[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 147 (Tuesday, September 12, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H7237-H7241]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HOMELAND THREAT ASSESSMENT ACT
Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2470) to require an annual homeland threat assessment, and
for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 2470
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Homeland Threat Assessment
Act''.
SEC. 2. ANNUAL HOMELAND THREAT ASSESSMENTS.
(a) In General.--Subtitle A of title II of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 210G. HOMELAND THREAT ASSESSMENTS.
``(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this section and for each of the next
five fiscal years (beginning in the fiscal year that begins
after the date of the enactment of this section) the
Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for
Intelligence and Analysis, and using departmental
information, including component information, and information
provided through State and major urban area fusion centers,
shall conduct an assessment of the terrorist threat to the
homeland.
``(b) Contents.--Each assessment under subsection (a) shall
include the following:
``(1) Empirical data assessing terrorist activities and
incidents over time in the United States, including terrorist
activities and incidents planned or supported by persons
outside of the United States targeting the homeland.
``(2) An evaluation of current terrorist tactics, as well
as ongoing and possible future changes in terrorist tactics.
[[Page H7238]]
``(3) An assessment of criminal activity encountered or
observed by officers or employees of components in the field
which is suspected of financing terrorist activity.
``(4) Detailed information on all individuals denied entry
to or removed from the United States as a result of material
support provided to a foreign terrorist organization (as such
term is used in section 219 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189)).
``(5) The efficacy and spread of foreign terrorist
organization propaganda, messaging, or recruitment.
``(6) An assessment of threats, including cyber threats, to
the homeland, including to critical infrastructure and
Federal civilian networks.
``(7) An assessment of current and potential terrorism and
criminal threats posed by individuals and organized groups
seeking to unlawfully enter the United States.
``(8) An assessment of threats to the transportation
sector, including surface and aviation transportation
systems.
``(c) Additional Information.--The assessments required
under subsection (a)--
``(1) shall, to the extent practicable, utilize existing
component data collected from the field; and
``(2) may incorporate relevant information and analysis
from other agencies of the Federal Government, agencies of
State and local governments (including law enforcement
agencies), as well as the private sector, disseminated in
accordance with standard information sharing procedures and
policies.
``(d) Form.--The assessments required under subsection (a)
shall be shared with the appropriate congressional committees
and submitted in classified form, but--
``(1) shall include unclassified summaries; and
``(2) may include unclassified annexes, if appropriate.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (d) of section 201 of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121) is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(27) To carry out section 210G (relating to homeland
threat assessments).''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 210F the following new item:
``Sec. 210G. Homeland threat assessments.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Barragan) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
General Leave
Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in favor of this bill on behalf of
Congressman Mike Rogers. He is dealing with the aftereffects of
Hurricane Irma, which is the tropical storm affecting his district.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2470 received bipartisan support during
consideration by the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence
in May, and was included in the Department of Homeland Security
authorization bill, which passed the floor in July.
H.R. 2470 requires the Department of Homeland Security to release an
annual comprehensive homeland security threat assessment. This will
provide a common threat picture across the Department and for Federal,
State, and local partners.
This week, we are recognizing 16 years after the horrific events of
9/11. Sixteen years later, our ability to accurately identify and
evaluate threats to the homeland remains stunted, in many ways.
Though talented professionals across Federal agencies and at the
State and local level are hard at work gathering and analyzing threat
information, there is still not a formalized process that evaluates
homeland threats in a meaningful and comprehensive way.
The assessment in this bill requires DHS to incorporate and analyze
Departmental data in a strategic picture. By relying on information
provided by the on-the-ground professionals, including State and local
police and the Department's operational component, this threat
assessment will be a unique contribution to the intelligence community,
policymakers, and other stakeholders.
By requiring the Department to consider specific cyber,
transportation, and border security threats, in addition to traditional
terrorism threats, H.R. 2470 ensures that DHS will focus on critical
mission areas where it can provide real value.
Additionally, the threat assessment required by H.R. 2470 can inform
the Department's budgeting and planning by clarifying the nature and
scale of the threats DHS was created to counter.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 2470, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2470, the Homeland Threat
Assessment Act of 2017.
Mr. Speaker, since the attacks of September 11, 2001, which claimed
the lives of over 3,000 innocent people, the terrorist threat has
metastasized and is decentralized. That was how then-DHS Secretary John
Kelly described it in April. He went on to warn that ``the risk is as
threatening today as it was that September morning almost 16 years
ago.''
Whereas, in 2001, there was a centralized, well-funded terrorist
organization planning and carrying out major attacks, today the
landscape is a patchwork of small cells and lone wolves eager to
embrace violence in furtherance of their terrorist ideology.
Today, we consider H.R. 2470 a bill that requires DHS to conduct an
assessment of the terrorist threat to the homeland on an annual basis.
The factors to be considered include: data on terrorist incidents and
activity in the U.S.; current and potential future terrorist tactics;
cyber threats, particularly those to critical infrastructure and
Federal IT networks; threats to surface and aviation transportation;
and the efficacy of foreign terrorist propaganda.
In my district, these threats are an everyday reality for the Port of
Los Angeles, which has the largest container volume in the country and
faces threats to their shipping, cybersecurity, and infrastructure.
This bill will help DHS assess those threats and provide the right
response after an incident.
We learned from the September 11 attacks about the importance of
recognizing and analyzing the ever-evolving terrorist threat landscape.
This annual assessment will ensure that DHS comprehensively examines
all forms of terrorism and extremism that could damage the homeland
today so that, as a nation, we can be vigilant.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to again express my support for this
bill and highlight a particular provision that seeks to strengthen
interagency collaboration on examining the threat.
The provision requires DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis to
continue working with fusion centers, which are the focal points for
sharing threat-related information between Federal, State, local, and
private sector partners.
DHS must continue to address and improve the Nation's fusion centers'
capabilities in gathering, analyzing, and sharing threat-related
information between partners on every level.
I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) for sponsoring this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Speaker, I once again urge my colleagues to
support H.R. 2470, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following
exchange of letters:
House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence,
Washington, DC, September 8, 2017.
Hon. Michael McCaul,
Chairman, House Committee on Homeland Security, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman McCaul: I understand H R. 2453, 2468, and
2470 are slated for consideration on the suspension calendar
next week. All three bills amend the Homeland Security Act of
2002 to make certain improvements in the laws administered by
the Secretary of Homeland Security by requiring the
Secretary, acting through the Chief Intelligence Officer of
the Department, to perform specific intelligence-related
functions. All three bills are virtually identical to
specific provisions contained in H.R. 2825, the House-passed
``Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act of 2017''
for which I wrote to you about on June 27, 2017. Accordingly,
[[Page H7239]]
since H.R. 2453, 2468, and 2470 implicate National
Intelligence Program (NIP)-funded activities, I expect that
they would be sequentially referred to the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence (the Committee).
As discussed in previous correspondence regarding H.R.
2825, we signed a Memorandum Regarding Authorization of the
Department of Homeland Security and exchanged letters on
January 11, 2017 (January 2017 Exchange of Letter), to
clarify the Committee's exclusive jurisdiction over NIP-
funded elements of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The January 2017 Exchange of Letters affirmed that,
consistent with the Rules of the House of Representatives,
the Intelligence Authorization Act (IAA) is the vehicle that
through which Congress authorizes annual appropriations for
the NIP, including NIP-funded elements of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). Moreover, those letters made
explicit that the Committee on Homeland Security would not
report to the House any bill that authorizes any elements of
DHS funded through the NIP, and that if any such bill is
reported by the Committee on Homeland Security, this
Committee will request a sequential referral of the bill.
In order to expedite the House's consideration of H.R.
2453, 2468, and 2470, the Committee will forego consideration
of all three measures. This courtesy, is however, conditioned
on our mutual understanding and agreement that it will in no
way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of the Committee with
respect to any future jurisdictional claim over the subject
matter contained in these bills or any similar measure. It is
also conditioned on the Committee on Homeland Security's
adherence to the agreement embodied in the January 2017
Exchange of Letters.
I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming
this understanding and would request that you include in the
Congressional Record during floor consideration of all three
bills, a copy of this letter, your response, and the January
2017 Exchange of Letters, including the Memorandum. Thank you
for your cooperation in this matter,
Best Regards,
Devin Nunes,
Chairman.
Enclosure.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, January 11, 2017.
Hon. Devin Nunes,
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Nunes: Thank you for your letter supporting
the Committee on Homeland Security's plans to conduct a
comprehensive reauthorization of the Department of Homeland
Security (``the Department'') in the 115th Congress, as
expressed in the 2017 ``Memorandum Regarding Authorization of
the Department of Homeland Security.''
I appreciate your willingness to help ensure the Department
is fully authorized, and recognize that there may be areas of
jurisdictional interest to the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence (``Intelligence Committee'') in such an
authorization. Rule X(j)(3) of the House of Representatives
grants the Committee on Homeland Security jurisdiction over
the ``functions of the Department of Homeland Security,''
including those functions related to the ``integration,
analysis, and dissemination of homeland security
information,'' while Rule X(11)(b)(1) grants the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence jurisdiction over ``proposed
legislation . . . relating to . . . the National Intelligence
Program as defined in Section 3(6) of the National Security
Act'' and ``[a]uthorizations for appropriations, both direct
and indirect, for . . . the National Intelligence Program as
defined in Section 3(6) of the National Security Act;''
The Committee on Homeland Security does not intend to
authorize any elements of the Department that are funded
through the National Intelligence Program (``NIP'') as part
of the Department authorization bill it reports to the House
this Congress, although we both agree that the reported bill
may include Department-wide provisions that could affect
Department elements that happen to receive funding through
the NIP. Accordingly, I will oppose as nongermaine any
amendments which may be offered in my committee's markup
related to the NIP-funded elements of the Department. I
further agree to consult you before taking any action on
similar amendments which may be offered during consideration
of the bill by the full House.
In the interest of ensuring the most robust Department
authorization possible, we further agree that you may offer
an amendment during consideration of the bill in the full
House. That amendment will contain the text of any
legislative provisions related to the NIP-funded elements of
DHS previously reported by the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence. If the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence has not reported any provisions related to the
NIP-funded elements of DHS, you will not offer an amendment.
Understanding, however, that both of our committees have a
jurisdictional interest in the Department's Office of
Intelligence and Analysis, we agree to work together to
ensure that the Office receives the most effective
congressional guidance.
Finally, I reiterate my intention that nothing included in
the 2017 ``Memorandum Regarding Authorization of the
Department of Homeland Security'' alters the jurisdiction of
either the Committee on Homeland Security or the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence. The Committee on Homeland
Security appreciates the past success we have enjoyed working
with the Intelligence Committee. I am grateful for your
support and look forward to continuing to work together
toward our mutual goal of ensuring that the Department and
its components are authorized on a regular basis.
Sincerely,
Michael T. McCaul,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence,
Washington, DC, September 8, 2017.
Hon. Michael McCaul,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McCaul: I understand H.R. 2453, 2468, and
2470 are slated for consideration on the suspension calendar
next week. All three bills amend the Homeland Security Act of
2002 to make certain improvements in the laws administered by
the Secretary of Homeland Security by requiring the
Secretary, acting through the Chief Intelligence Officer of
the Department, to perform specific intelligence-related
functions. All three bills are virtually identical to
specific provisions contained in H.R. 2825, the House-passed
``Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act of 2017''
for which I wrote to you about on June 27, 2017. Accordingly,
since H.R. 2453, 2468, and 2470 implicate National
Intelligence Program (NIP)-funded activities, I expect that
they would be sequentially referred to the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence (the Committee).
As discussed in previous correspondence regarding H.R.
2825, we signed a Memorandum Regarding Authorization of the
Department of Homeland Security and exchanged letters on
January 11, 2017 (January 2017 Exchange of Letter), to
clarify the Committee's exclusive jurisdiction over NIP-
funded elements of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The January 2017 Exchange of Letters affirmed that,
consistent with the Rules of the House of Representatives,
the Intelligence Authorization Act (IAA) is the vehicle that
through which Congress authorizes annual appropriations for
the NIP, including NIP-funded elements of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). Moreover, those letters made
explicit that the Committee on Homeland Security would not
report to the House any bill that authorizes any elements of
DHS funded through the NIP, and that if any such bill is
reported by the Committee on Homeland Security, this
Committee will request a sequential referral of the bill.
In order to expedite the House's consideration of H.R.
2453, 2468, and 2470, the Committee will forego consideration
of all three measures. This courtesy, is however, conditioned
on our mutual understanding and agreement that it will in no
way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of the Committee with
respect to any future jurisdictional claim over the subject
matter contained in these bills or any similar measure. It is
also conditioned on the Committee on Homeland Security's
adherence to the agreement embodied in the January 2017
Exchange of Letters.
I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming
this understanding and would request that you include in the
Congressional Record during floor consideration of all three
bills, a copy of this letter, your response, and the January
2017 Exchange of Letters, including the Memorandum. Thank you
for your cooperation in this matter.
Best Regards,
Devin Nunes,
Chairman.
Enclosure.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, January 11, 2017.
Hon. Devin Nunes,
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Nunes: Thank you for your letter supporting
the Committee on Homeland Security's plans to conduct a
comprehensive reauthorization of the Department of Homeland
Security (``the Department'') in the 115th Congress, as
expressed in the 2017 ``Memorandum Regarding Authorization of
the Department of Homeland Security.''
I appreciate your willingness to help ensure the Department
is fully authorized, and recognize that there may be areas of
jurisdictional interest to the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence (``Intelligence Committee'') in such an
authorization. Rule X(j)(3) of the House of Representatives
grants the Committee on Homeland Security jurisdiction over
the ``functions of the Department of Homeland Security,''
including those functions related to the ``integration,
analysis, and dissemination of homeland security
information,'' while Rule X(11)(b)(1) grants the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence jurisdiction over ``proposed
legislation . . . relating to . . . the National Intelligence
Program as defined in Section 3(6) of the National Security
Act'' and ``[a]uthorizations for appropriations, both direct
and indirect, for . . . the National Intelligence Program as
defined in Section 3(6) of the National Security Act;''
The Committee on Homeland Security does not intend to
authorize any elements of the Department that are funded
through the National Intelligence Program (``NIP'') as part
of the Department authorization bill it reports to the House
this Congress, although
[[Page H7240]]
we both agree that the reported bill may include Department-
wide provisions that could affect Department elements that
happen to receive funding through the NIP. Accordingly, I
will oppose as nongermane any amendments which may be offered
in my committee's markup related to the NIP-funded elements
of the Department. I further agree to consult you before
taking any action on similar amendments which may be offered
during consideration of the bill by the full House.
In the interest of ensuring the most robust Department
authorization possible, we further agree that you may offer
an amendment during consideration of the bill in the full
House. That amendment will contain the text of any
legislative provisions related to the NIP-funded elements of
DHS previously reported by the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence. If the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence has not reported any provisions related to the
NIP-funded elements of DHS, you will not offer an amendment,
Understanding, however, that both of our committees have a
jurisdictional interest in the Department's Office of
Intelligence and Analysis, we agree to work together to
ensure that the Office receives the most effective
congressional guidance.
Finally, I reiterate my intention that nothing included in
the 2017 ``Memorandum Regarding Authorization of the
Department of Homeland Security'' alters the jurisdiction of
either the Committee on Homeland Security or the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence. The Committee on Homeland
Security appreciates the past success we have enjoyed working
with the Intelligence Committee. I am grateful for your
support and look forward to continuing to work together
toward our mutual goal of ensuring that the Department and
its components are authorized on a regular basis.
Sincerely,
Michael T. McCaul,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence,
Washington, DC, January 11, 2017.
Hon. Michael McCaul,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McCaul: In accordance with paragraph 10 of
the January 2017 ``Memorandum Regarding Authorization of the
Department of Homeland Security,'' I write to confirm our
mutual understanding of the procedure through which the House
will authorize the elements of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) funded through the National Intelligence
Program (NIP).
I appreciate your dedication to producing a comprehensive
reauthorization of DHS that will improve congressional
oversight of the Department. As you know, Rule X(11)(b)(1) of
the House of Representatives grants the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence sole jurisdiction over ``proposed
legislation . . . relating to . . . the National Intelligence
Program as defined in Section 3(6) of the National Security
Act'' and [a]uthorizations for appropriations, both direct
and indirect, for . . . the National Intelligence Program as
defined in Section 3(6) of the National Security Act;'' and
Rule X(j)(3) of the House of Representatives grants the
Committee on Homeland Security jurisdiction over the
``functions of the Department of Homeland Security,''
including those functions related to the ``integration,
analysis, and dissemination of homeland security
information.''
As you also know, the Intelligence Authorization Act (IAA)
is the annual vehicle through which Congress authorizes
appropriations for the NIP, including for elements of DHS
that receive funding through the NIP. The IAA includes a
classified schedule of authorizations, incorporated into the
statute by reference, and direction and recommendations in a
classified annex to the report of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence. Nothing in the January 2017
``Memorandum Regarding Authorization of the Department of
Homeland Security,'' shall be construed to grant the
Committee on Homeland Security jurisdiction over proposed
legislation relating to the NIP or authorizations for
appropriations for the NIP.
In keeping with these principles, the Committee on Homeland
Security will not report to the House any bill that
authorizes any elements of DHS funded through the NIP. If any
such bill is reported by the Committee on Homeland Security,
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence will request a
sequential referral of the bill. Understanding, however, that
both of our committees have a jurisdictional interest in the
Department's Office of Intelligence and Analysis, we agree to
work together to ensure that the Office receives the most
effective congressional guidance.
We further agree that if the Committee on Homeland Security
reports a DHS-wide authorization bill to the House, I may
offer an amendment during consideration of the bill in the
full House. That amendment will contain the text of any
legislative provisions related to the NIP-funded elements of
DHS previously reported by the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence. If the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence has not reported any provisions related to the
NIP-funded elements of DHS, I will not offer an amendment,
and the DHS-wide authorization bill will not contain any
provisions related to the NIP-funded elements of DHS. We
further agree that you will oppose as nongermane all
amendments related to the NIP-funded elements of DHS in
markup in the Committee on Homeland Security. If any
amendments related to the NIP-funded elements of DHS are
subsequently offered during consideration by the full House,
you agree to consult with me before taking action.
Finally, we agree that you will support the appointment of
the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence to any committee of conference on a
DHS-wide authorization bill that includes any provisions
related to the NIP-funded elements of DHS.
In accordance with Rule X(11)(b)(2) this understanding does
not preclude either the Committee on Homeland Security or the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from authorizing
other intelligence and intelligence-related activities of
DHS, including, but not limited to, the Homeland Security
Intelligence Program. In keeping with paragraph 5 of the
January 2017 ``Memorandum Regarding Authorization of the
Department of Homeland Security,'' our committees will work
jointly to vet and clear any provisions of a DHS
authorization bill related to these other intelligence and
intelligence-related activities of DHS. Furthermore, I hope
the staff of our committees can continue to closely and
expeditiously to conduct rigorous oversight of intelligence
activities throughout DHS.
The understanding detailed by this letter is limited to the
115th Congress. It shall not constitute an understanding
between our committees in any subsequent congress.
I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming
this understanding. I look forward to working with you to
continue congressional oversight of DHS intelligence
activities, and I thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Devin Nunes,
Chairman.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House
Committee on Homeland Security, I rise in support of H.R. 2470,
Homeland Threat Assessment Act.
This bipartisan bill the Homeland Security Department (DHS) would
conduct annual terrorist threat assessments for the next five years
using information from DHS offices and fusion centers.
The assessment under this measure would include:
1. Empirical data assessing terrorist activities and incidents over
time in the United States, including terrorist activities and incidents
planned or supported by persons outside of the United States targeting
the homeland;
2. An evaluation of current terrorist tactics, as well as ongoing and
possible future changes in terrorist tactics;
3. An assessment of criminal activity encountered or observed by
officers or employees of components in the field which is suspected of
financing terrorist activity; and
4. Detailed information on all individuals denied entry to or removed
from the United States as a result of material support provided to a
foreign terrorist organization (as such term is used in section 219 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189));
5. The efficacy and spread of foreign terrorist organization
propaganda, messaging, or recruitment;
6. An assessment of threats, including cyber threats, to the
homeland, including to critical infrastructure and Federal civilian
networks;
7. An assessment of current and potential terrorism and criminal
threats posed by individuals and organized groups seeking to unlawfully
enter the United States; and
8. An assessment of threats to the transportation sector, including
surface and aviation transportation systems.
During natural disasters such as Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma,
the United States is vulnerable to terror attacks due to the lack of
first responders available.
It is important to ensure our first responders and local law
enforcement agencies are aware of the terror threats that would be
reported in each assessment in order to provide continued support,
especially during vulnerable situations such as Hurricane Harvey and
the Southeast Texas floods.
The most chaotic times for first responders are in response to
natural disasters and it is important to ensure that our nation is
protected when we are the most susceptible.
During Hurricane Harvey and the flooding that followed, if there had
been a homeland security incident, Texas would have been left
vulnerable due to the chaos surrounding our first responders.
It is important to equip our first responders and local law
enforcement agencies with these assessments in order to offer greater
protection and heightened security during vulnerable situations such as
natural disasters.
Additionally the assessment may incorporate relevant information and
analysis from other agencies of the Federal Government, agencies of
State and local governments (including law enforcement agencies), as
well as
[[Page H7241]]
the private sector, disseminated in accordance with standard
information sharing procedures and policies.
Fusion centers were established administratively after the Sept. 11
terrorist attacks to serve as focal points at the state and local
levels to receive, analyze, and share threat-related information with
the federal government and the private sector.
The assessments would have to utilize data collected from the field
and could incorporate relevant information from other government
agencies and the private sector.
During recovery efforts for incidents such as Hurricane Harvey,
having terrorist threat assessments would be valuable in keeping
vulnerable citizens secure.
I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2470.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2470.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________