HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION SHARING ACT
(House of Representatives - June 26, 2002)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Pages H3936-H3948]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               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.''

                          ____________________