```

[House Report 107-534, Part I]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

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:
          (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;
                  (C) be configured to allow the efficient and 
                effective sharing of information; and
                  (D) be accessible to appropriate State and local 
                personnel.
          (3) The procedures prescribed under paragraph (1) shall 
        establish conditions on the use of information shared under 
        paragraph (1)--
                  (A) to limit the redissemination of such information 
                to ensure that such information is not used for an 
                unauthorized purpose;
                  (B) to ensure the security and confidentiality of 
                such information;
                  (C) to protect the constitutional and statutory 
                rights of any individuals who are subjects of such 
                information; and
                  (D) to provide data integrity through the timely 
                removal and destruction of obsolete or erroneous names 
                and information.
          (4) The procedures prescribed under paragraph (1) shall 
        ensure, to the greatest extent practicable, that the 
        information sharing system through which information is shared 
        under such paragraph include existing information sharing 
        systems, including, but not limited to, the National Law 
        Enforcement Telecommunications System, the Regional Information 
        Sharing System, and the Terrorist Threat Warning System of the 
        Federal Bureau of Investigation.
          (5) Each appropriate Federal agency, as determined by the 
        President, shall have access to each information sharing system 
        through which information is shared under paragraph (1), and 
        shall therefore have access to all information, as appropriate, 
        shared under such paragraph.
          (6) The procedures prescribed under paragraph (1) shall 
        ensure that appropriate State and local personnel are 
        authorized to use such information sharing systems--
                  (A) to access information shared with such personnel; 
                and
                  (B) to share, with others who have access to such 
                information sharing systems, the homeland security 
                information of their own jurisdictions, which shall be 
                marked appropriately as pertaining to potential 
                terrorist activity.
          (7) Under procedures prescribed jointly by the Director of 
        Central Intelligence and the Attorney General, each appropriate 
        Federal agency, as determined by the President, shall review 
        and assess the information shared under paragraph (6) and 
        integrate such information with existing intelligence.
  (c) Sharing of Classified Information and Sensitive but Unclassified 
Information With State and Local Personnel.--
          (1) The President shall prescribe procedures under which 
        Federal agencies may, to the extent the President considers 
        necessary, share with appropriate State and local personnel 
        homeland security information that remains classified or 
        otherwise protected after the determinations prescribed under 
        the procedures set forth in subsection (a).
          (2) It is the sense of Congress that such procedures may 
        include one or more of the following means:
                  (A) Carrying out security clearance investigations 
                with respect to appropriate State and local personnel.
                  (B) With respect to information that is sensitive but 
                unclassified, entering into nondisclosure agreements 
                with appropriate State and local personnel.
                  (C) Increased use of information-sharing partnerships 
                that include appropriate State and local personnel, 
                such as the Joint Terrorism Task Forces of the Federal 
                Bureau of Investigation, the Anti-Terrorism Task Forces 
                of the Department of Justice, and regional Terrorism 
                Early Warning Groups.
  (d) Responsible Officials.--For each affected Federal agency, the 
head of such agency shall designate an official to administer this Act 
with respect to such agency.
  (e) Federal Control of Information.--Under procedures prescribed 
under this section, information obtained by a State or local government 
from a Federal agency under this section shall remain under the control 
of the Federal agency, and a State or local law authorizing or 
requiring such a government to disclose information shall not apply to 
such information.
  (f) Definitions.--As used in this section:
          (1) The term ``homeland security information'' means any 
        information possessed by a Federal, State, or local agency 
        that--
                  (A) relates to the threat of terrorist activity;
                  (B) relates to the ability to prevent, interdict, or 
                disrupt terrorist activity;
                  (C) would improve the identification or investigation 
                of a suspected terrorist or terrorist organization; or
                  (D) would improve the response to a terrorist act.
          (2) The term ``intelligence community'' has the meaning given 
        such term in section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 
        (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)).
          (3) The term ``State and local personnel'' means any of the 
        following persons involved in prevention, preparation, or 
        response for terrorist attack:
                  (A) State Governors, mayors, and other locally 
                elected officials.
                  (B) State and local law enforcement personnel and 
                firefighters.
                  (C) Public health and medical professionals.
                  (D) Regional, State, and local emergency management 
                agency personnel, including State adjutant generals.
                  (E) Other appropriate emergency response agency 
                personnel.
                  (F) Employees of private-sector entities that affect 
                critical infrastructure, cyber, economic, or public 
                health security, as designated by the Federal 
                government in procedures developed pursuant to this 
                section.
          (4) The term ``State'' includes the District of Columbia and 
        any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United 
        States.

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.''.

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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 242.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                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 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 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.''

              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 personnel. 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.''

                            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 treaties or in letters rogatory 
        pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 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. Sec. 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. Sec. 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 information 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):

              SECTION 2517 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

Sec. 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 
[section 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 defined in section 101 of the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 
1801)).
  (d) Foreign Intelligence Information.--
          (1) In general.--[Notwithstanding 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 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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  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 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:]
      
      

  

    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:]
      
      

  

    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 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 disseminate 
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 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:]
      
      

  

    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:]
    
    
    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 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 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:]
    
    
    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 
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 interest 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.
    [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 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:]
      
      

  

    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.
    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.
    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 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 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.
    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.
    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 
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.

                                  

```