PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 548.
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Jul 30, 2018
DHS Overseas Personnel Enhancement Act of 2017
(Sec. 2) This bill directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), by 90 days after the submission of the 3-year strategy for DHS international programs required under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and every 180 days thereafter, to brief the congressional homeland security committees on DHS personnel with primary duties that take place outside of the United States.
The briefing shall include:
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
a detailed summary of each type of personnel position with such duties and how each such position contributes to DHS's counterterrorism mission,
information related to how the geographic and regional placement of such positions contributes to such mission,
information related to the position-specific training received by such personnel before and during placement at a foreign location,
challenges that may impede the communication of counterterrorism information between DHS personnel at foreign locations and DHS entities in the United States,
the status of efforts to implement the three-year strategy for DHS international programs, and
the status of efforts to implement a plan to enhance the effectiveness of DHS personnel at foreign locations.
(Sec. 3) DHS shall submit to the congressional homeland security committees a plan to enhance the effectiveness of DHS personnel at foreign locations, which shall include proposals to:
improve efforts of DHS personnel for purposes of providing foreign partner capacity development and furthering DHS's counterterrorism mission;
redeploy DHS personnel to respond to changing threats to the United States;
enhance collaboration among DHS personnel at foreign locations, other federal personnel at foreign locations, and foreign partners;
improve the communication of counterterrorism information between DHS personnel at foreign locations and DHS entities in the United States; and
maintain practices to guard against counter-espionage threats associated with DHS personnel.
(Sec. 4) The briefing requirement shall terminate four years after the submission of the three-year strategy for DHS international programs.
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.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 548.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Johnson without amendment. With written report No. 115-308.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Johnson without amendment. With written report No. 115-308.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
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 the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 415 - 0 (Roll no. 12).
House roll call 12 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 415 - 0 (Roll no. 12).
House roll call 12 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration; CR H125)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4567.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H34-36; text: CR H34)
Mr. Katko moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 364.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 115-490.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Homeland Security. H. Rept. 115-490.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
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.4567 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.4567 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.4567 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.4567 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.