.
CRS Issue Statement on Intelligence Policy
Richard A. Best Jr., Coordinator
Specialist in National Defense
January 15, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
IS40334
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008
.
CRS Issue Statement on Intelligence Policy
ncreasingly, there is little difference between what is “foreign” intelligence and what is
“domestic” intelligence. Information can be collected abroad that is of importance to those
I responsible for law enforcement and, conversely, some information collected within U.S.
borders addresses important foreign intelligence concerns. This is especially the case in regard to
situations in which parties overseas seek to undertake terrorist attacks within the United States. A
number of key statutes (especially the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
(P.L. 108-458)) were enacted in the wake of 9/11 to remove the dichotomy between foreign and
domestic intelligence collection and analysis. Given recent terrorist attacks, the second session of
the 111th Congress is likely to continue to be concerned that the new organizational relationships
put into place in recent years are optimized to deal with the new intelligence environment–
including mechanisms to encourage the greater sharing of information while protecting the civil
liberties of U.S. persons. An area of particular concern is likely to be counterterrorism capabilities
in regard to Al Qaeda and the extent to which the targeting of drone attacks has been misdirected
by false information deliberately given to the CIA. Congress is also expected to pay especially
close attention to the status of organizational changes in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
designed to enhance the FBI’s intelligence collection and analysis capabilities. In addition,
Congress will likely monitor the role of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in its
efforts to share intelligence with state and local governments. Particular interest in improving the
effectiveness of watchlists for airline travelers is likely.
Distinctions between foreign and law enforcement intelligence do remain important when civil
liberties and privacy rights of U.S. persons are involved. In 2008, Congress addressed such issues
relating to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in the light of technological changes
that have taken place since the legislation was enacted in 1978. The Act, the FISA Amendments
Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-261), enacted in July 2008 after extensive debate, adjusted FISA
procedures. (Some of its provisions, relating to roving wiretaps, the extent of information that can
be collected, and the targeting of “lone wolf” terrorists, however, are set to expire early in 2010.)
Congress may review procedures for turning over persons suspected of terrorist activities to law
enforcement agencies for prosecution prior to thorough interrogation by intelligence personnel.
The second session of the 111th Congress, as was the case for the first session and earlier
congresses, is also likely to remain concerned about the role of the Director of National
Intelligence (DNI) in preparing and executing the budgets of national intelligence agencies and in
making decisions about major multi-billion dollar collection systems. Covert actions and human
intelligence (humint) collection remain important issues, and oversight may be more intensive on
the recruiting, training and deployment of clandestine agents and the relationships between the
CIA and Defense Department agencies. Congress will continue to be concerned with the quality
of analytical products and National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) in particular. In addition,
Congress has sought to establish new procedures for notifying the intelligence committees of
especially sensitive intelligence initiatives, but thus far without support from the Executive
Branch.
No intelligence authorization act has been passed since 2004 and there are concerns about the
extent of oversight and relationships between authorizing and appropriating committees including
the intelligence appropriations panel established in the House in 2007.
Congressional Research Service
1
.
CRS Issue Statement on Intelligence Policy
Issue Team Members
Richard A. Best Jr., Coordinator
Elizabeth B. Bazan
Specialist in National Defense
Legislative Attorney
rbest@crs.loc.gov, 7-7607
ebazan@crs.loc.gov, 7-7202
Alfred Cumming
Michael John Garcia
Specialist in Intelligence and National Security
Legislative Attorney
acumming@crs.loc.gov, 7-7739
mgarcia@crs.loc.gov, 7-3873
John Rollins
Edward C. Liu
Specialist in Terrorism and National Security
Legislative Attorney
jrollins@crs.loc.gov, 7-5529
eliu@crs.loc.gov, 7-9166
Mark A. Randol
George Mangan
Specialist in Domestic Intelligence and Counter-
Information Research Specialist
Terrorism
gmangan@crs.loc.gov, 7-5970
mrandol@crs.loc.gov, 7-2393
Frederick M. Kaiser
Gina Stevens
Specialist in American National Government
Legislative Attorney
fkaiser@crs.loc.gov, 7-8682
gstevens@crs.loc.gov, 7-2581
Congressional Research Service
2