PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 2, 2017
Amplifying Local Efforts to Root out Terror Act of 2017 or the ALERT Act of 2017
This bill authorizes the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide training at state and major urban area fusion centers for the purpose of administering community awareness briefings and related activities in furtherance of its efforts to counter radicalization, identify and report suspicious activities, and increase awareness of and more quickly identify terrorism threats, including the travel or attempted travel of individuals from the United States to support a foreign terrorist organization abroad. (A "fusion center" serves as a focal point within the state and local environment for the receipt, analysis, gathering, and sharing of threat-related information between the federal government and state, local, tribal, territorial and private sector partners.)
The bill directs DHS to assess its efforts to support countering radicalization at the state, local, tribal, and territorial levels. Such assessment shall include:
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
a cataloging of DHS efforts to assist state, local, tribal, and territorial governments in countering radicalization;
a review of cooperative agreements between DHS and such governments relating to countering radicalization; and
an evaluation of DHS plans and any potential opportunities to better support such governments that are in furtherance of DHS's countering radicalization objectives and consistent with all relevant constitutional, legal, and privacy protections.
DHS shall notify Congress of the number of employees of state, local, tribal, and territorial governments with security clearances sponsored by DHS, including a detailed list of the agencies that employ such employees, the levels of clearance held, and whether such employees are assigned as representatives to state and major urban area fusion centers.
People & committees
Rep. Loudermilk, Barry [R-GA-11] · R–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jul 9, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1347 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1347 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1347 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1347 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.