PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · May 17, 2017
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on May 16, 2017. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Improving Fusion Centers' Access to Information Act
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Department of Homeland Security State, Local, and Regional Fusion Center Initiative to: (1) conduct outreach to state, local, and regional fusion centers to identify any gaps in information sharing and consult with other federal agencies to develop methods to address such gaps; and (2) identify federal databases and datasets that are appropriate to address any such gaps, for inclusion in the information sharing environment and coordinate with the appropriate federal agency to deploy or access such databases and datasets.
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.
People & committees
Rep. Katko, John [R-NY-24] · R–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4269)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H4269)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2169.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4269-4271)
Mr. Katko moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 73.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 115-120.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 115-120.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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: Apr 7, 2025. 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.2169 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.2169 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.2169 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.2169 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.