99–006

107TH CONGRESS REPT.107–534 " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 2d Session Part I 

HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION SHARING ACT

JUNE 25, 2002.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 4598] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred 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, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as 

amended do pass.

CONTENTS 

Page 

The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 1

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 6

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 6

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 7

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 7

Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 7

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 7

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 7

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 7

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 7

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 8

Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion .......................................................... 8

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 13

Markup Transcript .................................................................................................. 16

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Homeland Security Information Sharing Act’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds the following: 

2

(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. 

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; 

3

(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)). 

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. 

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. 

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry 

out section 3. 

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.’’. 

5

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.’’. 

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)’’. 

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 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)’’. 

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 

6

1Pub. L. No. 107–56, 115 Stat. 242. 

to appoint or direct the chief law enforcement officer of that State or political subdivision)’’.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

With the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, this Congress began 

to break down the barriers to facilitate information sharing between Federal law enforcement officials and the intelligence community.1 H.R. 4598, the ‘‘Homeland Security Information Sharing 

Act’’ requires the President to create 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 to share law enforcement and intelligence 

information with Federal officials. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

The U.S. is in a war against terrorism. This war is borderless 

and threatens Americans at home and abroad. To prevent, disruption and respond to a terrorist attack at home, the Federal Government must improve three critical areas to protect our homeland. 

Those areas are: (1) information sharing; (2) analysis of the information; and (3) coordination. All three are interdependent and vital 

for a strong homeland security system that will prevent, disrupt 

and, if necessary, respond to a terrorist attack. All Federal, State 

and local government officials need to share information with the 

appropriate officials for analysis of threats to determine the appropriate response. 

After September 11, 2001, it became immediately clear that 

there were serious problems with communications between Federal 

law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community. The 

Federal Government knew then, as did the press and the public, 

that we had some warnings, but the lack of information sharing 

prevented the U.S. intelligence community from appropriately responding. 

The Administration and the Congress took immediate action to 

address this problem by drafting and passing the USA PATRIOT 

Act. The President signed that bill into law on October 26, 2001. 

The very purpose of that bill was to improve information sharing 

for the law enforcement and intelligence communities to combat 

terrorism and terrorist-related crimes. Prior to the enactment of 

this landmark legislation, information sharing was limited to law 

enforcement agencies. This limitation hampered law enforcement 

officials in sharing or receiving information with other Government 

officials that was needed to perform official duties related to terrorist activities or homeland security. 

With any information-sharing bill, protecting privacy of citizens 

must be balanced with protecting the nation’s security. The Administration and the Congress maintained that balance in the USA 

PATRIOT Act by limiting the type of information that may be 

shared and requiring that information may only be made available 

to persons agencies who are engaged in the performance of the official duties. 

Similar protections are include in H.R. 4598, which expands the 

information-sharing to State and local officials. The USA PATRIOT 

7

Act did not remove restrictions in sharing homeland security information with States and localities. The country needs a comprehensive information sharing system that includes Federal, State and 

local law enforcement agencies. H.R. 4598 would facilitate communications between State and local officials by directing the Administration to create procedures for the sharing of classified and unclassified, but sensitive, homeland security information and by extending the provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act to State and local 

officials with regard to cover grand jury information and law enforcement or intelligence surveillance information. 

HEARINGS

The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 

held hearings on H.R. 4598, the ‘‘Homeland Security Information 

Sharing Act,’’ on June 4, 2002. Testimony was received from 3 witnesses. The witnesses were: the Honorable Saxby Chambliss (GA), 

the Honorable Jane Harman (CA); and the Honorable John Cary 

Bittick, President of the National Sheriff’s Association. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On June 4, 2002, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security met in open session and ordered favorably reported, the bill H.R. 4598, the ‘‘Homeland Security Information 

Sharing Act,’’ as amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. 

On June 13, 2002, the Committee met in open session and ordered 

favorably reported, the bill H.R. 4598 with amendment, by voice 

vote, a quorum being present. 

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

There were no recorded votes for H.R. 4598. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

H.R. 4598, will facilitate the sharing of critical threat information between Federal agencies and State and local personnel. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 

expenditures. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill, H.R. 4598, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

8

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, June 25, 2002. 

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Chairman, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4598, the Homeland Security Information Sharing Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz. 

Sincerely, 

DAN L. CRIPPEN, Director.

Enclosure

H.R. 4598—Homeland Security Information Sharing Act. 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 4598 within the Department of Justice (DOJ) would cost less than $500,000 annually, subject to the availability of appropriated funds. CBO cannot determine the cost to implement the bill’s provisions for Federal intelligence agencies. The bill would not affect direct spending or receipts, so pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. 

H.R. 4598 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments. The bill 

would benefit State and local governments by allowing these levels 

of government better access to homeland security information. 

H.R. 4598 would direct the President to establish guidelines for 

Federal agencies to share homeland security information with 

State and local personnel. Based on information from DOJ about 

the current and anticipated levels of information sharing, we do not 

expect that the bill would have a significant effect on Federal 

spending for these activities. CBO cannot estimate the cost to conduct these activities at Federal intelligence agencies because the 

information necessary to make such an estimate is classified. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Mark Grabowicz, 

and Matthew Schmit. This estimate was approved by Peter H. 

Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this legislation in article I, section 8 of the Constitution. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE. 

The short title is the ‘‘Homeland Security Information Sharing 

Act.’’

9

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND SENSE OF THE CONGRESS. 

This section provides the following findings:

(1) The Constitution requires the Federal Government to provide for the common defense, which includes a terrorist attack.

(2) The Federal Government relies on State and local personnel 

to protect against terrorist attacks.

(3) The Federal Government collects, creates, manages, and 

protects classified and sensitive, but unclassified information to enhance homeland security.

(4) State and local personnel need some of the homeland security information to prevent and prepare for terrorist attacks.

(5) The Federal Government must reconcile the need to provide 

this information to the State and local officials with the 

need to protect sources and methods used to acquire such 

information.

(6) One way to facilitate information sharing regarding specific 

terrorist threats among Federal, State, and local levels of 

government is to grant security clearances to certain State 

and local personnel.

(7) Methods exist to declassify, redact, or otherwise adapt classified information so it may be shared with State and local 

officials without 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 the 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.

Additionally, this section provides a sense of the Congress that 

all levels of government should share homeland security information to the maximum extent practicable, with special emphasis on 

hard-to-reach urban and rural community. 

SEC. 3. FACILITATING HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION SHARING

PROCEDURES. 

Subsection (a) of section 3 requires the President to establish 

procedures for Federal agencies to determine the extent to which 

homeland security information is shared with State and local perVerDate jun 06 2002 02:07 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR534P1.XXX pfrm15 PsN: HR534P1
10

sonnel. Specifically, the section directs the President to establish 

procedures that require Federal agencies to determine whether, 

how, and to what extent, homeland security information may be 

shared with the appropriate State and local personnel. Additionally, the procedures shall provide a process by which Federal agencies determine whether, how, and to what extent, unclassified 

versions of the information may be made shared and with which 

State and local personnel. The procedures must identify and safeguard homeland security information that is sensitive but unclassified. 

This section also requires the President to ensure that such procedures apply to all Federal agencies. The bill does not change the 

substantive requirements for the classification and treatment of 

classified information nor the requirements to protect sources and 

methods. 

Subsection (b) of section 3 requires the President to prescribe 

procedures for all appropriate agencies, including the intelligence 

community, to use information sharing systems to provide both 

classified and sensitive, but unclassified information, in accordance 

with subsection (a). Specifically, homeland security information 

shall be shared with the appropriate State and local personnel 

through information sharing systems that: (1) have the capability 

to transmit unclassified or classified information; (2) have the capability to restrict delivery of information to specified subgroups by 

geographic location, type of organization and position of a recipient 

with an organization or a recipient’s need to know of such information; and (3) be accessible to appropriate State and local personnel. 

These new systems should include existing information sharing 

systems. 

To protect privacy this subsection also requires that these procedures must: (1) limit the redissemination of such information to ensure that such information is not used for an unauthorized purpose; (2) ensure the security and confidentiality of such information; (3) protect the constitutional and statutory rights of any individuals who are subjects of such information; and (4) provide data 

integrity through the timely removal and destruction of obsolete or 

erroneous names and information. 

Additionally, the systems must be accessible to appropriate Federal agencies and appropriate State and local personnel. The procedures shall ensure that State and local personnel have been authorized to use such information sharing systems. Furthermore, 

these systems should include existing information sharing systems. 

Subsection (c) of section 3 provides procedures for sharing classified information with State and local personnel. 

Subsection (d) of section 3 requires that the head of an affected 

Agency designate an official to administer this act. 

Subsection (e) of section 3 provides that Federal information obtained by a State or local government from a Federal agency shall 

remain under the control of the Federal agency, and thus, not subject to State or local law authorizing or requiring disclosure. 

Subsection (f) of section 3 defines the terms ‘‘homeland security 

information,’’ ‘‘intelligence community,’’ ‘‘State and local personnel,’’

and ‘‘State.’’

11

SEC. 4. REPORT. 

This section would require the President to report 6 months after 

the date of enactment to the House and Senate Select Committees 

on Intelligence and the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on 

the implementation of this act. 

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

This section authorizes appropriations of such sums as may be 

necessary to carry out this act. 

SEC. 6. AUTHORITY TO SHARE GRAND JURY INFORMATION. 

Rule 6(e) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibits the disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury, unless the disclosure is covered under specified exceptions. Rule 6(e) provides two 

types exceptions to the prohibition—(1) those that do not require 

a court order for disclosure and (2) those that do require a court 

order for disclosure. Exceptions that do not require a court order 

are under rule 6(e)(3)(A). Subparagraph (A) provides that disclosures otherwise prohibited, may be made to the attorney for the 

Government for use in the performance of his or her duty and to 

such personnel as are deemed necessary by the attorney for the 

Government. 

Rule 6(e)(3)(C) contains exceptions that generally require a court 

order. One of the exceptions allows State and local officials to receive Federal grand jury evidence when permitted by a court and 

upon the show that the information relates to a State crime. 

The USA PATRIOT Act amended rule 6(e)(3)(C) to permit the 

sharing of grand jury information that pertains to foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, to a limited group of Federal officials 

(including the President and Vice President), so long as they are 

performing official duties. This section of the bill would further 

amend rule 6(e) to permit the sharing such information to law enforcement personnel of a State or political subdivision of a State 

without a court order. 

Specifically, this section would permit the disclosure of foreign 

intelligence, foreign counterintelligence, foreign intelligence information, and domestic threat information. Domestic threat information is included because it is not always clear whether threats to 

public safety result from international or domestic terrorism 

threats. The anthrax attacks are one example of where the origin 

of that attacks is not clear. Additionally, this section allows for the 

information to be shared with foreign government officials to the 

same extent it may be shared with State and local officials. 

Current law, allows an attorney for the Federal Government to 

disclose grand jury information to State and local officials to assist 

in Federal criminal law matters under rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) and to 

share information related to a State criminal matter with court approval under rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i)(IV). With the increase in international crime, the Committee believes that there are situations 

where the Federal attorney may need to disclose matters occurring 

before a grand jury to foreign officials. In an April 24, 2002 letter, 

the Department of Justice reasoned:

Foreign prosecutors or investigating courts seeking evidence in 

the United States make request under mutual legal assistance 

12

treaties or in letters rogatory pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. 

U.S. prosecutors actively assist the foreign authorities to obtain the evidence. On occasion, providing the evidence may require disclosure of grand jury information. However, even 

when the Government makes an appropriate showing to the 

court (i.e., a showing similar to that required for disclosure of 

grand jury material in a domestic proceeding), the rule as currently written does not expressly authorize courts to order disclosure. As a consequence, the U.S. prosecutor sometimes must 

re-subpoena the same information from the original sources. 

That process is cumbersome, it may unnecessarily inconvience 

the persons or entities that already provided the informaiton 

to the grand jury, and it is time-consuming. These difficulties 

and delays can affirmatively impede the foreign investigation. 

Moreover, certain evidence—such as witness testimony or 

original documents—simply cannot be obtained through alternative means. The foreign investigation may thus be thwarted, 

even though the evidence is available.

The Committee agrees that this clarification is necessary. 

This section also would add new subclause (VI) to rule 

6(e)(E)(C)(i) to deal with situations where the grand jury information reveals a threat of attack, sabotage, terrorism, or clandestine 

intelligence-gathering activities. This information is similar to that 

listed under the definition of ‘‘foreign intelligence information’’

under 50 U.S.C. § 1801(e). This section would include domestic terrorism as part of the definition. Additionally, this section differs 

from the provisions added in the USA PATRIOT Act because the 

information could be shared with the ‘‘appropriate’’ State and local 

officials upon a court order. In the USA PATRIOT Act, section 

203(a) added rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i)(V) to allow disclosure of grand jury 

matters to designated categories of Federal officials rather than to 

‘‘appropriate’’ officials. This bill, however, contains safeguards 

against the misuse of this threat information as it follows rule 

6(e)(3)(C)(i)(IV), which only permits disclosure for specified purpose. Here the specified purpose is to prevent or respond to a 

threat. Additionally, the 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 disclosure—including contempt of court. 

SEC. 7. AUTHORITY TO SHARE ELECTRONIC, WIRE, AND ORAL

INTERCEPTION INFORMATION. 

Section 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq. limited disclosure and dissemination of information obtained by or related to wire, oral, or electronic 

surveillance to other investigative or law enforcement officials. The 

USA PATRIOT Act amended the law to allow foreign intelligence 

or counterintelligence information (as defined in the National Security Act of 1945) that is obtained as a result of a criminal investigation to be shared with specified law-enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, or national-defense personnel where they are 

performing official duties. 

Prior to this change, it was impossible for law enforcement or 

criminal investigators to share information collected under a criminal wiretap that related to foreign intelligence or intelligence inforVerDate jun 06 2002 02:07 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR534P1.XXX pfrm15 PsN: HR534P1
13

mation without seeking court authority. This limitation could have 

adversely affected a criminal or counter-terrorism investigation 

where time is often of the essence. While the USA PATRIOT Act 

made it clear that Federal law-enforcement and investigation officials, without seeking court authority, could share foreign intelligence information in the performance of their official duties with 

other specified Federal officials, the bill did not provide that State 

and local law officials could receive this type of information. 

This section would amend section 2517 of title 18 by adding a 

new paragraph (7) to provide that State law enforcement personnel 

and political subdivisions of the State may also receive the information. 

SEC. 8. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION. 

The USA PATRIOT Act also provided that notwithstanding any 

other provision of law, it shall be lawful for foreign intelligence or 

counterintelligence (as defined in section 3 of the National Security 

Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a)) or foreign intelligence information obtained as part of a criminal investigation to be disclosed to Federal 

law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security officials in performance of their official 

duties. 

This section would amend section 203(d) of the USA PATRIOT 

Act to include law enforcement personnel of a State or political 

subdivision of State. 

SEC. 9. INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM AN ELECTRONIC

SURVEILLANCE. 

This section amends section 106(k)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence 

Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) (50 U.S.C. 1806). The USA PATRIOT Act added section 1806(k) to title 18 to allow Federal officials conducting electronic surveillance under FISA to consult with 

Federal law enforcement officers to investigate and protect against 

specified foreign and national security threats to the United States. 

This section would amend the law to allow for State and local officials to participate in this coordination. 

SEC. 1O. INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM A PHYSICAL SEARCH. 

This section amends section 305(k)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence 

Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) (50 U.S.C. 1825). The USA PATRIOT Act added section 1825(k) to title 18 to allow Federal officials conducting physical under FISA to consult with Federal law 

enforcement officers to investigate and protect against specified foreign and national security threats to the United States. This section would amend the law to allow for State and local officials to 

participate in this coordination. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

14

SECTION 2517 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE 

§ 2517. Authorization for disclosure and use of intercepted 

wire, oral, or electronic communications 

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(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.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 203 OF THE UNITING AND STRENGTHENING 

AMERICA BY PROVIDING APPROPRIATE TOOLS REQUIRED TO INTERCEPT AND OBSTRUCT TERRORISM 

ACT (USA PATRIOT ACT) OF 2001

SEC. 203. AUTHORITY TO SHARE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE INFORMATION. 

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) PROCEDURES.—The Attorney General shall establish procedures for the disclosure of information pursuant to øsection 

2517(6)¿ paragraphs (6) and (8) of section 2517 of title 18, United 

States Code, and Rule 6(e)(3)(C)(i)(V) and (VI) of the Federal Rules 

of Criminal Procedure that identifies a United States person, as deVerDate jun 06 2002 02:07 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR534P1.XXX pfrm15 PsN: HR534P1
15

fined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 

1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801)). 

(d) FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—øNotwithstanding any other provision of 

law, it¿ It shall be lawful for foreign intelligence or counterintelligence (as defined in section 3 of the National Security 

Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a)) or foreign intelligence information obtained as part of a criminal investigation to be disclosed 

to any Federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official in order 

to assist the official receiving that information in the performance of his official duties. Any Federal 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. 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.

* * * * * * *

FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978

* * * * * * *

TITLE I—ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE WITHIN THE 

UNITED STATES FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES 

* * * * * * *

USE OF INFORMATION

SEC. 106. (a)***

* * * * * * *

(k)(1) Federal officers who conduct electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information under this title may consult 

with Federal law enforcement officers 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 

16

State or political subdivision) to coordinate efforts to investigate or 

protect against— (A) * * *

* * * * * * *

TITLE III—PHYSICAL SEARCHES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES FOR FOREIGN 

INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES 

* * * * * * *

USE OF INFORMATION

SEC. 305. (a)***

* * * * * * *

(k)(1) Federal officers who conduct physical searches to acquire 

foreign intelligence information under this title may consult with 

Federal law enforcement officers 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) to coordinate efforts to investigate or protect against—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

MARKUP TRANSCRIPT

BUSINESS MEETING 

THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee notes the presence of 

a working quorum. To begin the Chair will announce that he has 

designated the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Green, as Vice 

Chairman of the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee. First up today—well, I must start this markup with sad 

news. The Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, is 

unable to be with us because his father, Campbell Smith, died last 

Friday. I believe we all offer our condolences to him and his family. 

And Mr. Smith has asked Mr. Green to speak on his behalf for the 

Subcommittee today. 

Now, I would like to ask unanimous consent as far as Subcommittee assignments are concerned, because we have had the appointment of Mr. Forbes of Virginia as a new Member of the Committee. I would ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 

Virginia, Mr. Forbes is appointed to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and on Immigration and Claims. The gentlewoman from 

17

Pennsylvania, Ms. Hart, is removed from the Subcommittee on 

Commercial and Administrative Law. The gentleman from Indiana, 

Mr. Pence, is appointed to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security, and also on Commercial and Administrative Law. 

As previously stated Mr. Green is appointed as Vice Chairman 

of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. 

Is there any objection to these assignments? And hearing none, so 

ordered. 

I also ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims be renamed the Subcommittee on Immigration, 

Border Security, and Claims. And without objection, that change in 

title is agreed to as well. 

The next item on the agenda is H.R. 4598, the ‘‘Homeland Security Information Sharing Act.’’ [The bill, H.R. 4598, follows:]

18

I

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4598

To provide for the sharing of homeland security information by Federal

intelligence and law enforcement agencies with State and local entities.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 25, 2002

Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. GOSS, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. BISHOP, Mr. CONDIT, Mr.

HOEKSTRA, Mr. ROEMER, Mr. BURR of North Carolina, Mr. REYES, Mr.

BEREUTER, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr. CRAMER,

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. FRANK, Mr.

BARR of Georgia, Mr. FROST, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. BALDACCI, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. DEUTSCH, Mr. TIERNEY, and Ms. HART) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a

period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To provide for the sharing of homeland security information

by Federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies

with State and local entities.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Homeland Security

5 Information Sharing Act’’.


I4598.AAB
19

2

•HR 4598 IH

1 SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND SENSE OF CONGRESS.

2 (a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds the following:

3 (1) The Federal Government is required by the

4 Constitution to protect every State from invasion,

5 which includes terrorist attack.

6 (2) The Federal Government relies on State

7 and local personnel to protect against terrorist at8 tack.

9 (3) The Federal Government collects, creates,

10 manages, and protects sensitive information to en11 hance national security.

12 (4) Some homeland security information is

13 needed by the State and local personnel to prevent

14 and prepare for terrorist attack.

15 (5) The needs of State and local personnel to

16 have access to relevant homeland security informa17 tion to combat terrorism must be reconciled with the

18 need to preserve the protected status of such infor19 mation and to protect the sources and methods used

20 to acquire such information.

21 (6) Granting security clearances to certain

22 State and local personnel is one way to facilitate the

23 sharing of information regarding specific terrorist

24 threats among Federal, State, and local levels of

25 government.


I4598.AAC
20

3

•HR 4598 IH

1 (7) Methods exist to declassify, redact, or other2 wise adapt classified information so it may be shared

3 with State and local personnel without the need for

4 granting additional security clearances.

5 (8) State and local personnel have capabilities

6 and opportunities to gather information on sus7 picious activities and terrorist threats not possessed

8 by the Federal intelligence agencies.

9 (9) The intelligence community and State and

10 local governments and agencies in other jurisdictions

11 may benefit from such information.

12 (10) Federal, State, and local governments and

13 intelligence, law enforcement, and other emergency

14 preparation and response agencies must act in part15 nership to maximize the benefits of information

16 gathering and analysis to prevent and respond to

17 terrorist attacks.

18 (11) Information systems, including the Na19 tional Law Enforcement Telecommunications Sys20 tem and the Terrorist Threat Warning System, have

21 been established for rapid sharing of sensitive and

22 unclassified information among Federal, State, and

23 local entities.


I4598.AAD
21

4

•HR 4598 IH

1 (12) Increased efforts to share homeland secu2 rity information should avoid duplicating existing in3 formation systems.

4 (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con5 gress that Federal, State, and local entities should share

6 homeland security information to the maximum extent

7 practicable.

8 SEC. 3. FACILITATING HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMA9 TION SHARING PROCEDURES.

10 (a) PRESIDENTIAL PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING

11 EXTENT OF SHARING OF HOMELAND SECURITY INFOR12 MATION.—

13 (1) The President shall prescribe procedures

14 under which relevant Federal agencies determine—

15 (A) whether, how, and to what extent

16 homeland security information may be shared

17 with appropriate State and local personnel, and

18 with which such personnel may it be shared;

19 and

20 (B) to the extent such information is in

21 classified form, whether, how, and to what ex22 tent to declassify (or remove classified informa23 tion from, as appropriate) such information,

24 and with which such personnel may it be shared

25 after such declassification (or removal).


I4598.AAE
22

5

•HR 4598 IH

1 (2) The President shall ensure that such proce2 dures apply to each element of the intelligence com3 munity and that the requisite technology is available.

4 (3) Such procedures shall not change the sub5 stantive requirements for the classification and

6 treatment of classified information.

7 (4) Such procedures shall not change the re8 quirements and authorities to protect sources and

9 methods.

10 (b) PROCEDURES FOR SHARING OF HOMELAND SE11 CURITY INFORMATION.—

12 (1) Under procedures prescribed jointly by the

13 Director of Central Intelligence and the Attorney

14 General, each element of the intelligence community

15 shall, through information sharing systems, share

16 homeland security information with appropriate

17 State and local personnel to the extent such infor18 mation may be shared, as determined in accordance

19 with subsection (a), together with assessments of the

20 credibility of such information.

21 (2) Each information sharing system through

22 which information is shared under paragraph (1)

23 shall—

24 (A) have the capability to transmit unclas25 sified or classified information, though the proVerDate jun 06 2002 02:07 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR534P1.XXX pfrm15 PsN: HR534P1

I4598.AAF
23

6

•HR 4598 IH

1 cedures and recipients for each capability may

2 differ;

3 (B) have the capability to restrict delivery

4 of information to specified subgroups by geo5 graphic location, type of organization, position

6 of a recipient within an organization, and a re7 cipient’s need to know such information;

8 (C) be configured to allow the efficient and

9 effective sharing of information; and

10 (D) be accessible to appropriate State and

11 local personnel.

12 (3) The procedures prescribed under paragraph

13 (1) shall ensure, to the greatest extent practicable,

14 that the information sharing system through which

15 information is shared under such paragraph include

16 existing information sharing systems, including, but

17 not limited to, the National Law Enforcement Tele18 communications System, the Regional Information

19 Sharing System, and the Terrorist Threat Warning

20 System of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

21 (4) Each element of the Federal intelligence

22 and law enforcement communities, as well as the

23 Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the

24 House of Representatives, the Select Committee on

25 Intelligence of the Senate, the Committee on the JuVerDate jun 06 2002 02:07 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR534P1.XXX pfrm15 PsN: HR534P1

I4598.AAG
24

7

•HR 4598 IH

1 diciary of the House of Representatives, the Com2 mittee on the Judiciary of the Senate, and other

3 congressional committees as appropriate, shall have

4 access to each information sharing system through

5 which information is shared under paragraph (1),

6 and shall therefore have access to all information, as

7 appropriate, shared under such paragraph.

8 (5) The procedures prescribed under paragraph

9 (1) shall ensure that appropriate State and local

10 personnel are authorized to use such information

11 sharing systems—

12 (A) to access information shared with such

13 personnel; and

14 (B) to share, with others who have access

15 to such information sharing systems, the home16 land security information of their own jurisdic17 tions, which shall be marked appropriately as

18 pertaining to potential terrorist activity.

19 (6) Under procedures prescribed jointly by the

20 Director of Central Intelligence and the Attorney

21 General, each element of the intelligence community

22 shall review and assess the information shared under

23 paragraph (5) and integrate such information with

24 existing intelligence.


I4598.AAH
25

8

•HR 4598 IH

1 (c) SHARING OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WITH

2 STATE AND LOCAL PERSONNEL.—

3 (1) The President shall prescribe procedures

4 under which Federal agencies may, to the extent the

5 President considers necessary, share with appro6 priate State and local personnel homeland security

7 information that remains classified or otherwise pro8 tected after the determinations prescribed under the

9 procedures set forth in subsection (a).

10 (2) Such procedures may provide for sharing to

11 be carried out through one or more of the following

12 means:

13 (A) Carrying out security clearance inves14 tigations with respect to appropriate State and

15 local personnel.

16 (B) Entering into nondisclosure agree17 ments with appropriate State and local per18 sonnel.

19 (C) Increasing the use of information-shar20 ing partnerships that include appropriate State

21 and local personnel, such as the Joint Ter22 rorism Task Forces of the Federal Bureau of

23 Investigation, the Anti-Terrorism Task Forces

24 of the Department of Justice, and regional Ter25 rorism Early Warning Groups.


I4598.AAI
26

9

•HR 4598 IH

1 (d) RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS.—For each element of

2 the intelligence community, the head of such element shall

3 designate an official of such element to administer this

4 Act with respect to such element.

5 (e) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section:

6 (1) The term ‘‘homeland security information’’

7 means any information possessed by a Federal,

8 State, or local intelligence or law enforcement agen9 cy that—

10 (A) relates to the threat of terrorist activ11 ity;

12 (B) relates to the ability to prevent, inter13 dict, or disrupt terrorist activity;

14 (C) would improve the identification or in15 vestigation of a suspected terrorist or terrorist

16 organization; or

17 (D) would improve the response to a ter18 rorist act.

19 (2) The term ‘‘intelligence community’’ has the

20 meaning given such term in section 3(4) of the Na21 tional Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)).

22 (3) The term ‘‘State and local personnel’’

23 means any of the following persons involved in pre24 vention, preparation, or response for terrorist attack:


I4598.AAJ
27

10

•HR 4598 IH

1 (A) State Governors, mayors, and other lo2 cally elected officials.

3 (B) State and local law enforcement per4 sonnel and firefighters.

5 (C) Public health and medical profes6 sionals.

7 (D) Regional, State, and local emergency

8 management agency personnel, including State

9 adjutant generals.

10 (E) Other appropriate emergency response

11 agency personnel.

12 (F) Employees of private-sector entities

13 that affect critical infrastructure, cyber, or eco14 nomic security.

15 (4) The term ‘‘State’’ includes the District of

16 Columbia and any commonwealth, territory, or pos17 session of the United States.

18 SEC. 4. REPORT.

19 (a) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 6 months

20 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President

21 shall submit to the congressional committees specified in

22 subsection (b) a report on the implementation of this Act.

23 The report shall include any recommendations for addi24 tional measures or appropriation requests, beyond the re25 quirements of this Act, to increase the effectiveness of


I4598.AAK
28

11

•HR 4598 IH

1 sharing of information among Federal, State, and local

2 entities.

3 (b) SPECIFIED CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.—The

4 congressional committees referred to in subsection (a) are

5 the following committees:

6 (1) The Permanent Select Committee on Intel7 ligence and the Committee on the Judiciary of the

8 House of Representatives.

9 (2) The Select Committee on Intelligence and

10 the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate.

11 SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

12 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums

13 as may be necessary to carry out this Act.

Æ


I4598.AAL
29

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Wisconsin, Mr. Green, Vice Chairman of the Subcommittee on 

Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, for a motion. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security reports favorably the bill H.R. 4598 with a single amendment in the nature 

of a substitute, and moves its favorable recommendation to the full 

House. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the bill will be 

considered as read and open for amendment at any point. 

[The amendment follows:]

30 H.L.C.

SUBCOMMITTEE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF

A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 4598

(AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE

ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY ON JUNE 4, 2002)

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the

following:

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Homeland Security

3 Information Sharing Act’’.

4 SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND SENSE OF CONGRESS.

5 (a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds the following:

6 (1) The Federal Government is required by the

7 Constitution to protect every State from invasion,

8 which includes terrorist attack.

9 (2) The Federal Government relies on State

10 and local personnel to protect against terrorist at11 tack.

12 (3) The Federal Government collects, creates,

13 manages, and protects sensitive information to en14 hance national security.

15 (4) Some homeland security information is

16 needed by the State and local personnel to prevent

17 and prepare for terrorist attack.


A4598.AAB
31

2

H.L.C.

1 (5) The needs of State and local personnel to

2 have access to relevant homeland security informa3 tion to combat terrorism must be reconciled with the

4 need to preserve the protected status of such infor5 mation and to protect the sources and methods used

6 to acquire such information.

7 (6) Granting security clearances to certain

8 State and local personnel is one way to facilitate the

9 sharing of information regarding specific terrorist

10 threats among Federal, State, and local levels of

11 government.

12 (7) Methods exist to declassify, redact, or other13 wise adapt classified information so it may be shared

14 with State and local personnel without the need for

15 granting additional security clearances.

16 (8) State and local personnel have capabilities

17 and opportunities to gather information on sus18 picious activities and terrorist threats not possessed

19 by the Federal intelligence agencies.

20 (9) The intelligence community and State and

21 local governments and agencies in other jurisdictions

22 may benefit from such information.

23 (10) Federal, State, and local governments and

24 intelligence, law enforcement, and other emergency

25 preparation and response agencies must act in partVerDate jun 06 2002 02:07 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR534P1.XXX pfrm15 PsN: HR534P1

A4598.AAC
32

3

H.L.C.

1 nership to maximize the benefits of information

2 gathering and analysis to prevent and respond to

3 terrorist attacks.

4 (11) Information systems, including the Na5 tional Law Enforcement Telecommunications Sys6 tem and the Terrorist Threat Warning System, have

7 been established for rapid sharing of sensitive and

8 unclassified information among Federal, State, and

9 local entities.

10 (12) Increased efforts to share homeland secu11 rity information should avoid duplicating existing in12 formation systems.

13 (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con14 gress that Federal, State, and local entities should share

15 homeland security information to the maximum extent

16 practicable.

17 SEC. 3. FACILITATING HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMA18 TION SHARING PROCEDURES.

19 (a) PRESIDENTIAL PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING

20 EXTENT OF SHARING OF HOMELAND SECURITY INFOR21 MATION.—

22 (1) The President shall prescribe procedures

23 under which relevant Federal agencies determine—

24 (A) whether, how, and to what extent

25 homeland security information may be shared


A4598.AAD
33

4

H.L.C.

1 with appropriate State and local personnel, and

2 with which such personnel it may be shared;

3 and

4 (B) to the extent such information is in

5 classified form, whether, how, and to what ex6 tent to remove classified information, as appro7 priate, and with which such personnel it may be

8 shared after such information is removed.

9 (2) The President shall ensure that such proce10 dures apply to each element of the intelligence com11 munity and that the requisite technology is available.

12 (3) Such procedures shall not change the sub13 stantive requirements for the classification and

14 treatment of classified information.

15 (4) Such procedures shall not change the re16 quirements and authorities to protect sources and

17 methods.

18 (b) PROCEDURES FOR SHARING OF HOMELAND SE19 CURITY INFORMATION.—

20 (1) Under procedures prescribed jointly by the

21 Director of Central Intelligence and the Attorney

22 General, each element of the intelligence community

23 shall, through information sharing systems, share

24 homeland security information with appropriate

25 State and local personnel to the extent such inforVerDate jun 06 2002 02:07 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR534P1.XXX pfrm15 PsN: HR534P1

A4598.AAE
34

5

H.L.C.

1 mation may be shared, as determined in accordance

2 with subsection (a), together with assessments of the

3 credibility of such information.

4 (2) Each information sharing system through

5 which information is shared under paragraph (1)

6 shall—

7 (A) have the capability to transmit unclas8 sified or classified information, though the pro9 cedures and recipients for each capability may

10 differ;

11 (B) have the capability to restrict delivery

12 of information to specified subgroups by geo13 graphic location, type of organization, position

14 of a recipient within an organization, and a re15 cipient’s need to know such information;

16 (C) be configured to allow the efficient and

17 effective sharing of information; and

18 (D) be accessible to appropriate State and

19 local personnel.

20 (3) The procedures prescribed under paragraph

21 (1) shall ensure, to the greatest extent practicable,

22 that the information sharing system through which

23 information is shared under such paragraph include

24 existing information sharing systems, including, but

25 not limited to, the National Law Enforcement TeleVerDate jun 06 2002 02:07 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR534P1.XXX pfrm15 PsN: HR534P1

A4598.AAF
35

6

H.L.C.

1 communications System, the Regional Information

2 Sharing System, and the Terrorist Threat Warning

3 System of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

4 (4) Each element of the Federal intelligence

5 and law enforcement communities shall have access

6 to each information sharing system through which

7 information is shared under paragraph (1), and shall

8 therefore have access to all information, as appro9 priate, shared under such paragraph.

10 (5) The procedures prescribed under paragraph

11 (1) shall ensure that appropriate State and local

12 personnel are authorized to use such information

13 sharing systems—

14 (A) to access information shared with such

15 personnel; and

16 (B) to share, with others who have access

17 to such information sharing systems, the home18 land security information of their own jurisdic19 tions, which shall be marked appropriately as

20 pertaining to potential terrorist activity.

21 (6) Under procedures prescribed jointly by the

22 Director of Central Intelligence and the Attorney

23 General, each element of the intelligence community

24 shall review and assess the information shared under


A4598.AAG
36

7

H.L.C.

1 paragraph (5) and integrate such information with

2 existing intelligence.

3 (c) SHARING OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AND

4 SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION WITH

5 STATE AND LOCAL PERSONNEL.—

6 (1) The President shall prescribe procedures

7 under which Federal agencies may, to the extent the

8 President considers necessary, share with appro9 priate State and local personnel homeland security

10 information that remains classified or otherwise pro11 tected after the determinations prescribed under the

12 procedures set forth in subsection (a).

13 (2) It is the sense of Congress that such proce14 dures should provide for sharing to be carried out

15 through one or more of the following means:

16 (A) Carrying out security clearance inves17 tigations with respect to appropriate State and

18 local personnel.

19 (B) With respect to information that is

20 sensitive but unclassified, entering into non21 disclosure agreements with appropriate State

22 and local personnel.

23 (C) Increased use of information-sharing

24 partnerships that include appropriate State and

25 local personnel, such as the Joint Terrorism


A4598.AAH
37

8

H.L.C.

1 Task Forces of the Federal Bureau of Inves2 tigation, the Anti-Terrorism Task Forces of the

3 Department of Justice, and regional Terrorism

4 Early Warning Groups.

5 (d) RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS.—For each element of

6 the intelligence community, the head of such element shall

7 designate an official of such element to administer this

8 Act with respect to such element.

9 (e) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section:

10 (1) The term ‘‘homeland security information’’

11 means any information possessed by a Federal,

12 State, or local intelligence or law enforcement agen13 cy that—

14 (A) relates to the threat of terrorist activ15 ity;

16 (B) relates to the ability to prevent, inter17 dict, or disrupt terrorist activity;

18 (C) would improve the identification or in19 vestigation of a suspected terrorist or terrorist

20 organization; or

21 (D) would improve the response to a ter22 rorist act.

23 (2) The term ‘‘intelligence community’’ has the

24 meaning given such term in section 3(4) of the Na25 tional Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)).


A4598.AAI
38

9

H.L.C.

1 (3) The term ‘‘State and local personnel’’

2 means any of the following persons involved in pre3 vention, preparation, or response for terrorist attack:

4 (A) State Governors, mayors, and other lo5 cally elected officials.

6 (B) State and local law enforcement per7 sonnel and firefighters.

8 (C) Public health and medical profes9 sionals.

10 (D) Regional, State, and local emergency

11 management agency personnel, including State

12 adjutant generals.

13 (E) Other appropriate emergency response

14 agency personnel.

15 (F) Employees of private-sector entities

16 that affect critical infrastructure, cyber, or eco17 nomic security.

18 (4) The term ‘‘State’’ includes the District of

19 Columbia and any commonwealth, territory, or pos20 session of the United States.

21 SEC. 4. REPORT.

22 (a) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 6 months

23 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President

24 shall submit to the congressional committees specified in

25 subsection (b) a report on the implementation of this Act.


A4598.AAJ
39

10

H.L.C.

1 The report shall include any recommendations for addi2 tional measures or appropriation requests, beyond the re3 quirements of this Act, to increase the effectiveness of

4 sharing of information among Federal, State, and local

5 entities.

6 (b) SPECIFIED CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.—The

7 congressional committees referred to in subsection (a) are

8 the following committees:

9 (1) The Permanent Select Committee on Intel10 ligence and the Committee on the Judiciary of the

11 House of Representatives.

12 (2) The Select Committee on Intelligence and

13 the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate.

14 SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

15 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums

16 as may be necessary to carry out this Act.


A4598.AAK
40

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Subcommittee amendment in 

the nature of a substitute which the Members have before them 

will be considered as read and considered as the original text for 

purposes of amendment and open for amendment at any point. The 

Chair yields himself 5 minutes for purposes of making an opening 

statement. This Committee has greatly improved information sharing between Federal law enforcement and the intelligence community last year with the passage of the PATRIOT Act, yet further 

cooperation is still needed. Because State and local officials will be 

the first to respond to a terrorist attack, we need to create procedures so that appropriate State and local officials will receive the 

information they need to understand, prevent, detect and disrupt 

terrorist threats. 

Often this information is classified, so we must provide a way to 

provide this information quickly and efficiently while protecting the 

classified sources and methods of obtaining the information. Understanding the complexity of sharing classified and law enforcement 

sensitive information, this Committee worked with the Committee 

on Intelligence to produce this legislation. It will facilitate the sharing of homeland security information with State and local officials 

by directing the Administration in developing procedures to sanitize classified information so that it can be shared in an unclassified form. 

If the information cannot be sanitized, the bill directs the administration to develop procedures to share classified information while 

protecting that information. I believe this bill is vital to improving 

homeland security. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Does 

the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, who is the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee, have an opening statement? The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this markup 

on Homeland Security Information Sharing Act. Just as with the 

U.S.A. PATRIOT Act on sharing sensitive protected information 

among Federal agencies, I think the challenge we face in sharing 

such information with local government authorities is the same, 

getting critical information in a timely manner to authorities who 

need it in order to effectively prevent or address terrorism through 

proactive strategies, while at the same time, protecting the privacy 

and freedoms of our citizens. 

In so doing, we must be vigilant that we not only accomplish for 

would-be terrorists what they cannot accomplish on their own and 

that is, we don’t want to diminish our freedoms and our cherished 

way of life. From my experience in assessing and debating the USA 

PATRIOT Act, I am concerned that we have gone too far in the 

area of restricting liberties and privacy of law-abiding citizens 

under the rubric of preventing and fighting terrorism. There is little debate over empowering our intelligence and law enforcement 

forces to prevent and fight terrorism. The debate is whether these 

extraordinary powers and discretions we give to prevent and fight 

terrorism can and will be used on very ordinary street crimes or 

other undesirable activities where these extraordinary powers may 

not be appropriate. 

The bill before us is not as much at issue as the regulations 

which will be formulated based on this legislation. I am concerned 

that without sufficient guidelines, the delicate balance we must 

41

strike between sharing critical information with State and local officials needed to prevent and fight terrorism and maintaining the 

privacy and liberties of our citizens will be jeopardized. I will be 

particularly concerned in this regard if we authorize the sharing of 

even more sensitive information than the President has at his command, such as sharing grand jury testimony and information from 

wire and electronic wiretaps without sufficient guidelines to protect 

citizens to discourage and address improper disclosures of sensitive 

private information. 

So if any such—so with any such additions, I would hope that 

we would also include provisions to ensure these concerns and the 

concerns that when we focus on antiterrorism instead of ordinary 

street crime, we address the regulations implementing the information sharing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, all Members may 

insert opening statements in the record at this point. Are there any 

amendments? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are two amendments. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do the 236 or the one that is at 2(b). I have 

two amendments. Thank you. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 4598 offered by Ms. Jackson Lee 

of Texas, insert 2(b) of the bill, strike the period at the end and 

insert——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection the amendment is 

considered as read and the gentlewoman from Texas is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

[The amendment follows:]

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman very much. I have two 

amendments that I hope my colleagues will be able to join me on, 

that really just add to many of the discussions that all of us have 

had with respect to homeland security, and that is to ensure the 

outreach to the local communities and first responders. This simply 

says with special emphasis on hard to reach urban and rural communities just to make sure that those places that may not even 

have sufficient number of first responders and others in the area 

or the ability to receive information quickly, that we do have them 

on our mind and we make an effort to reach out to provide and disVerDate jun 06 2002 02:07 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR534P1.XXX pfrm15 PsN: HR534P1

4598A.eps
42

seminate information to these particular entities. I would ask my 

colleagues to support this amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 

Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you Mr. Chairman this seems to be a reasonable amendment and I have no objection to it. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Question is on the agreeing to the 

amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson 

Lee. Those in favor will say aye. Opposed no. The aye appears to 

have it. The aye has it and the amendment is agreed to. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I have another amendment at the desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 4598 offered by Ms. Jackson Lee 

of Texas, insert 3(e), 3(f) of the bill, strike—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection the amendment is 

considered as read and the gentlewoman from Texas is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

[The amendment follows:]

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In the 

last couple of days listening to the President, listening to Governor 

Ridge, we have recognized the broadness of the issues dealing with 

homeland security. I very much appreciate the emphasis on cyber 

and economic security, but as well, I believe that one of the other 

major issues that we face, particularly with anthrax, is health security and a simple amendment just indicates employees of private 

sector entities that affect critical infrastructure, cyber, economic or 

health security. I would ask my colleagues to support that amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Wisconsin. 

Mr. GREEN. Would the gentlelady yield to a question? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. I am not sure I understand precisely what health security means. Could you define that term. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. For example, one of the issues we discussed 

in the immigration area is the border and the full coming across 

the border, for example, and to be able to ensure that it is not contaminated and that is one of the areas that would similarly fall 

under our jurisdiction. So health is just the broad-based health of 

the Nation. 

Mr. GREEN. If the lady will further yield. Would the gentlelady 

be willing to work with us on the terminology of health security so 

we define that more specifically. Health security is a broad term. 

You made reference to food security in particular which I agree 

with you on, but what I would like to do is develop language that 


4598B.eps
43

clarifies that term a little bit so we understand precisely what is 

being asked of us. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would welcome the gentleman. Is it possible 

because it is just a minor amendment to add maybe public health 

or refine it so that would make you feel more comfortable. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection the amendment is 

modified to include the word ‘‘public’’ before health so it is public 

health security. Hearing no objection, the amendment is so modified. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentlelady yield back the 

balance of her time? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman from Wisconsin. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move to strike the last 

word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. With that change in terminology, I have no objections to this amendment. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If the gentleman would yield, thank you very 

much. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is agreeing to the second amendment as modified, those in favor will say aye. Opposed 

no. The ayes appear to have it, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. Are there further amendments? The gentleman 

from Wisconsin. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Green has two amendments. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. There are two amendments. Which 

one does the gentleman from Wisconsin wish to offer first? 

Mr. GREEN. The first one. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 4598 offered by Mr. Green of 

Wisconsin, page 1, line 13, strike sensitive and insert—— Mr. GREEN. Unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. 

[The amendment follows:]

44 H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 4598

OFFERED BY MR. GREEN OF WISCONSIN

(Page & line nos. refer to Subcommittee Amendment in the

Nature of a Substitute of June 4, 2002)

Page 1, line 13, strike ‘‘sensitive’’ and insert ‘‘classified and sensitive but unclassified’’.

Page 1, line 14, strike ‘‘national’’ and insert ‘‘homeland’’.

Page 2, line 19, strike ‘‘the Federal intelligence

agencies’’ and insert ‘‘Federal agencies’’.

Page 2, line 20, strike ‘‘intelligence community’’ and

insert ‘‘Federal government’’.

Page 3, line 7, strike ‘‘sensitive and’’ and insert

‘‘classified and sensitive but’’.

Page 4, line 3, strike ‘‘and’’.

Page 4, after line 3, insert the following new paragraph:

1 (B) how to identify and safeguard homeland se2 curity information that is sensitive but unclassified;

3 and

Page 4, line 4, strike ‘‘(B)’’ and insert ‘‘(C)’’.


B4598.AAB
45

2

H.L.C.

Page 4, line 10, strike ‘‘each element’’ and all that

follows through the period at the end of line 11 and insert ‘‘all agencies of the Federal government.’’.

Page 4, line 14, strike ‘‘treatment’’ and insert ‘‘safeguarding’’.

Page 4, line 20, strike ‘‘jointly’’ and all that follows

through ‘‘shall,’’ on line 23 and insert ‘‘by the President,

all appropriate agencies, including the intelligence community, shall,’’.

Page 5, line 14, strike ‘‘and’’ and insert ‘‘or’’.

Page 6, lines 4 through 5, strike ‘‘element of the

Federal intelligence and law enforcement communities’’

and insert ‘‘appropriate Federal agency, as determined by

the President,’’.

Page 8, lines 5 through 6, strike ‘‘element of the intelligence community’’ and insert ‘‘affected Federal agency’’.

Page 8, line 6, strike ‘‘element’’ and insert ‘‘agency’’.

Page 8, line 7, strike ‘‘of such element’’.

Page 8, line 8, strike ‘‘element’’ and insert ‘‘agency’’.


B4598.AAC
46

3

H.L.C.

Page 8, after line 8, insert the following new subsection:

1 (e) FEDERAL CONTROL OF INFORMATION.—Under

2 procedures prescribed under this section, information ob3 tained by a State or local government from a Federal

4 agency under this section shall remain under the control

5 of the Federal agency, and a State or local law authorizing

6 or requiring such a government to disclose information

7 shall not apply to such information.

Page 8, line 9, redesignate subsection (e) as subsection (f).

Page 8, line 12, strike ‘‘intelligence or law enforcement’’.

Page 9, line 17, insert before the period at the end

the following: ‘‘, as designated by the Federal government

in procedures developed pursuant to this section’’.

Page 9, line 22, strike ‘‘6 months’’ and insert ‘‘12

months’’.


B4598.AAD
47

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, so ordered. The 

gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment to H.R. 4598 to make a few additional technical changes at the request of the Office of Homeland Security 

that will we believe further strengthen this bill. The amendment 

clarifies some of the findings of fact in section 2. This amendment 

would also modify section 3, sub (a) of the bill. Section 3, sub (a) 

directs the President to prescribe procedures to determine the extent to which information may be shared. This amendment would 

add that procedures should be established to identify and safeguard homeland security information that is sensitive, but not classified. Additionally, the amendment would add a new subparagraph to section 3, that requires any information disclosed to a 

State or local government from a Federal agency would remain 

under the control of the Federal Government and would not be subject to State disclosure laws. This would help to protect classified 

information as well as privacy. These changes are more technical 

in nature but they are needed for clarification. With that I ask my 

colleagues to support the amendment. I yield back my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the amendment 

offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Green. Those in 

favor will say aye. Opposed no. The ayes appear to have it the ayes 

have it and the amendment is agreed to. The gentleman from Wisconsin have a second amendment? 

Mr. GREEN. No. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there further amendments. The 

gentleman from North Carolina. 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to——

Mr. WATT. Ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. 

The CLERK.—section 3(b) of the bill, insert after paragraph 2——

Mr. WATT. Ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection the amendment is 

considered as read and the gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes. 

[The amendment follows:]

48

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment was 

drafted by legislatively drafting, and for some reason, they didn’t 

put the page number on it. We are dealing with page 5—I am 

sorry, page 6 after line 11, a new paragraph would be inserted that 

would be number 3 and the subsequent paragraphs there, they are 


4598C.eps
49

now numbered 3 and 4 and further would be renumbered. The bill 

sets up a process by which the President, under language on pages 

4 and 5 of the bill, sets up some general guidelines for use of homeland security information, and then the director of the CIA and the 

Attorney General starting at the middle of page 5 and going over 

to page 6, give more detail to the general process that the President has prescribed for dealing with this information. 

This amendment simply adds some additional things that the director of the CIA and Attorney General would be required to prescribe regulations about, including procedures to limit the redissemination of information that is being shared, procedures to 

ensure that such information is used solely for the purposes for 

which the information was shared, procedures to ensure the accuracy, security and confidentiality of such information, procedures to 

protect the privacy rights of any individuals who are subjects of 

such information and procedures to provide data integrity through 

the timely removal and destruction of obsolete or erroneous names 

and information. 

Basically what we are trying to get the CIA and the Attorney 

General to do is to do some additional things in addition to those 

prescribed in the bill currently. We have vetted this language with 

Mr. Chambliss and Ms. Harman, the two lead sponsors of the—of 

this legislation. And I have an e-mail from Ms. Harman’s staff 

which reads, thanks for sending this proposal over. I just chatted 

with Mr. Chambliss’ staff on the bill and we both agree that the 

amendment looks good to us so I don’t think we are doing anything 

that is inconsistent with what they intended to do or anything that 

is revolutionary. 

We just think that there are some additional things that the CIA 

and the Attorney General, in furtherance of the guidelines that the 

President—general guidelines that the President gives them should 

be trying to assure and those things are set out in the amendment. 

So I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment and yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman from Wisconsin. 

Mr. GREEN. Move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think 

we all agree with the ideas behind Mr. Watt’s amendment. However, I must oppose it for a couple of reasons. First off, the gentleman refers to conversations that he has had with Ms. Harman, 

and I believe Mr. Chambliss. We have not heard from them on our 

side—the Subcommittee and the Committee has not heard from 

them. Secondly, much of what this amendment would seek to do, 

we already do. There are already penalties for disclosing protected 

information in the criminal code and in the Privacy Act. Additionally, there are penalties for disclosing grand jury information. To 

be honest, I think much of what Mr. Watt has in his amendment 

is redundant. 

Mr. WATT. Would the gentleman yield on that point? 

Mr. GREEN. If I could finish my statement. Instead, we have a 

substitute amendment. That amendment would amend section 4 of 

the bill to add a requirement that the Administration report on the 

existing privacy protections as well as any new ones which they 

50

plan to implement, and I would hope you would be able to join us 

in that amendment. And with that, I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. WATT. First of all, I appreciate the spirit in which the gentleman is approaching this, but I would say two things: Number 

one, this amendment doesn’t do anything about penalties that are 

in the underlying law. We are not trying to prescribe any penalties. 

What we are trying to do is get the CIA and the Attorney General 

to set up some guidelines and requirements on the use of data so 

that you won’t even be worrying about what the standards are to 

trigger penalties. Right now there are really no guidelines in place, 

and I thought that was the purpose of this bill. There are certainly 

no guidelines in place for the sharing of information. 

Mr. GREEN. Reclaiming my time. We believe there are. There are 

procedures and guidelines in place not just penalties. The gentleman nudged me in the right direction. This doesn’t just deal 

with penalties. It also does deal with procedures and guidelines for 

information sharing. And again, we believe that while the intentions are sound, the gentleman’s amendment is redundant to what 

is already prescribed, and therefore unnecessary. And what we 

would hope is that the amendment that I would put forward would 

lay out precisely what the Administration would do in terms of privacy protection and also lay out for us any privacy protections they 

plan to implement. And with that I yield back. 

Mr. WATT. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GREEN. I guess with the remaining time I have, I would like 

to go ahead and offer my amendment. So I have a Green number 

2, Mr. Chairman, at the desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, point of order. 

Mr. WATT. Is this a substitute or——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia has a 

point of order. 

Mr. SCOTT. I was asking whether this was a substitute amendment or an amendment to the amendment? 

Mr. GREEN. It is a substitute amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. It is a substitute. 

Mr. WATT. I would like to reserve a point of order. The point of 

order is reserved and the clerk will report the amendment. The 

point of order is reserved by the gentleman from North Carolina. 

The CLERK. Amendment offered by Mr. Green of Wisconsin to 

H.R. 4598. On page 10, line 5, insert after the word ‘‘entities,’’ the 

report shall also include a description of the existing protections of 

privacy and any new protections the Administration plans to implement. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin is 

recognized for 5 minutes and the point of order is reserved. The 

gentleman from Wisconsin. 

[The amendment follows:]

51

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. As 

indicated previously, this substitute amendment would amend section 4 of the bill to add a requirement that the Administration report on the existing privacy protections as well as any new ones 

that they would plan to implement. This way we would identify 

very clearly what the guidelines and protections that are in place 

and what the Administration’s plans are in going forward. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from North Carolina 

insist upon his point of order? 

Mr. WATT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman will state his point of 

order. 

Mr. WATT. My point of order is that this amendment, while it 

may be good, has nothing to do with the underlying amendment. 

It deals with an entirely different subject matter in a different section of the bill, and therefore would have no germaneness to the 

underlying amendment for which it is being offered as a substitute. 

So I don’t really have any objection to the gentleman’s amendment, 

it just doesn’t have anything to do with the subject matter of the 

underlying amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Other Members wish to be heard on 

the point of order? Gentleman from Wisconsin. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To speed this along, I 

will withdraw my amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The amendment is withdrawn. The 

question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman 

from North Carolina, Mr. Watt. 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, seek recognition? 

Mr. SCOTT. Move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. 

What it does is outline some very important factors that were 

brought up in the hearing, how this information will be redisseminated, whether it can be used for purposes other than the purpose 

for which it was disseminated, how you ensure the accuracy, protecting privacy rights. All of these issues came up and I think it 

is important that the Administration outline how this information 

is going to be protected before it gets out. I mean, a penalty after 

the fact is a woefully inadequate remedy for information that can 

be extremely sensitive, personal, defamatory, and it is being let out 

in such a way that you have no way of defending yourself. Rumor 


4598D.eps
52

gets out that you have committed crimes, there is no trial, there 

is no nothing. Your integrity, your reputation has been sullied. And 

even if somebody gets punished, that doesn’t help you. I would 

hope that we would adopt the amendment. The fact is that the Administration will draft the language based on this. Whatever they 

do will be workable. We just want to make sure that they address—doesn’t tell them it has to be limited, just conditions—shall 

establish conditions on how you are going to redisseminate the information. The Administration will decide, and I would hope we 

will give them the flexibility, but also require they address these 

issues. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly, seek recognition? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Strike the last word, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. At this point I would yield to the gentleman from 

Wisconsin, Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Just very briefly, 

we just had a communication from Mr. Chambliss’ office and they 

indicated that Mr. Chambliss did not agree to this amendment or 

to this language. Just so the Committee Members are aware of 

that, Mr. Chambliss, the author of the bill, does not agree to this 

language and I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Yield back, Mr. Chairman. For what purpose does 

the gentlewoman from California wish to be recognized? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from California is 

recognized. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I as you know was very active in 

the drafting of the PATRIOT Act, and believe we must be vigorous 

in the fight against terrorism, but it seems to me that the amendment offered by Mr. Watt is very carefully crafted and very balanced, and would not at all interfere with our mutual objective of 

making a safer America, and I would yield to Mr. Watt for further 

comment. 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, let me make a couple of points. Number one, the PATRIOT Act dealt with—if we were only dealing with 

what was in the PATRIOT Act, this whole bill wouldn’t be necessary. This is a step beyond the PATRIOT Act designed to set up 

a process for sharing of information that is obtained under the PATRIOT Act with other law enforcement agencies and governmental 

bodies. 

So to argue that there is something in the PATRIOT Act that 

deals with the issues that are raised in this amendment really 

misses the point because this bill doesn’t deal with what is in the 

PATRIOT Act. It deals with setting up a regimen for sharing of information that is obtained under the PATRIOT Act. 

Second, lest there be some misunderstanding, I am holding in my 

hand an e-mail from Ms. Harman’s office now—and I am happy to 

submit that for the record, which I read. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

Mr. WATT.—that I read to the Committee, which says that her 

office just chatted with Mr. Chambliss’ staff and we both agree that 

this amendment looks good to us. Now I am—hell, I have no interVerDate jun 06 2002 02:07 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR534P1.XXX pfrm15 PsN: HR534P1
53

est in coming in here and misrepresenting to this Committee. I 

haven’t talked to Mr. Chambliss. I assume his staff is talking to 

him. But I mean, to turn this into some kind of partisan divide 

here on an issue which is very straightforward and very balanced, 

seems to me to be just unjustified, and I yield back. 

Mr. FRANK. Would the gentlewoman yield to me? 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would yield. 

Mr. FRANK. Whether or not there was information sharing 

among Mr. Chambliss and his staff is, of course, not within our jurisdiction. I was the sponsor of one of the amendments, and I am 

grateful to the Chairman for working closely with me for the 

amendment that was adopted to protect privacy in the PATRIOT 

Act and the Chairman’s support was very helpful and that is to establish a means by which people about whom information is 

surveilled and improperly released could sue and get some damages. And I think that is helpful and I am glad it is there. 

But I have to say as a sponsor of one of the amendments that 

was adopted dealing with privacy, it was never intended by me or 

would I argue that it filled the four corners. And it is totally not 

only consistent with the gentleman’s amendment, but the gentleman’s amendment fills gaps that it never was intended to fill. So 

I would hope that the amendment could be adopted. 

Let me say, we have this dilemma. We all agree there should be 

more surveillance. The problem is the fear that some people have 

of misuse of the surveilled information. The gentleman’s amendment is really trying to help law enforcement. What he is trying 

to do, I think, is it is clear to reassure people that we are capable 

of doing surveillance where we should, but of protecting people 

from having that misused. 

And the fact that people would oppose this amendment really 

troubles me because I think it just gives aid and comfort to those 

who want to block the law enforcement powers because we then 

can’t say look, we are doing everything we can to protect you. I do 

not understand what objection there could be to any single item on 

this list and I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. And I would yield further to Mr. Watt. 

Mr. WATT. I, for the life of me, don’t understand what the opposition is about either. I just—you have got a regimen under the PATRIOT Act that governs the Federal Government. This bill is designed to govern the sharing of information with other agencies 

and what we are trying to do is put the same regimen or put some 

regimen into effect. The rules are going to be written by the CIA 

and the Attorney General, so I am not trying to write the rules. 

I am just saying you need some rules to prevent redissemination 

of this information, and to do the same things in the sharing of information that we do under the PATRIOT Act. This is the same 

language that is in the Border Security Act. I mean, we picked up 

the same language. So we are not trying to do anything sinister 

here. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. There is more debate. We have two votes, one on the rule 

and one on the journal. The Committee will be in recess. It is the 

Chair’s hope that we will be able to resume our sitting as soon as 

a working quorum appears after the two votes. The Committee 

stands in recess. 

54

[Recess.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee will be in order. A 

working quorum is present. Pending at the time of the recess was 

an amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 

Watt. There appears to have been an agreement on language. For 

what purpose does the gentleman from Wisconsin Mr. Green seek 

recognition? 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer an amendment 

to the amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the Green 

amendment to the Watt amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment offered by Mr. Green of Wisconsin to the 

amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is 

considered as read and the gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized 

for 5 minutes on behalf of his amendment to the amendment. 

[The amendment follows:]

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Between the votes that 

we cast and this moment, I think a number of us had a chance to 

talk to the primary authors of this legislation and I think the general consensus was that there may be a legitimate reason for redissemination of information and therefore a legitimate reason for 

some of the concerns that Mr. Watt has raised. The purpose of the 


4598E.eps
55

language in the amendment that I offer to Mr. Watt’s amendment 

is to assure that dissemination is not made for unauthorized purposes, which I believe captures the intent of what Mr. Watt is trying to do. The first change reflects this. I would strike the word 

‘‘accuracy’’ in our amendment, because we are talking about threat 

information, and accuracy is not necessarily a term that can be 

guaranteed. 

For instance, a bridge will be blown up in a major city, we may 

not know if the information is accurate. Finally, I would replace 

the word ‘‘privacy’’ with the term ‘‘constitutional.’’ in any case, this 

appears to be language that the two main authors of the bill as 

well as Mr. Watt have all come to a consensus on. Although Mr. 

Chambliss and Ms. Harman have not seen the precise terminology, 

they have agreed to the concept and they will have a chance after 

this before we go to the floor. So I yield back my time. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last 

word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WATT. First of all, I would like to express my thanks to Mr. 

Green and to Mr. Scott and Mr. Chambliss and Ms. Harman in 

absentia. We had good conversation on the floor about what everybody was trying to accomplish. I think we are all in agreement that 

something needs to be in this bill. Mr. Chambliss and Ms. Harman 

both were concerned that we don’t create a bureaucracy that slows 

down the process of evaluation of information. I am fully in accord 

with that, and actually had agreed with them that I would withdraw the amendment. It turned out that we got to some language 

that we could put into the bill. And if they object to it later, then 

we can get their input into it and revise it some more. So I think 

does exactly what we want to do and does it with better language 

in fact now that I have read what has been proposed. So I am fully 

in accord with it and encourage my colleagues to support it. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the Green 

amendment to the Watt amendment. Those in favor will say aye. 

Opposed no. The ayes appear to have it, the ayes have it. The 

amendment to the amendment is agreed to. The question now is 

on the Watt amendment as amended. Those in favor will say aye 

opposed no. The ayes appear to have it the ayes have it and the 

amendment as amended is agreed to. Are there further amendments. Gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner? 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I have amendment 36 at the desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 4598 offered by Mr. Weiner. In 

section 4——

Mr. WEINER. Request unanimous consent that the amendment be 

considered as read, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection the amendment is 

considered as read. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

[The amendment follows:]

56 H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 4598

OFFERED BY MR. WEINER

In sections 4 and 5, strike ‘‘this Act’’ each place

such term appears and insert ‘‘section 3’’.

At the end of the bill, add the following new sections:

1 SEC. 6. AUTHORITY TO SHARE GRAND JURY INFORMATION.

2 Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

3 is amended—

4 (1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘, or of

5 guidelines jointly issued by the Attorney General and

6 Director of Central Intelligence pursuant to Rule 6,’’

7 after ‘‘Rule 6’’;

8 (2) in paragraph (3)—

9 (A) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by inserting

10 ‘‘or of a foreign government’’ after ‘‘(including

11 personnel of a state or subdivision of a state’’;

12 (B) in subparagraph (C)(i)—

13 (i) in subclause (I), by inserting be14 fore the semicolon the following: ‘‘or, upon

15 a request by an attorney for the govern16 ment, when sought by a foreign court or

17 prosecutor for use in an official criminal

18 investigation’’;


C4598.AAB
57

2

H.L.C.

1 (ii) in subclause (IV)—

2 (I) by inserting ‘‘or foreign’’

3 after ‘‘may disclose a violation of

4 State’’;

5 (II) by inserting ‘‘or of a foreign

6 government’’ after ‘‘to an appropriate

7 official of a State or subdivision of a

8 State’’; and

9 (III) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end;

10 (iii) by striking the period at the end

11 of subclause (V) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

12 (iv) by adding at the end the fol13 lowing:

14 ‘‘(VI) when matters involve a threat

15 of actual or potential attack or other grave

16 hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent

17 of a foreign power, domestic or inter18 national sabotage, domestic or inter19 national terrorism, or clandestine intel20 ligence gathering activities by an intel21 ligence service or network of a foreign

22 power or by an agent of a foreign power,

23 within the United States or elsewhere, to

24 any appropriate federal, state, local, or for25 eign government official for the purpose of


C4598.AAC
58

3

H.L.C.

1 preventing or responding to such a

2 threat.’’;

3 (C) in subparagraph (C)(iii)—

4 (i) by striking ‘‘Federal’’;

5 (ii) by inserting ‘‘or clause (i)(VI)’’

6 after ‘‘clause (i)(V)’’; and

7 (iii) by adding at the end the fol8 lowing: ‘‘Any state, local, or foreign official

9 who receives information pursuant to

10 clause (i)(VI) shall use that information

11 only consistent with such guidelines as the

12 Attorney General and Director of Central

13 Intelligence shall jointly issue.’’.

14 SEC. 7. AUTHORITY TO SHARE ELECTRONIC, WIRE, AND

15 ORAL INTERCEPTION INFORMATION.

16 Section 2517 of title 18, United States Code, is

17 amended by adding at the end the following:

18 ‘‘(7) Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or

19 attorney for the government, who by any means author20 ized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the con21 tents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, or

22 evidence derived therefrom, may disclose such contents or

23 derivative evidence to a foreign investigative or law en24 forcement officer to the extent that such disclosure is ap25 propriate to the proper performance of the official duties


C4598.AAD
59

4

H.L.C.

1 of the officer making or receiving the disclosure, and for2 eign investigative or law enforcement officers may use or

3 disclose such contents or derivative evidence to the extent

4 such use or disclosure is appropriate to the proper per5 formance of their official duties.

6 ‘‘(8) Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or

7 attorney for the government, who by any means author8 ized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the con9 tents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, or

10 evidence derived therefrom, may disclose such contents or

11 derivative evidence to any appropriate Federal, State,

12 local, or foreign government official to the extent that such

13 contents or derivative evidence reveals a threat of actual

14 or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign

15 power or an agent of a foreign power, domestic or inter16 national sabotage, domestic or international terrorism, or

17 clandestine intelligence gathering activities by an intel18 ligence service or network of a foreign power or by an

19 agent of a foreign power, within the United States or else20 where, for the purpose of preventing or responding to such

21 a threat. Any official who receives information pursuant

22 to this provision may use that information only as nec23 essary in the conduct of that person’s official duties sub24 ject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of

25 such information, and any State, local, or foreign official


C4598.AAE
60

5

H.L.C.

1 who receives information pursuant to this provision may

2 use that information only consistent with such guidelines

3 as the Attorney General and Director of Central Intel4 ligence shall jointly issue.’’.

5 SEC. 8. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.

6 (a) DISSEMINATION AUTHORIZED.—Section

7 203(d)(1) of the Uniting and Strengthening America by

8 Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and

9 Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT ACT) of 2001

10 (Public Law 107–56; 50 U.S.C. 403–5d) is amended—

11 (1) by striking ‘‘Notwithstanding any other pro12 vision of law, it’’ and inserting ‘‘It’’; and

13 (2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘It shall

14 be lawful for information revealing a threat of actual

15 or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a

16 foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, do17 mestic or international sabotage, domestic or inter18 national terrorism, or clandestine intelligence gath19 ering activities by an intelligence service or network

20 of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign

21 power, within the United States or elsewhere, ob22 tained as part of a criminal investigation to be dis23 closed to any appropriate Federal, State, local, or

24 foreign government official for the purpose of pre25 venting or responding to such a threat. Any official


C4598.AAF
61

6

H.L.C.

1 who receives information pursuant to this provision

2 may use that information only as necessary in the

3 conduct of that person’s official duties subject to any

4 limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such

5 information, and any State, local, or foreign official

6 who receives information pursuant to this provision

7 may use that information only consistent with such

8 guidelines as the Attorney General and Director of

9 Central Intelligence shall jointly issue.’’.

10 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 203(c) of

11 that Act is amended—

12 (1) by striking ‘‘section 2517(6)’’ and inserting

13 ‘‘paragraphs (6) and (8) of section 2517 of title 18,

14 United States Code,’’; and

15 (2) by inserting ‘‘and (VI)’’ after ‘‘Rule

16 6(e)(3)(C)(i)(V)’’.

17 SEC. 9. INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM AN ELECTRONIC

18 SURVEILLANCE.

19 Section 160(k)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveil20 lance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1806) is amended by insert21 ing after ‘‘law enforcement officers’’ the following: ‘‘or law

22 enforcement personnel of a State or political subdivision

23 of a State (including the chief executive officer of that

24 State or political subdivision who has the authority to apVerDate jun 06 2002 02:07 Jun 26, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR534P1.XXX pfrm15 PsN: HR534P1

C4598.AAG
62

7

H.L.C.

1 point or direct the chief law enforcement officer of that

2 State or political subdivision)’’.

3 SEC. 10. INFORMATION ACQUIRED FROM A PHYSICAL

4 SEARCH.

5 Section 305(k)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveil6 lance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1825) is amended by insert7 ing after ‘‘law enforcement officers’’ the following: ‘‘or law

8 enforcement personnel of a State or political subdivision

9 of a State (including the chief executive officer of that

10 State or political subdivision who has the authority to ap11 point or direct the chief law enforcement officer of that

12 State or political subdivision)’’.


C4598.AAH
63

Mr. WEINER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, last year 

when anthrax was discovered at the NBC studios in New York, we 

discovered quite accidentally that there is a dramatic gap in the 

disclosure and information sharing laws that prohibit Federal 

agencies from sharing information that they get, tips about terrorist attacks and or crimes that are pending if their information 

is gathered by the Federal Government via a wiretap or grand jury 

testimony. 

It wasn’t until days after that the anthrax was discovered in 

New York that authorities in New York were notified of its presence. Right now, if there is a wiretap surveillance or grand jury 

testimony that reveals there will be a terrorist threat in the New 

York City subway system, the law not only does not require that 

that information be shared with officials in New York City or any 

other city, but it prohibits them from doing so if it comes from 

these two sources. 

My amendment seeks to amend that, to close that loophole. It 

does not require the sharing of information. It simply calls upon 

the Attorney General to come up with appropriate confidentiality 

guidelines and then permits the sharing of that information if it is 

deemed appropriate. This has been an amendment that was drafted with bipartisan consideration. It is a bipartisan effort in the 

Senate. 

Mr. Conyers, Chairman Smith, who I thank in absentia for his 

support, and also the Bush administration has reviewed the 

amendment and has expressed support for it. There is obviously 

much greater need for information to go back and forth between 

different levels of government. I don’t think every piece of information should be shared with local authorities. But when it is appropriate, we certainly should remove the barriers that exist that 

make it illegal for an agency like the CIA or the FBI or the Justice 

Department to share information with cities like mine and the ones 

we all represent. 

Frankly if that scenario that I described for you, if it were grand 

jury testimony or someone said there was going to be a dirty bomb 

detonated in the subways of New York City, frankly, it would have 

to be the Federal Bureau of Investigation officers only that went 

and responded to that threat and took up posts in the New York 

City subway system where, frankly, I am not sure they would be 

safe. 

So I think this legislation allows New York City agencies and police departments as well as any other local law enforcement agency 

could be notified as a result of this. And I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

I am happy to support this amendment 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 will 

help us thwart 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. 

64

The amendment 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. 

Having said this, I must admit that the amendment is not perfect. I would prefer 

that it be limited to possible acts of terrorism. The amendment applies to some of 

the most sensitive information at our government’s disposal, including wiretap information, grand jury information, and foreign intelligence information. If we are going 

to take the extraordinary step of sharing this information, it should be limited to 

the threat of terrorism. 

Second, I would hope that we could provide some safeguards so that once the information is disclosed there are security measures in place to guard against improper disclosure and to punish such disclosure. The last thing we would want is 

for the newly shared information to be used to harm an innocent person’s reputation. 

It is my hope that these concerns can be addressed as we move this legislation 

to the House floor and in conference with the Senate. But I believe this amendment 

offers us a good starting point to improve our nation’s defenses against terrorism.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 

Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, on behalf 

of Chairman Smith, let me say that I am pleased that Mr. Weiner 

offered his amendment. The Weiner amendment does not mandate 

the sharing of information, but rather removes the barriers to 

doing so. The discretion will still remain with the Federal entity 

which possesses the information. The amendment also includes the 

direction to the Attorney General and the CIA director to promulgate appropriate confidentiality guidelines for the use of such information with which State and local officials must then comply. 

This is, as Mr. Weiner has already stated, a bipartisan proposal 

whose leading proponents include former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, 

Senator Orrin Hatch, Congressman Vito Fossella. I am also pleased 

that Mr. Weiner’s amendment reflects the suggestions of the Justice Department, which has, in turn, endorsed this proposal. Therefore I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is—who seeks recognition. Gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I won’t take the 5 minutes. I don’t have a problem with the sharing of information developed pursuant to a court 

authorized wiretap because I am sure many of these investigations 

are probably done pursuant to the concept of a task force, where 

you have local and State agencies involved. And it is clear that this 

amendment is going to pass. I just wanted to express my profound 

concern about the expansion of—that this amendment does in 

terms of the sharing of information. We broke, really, a long-term 

precedent back in the aftermath of 9/11 when we authorized the 

sharing of grand jury information to very well-defined, enumerated 

Federal investigatory officials. Now we are expanding it even further or allowing that expansion. I think it is something that could 

easily portend tremendous abuse, and I just want to say that for 

the record, and I yield back. 

65

Mr. WEINER. I would like to point out that the language that Mr. 

Frank and the Chairman included about increasing the civil liability for anyone leaking information to an inappropriate source 

would still apply to this information as well. I know that might not 

provide comfort in the context of this broader issue. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Reclaiming my time, I understand that the 

Frank amendment to the Patriot Act I think was important, but 

this is, let’s be very, very clear, a dramatic departure from American criminal jurisprudence. I think it is something that is a prescription for abuse, and I just simply want to express myself—and 

I know that the amendment is well intended. Let me say this: 

The disclosure of grand jury information—if we are at that point, 

I dare say we are in real trouble. Because I would suspect that, 

prior to testimony in front of a grand jury, the information that the 

gentleman is seeking via amendment would be made—has already 

been made available to local and State officials. I just think that 

what we are doing here is we are diminishing the traditional concept of what a grand jury is about in our jurisprudence. I think it 

is dangerous. 

I yield to Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank the gentleman for yielding. 

I would like to say to the gentleman that I share some of the 

same concerns and would hope, as the bill goes forward, that we 

make sure that the information that is being disseminated is actually information on terrorism and not just run-of-the-mill information. It is important information. As the gentleman has suggested, 

the information that can come out of a grand jury or some of the 

other homeland security information can be good rumor or innuendo. 

We have regulations on grand juries, we have regulations on 

classified information, we have regulations on privacy, but this bill 

includes homeland security information which is just about anything. So long as it is restricted to the narrow range of terrorism 

and that is what it is being used for, then that may override the 

privacy concerns. We need to make sure that it doesn’t become a 

run-of-the-mill information sharing, where everybody in town gets 

to know what the local rumor is and the person subject to the 

rumor has no opportunity to clarify the record, say he wasn’t the 

right one, they confused me with somebody else or otherwise totally 

innocent of the rumor. 

I yield back. Thank you very much. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time belongs to the gentleman 

from Massachusetts. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does is the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff, seek recognition? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I really want to add my voice to that of the gentleman from Massachusetts. Having been a Federal prosecutor for 

6 years, this strikes me, too, as very unprecedented treatment of 

grand jury material. I am going to support the amendment. These 

are extraordinary conditions that we are in. They call for extraordinary steps to protect the country, but I don’t think we should do 

66

this lightly or not fully cognizant of the significant departure that 

we are making today. 

Also, I think we need to be aware of the ongoing responsibility 

that we are going to have as a body to continue to monitor how this 

affects the grand jury process, how it affects witnesses’ willingness 

to testify candidly before the grand jury, how it affects expectations 

of the confidentiality of what is said in the grand jury, a whole host 

of related issues. So I think our work with this bill is really only 

beginning and that we are going to have a very important, ongoing 

responsibility. 

It is surprising, I think, to many lay people how little Government is able to share with itself and frequently how it is prohibited 

from sharing with itself. It seems in some respects institutionally 

we preclude the left hand from knowing what the right hand is 

doing. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Would the gentleman yield? 

I would like to inform the gentleman and the Members we are 

in the process of doing some comprehensive bipartisan oversight on 

the Patriot Act, and the majority and minority staff has been working assiduously to draft a letter which I am sure the Attorney General is going to love to receive. So everybody in the room is, you 

know, on notice that that letter is coming and we are going to continue working on that. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I think what has been very encouraging is that it 

has been truly bipartisan and sustained and simply can’t stop 

today. I want to thank my colleague from Massachusetts for raising 

this issue. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I want to congratulate the Chair in terms of exercising that oversight. I applaud him and think it is vital. But I 

think it is important, also, to note that Mr. Schiff made an excellent point. Responsible defense counsel who have witnesses subpoenaed before local and State grand juries are going to—if this act, 

if this amendment should pass and something similar becomes law, 

it is going to take a different look at whether that particular witness should testify and under what circumstances should testify. 

I mean, there are just implications here that are difficult to describe. But, clearly, competent defense counsel will be looking at 

this particular statute with maybe motives to slow down or even 

impair or impede a criminal investigation, unrelated to terrorist activity. 

Mr. WEINER. Just so we understand, Federal law enforcement officials will have access to the information from the grand jury. 

They already will. So the idea that there is going to be some reluctance to reveal information about future crimes, well, that probably—that chilling effect probably exists today. The only question 

is, if you get information, what you do with it and with whom do 

you share it? And I don’t think this is going to be broadly shared. 

We were very careful to draw into the bill that it is incumbent on 

the Attorney General to write regulations for under what circumstances the information is going to be shared with local law enforcement. 

And we must not forget that another element to this is wire tap 

information as well. I mean, I hear your concern, and I agree with 

it, and we tried to be sensitive to that issue here, but we should 

67

not think that presently the information doesn’t get in the hands 

of——

Mr. SCHIFF. Reclaim the balance of my time. 

I do think, though, that we are talking about a market expansion 

of the dissemination of this information. Indeed, that is the purpose of this bill; and I don’t think it should be underestimated. I 

think there is a certain level of confidence within the Federal law 

enforcement world about the confidentiality of information, which 

is perfect, but it is a certain expectation. Once you go beyond that 

and open it up to local law enforcement, local agencies that might 

be involved in emergency preparedness, then there is a lot less grip 

on the information. 

So I have, for example, in the past resisted allowing the induction of attorneys in the grand jury because this changes the character of those proceedings. I think we have to be very careful here. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. For what purpose does is the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, seek recognition? 

Mr. WATT. I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WATT. I won’t take 5 minutes, and I don’t want to go back 

and beat a dead horse that we apparently worked very hard to— but I think this is points up even more the importance of the 

amendment that we just adopted. 

Because while there was a regimen for protecting this information under the Patriot Act in the Federal Government’s bosom, 

what we are trying to do is set up a regimen for sharing of information with other law enforcement and Government agencies; and 

when you do that, you have got to have some pretty rigorous rules 

of the road. And while we didn’t write those rules into this bill or 

with the amendment that we just passed, we did write in a requirement that the Attorney General and the CIA—director of the 

CIA adopts a set of rules that will govern the dissemination of this 

information. 

So I just wanted to point that out. It doesn’t address still the concerns that Mr. Delahunt and Mr. Schiff are raising, concerns which 

I very much share, but at least it requires them to be cognizant of 

it and to set up and adopt some rules of the road before they go 

forward. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman yield back? 

Mr. WATT. Yes, I do. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, seek recognition? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. As I review this amendment, I am clear on its 

intent. I am not clear on its practicality or its impact. It is certainly 

clear that many of us expressed our concerns over the last couple 

of weeks on the basic question of information sharing to which the 

base bill applies, particularly as we listen to some of the alleged 

egregious inertia and inaction with respect to information that the 

FBI received and the CIA and the question of whether or not that 

information was exchanged. 

68

I think I add to what I perceive to hear from some of my colleagues a concern about the piercing of the grand jury system 

which is a sacred system which had been set up, in essence, by the 

early founders of this Nation in post common law to protect the 

sanctity of information gathering to determine guilt or innocence. 

We always discuss with a high degree of sensitivity grand jury 

testimony. Individuals go into grand juries without counsel. It is 

there that there is a determination of whether to proceed or not to 

proceed. 

Therefore, I am unready with this particular amendment as to 

its narrowness, whether or not it is geared only to terrorism, 

whether in fact we will be relying upon the other body to address 

the question. And the importance of information sharing has its 

place, even as I begin to wonder about the terminology ‘‘enemy 

combatant’’ and someone detained since May 8th without counsel 

or being charged. 

I do realize we are looking at a new face, but the question is 

whether the face can be—to hold someone since May 8th when I, 

on the newspaper facts, perceive that there is probable cause and 

the individual could have counsel or could be held in some other 

circumstances. 

This brings to bear the similar type of concerns as to whether or 

not we are piercing grand jury testimony even as we allow the 

interaction of local government. I see references to the U.S. Patriot 

Act, and this may require further study, but I did not want this 

amendment to proceed without expressing my degree of unreadiness. 

I guess the overall concern, Mr. Chairman, that I think we will 

have to confront in the weeks and months to come as we move the 

homeland security department along is that we are going to do ourselves, this country, a great disservice and great damage if we are 

willy-nilly and in fear of not being steady on our oversight of civil 

liberties and due process, the protection of individual rights. I 

think we can be safe and we can fight terrorism with those particular parameters in place. 

Again, my view of the grand jury testimony is sacred, is all I can 

see out of this amendment—and I am sure I will see more, reading 

this more clearly—is a piercing of the grand jury testimony on suggestion that that will help——

Mr. WEINER. Would the gentlewoman yield? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE.—local law enforcement. 

I will be happy to yield. 

Mr. WEINER. I want to point out to the Committee, the PATRIOT 

Act did this piercing already, inasmuch as it did—if you consider 

it to be piercing for the FBI to be able to talk to CIA about grand 

jury, we did that in the PATRIOT Act. If you consider it to be 

piercing that the INS can talk to the FBI, we did that in the PATRIOT Act. The only thing we are doing here with this is we are 

saying, taking that same sharing information after we ensure that 

the information is only necessary to conduct official duties, the confidentiality steps are taken. We understand that this doesn’t mandate the shaving of information. We simply remove a barrier to——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Reclaiming my time. I am reclaiming only because I don’t want it to be finished. 

69

Let me make it clear that the final PATRIOT Act I did not vote 

for. So I remain unready with respect to the impact, ultimately. I 

do believe in information sharing and intelligence sharing. I am 

concerned with its expansiveness. 

I think Mr. Schiff made a comment—he did say expanding the 

marketplace. That is the concern that I have. 

Again, I think the merits of this amendment are legitimate. I 

question its practicality, and the ultimate impact of it as relates to 

the issues that I am concerned about is the sanctity of the grand 

jury testimony. I don’t know how the PATRIOT Act is going to ultimately play out in the long range. So I hope we will be cautious 

as we pass this, and I hope the other body—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 

New York, Mr. Weiner. Those in favor will say aye. Opposed, no. 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? 

If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of the 

substitute as amended. Those in favor will say aye. Opposed, no. 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the amendment is in the nature of a substitute as amended is agreed to. 

The Chair notes the presence of a reporting quorum. 

The question is on reporting the bill H.R. 4598 favorably. Those 

in favor will say aye. Opposed, no. 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the motion to 

report favorably is agreed to. 

Without objection, the bill will be reported in the form of a single 

amendment in the nature of a substitute, reflecting amendments 

that were agreed to today. 

Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go to 

conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the staff is 

directed to make any technical and conforming changes, and all 

Members will be given 2 days as provided by House rules in which 

to submit additional dissenting, supplemental or minority views.

Æ