[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.

                          ____________________