal, State and local governments so we can
together protect Maine and the Nation's homeland security.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, we were very much impressed by the remarks given by our
colleague from Michigan, the former FBI agent, about the personal
experience he had with the vacuum that was left when information did
not percolate
[[Page H3941]]
very quickly and was not shared immediately, to the detriment of an
investigation to which he was a part.
Every Member in Congress has some kind of situation which he can
relate in which sharing of information was not what it should have
been. I myself a few months ago was part of a scenario in which the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued what it felt was a credible threat
to Three Mile Island and reported the essence of that credible threat
to the operators of Three Mile Island. This was 6 or 6:30 p.m. At 1
a.m., when an all-clear was sent forth, we learned for the first time
that the first responders, the township officials, the State officials,
the county officials who were responsible in and around Three Mile
Island, some of them did not hear about this credible threat for
several hours following the institution of it by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, and some never heard a thing about it.
Happily nothing happened, and it turned out not to be a credible
threat, but we were alarmed. So we convened a meeting of all of the
people who should have been involved in the sharing of information,
from the initial first responders in and around Three Mile Island
straight up to the State agency, and thus we now have in place a set of
positions that will more easily undertake the sharing of information
and deal with any kind of threat.
Just yesterday, I and several other Members participated in a war
game at Fort McNair sponsored by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and
Secretary of Agriculture Veneman which portrayed a scenario to
determine whether Members of Congress can come up with recommendations
to the President if such a thing would really happen; and 80 percent of
it, I must relate to the Members, had to do with sharing of information
and communication of information on the spot as the threat was
developing under the war game.
We learned in this war game that the essence of any kind of
preparation for our society, our neighbors, our families, our
municipalities, is the instant communication among them of what is
happening and the sharing of information across the board for the
preparation to meet a threat in the best possible way.
So we all are in a position now to support this piece of legislation
which will aid all of us in the completion of a cycle in which sharing
of information will be more vital than ever.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to myself.
Mr. Chairman, the perspective just offered is very helpful to us as
we consider this legislation. This is an effort to empower local
officials on whose real estate future terrorist acts will occur.
Without useful information, they and the citizens who live in those
places will not know what to do, and if they do not know what to do,
they will panic. That is exactly what the terrorists want, and I
appreciate the gentleman's comments.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support a bill to help local
officials and our emergency responders better protect our communities.
I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 4598, the Homeland Security Information
Sharing Act.
We need this bill so we can promote the sharing of critical homeland
security threat information between Federal law enforcement and
intelligence agencies and State and local officials, including our
first responders. We need to do this for the families who lost loved
ones on September 11 and in the October anthrax attacks, for the
American people who expect us to protect them, and for our children so
that future generations can grow up in a free and open society.
We can and must do so while protecting people's constitutional rights
and civil liberties by requiring that any information that is shared
must not be used for any unauthorized purpose, and that the procedures
must ensure the security and confidentiality of the information, as
well as remove or delete obsolete or erroneous information.
I cosponsored this bill because first responders from across my
district have contacted my office asking for the means to receive
credible and specific threat information in order to prevent or respond
to terrorist attacks. The fact is, our local first responders face real
threats. They need real information and real resources to protect our
communities.
This bill is an important first step. It says we will be full
partners in this action against terrorism. The partnership is critical
in protecting communities and saving lives.
We all agree that, since September 11, America's heroic first
responders have risen to the occasion, protecting communities as the
first line of defense against terrorism. In my district, as across
America, they have marshaled the resources to track down leads on
potential terrorist threats, to buy more equipment, from upgraded
weapons to technology to biohazard suits and masks. They have increased
hazmat training for handling suspicious packages and stepped up patrols
around potential targets like water and gas supplies, power plants,
harbors and airports.
Now it is time for us to step up and help them. While our first
responders appreciated our praise, they do not need our rhetoric. They
need our information, and they need resources. This bill is the first
step to allow that to happen. We need to press the administration to
release direct funding to local first responders and to give them
credit for $1.5 billion already spent in this effort.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of the Committee on the
Judiciary to claim the time for the minority.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is recognized for 10 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Weiner).
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman), and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss)
for helping bring this bill to the floor.
We do not have to look far into the realm of the hypothetical to see
why this bill was necessary. When anthrax was found at the NBC building
at New York City several months ago, the Department of Health was not
notified. The New York City Police Department was not notified. In
fact, the Police Commissioner and the Mayor found out by watching
television news.
We do not know to this day why local authorities were not notified,
but we can figure it out by reading the current law of the land. We can
figure out it was probably a Federal agency, probably the FBI that was
notified, and since they might have found out about this information
via a wiretap or grand jury testimony, they were prohibited by the law
of the land from even letting New York City know.
{time} 1145
Imagine if it were even worse than that anthrax attack. Imagine if in
the course of a wiretap about some other related case, someone says,
"This deal is going to go down tomorrow in the New York City subway
system. We are going to release sarin gas," or "We are going to try
to derail a train." Can you imagine if it were the FBI alone, since
they gathered the information and were prohibited by law in the way
they gathered it, going into every subway station and trying to figure
out where they should be to try to stop this?
They could not call the New York City mass transit authority, they
could not call the transit authority police that have been responsible
for driving crime down in the City of New York subways. They would have
had to go down and try to figure out a way to navigate that threat on
their own.
There is a reason, perhaps, that these prohibitions were in place.
Maybe there is a concern, and it is a legitimate one, about having
information that comes as very sensitive falling into the wrong hands.
That is why the bill that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss)
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) have drafted is smart
by saying that the Attorney General does not have to turn over every
piece of information, does not have to say, "Well, we have a box of
grand jury information. Let's give it to every sheriff's department
that might be so implicated," but it does at least allow them to do it
if need be.
Mayor Giuliani before he left office approached this Congress and
spoke
[[Page H3942]]
publicly about the need to have this information in certain
circumstances. He said, "We need the information, and we need it right
away. Otherwise, we are going to make a terrible, critical mistake."
What Mr. Giuliani was talking about is a mistake of omission, excluding
from the chain of information people who needed the information.
I share the concerns that some raised in committee that we do not
want this information to chip away at the confidentiality of the grand
jury. We do not want wiretap information falling into the wrong hands.
But at the very least, if someone runs into the Attorney General's
office with a hot piece of information of an impending threat, I would
hate to have the Attorney General's counsel say, "Boss, you can't let
the City of New York know about this. You can't let the City of Detroit
know about this. You can't let a locality that might need to know about
this know about it."
This is what this seeks to address. There has been a great deal of
talk about the way we need to get different levels of government
connecting the various dots. This piece of legislation does it better
than anything we have done yet to date.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume just to commend the gentleman from New York for his real
insight into the practicalities of this issue. His amendment which was
filed in the Committee on the Judiciary was readily accepted by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and myself because it gets
right to the core of the practical problem out there and also allows
for additional information to be redacted, declassified and get in the
hands of the right people at the right time and within real time. I
commend the gentleman for his insight and for his thoughtfulness on
this issue. His particular amendment will go a long way toward saving
additional lives of Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a valued member of the Committee
on the Judiciary.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Georgia, the
gentlewoman from California and the gentleman from New York for their
hard work on this bill.
It is absolutely necessary, Mr. Chairman, to provide a mechanism for
meaningful communication of sensitive information to local and State
officials so they can take appropriate action to protect citizens from
terrorist attacks. Much of this information will, by necessity, be
sensitive, often derogatory information which will be circulated
without the target of the information ever being able to respond. For
public safety reasons, we have to be able to communicate what is known,
but we need to make every effort to ensure that this information is
circulated just to those who actually need it and not spread all over
town so that the chances are increased that someone's neighbors or
friends who happen to work for the government agencies might see it
unnecessarily.
This bill, because of the hard work of those involved, strikes that
appropriate balance. It is slightly different from the Senate version
of the bill which tightens the language in regards to privacy and
limitations on the kinds of information which will be subject to the
provisions of the bill. I would hope that the conferees will adopt the
Senate language. It is not inconsistent with the goals of the bill.
But I must also add that the bill establishes just a framework for
regulations to be developed. It is therefore important that those who
develop the regulations and those who implement the regulations follow
not only the letter of the law but also reflect the bipartisan spirit
by which this bill was developed.
Again, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California, the gentleman
from Georgia and the gentleman from New York for their hard work on
this legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the eloquent
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. I rise in support of this legislation.
In the days following September 11, Congress acted very quickly to
pass the PATRIOT bill. Some of us thought that some of the provisions
in that bill perhaps overstepped the bounds, and some of us voted
against it because we were concerned about its implications for
individual liberties. In the days since, what has become very, very
apparent is that it does not do any good for the CIA and the FBI and
Federal law enforcement agencies to have information that would help us
combat terrorism and respond to it without bringing local law
enforcement and agencies into the equation and sharing that information
with them, not necessarily the full ambit of the information that we
have but, subject to certain guidelines, sharing that information with
them.
When this bill came before the Committee on the Judiciary, some of us
expressed concerns and offered an amendment that would put some
parameters around this second-stage process of sharing information with
local authorities. The Committee on the Judiciary added language which
I think is absolutely critical to this bill which would make sure that
the information limits the redissemination of such information to
ensure that such information is not used for an unauthorized purpose,
to ensure the security and confidentiality of such information, to
protect the constitutional and statutory rights of any individuals who
are subjects of such information, and to provide data integrity through
the timely removal and destruction of obsolete and erroneous names and
information so that people who are just kind of generally suspicious
would not have their whole lives and reputations ruined as a result of
information that was shared with local authorities even though they
might not be guilty of anything or even involved in anything either
directly or indirectly.
We have done a great service to add this language in the Committee on
the Judiciary. There are still some concerns, perhaps, about the use of
grand jury information and other aspects of this. I think the Senate is
addressing some of those concerns on the Senate side, but we clearly
need to move this bill forward, get it into conference and work out
some of these other details, because local authorities really need to
be in the loop when it comes to protecting us from terrorism. This bill
would certainly allow that to happen.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 2 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for yielding me this time.
Let me offer my applause to the proponents of this legislation, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman) from the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence.
I rise to support this legislation and to point out one or two
matters that I think are very important. That is, as a member of the
Committee on the Judiciary, the concern, as my colleagues have already
mentioned, with the preservation of the sanctity of the grand jury
testimony or of grand jury testimony, recognizing the importance now
even more past September 11. The horrific acts of September 11
certainly, as I have said often, turned the page as to how we do
business in America, but certainly now even more after that time frame,
after the attack, if you will, of anthrax, we have come to understand
the viability and the importance of first responders and the local
communities.
This legislation confirms for us that there must be exchange, there
must be dialogue on the issues of homeland security, on the issues of
information, but we must be reminded that, as we go forward, it is
important for the President, the administration, the executive branch,
to define and determine how that information on the Federal level is
discerned and interpreted and transmitted.
I offered amendments in the larger body that I believe help to
enhance this legislation. I look forward to offering a prospective
amendment as well that
[[Page H3943]]
was proposed but not offered. When I say proposed, there was an
interest in but it was not put forward at the committees. But I will
say that the language that adds public health security in the bill is
important, that it ensures that those who are involved in public health
security as well will receive information and as well the emphasis or
the adding that rural and urban communities, those first responders
there, will be particularly not highlighted but noted that those areas
have to have an opportunity to receive information in a balanced way
throughout the Nation.
I would offer to support this legislation with the constraints that
it has and applaud the proponents of this legislation as well as the
distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think this has been a very useful debate and would just like to
underscore several points.
First of all, as my coauthor, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Chambliss), has said, the House Committee on the Judiciary has made a
substantial contribution to this bill. We have heard from the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Weiner), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Watt), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith)
about a number of issues that they have had concerns about, and a
number of changes they have made to this legislation when it went
through their committee. I just want to salute them for a very
constructive contribution to making this legislation better.
Second, I would like to underscore the importance of bipartisanship.
This is a constant refrain of mine. I represent a very bipartisan
district. I have often pointed out that I do not believe the terrorists
will check our party registration before they try to blow us up.
Therefore, it is absolutely critical that we face the problems of
homeland security as American problems, not as partisan problems. This
legislation certainly does this. It was introduced virtually
unanimously by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
and that was a very good beginning. I believe that the best legislation
we produce here is bipartisan, and this is an example of it.
I also want to salute again the really very special leadership of the
chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). His style is enormously productive
on that committee, and I think his experience is enormously helpful to
us as well. He sets an environment in which people like the gentleman
from Georgia and I can be our most productive in this Congress.
The third point is that homeland security is a bottom-up problem, not
a top-down problem. As we continue to consider the department of
homeland security concept, which I support as an original cosponsor of
the bill introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), we need to
remember that the point is not the best arrangement of the deck chairs,
the point is how to empower our first responders and all Americans to
have the critical information they need to know what to do.
This bill is all about that. It is about making sure that the
beginning of the process is empowered. I think it is one of the most
important contributions we can make and very consistent with what our
subcommittee heard at the first hearing after 9-11 in New York City.
Many are saying that we do not really need a department of homeland
security because it does not fix the real problem, which is the lack of
collaboration between the CIA and the FBI, which are not formally moved
over to that new department. I do not think they should be moved, but I
do agree there is a real problem and that problem is about information
sharing. This bill addresses that problem.
{time} 1200
Finally, let me say that if we think about what the major problems
are in our effort to develop an effective strategy for homeland
security, information sharing is certainly one. The other big one we do
not address here, but it is a big one that we will address I hope
shortly, is interoperability. Our first responders need information,
but then they need to be able to talk to each other, to communicate in
real-time with all of those who are with them trying to deal with
whatever the threat is, hopefully to prevent it or disrupt it, but if
not, to respond to it. So I hope that soon we will also take up that
important issue.
On that point, Mr. Chairman, I would mention to our colleagues that
Governor Ridge was here yesterday testifying before the House Committee
on Energy and Commerce on which I serve. We talked about that issue. He
does support the notion of bridging technologies, and there are
existing technologies to deal with that point.
So for all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I think we have good
legislation here. It was made better by the Committee on the Judiciary;
it was made better by bipartisanship. It really emphasizes a bottom-up
process. It helps deal with the problems between the FBI and the CIA,
and it is one of the major problems that we have to address. I would
like to salute my colleague and partner, the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Chambliss), and thank him for his efforts on this bill. I urge the
strong and, I hope, unanimous support of this body for this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
As we conclude our general debate on this bill, I too would like to,
first of all, recognize and thank the great leadership that we have had
from the Committee on the Judiciary, from the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the committee, to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member, to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of that subcommittee.
We have had an open dialogue on this issue, an issue that all of us,
irrespective of what party or what side of that party one comes from,
recognize that this is a bill about what it takes to make America safer
and what it takes to assist our law enforcement officials and ensuring
that we do, as the President says, eradicate this war on terrorism.
I also want to thank again the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), our
chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our ranking member, for their
strong leadership. Their cooperation helped us move this forward. I
particularly want to say thanks to my ranking member, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Harman). She has already stated a number of times
in what a bipartisan way we have worked, and we truly have. She
provides good, strong leadership, advice and council; and she has been
a great asset to the committee, and she has been an even greater asset
to the subcommittee. It is unfortunate that the bipartisan attitude
that we have on our subcommittee does not translate over to all of the
work that we do in this committee; we would probably get a lot more
done. But I do thank her for the great work she has done and the great
cooperation she has given us here.
Mr. Chairman, this is a major piece of legislation. I do not think we
can say that enough. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers)
mentioned a little bit earlier, if he had had this piece of legislation
in place 8 years ago, it would have gone a long ways toward helping him
solve a particular crime against the United States of America when he,
as a special agent of the FBI, was handicapped. The laws are in place
today regarding the ability to share information with our State and
local officials.
This is the first step in moving to establish and restructure the
Government of the United States and to create the Department of
Homeland Security. We cannot guarantee the prevention of another attack
of terrorism, domestically or abroad, whether it is against assets or
against people of the United States; but without legislation such as
the Homeland Security Information Sharing Act, we certainly raise the
chances of the possibility of another act of terrorism occurring.
Again, I applaud the great support from a bipartisan standpoint that
we
[[Page H3944]]
have had as this bill has moved through the process. I urge all of my
colleagues to support this measure.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the Homeland Security
Information Sharing Act of 2002 is before the House.
Let me begin by complimenting the chairman and ranking Democrat of
the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security, Mr. Chambliss and
Ms. Harman, for the work they have done on this legislation. In the
weeks and months after September 11, they have been tireless advocates
for ensuring that barriers to information sharing between federal,
state, and local officials be eliminated. This legislation is an
important result of their leadership. It also has benefitted greatly
from the work done on it in the Judiciary Committee through the
guidance of Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Democrat Conyers, and the
efforts of Mr. Weiner.
The bill directs the President to develop procedures for federal
agencies to share information with state and local personnel, ensuring
that any systems set in place have the capability to transmit
classified and unclassified information as needed to respond locally to
any terrorist threats that may arise. It is important to note, too,
that the legislation is flexible, providing the President broad
guidelines within which to design information sharing mechanisms, but
leaving to him many of the mechanics of how best to do so. It also
requires the President to report back to Congress in 1 year on whether
additional changes are necessary. Thus, this bill sets up a framework
that is workable within any homeland security architecture that may be
established this year.
This important measure will strengthen the Nation's ability to
prevent future terrorist attacks. I urge its adoption by the House.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the leadership for bringing
up legislation to address the need for sharing of critical homeland
security information among federal intelligence agencies, state and
local governments, and first responders. Through my work on the
Intelligence Committee, I have collaborated with Representative
Chambliss and Representative Harman to make sure that all levels of
government receive the same homeland security information so our local
law enforcement agencies and first responders have the proper
information to protect us.
The attacks of September 11 obviously exposed some communication
weaknesses among our intelligence and law enforcement agencies and now
is the time to forward and analyze what went wrong, and more
importantly how we can make changes to protect our country from future
terrorist attacks. As a member of the Joint Senate-House Intelligence
Committee reviewing September 11, I am learning more about our overall
intelligence apparatus in context of the September 11 attack and how we
can improve the system. The most important goal is to find the best
intelligence solutions to ensure our homeland is secure and all
domestic agencies are coordinating, communicating, and cooperating with
each other.
H.R. 4598 directs that critical threat information be shared between
federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies with state and local
personnel, including granting security clearances to appropriate state
and local personnel.
I strongly support the President's proposal to reorganize our
homeland security agencies and enhance information sharing. H.R. 4598
will immediately strengthen our homeland security apparatus while the
new Department is being implemented by directing the President to
develop procedures by which the federal agencies will share homeland
security information with state and local personnel and ensures that
information sharing systems have the capability to transmit classified
or unclassified information.
I urge quick passage of this important legislation. Let's provide all
of our federal, state and local officials timely homeland security
information that can be used to better protect all Americans.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, Coordination and information sharing
among federal, state and local authorities may be the single most
important thing we can do to enhance our ability to respond to a
terrorist threat. This point is reiterated to me in every meeting I
have had with law enforcement personnel, firefighters, public health
officials and state and municipal leaders in my district since
September 11. We need communication. We need cooperation. We need
coordination--not only among federal agencies, but also with our people
in the field.
In my role on the Democratic Homeland Security Task Force, I have
spoken with many first responders about their concerns. They say the
same thing. The Federal Government simply does not pass information
down the chain to the local level to the extent that is so necessary.
And this fact can continue no longer. The Federal Government relies on
state and local personnel to protect our Nation against a terrorist
attack. We rely on them. It would be unconscionable if we didn't help
them to do their job to the best of their ability. And the ability to
do their job effectively relies on the information they receive.
I think H.R. 4598, the Homeland Security Information Sharing Act, is
an important step toward developing and ensuring an effective strategy
for truly protecting the United States. We simply need to get
information into the hands of those who need it, and this bill does
that. We've heard from many that "Hometown security equals homeland
security." This legislation gets past the catchphrases and jingles,
and actually does something. This will empower our states and local
communities to protect themselves, and in turn protect our Nation.
I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to speak in support of this
legislation which would provide for information sharing between federal
and state and local authorities.
I believe that providing state and local officials with this type of
information ultimately will help them detect and prevent future acts of
terrorism. State and local personnel are the most likely individuals to
interdict terrorists--as demonstrated by the detainment of Ahmed Ressam
on the Canadian border and the routine traffic stopping of one of the
9/11 terrorists by a Maryland state trooper. As we have learned in the
last several weeks, if we had shared more information before the
attacks, we may have been able to more aggressively intervene against
the terrorist plot.
The legislation will also help state and local officials prepare an
appropriate response to future attacks. Every act of terrorism is
local--occurring in a neighborhood, city or state near you or someone
you know. Often times, officials at the state and local level are
first-line responders to these attacks.
The bill is not perfect. The more broadly information is shared, the
greater the danger it will be improperly disclosed. I think we all
agree that the last thing we would want is for the newly shared
information to be used to harm an innocent person's reputation. As we
move forward, we should take a close look at whether sufficient
safeguards are in place that will prevent improper disclosure from
happening.
The bill, in its current form, offers us a good starting point to
improve our nation's defenses against terrorism. It is critical that
our law enforcement agencies talk with one another so that the right
hand knows what the left hand is doing. I strongly urge its prompt
passage.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased this bill takes important
steps to strengthen homeland security by ensuring workable procedures
and systems are designed within the federal government to facilitate
the sharing of homeland security information among federal, state,
territorial and local officials. Further, I am especially pleased that
the bill ensures that the territories are included. We must ensure that
information critical to homeland security is shared between important
federal agencies and the territorial and local governments of Guam,
American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Homeland security concerns
apply for all Americans, irrespective of whether they reside in the 50
states or U.S. territories. Towards this end I am pleased to support
H.R. 4598, and I look forward to receiving the President's report
required by this legislation to help determine what additional measures
are needed to increase the effectiveness of sharing information among
all levels of government. I hope this report will assess the needs of
the territories and not just the 50 states.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for general debate
has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered by sections as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment, and each section is
considered read.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Homeland Security
Information Sharing Act".
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there amendments to section 1?
The Clerk will designate section 2.
The text of section 2 is as follows:
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND SENSE OF CONGRESS.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
[[Page H3945]]
(1) The Federal Government is required by the Constitution
to provide for the common defense, which includes terrorist
attack.
(2) The Federal Government relies on State and local
personnel to protect against terrorist attack.
(3) The Federal Government collects, creates, manages, and
protects classified and sensitive but unclassified
information to enhance homeland security.
(4) Some homeland security information is needed by the
State and local personnel to prevent and prepare for
terrorist attack.
(5) The needs of State and local personnel to have access
to relevant homeland security information to combat terrorism
must be reconciled with the need to preserve the protected
status of such information and to protect the sources and
methods used to acquire such information.
(6) Granting security clearances to certain State and local
personnel is one way to facilitate the sharing of information
regarding specific terrorist threats among Federal, State,
and local levels of government.
(7) Methods exist to declassify, redact, or otherwise adapt
classified information so it may be shared with State and
local personnel without the need for granting additional
security clearances.
(8) State and local personnel have capabilities and
opportunities to gather information on suspicious activities
and terrorist threats not possessed by Federal agencies.
(9) The Federal Government and State and local governments
and agencies in other jurisdictions may benefit from such
information.
(10) Federal, State, and local governments and
intelligence, law enforcement, and other emergency
preparation and response agencies must act in partnership to
maximize the benefits of information gathering and analysis
to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks.
(11) Information systems, including the National Law
Enforcement Telecommunications System and the Terrorist
Threat Warning System, have been established for rapid
sharing of classified and sensitive but unclassified
information among Federal, State, and local entities.
(12) Increased efforts to share homeland security
information should avoid duplicating existing information
systems.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
Federal, State, and local entities should share homeland
security information to the maximum extent practicable, with
special emphasis on hard-to-reach urban and rural
communities.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there amendments to section 2?
The Clerk will designate section 3.
The text of section 3 is as follows:
SEC. 3. FACILITATING HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION SHARING
PROCEDURES.
(a) Presidential Procedures for Determining Extent of
Sharing of Homeland Security Information.--
(1) The President shall prescribe procedures under which
relevant Federal agencies determine--
(A) whether, how, and to what extent homeland security
information may be shared with appropriate State and local
personnel, and with which such personnel it may be shared;
(B) how to identify and safeguard homeland security
information that is sensitive but unclassified; and
(C) to the extent such information is in classified form,
whether, how, and to what extent to remove classified
information, as appropriate, and with which such personnel it
may be shared after such information is removed.
(2) The President shall ensure that such procedures apply
to all agencies of the Federal Government.
(3) Such procedures shall not change the substantive
requirements for the classification and safeguarding of
classified information.
(4) Such procedures shall not change the requirements and
authorities to protect sources and methods.
(b) Procedures for Sharing of Homeland Security
Information.--
(1) Under procedures prescribed by the President, all
appropriate agencies, including the intelligence community,
shall, through information sharing systems, share homeland
security information with appropriate State and local
personnel to the extent such information may be shared, as
determined in accordance with subsection (a), together with
assessments of the credibility of such information.
(2) Each information sharing system through which
information is shared under paragraph (1) shall--
(A) have the capability to transmit unclassified or
classified information, though the procedures and recipients
for each capability may differ;
(B) have the capability to restrict delivery of information
to specified subgroups by geographic location, type of
organization, position of a recipient within an organization,
or a recipient's need to know such information;
(C) be configured to allow the efficient and effective
sharing of information; and
(D) be accessible to appropriate State and local personnel.
(3) The procedures prescribed under paragraph (1) shall
establish conditions on the use of information shared under
paragraph (1)--
(A) to limit the redissemination of such information to
ensure that such information is not used for an unauthorized
purpose;
(B) to ensure the security and confidentiality of such
information;
(C) to protect the constitutional and statutory rights of
any individuals who are subjects of such information; and
(D) to provide data integrity through the timely removal
and destruction of obsolete or erroneous names and
information.
(4) The procedures prescribed under paragraph (1) shall
ensure, to the greatest extent practicable, that the
information sharing system through which information is
shared under such paragraph include existing information
sharing systems, including, but not limited to, the National
Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, the Regional
Information Sharing System, and the Terrorist Threat Warning
System of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(5) Each appropriate Federal agency, as determined by the
President, shall have access to each information sharing
system through which information is shared under paragraph
(1), and shall therefore have access to all information, as
appropriate, shared under such paragraph.
(6) The procedures prescribed under paragraph (1) shall
ensure that appropriate State and local personnel are
authorized to use such information sharing systems--
(A) to access information shared with such personnel; and
(B) to share, with others who have access to such
information sharing systems, the homeland security
information of their own jurisdictions, which shall be marked
appropriately as pertaining to potential terrorist activity.
(7) Under procedures prescribed jointly by the Director of
Central Intelligence and the Attorney General, each
appropriate Federal agency, as determined by the President,
shall review and assess the information shared under
paragraph (6) and integrate such information with existing
intelligence.
(c) Sharing of Classified Information and Sensitive but
Unclassified Information With State and Local Personnel.--
(1) The President shall prescribe procedures under which
Federal agencies may, to the extent the President considers
necessary, share with appropriate State and local personnel
homeland security information that remains classified or
otherwise protected after the determinations prescribed under
the procedures set forth in subsection (a).
(2) It is the sense of Congress that such procedures may
include one or more of the following means:
(A) Carrying out security clearance investigations with
respect to appropriate State and local personnel.
(B) With respect to information that is sensitive but
unclassified, entering into nondisclosure agreements with
appropriate State and local personnel.
(C) Increased use of information-sharing partnerships that
include appropriate State and local personnel, such as the
Joint Terrorism Task Forces of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Anti-Terrorism Task Forces of the
Department of Justice, and regional Terrorism Early Warning
Groups.
(d) Responsible Officials.--For each affected Federal
agency, the head of such agency shall designate an official
to administer this Act with respect to such agency.
(e) Federal Control of Information.--Under procedures
prescribed under this section, information obtained by a
State or local government from a Federal agency under this
section shall remain under the control of the Federal agency,
and a State or local law authorizing or requiring such a
government to disclose information shall not apply to such
information.
(f) Definitions.--As used in this section:
(1) The term "homeland security information" means any
information possessed by a Federal, State, or local agency
that--
(A) relates to the threat of terrorist activity;
(B) relates to the ability to prevent, interdict, or
disrupt terrorist activity;
(C) would improve the identification or investigation of a
suspected terrorist or terrorist organization; or
(D) would improve the response to a terrorist act.
(2) The term "intelligence community" has the meaning
given such term in section 3(4) of the National Security Act
of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)).
(3) The term "State and local personnel" means any of the
following persons involved in prevention, preparation, or
response for terrorist attack:
(A) State Governors, mayors, and other locally elected
officials.
(B) State and local law enforcement personnel and
firefighters.
(C) Public health and medical professionals.
(D) Regional, State, and local emergency management agency
personnel, including State adjutant generals.
(E) Other appropriate emergency response agency personnel.
(F) Employees of private-sector entities that affect
critical infrastructure, cyber, economic, or public health
security, as designated by the Federal government in
procedures developed pursuant to this section.
(4) The term "State" includes the District of Columbia
and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United
States.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there amendments to section 3?
Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 4, line 24, strike "and".
Page 5, line 5, strike the period and insert "; and".
Page 5, after line 5, insert the following:
[[Page H3946]]
(D) whether, how, and to what extent information provided
by government whistleblowers regarding matters affecting
homeland security may be shared with appropriate state and
local personnel, and with which such personnel may it be
shared.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in general
debate, I am a supporter of this legislation. I am a supporter because
I believe the underlying premises are key to providing expanded
homeland security in the face of terroristic threats and, as well, a
new approach to ensuring that we have a holistic opposition and fight
against terrorism.
One of the concepts that the distinguished gentlewoman from
California has always represented to this body is that we need to have
an assessment of the threats or the threat situation against this
country and, as well, to make sure that those individuals who would
have to respond to the threats closest to the home front, if you will,
have all of the information that they can accept and utilize in order
to protect those local communities. This legislation provides a vehicle
for such, and it will make its way through this body and to the other
body.
I would like to raise another point that I think is key in what we
do, and it is key because most of America now has been introduced to
the concept of whistleblowers. They have been introduced to this by way
of the thorough investigation that is now ongoing as to the facts and
activities of September 11. We know that in providing for protection
for the homeland, we must move forward and provide a plan and a
structure, we must be able to disseminate information to our local
authorities and, at the same time, we must get the facts as to what
happened on September 11. Why? Because that begins to define for us the
design of changing how we share information.
Having been in about three or four homeland security meetings and
hearings yesterday, one of the key elements, Mr. Chairman, was the idea
of information. In fact, in the Committee on Science, there was the
proposal that was just announced from the Homeland Security Commission
to, in fact, implement and institute, that could begin to be the
thinkers, the designers of new technology that will help us with
homeland security. They need information. So information comes in many
ways.
One of the ways that it comes that we saw most recently in
determining what happened on September 11 was the insight of Coleen
Rowley from the FBI. She initiated the dissemination of information on
her own. She was not seeking publicity; she was seeking to be a
problem-solver and she did it in the form of a letter. I do not know
whether that kind of information disseminated is, in fact, provided for
by this particular legislation as we read it through at this point.
So my amendment is simple. It is how the President should design how,
whether, and to what extent information by whistleblowers would be
disseminated ultimately to the local authorities.
Additionally, there should be the question of making sure
whistleblowers are protected. I recognize, of course, that there are
multiple jurisdictions here: the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, the House Committee on the Judiciary, and certainly the
question of whistleblower would be a question of the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Government Reform. We know that they are addressing
that now.
I believe this is an important enough issue regarding whistleblowers
and regarding how information is disseminated that it should be
included in the provisions where we ask the President, the executive,
to give us guidance and provide this to the United States Congress. It
is through whistleblowers and a source of other information that we are
able to get the true facts, as well as to help us design the
appropriate kind of homeland security.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out that the
gentlewoman from Texas is the first to identify the importance of the
whistleblower function in our system. I think it is going to be
considered more carefully now that the gentlewoman has brought this to
light. I thank the gentlewoman for it, and I hope it will gain wide
acceptance.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I do want to again acknowledge the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) for the vision and the
persistence that she has had on this key issue. If I might, just for an
editorial comment, I think the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman)
and myself and others had gathered about 48 hours, 2 days after
September 11, huddled offsite, but convening the business of Congress,
if you will, on these very issues; and she was raising them at that
time and she pursued them, so I join her. I would be happy to yield to
the gentlewoman, but I wanted to indicate my appreciation and respect
for her work, along with the distinguished gentleman from Georgia on
this idea, and I wanted to bring this issue that I think is so very
important to the attention of this body.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think whistleblowers are
important and that the Rowley memo is a very important fact that has
emerged since 9-11.
Secondly, in our legislation as reported, we do state that whether,
how, and to what extent information may be shared with appropriate
State and local personnel is up to the President. So it is not
precluded here that, in an appropriate way with appropriate safeguards
and privacy protections, whistleblower information, if it were deemed
important to share with local responders could, in fact, be shared. I
thank the gentlewoman for raising this issue.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concern and the point
which she is raising. She is a very valued member of this body and
particularly the Committee on the Judiciary, and her opinions are well
respected. It is important that as much homeland security information,
whether gained from whistleblowers or elsewhere in the government, be
shared with the right people at the right time in order to help our
emergency responders and local officials respond to terrorist threats
and activity. The gentlewoman's amendment would specifically address
information from whistleblowers.
However, let me note that we have crafted the bill in a broad and
flexible fashion, as noted by the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Harman), so that the administration can determine the appropriate
procedures for sharing and disseminating homeland security information,
whatever the source, whether from whistleblowers or other relevant
homeland security information should be shared.
I think it is important that we retain this flexibility and focus on
the original purpose of the bill, namely, to share as much appropriate
homeland security information as possible with our State and local
authorities.
So my objection is that we have just seen this this morning, and I
hope the gentlewoman would consider withdrawing it and let us have a
chance as we move into conference to dialogue on this, and if we need
to strengthen some provisions, obviously we will look forward to
working with the gentlewoman and other members of the Committee on the
Judiciary to ensure that we do so. Because we share the same concern
that the gentlewoman has brought forward here. I have been open and
outspoken about the fact that we need more courageous people like Ms.
Rowley to make sure that not just from an oversight standpoint within
Congress, but from an oversight standpoint in the public and within the
agency and other Federal agencies out there, that we are able to do our
job correctly and appropriately.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I respect the, if you will,
explanation that the distinguished gentleman from Georgia has given and
the distinguished gentlewoman from California. I would not have brought
this to
[[Page H3947]]
the attention of the body had I not had a deep concern, having met Ms.
Rowley and having been involved in other circumstances with the
Committee on the Judiciary in the concept of whistleblowers and the
importance of providing information generally to help us be better at
our job and the government to be better.
I appreciate the offer that has been extended. This is brought to the
attention of this body not to put forward an amendment that would not
draw the collective support of this body. I would like to be able to
work with the staffs of the respective Members as we move toward
conference, recognizing that we have language in the legislation, maybe
appropriate language, that the whistleblower issue is of such
importance that it requires further study.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, just reiterating to the gentlewoman, I
think her point is well taken; and I think there may be some merit to
strengthening language, maybe even getting specific as the gentlewoman
has done in her amendment. We will commit to the gentlewoman that we
will look forward to working with her as we move into conference and
dialoguing with her to make sure that we get her input into this
specific area of the bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield,
I thank the distinguished gentleman from Georgia and the gentlewoman
from California.
Mr. Chairman, I am willing at this time to ask unanimous consent,
with the idea of moving forward in consideration and study of this
issue to protect whistleblowers, to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The gentlewoman's amendment is withdrawn.
{time} 1215
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Are there further amendments
to section 3?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 4.
The text of section 4 is as follows:
SEC. 4. REPORT.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than 12 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit
to the congressional committees specified in subsection (b) a
report on the implementation of section 3. The report shall
include any recommendations for additional measures or
appropriation requests, beyond the requirements of section 3,
to increase the effectiveness of sharing of information among
Federal, State, and local entities.
(b) Specified Congressional Committees.--The congressional
committees referred to in subsection (a) are the following
committees:
(1) The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
(2) The Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee
on the Judiciary of the Senate.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there amendments to section 4?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 5.
The text of section 5 is as follows:
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out section 3.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there amendments to section 5?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 6.
The text of section 6 is as follows:
SEC. 6. AUTHORITY TO SHARE GRAND JURY INFORMATION.
Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ", or of guidelines
jointly issued by the Attorney General and Director of
Central Intelligence pursuant to Rule 6," after "Rule 6";
and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by inserting "or of a foreign
government" after "(including personnel of a state or
subdivision of a state";
(B) in subparagraph (C)(i)--
(i) in subclause (I), by inserting before the semicolon the
following: "or, upon a request by an attorney for the
government, when sought by a foreign court or prosecutor for
use in an official criminal investigation";
(ii) in subclause (IV)--
(I) by inserting "or foreign" after "may disclose a
violation of State";
(II) by inserting "or of a foreign government" after "to
an appropriate official of a State or subdivision of a
State"; and
(III) by striking "or" at the end;
(iii) by striking the period at the end of subclause (V)
and inserting "; or"; and
(iv) by adding at the end the following:
"(VI) when matters involve a threat of actual or potential
attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an
agent of a foreign power, domestic or international sabotage,
domestic or international terrorism, or clandestine
intelligence gathering activities by an intelligence service
or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign
power, within the United States or elsewhere, to any
appropriate federal, state, local, or foreign government
official for the purpose of preventing or responding to such
a threat."; and
(C) in subparagraph (C)(iii)--
(i) by striking "Federal";
(ii) by inserting "or clause (i)(VI)" after "clause
(i)(V)"; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following: "Any state,
local, or foreign official who receives information pursuant
to clause (i)(VI) shall use that information only consistent
with such guidelines as the Attorney General and Director of
Central Intelligence shall jointly issue.".
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there amendments to section 6?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 7.
The text of section 7 is as follows:
SEC. 7. AUTHORITY TO SHARE ELECTRONIC, WIRE, AND ORAL
INTERCEPTION INFORMATION.
Section 2517 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
"(7) Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or
attorney for the government, who by any means authorized by
this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any
wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived
therefrom, may disclose such contents or derivative evidence
to a foreign investigative or law enforcement officer to the
extent that such disclosure is appropriate to the proper
performance of the official duties of the officer making or
receiving the disclosure, and foreign investigative or law
enforcement officers may use or disclose such contents or
derivative evidence to the extent such use or disclosure is
appropriate to the proper performance of their official
duties.
"(8) Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or
attorney for the government, who by any means authorized by
this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any
wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived
therefrom, may disclose such contents or derivative evidence
to any appropriate Federal, State, local, or foreign
government official to the extent that such contents or
derivative evidence reveals a threat of actual or potential
attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an
agent of a foreign power, domestic or international sabotage,
domestic or international terrorism, or clandestine
intelligence gathering activities by an intelligence service
or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign
power, within the United States or elsewhere, for the purpose
of preventing or responding to such a threat. Any official
who receives information pursuant to this provision may use
that information only as necessary in the conduct of that
person's official duties subject to any limitations on the
unauthorized disclosure of such information, and any State,
local, or foreign official who receives information
pursuant to this provision may use that information only
consistent with such guidelines as the Attorney General
and Director of Central Intelligence shall jointly
issue.".
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there amendments to section 7?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 8.
The text of section 8 is as follows:
SEC. 8. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.
(a) Dissemination Authorized.--Section 203(d)(1) of the
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate
Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA
PATRIOT ACT) of 2001 (Public Law 107-56; 50 U.S.C. 403-5d) is
amended--
(1) by striking "Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, it" and inserting "It"; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: "It shall be
lawful for information revealing a threat of actual or
potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign
power or an agent of a foreign power, domestic or
international sabotage, domestic or international terrorism,
or clandestine intelligence gathering activities by an
intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an
agent of a foreign power, within the United States or
elsewhere, obtained as part of a criminal investigation to be
disclosed to any appropriate Federal, State, local, or
foreign government official for the purpose of preventing or
responding to such a threat. Any official who receives
information pursuant to this provision may use that
information only as necessary in the conduct of that person's
official duties subject to any limitations on the
unauthorized disclosure of such information, and any State,
local, or foreign official who receives information pursuant
to this provision may use that information only consistent
with such guidelines as the Attorney General and Director of
Central Intelligence shall jointly issue.".
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 203(c) of that Act is
amended--
(1) by striking "section 2517(6)" and inserting
"paragraphs (6) and (8) of section 2517 of title 18, United
States Code,"; and
(2) by inserting "and (VI)" after "Rule
6(e)(3)(C)(i)(V)".
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there amendments to section 8?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 9.
The text of section 9 is as follows:
SEC. 9. INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM AN ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE.
Section 106(k)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1806) is
[[Page H3948]]
amended by inserting after "law enforcement officers" the
following: "or law enforcement personnel of a State or
political subdivision of a State (including the chief
executive officer of that State or political subdivision who
has the authority to appoint or direct the chief law
enforcement officer of that State or political
subdivision)".
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there amendments to section 9?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 10.
The text of section 10 is as follows:
SEC. 10. INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM A PHYSICAL SEARCH.
Section 305(k)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1825) is amended by inserting after
"law enforcement officers" the following: "or law
enforcement personnel of a State or political subdivision of
a State (including the chief executive officer of that State
or political subdivision who has the authority to appoint or
direct the chief law enforcement officer of that State or
political subdivision)".
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there amendments to section 10?
Are there further amendments to the bill?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Bonilla) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Chairman pro tempore of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
4598) to provide for the sharing of homeland security information by
Federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies with State and local
entities, pursuant to House Resolution 458, he reported the bill back
to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on passage of
H.R. 4598 will be followed by 5-minute votes on H.R. 4477, on H.R.
4070, and on approving the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 422,
nays 2, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 258]
YEAS--422
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Miller, Jeff
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sullivan
Sununu
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--2
Delahunt
Kucinich
NOT VOTING--10
Hunter
Northup
Otter
Reyes
Roukema
Simmons
Smith (MI)
Sweeney
Traficant
Watts (OK)
{time} 1239
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi changed his vote from "nay" to "yea."
So 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:
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, on June 26, 2002, I missed the rollcall
vote No. 258. If I had been present I would have voted "yea."
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall vote
258 on H.R. 4598, the Homeland Security Information Sharing Act. Had I
been present I would have voted "aye."
____________________
