U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

89–010 

" ! SENATE 115TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2018

115–355 

Calendar No. 642 

DHS FIELD ENGAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 

ACT 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

TO ACCOMPANY

H.R. 5079 

TO AMEND THE HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002 TO 

REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TO 

DEVELOP AN ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY WITH FUSION CENTERS, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

NOVEMBER 13, 2018.—Ordered to be printed 


congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

KAMALA D. HARRIS, California 

DOUG JONES, Alabama 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director 

GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL J. LUEPTOW, Chief Counsel for Homeland Security 

MARGARET E. DAUM, Minority Staff Director 

CHARLES A. MOSKOWITZ, Minority Senior Legislative Counsel 

SUBHASRI RAMANATHAN, Minority Counsel 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

Calendar No. 642 

115TH CONGRESS SENATE REPORT " ! 2d Session 115–355 

DHS FIELD ENGAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 

NOVEMBER 13, 2018.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. JOHNSON, from the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 5079] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

to which was referred the bill (H.R. 5079) to amend the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002 to require the Department of Homeland Security to develop an engagement strategy with fusion centers, and for 

other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably 

thereon with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute), and 

recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose and Summary .................................................................................. 1 

II. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................... 2 

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 4 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis .......................................................................... 4 

V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 5 

VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 5 

VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Act, as Reported ........................... 6 

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of H.R. 5079, the DHS Field Engagement Accountability Act, is to require the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS or the Department) to develop an engagement 

strategy with fusion centers and update it at least every five years. 

It also requires the DHS Under Secretary for Intelligence and 

Analysis (I&A) to develop and disseminate performance metrics for 

field personnel assigned to fusion centers. It authorizes the Department’s Chief Information Officer (CIO) and Under Secretary for 

2 

1 9/11 Commission Report 265, available at https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911 

Report.pdf. 2Pub. L. No. 107–296 (Nov. 25, 2002); see also Dep’t of Homeland Sec., National Network of 

Fusion Centers Fact Sheet (June 21, 2017), https://www.dhs.gov/national-network-fusion-centers-fact-sheet. 3 Id. 

4 Id. 

5PSI Staff Report, Federal Support For and Involvement in State and Local Fusion Centers 

(Oct. 3, 2012), available at https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/10-3- 

2012%20PSI%20STAFF%20REPORT%20re%20FUSION%20CENTERS.2.pdf. 6 House Homeland Security Committee Majority Staff Report, Reviewing the Department of 

Homeland Security’s Intelligence Enterprise, 40–42, available at https://homeland.house.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2016/12/Reviewing-DHS-Intelligence-Enterprise-Report.pdf. 7 Id. 

8 Id. 

9Press Release, S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. and Gov’t Affairs Ranking Member Coburn, 

Value of Terrorism Prevention Centers Remains Unproven (Nov. 10, 2014), https:// 

www.hsgac.senate.gov/media/minority-media/value-of-terrorism-prevention-centers-remainsI&A to develop policies and metrics to improve utilization of the 

Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN) and authorizes 

technical improvements to the network. 

II. BACKGROUND AND THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Strategy on DHS engagement with fusion centers 

Fusion centers were created by states and Federally subsidized 

in response to the 9/11 Commission Report finding a lack of coordination between Federal agencies and state and local law enforcement to counter threats to the homeland.1 The centers are a structured partnership between DHS and state and local first responders.2 They encourage information sharing and greater threat 

awareness from the Federal level down to the local level and from 

the local level up to the Federal level.3 The collaborative environment informs crime fighting and counterterrorism decision-making.4

Congress has scrutinized the Department’s engagement with fusion centers and the Federal resources expended on the programs. 

A 2012 U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 

staff report raised questions about fusion center support of the Federal counterterrorism mission.5 A 2016 review of the Homeland Security Intelligence Enterprise by the House Committee on Homeland Security majority staff found a lack of engagement between 

DHS and fusion centers.6 The 2016 review found that, other than 

I&A which received appropriations specific to fusion center deployments, DHS components with expertise relevant to fusion center 

mission priorities were disincentivized from deploying personnel to 

such centers.7 The report further noted that components do not 

necessarily have policies for deployment of their personnel to fusion 

centers.8

This legislation would require a formal strategy for DHS engagement with fusion centers, including setting goals for information 

sharing and collecting performance metrics to measure progress towards those goals. Specifically, it will encourage DHS components 

other than I&A to develop policies to better engage with fusion centers and leverage state and local information to secure the homeland. The legislation also requires DHS to create performance 

metrics for field personnel assigned to fusion centers to assist Congress with determining how successful the field engagements are 

and attempt to address concerns about fusion center support of the 

counterterrorism mission in the homeland.9

3 

unproven; see also U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO–15–155, Information Sharing: DHS is Assessing Fusion Center Capabilities and Results, but Needs to More Accurately Account for Federal Funding Provided to Centers (2014), available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666760.pdf; 

see also S. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Majority and Minority Staff Report, Federal Support for and Involvement in State and Local Fusion Centers, available at https:// 

www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/10-3-2012%20PSI%20STAFF%20REPORT%20re%20 

FUSION%20CENTERS.2.pdf. 10 Intelligence Community, Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Dep’t of Justice Inspectors General, Review of Domestic Sharing of Counterterrorism Information 7 (2017), available at https:// 

oig.justice.gov/reports/2017/a1721.pdf. 11 Id. 12Fact Sheet: Homeland Security Information Network-Intelligence (last accessed Nov. 1, 

2018), https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/HSIN-Fact%20Sheet-HSIN-Intel.pdf; 

Supporting Crisis Communications, Off. of the Dir. Of Nat’l Intelligence (Aug. 26, 2015), https:// 

www.dni.gov/index.php/who-we-are/organizations/ise/ise-archive/ise-mission-stories/2162-supporting-crisis-communications. 13 National Fusion Center Association, 2015 National Fusion Center Association Annual Training Event (Nov. 3, 2015). 14Dep’t of Homeland Sec. Off. of Inspector General, Homeland Security Information Network 

Improvements and Challenges 13–17 (2013), available at https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/ 

2013/OIG__13-98__Jun13.pdf. 15 Id. at 18. 16 Id. at 19. 17 Id. 18 Id. 19 Id. at 14; the DHS HSIN mission advocate program consists of functional experts who provide training and technical assistance tailored to HSIN user needs according to the official 

website of the Homeland Security Information Network. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. Homeland Sec. 

Information Network, Operational Support: HSIN Mission Advocates, https://www.dhs.gov/ 

xlibrary/hsin-annual-report-2017/operations/operational-support/hsin-mission-advocates.html. 20Dep’t of Homeland Sec. Off. of Inspector General, Homeland Security Information Network 

Improvements and Challenges 20 (2013), available at https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2013/ 

OIG__13–98__Jun13.pdf. 

Improving HSIN 

A 2017 joint audit by the Department of Justice and DHS Inspectors General found that fusion center personnel believe using HSIN 

is a best practice for information sharing.10 Following recent terrorist attacks, HSIN provided critical support to Federal, state, 

local, tribal, and territorial partners.11 In particular, HSIN’s National Situational Awareness Room (SitAware) provides first responders with real-time crisis monitoring capabilities and raw data 

via ‘‘a centralized, 24/7 virtual information sharing room.’’ 12 The 

Committee learned from the National Fusion Center Association 

that SitAware was often the quickest way for first responders to 

learn whether active shooter events involved terrorism.13

A 2013 DHS Inspector General audit found limited and sporadic 

HSIN use and effectiveness across the homeland security enterprise.14 The audit found duplication between critical infrastructure 

protection information shared on HSIN and on the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation’s InfraGard system.15 Users told auditors they 

were unable to find specific documents they knew were on the network and the search function did not provide useful results.16 In 

addition, users were concerned that, rather than streamlining sharing, the large number of communities of interest on the network 

created stovepipes.17 Users in at least one state found it easier to 

bypass HSIN and make phone calls to request information from 

other states.18

The 2013 audit determined that not all states effectively used 

HSIN, but those that did credited effective HSIN mission advocates 

that helped them integrate the network into their business processes.19 The DHS Inspector General forecast that cuts to the mission advocate program would undermine HSIN user satisfaction.20

4 

This legislation requires policies and metrics that improve usage 

of HSIN and authorizes technical improvements to the network to 

improve its usefulness. 

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Representative Don Bacon (R–NE–2) introduced H.R. 5079 on 

February 23, 2018. The House passed the Act by voice vote on 

March 19, 2018, and it was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 

The Committee considered H.R. 5079 at a business meeting on 

June 13, 2018. Chairman Ron Johnson offered a substitute amendment that reflected technical edits from the Department of Homeland Security. The Committee adopted the amendment and ordered 

the Act, as amended, reported favorably, both by voice vote. Senators present for both the vote on the amendment and the vote on 

the Act as amended were: Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Enzi, 

McCaskill, Carper, Peters, Hassan, Harris, and Jones. 

Consistent with Committee Rule 11, the Committee reports the 

Act with a technical amendment by mutual agreement of the 

Chairman and Ranking Member. 

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE ACT, AS REPORTED

Section 1. Short title 

This section provides the Act’s short title, the ‘‘DHS Field Engagement Accountability Act.’’ 

Section 2. Engagement strategy with fusion centers 

This section amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require DHS to develop an engagement strategy with fusion centers 

and update it at least every five years. It specifies that engagement 

with fusion centers through DHS intelligence personnel deployments and information sharing systems shall be included in such 

strategy. It also requires measurable performance metrics for successful engagement and information sharing with fusion centers to 

be included in such strategy. 

Section 3. Office of Intelligence and Analysis field personnel support 

to fusion centers 

Subsection (a) requires the Under Secretary for I&A to develop 

and disseminate performance metrics for field personnel assigned 

to fusion centers and regional directors within 180 days of enactment. 

Subsection (b) requires the Under Secretary for I&A to consult 

with the Department’s CIO to develop and implement training 

modules on the use of relevant classified homeland security information sharing systems for fusion center personnel. 

Subsection (c) defines ‘‘fusion center.’’ 

Section 4. DHS component usage of the Homeland Security Information Network 

Subsection (a) authorizes the Department’s CIO, in consultation 

with the Under Secretary for I&A, to develop policies and metrics 

to improve usage of the Homeland Security Information Sharing 

Network. 

5 

Subsection (b) authorizes the Department’s CIO, in consultation 

with the Chief Intelligence Officer, to make appropriate technical 

improvements to the Homeland Security Information Network. 

Section 5. Report 

This section requires the Secretary to report to Congress on 

DHS’s implementation of the strategies, policies, and metrics described in the previous sections within 18 months of enactment. 

V. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of 

the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has considered 

the regulatory impact of this Act and determined that the Act will 

have no regulatory impact within the meaning of the rules. The 

Committee agrees with the Congressional Budget Office’s statement that the Act contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

VI. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, July 23, 2018. 

Hon. RON JOHNSON, Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5079, the DHS Field Engagement Accountability Act. 

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

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

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 5079—DHS Field Engagement Accountability Act 

H.R. 5079 would direct the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) to improve the training and preparation of department personnel assigned to fusion centers, which facilitate information sharing among federal, state, and local authorities and are supported 

by DHS. The act also would require the department to enhance an 

information sharing computer network available to its personnel 

and to certain other federal and nonfederal employees. 

Using information from DHS and assuming appropriation of the 

necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 5079 

would cost $15 million over the 2019–2023 period, as shown in the 

following table. 

6 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—— 

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2019– 

2023 

INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level ................................................... 0 7 2 2 2 2 15 

Estimated Outlays ..................................................................... 0 7 2 2 2 2 15 

Most of these costs would be for upgrading and maintaining the 

information network used by DHS and other agencies as required 

by the legislation, including enhanced document sharing and 

search capabilities. That information network is used by about 

100,000 personnel at federal, state, local, and nongovernmental 

agencies that are involved in homeland security activities. 

Enacting H.R. 5079 would not affect direct spending or revenues; 

therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 5079 would not increase net 

direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 

10-year periods beginning in 2029. 

H.R. 5079 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz. The 

estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 

VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE ACT, AS REPORTED

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by H.R.3361 as 

reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted 

is enclosed in brackets, new matter is printed in italic, and existing 

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

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle A—Information and Analysis and Infrastructure 

Protection; Access to Information 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 210A. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY STATE, LOCAL, 

AND REGIONAL INFORMATION FUSION CENTER INITIATIVE 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(j) FUSION CENTER INFORMATION SHARING STRATEGY.—Not later 

than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this subsection, and 

not less frequently than once every 5 years thereafter, the Secretary 

shall develop or update a strategy for Department engagement with 

fusion centers. Such strategy shall be developed and updated in conVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:49 Nov 18, 2018 Jkt 089010 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\SR355.XXX SR355
7 

sultation with the heads of intelligence components of the Department, the Chief Privacy Officer, the Officer for Civil Rights and 

Civil Liberties, officials of fusion centers, officers designated as 

Homeland Security Advisors, and the heads of other relevant agencies, as appropriate. Such strategy shall include the following: 

(1) Specific goals and objectives for sharing information and 

engaging with fusion centers— 

(A) through the direct deployment of personnel from intelligence components of the Department; 

(B) through the use of Department unclassified and classified information sharing systems, including the Homeland Security Information Sharing Network and the Homeland Secure Data Network, or any successor systems; and 

(C) through any additional means. 

(2) The performance metrics to be used to measure success in 

achieving the goals and objectives referred to in paragraph (1). 

(3) A 5-year plan for continued engagement with fusion centers. 

ø(j)¿ (k) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

(1) the term ‘‘fusion center’’ means a collaborative effort of 2 

or more Federal, State, local, or tribal government agencies 

that combines resources, expertise, or information with the 

goal of maximizing the ability of such agencies to detect, prevent, investigate, apprehend, and respond to criminal or terrorist activity; 

(2) the term ‘‘information sharing environment’’ means the 

information sharing environment established under section 

1016 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act 

of 2004 (6 U.S.C. 485); 

(3) the term ‘‘intelligence analyst’’ means an individual who 

regularly advises, administers, supervises, or performs work in 

the collection, gathering, analysis, evaluation, reporting, production, or dissemination of information on political, economic, 

social, cultural, physical, geographical, scientific, or military 

conditions, trends, or forces in foreign or domestic areas that 

directly or indirectly affect national security; 

(4) the term ‘‘intelligence-led policing’’ means the collection 

and analysis of information to produce an intelligence end 

product designed to inform law enforcement decision making at 

the tactical and strategic levels; and 

(5) the term ‘‘terrorism information’’ has the meaning given 

that term in section 1016 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (6 U.S.C. 485). 

ø(k)¿ (l) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 

through 2012, to carry out this section, except for subsection (i), including for hiring officers and intelligence analysts to replace officers and intelligence analysts who are assigned to fusion centers 

under this section. 

* * * * * * * 

Æ