[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 85 (Friday, June 14, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E870-E871]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. ALAN GRAYSON

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 5, 2013

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2217) making 
     appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other 
     purposes:

            Intent of Congress regarding ``Fusion Centers''

  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, according to the Constitution Project, there 
are at least 77 fusion centers active in the United States today. 
Fusion centers are essentially information-sharing hubs designed to 
pool the knowledge and expertise of state, local and federal law 
enforcement and intelligence agencies, and, in some instances, other 
government agencies, military officials and private sector entities. 
They operate primarily on state funding, though they generally receive 
federal funds and work closely with federal agencies such as the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice 
(DOJ). As a general matter, fusion centers are not established pursuant 
to specific state legislation or state executive orders, but rather 
derive their authority from general statutes creating state police 
agencies or memoranda of understanding among partner agencies. Many 
fusion centers simply represent extensions of existing intelligence 
units in state law enforcement agencies.
  Congress shares the serious constitutional concerns that have been 
raised after several fusion centers issued bulletins that characterize 
a wide variety of peaceful religious and political groups as threats to 
national security. In some instances, state law enforcement agencies 
that funnel information to fusion centers have improperly monitored and 
infiltrated anti-war and environmental organizations. Moreover, the 
manner in which fusion centers amass and distribute personal 
information raises the concern that they are keeping files--perhaps 
containing information that is sensitive or concerns constitutionally 
protected activities--on American citizens in the United States without 
proper justification. With the interconnected system employed by fusion 
centers, even those with the best civil liberties practices can 
inadvertently perpetuate or exacerbate the problematic activities of 
other fusion centers or law enforcement agencies. The breadth of the 
fusion center network also means that inaccurate or problematic 
information can be distributed widely across government databases, and 
perhaps even to private businesses, with potentially disastrous 
consequences for the constitutional rights of individuals. Finally, 
without proper safeguards, links between fusion centers in different 
states might allow ``forum-shopping'' law enforcement officials to 
evade the privacy and domestic surveillance restrictions of their own 
states by accessing information obtained by fusion centers in other 
jurisdictions. All of these risks are potentially compounded by the 
limited transparency and accountability of these institutions.
  Recent reports from across the country bear testament to the 
potential for constitutionally

[[Page E871]]

problematic profiling at fusion centers, particularly regarding 
bulletins and intelligence reports circulated by fusion centers. These 
are a few examples:
  The February 2009 ``Prevention Awareness Bulletin,'' circulated by a 
Texas fusion center, described apparently peaceful Muslim lobbying 
groups as ``providing an environment for terrorist organizations to 
flourish'' and warned that ``the threats to Texas are significant.'' 
The bulletin called on law enforcement officers to report activities 
such as Muslim ``hip hop fashion boutiques, hip hop bands, use of 
online social networks, video sharing networks, chat forums and 
blogs.''
  A Missouri-based fusion center issued a February 2009 report 
describing peaceful support for the presidential campaigns of Ron Paul 
or third party candidates, possession of the iconic ``Don't Tread on 
Me'' flag, and anti-abortion activism as signs of membership in 
domestic terrorist groups.
  The Tennessee Fusion Center listed a letter from the American Civil 
Liberties Union (ACLU) to public schools on its online map of 
``Terrorism Events and Other Suspicious Activity.'' The letter had 
lawfully advised schools that holiday celebrations focused exclusively 
on Christmas were an unconstitutional government endorsement of 
religion.
  The Virginia Fusion Center's 2009 Terrorism Risk Assessment Report 
described peaceful student groups at Virginia's historically black 
colleges as potential breeding grounds for terrorism and characterized 
the ``diversity'' surrounding a military base as a possible threat.
  Additional allegations of monitoring of constitutionally-protected 
speech, including by DHS Megacenters, were revealed by FOIA requests 
made by the PCJF. Just a few of many examples are included below:
  An October 5, 2011 document reflects that the DHS Philadelphia 
Megacenter was monitoring the OWS demonstration in New York, titled 
``Demonstration-Peaceful/Planned,'' and reporting on assembly and 
movements ``peacefully protesting union solidarity issues.''
  An October 30, 2011 document shows DHS' Battle Creek Megacenter also 
reporting that a ``peaceful/unplanned'' ``Occupy Wall Street 
demonstration [was] taking place in Ilus W. Davis Park in Kansas City, 
MO.''
  The Boston Regional Intelligence Center (BRIC), a fusion center, 
focused resources on monitoring and reporting on peaceful protest 
activity in Boston during 2011.
  The intent of Congress with this legislation is to place strict 
limitations on DHS involvement with and funding of ``Fusion Centers,'' 
due to these serious reports that they may be violating the 
constitutional rights of citizens. To avoid the grave risk that this 
poses or could pose to the exercise of the free speech rights that are 
fundamental to our democracy, in addition to threats to constitutional 
protections against unreasonable invasions of privacy, Congress intends 
to prohibit any DHS cooperation with, or funding of, any ``Fusion 
Centers'' or similar entities (e.g. ``Megacenters'') that have not 
established and strictly adhered to the following best civil liberties 
practices, drawn from the proposals made by an esteemed bipartisan team 
of leading constitutional law experts (arranged by specific topic):


                     Profiling and Data Collection

  1. Fusion centers shall establish guidelines that clearly prohibit 
their personnel from engaging in racial and religious profiling. In 
determining when to collect and share information, the guidelines shall 
focus on behaviors that raise a reasonable suspicion of criminal 
activity or evidence of wrongdoing. Race, national origin, ethnicity 
and religious belief may not be considered as factors that create 
suspicion, and may only be used as factors in alerts if they are 
included as part of a specific suspect's description. The guidelines 
shall also specify that political association and the peaceful exercise 
of constitutionally protected rights may not be relied upon as factors 
that create suspicion of wrongdoing.
  2. Fusion centers shall ensure that their personnel are properly 
trained on the constitutional rights of free expression, assembly, 
religion and equal protection.
  3. Fusion centers shall ensure that individuals who instruct their 
personnel on intelligence analysis and terrorist threats are competent 
and well-qualified, and have themselves been trained in the 
constitutional rights discussed above.


                     Suspicious Activity Reporting

  Fusion centers shall carefully analyze suspicious activity reports to 
determine whether there is a likely connection to criminal or terrorist 
activity, and may only retain and disseminate suspicious activity 
reports if they demonstrate reasonable suspicion of such activity.


                           Data Minimization

  1. Fusion centers shall periodically review the information in their 
files to determine whether that information is accurate and of 
continuing relevance. The frequency of this review shall be made public 
by each fusion center or similar entity. Data retained by fusion 
centers shall be purged no later than five years after its collection 
unless its continued relevance can be demonstrated.
  2. Fusion centers may collect and retain only the minimum amount of 
personally identifiable information necessary to serve their law 
enforcement purposes. Fusion centers may only use this personally 
identifiable information for the law enforcement purpose for which the 
information was collected.


                               Audit Logs

  1. Fusion centers shall ensure that immutable audit logs track all 
database activity.
  2. Independent auditors shall review fusion center audit logs every 
two years and publish reports describing the use of fusion center 
databases and any abuses or unauthorized access.


                              Data Mining

  As set forth in The Constitution Project's report Principles for 
Government Data Mining, fusion centers shall act carefully to ensure 
that constitutional rights and values are respected if they engage in 
data mining or if the information in their databases is used for data 
mining by other government entities.


                      Private Sector Partnerships

  1. Fusion centers shall carefully limit the information that they 
disseminate to private sector entities. Personally identifiable 
information may be shared with private sector entities only to the 
extent necessary to carry out legitimate law enforcement or national 
security functions. Any data sharing with private entities beyond these 
prescribed limits must be specifically elaborated in a public statement 
or document, that is easily accessible by the general public, and 
specifies in detail the type of information being transferred and which 
private entities are involved.
  2. Fusion centers may not collect information from private sector 
sources that they would otherwise be restricted by law from obtaining, 
nor can they obtain information produced American citizens without a 
warrant, probable cause that the conduct of that American is directly 
connected to terrorism or other criminal activity, or obtained written 
consent from that American to the Fusion Center.


                           Mission Statement

  Fusion centers shall develop clear mission statements that express 
their purpose and the criteria upon which their performance can be 
evaluated. This should be completed within 3 months of the passage of 
this legislation.


                        Transparency and Redress

  1. Fusion centers shall engage local communities by publicly 
explaining their mission, budget and staffing, and that information 
should be easily accessible to the general public.
  2. Fusion centers shall publicize their privacy policies and the 
results of their compliance audits.
  3. Fusion centers shall be equipped with effective redress processes 
by which individuals can, if necessary, review and correct or challenge 
information possessed by a fusion center.
  4. Redress processes shall provide for the availability for review of 
complaints by an independent, security-cleared arbiter, with a right of 
appeal to a higher-level independent state or local authority.
  5. Redress processes shall be well-publicized.
  6. Redress processes shall ensure that corrections are disseminated 
across DHS databases.


                       DHS and Medical Marijuana

  It is the intent of Congress that full Fourth Amendment protection 
extends to medical marijuana users, regardless of the status of 
marijuana under federal law. Specifically, DHS's legitimate efforts to 
prevent illegal immigration and drug smuggling do not justify 
relaxation of Fourth Amendment protections for medical marijuana users, 
even in border areas.

                          ____________________