TITLE I - INTELLIGENCE CHARTER LEGISLATION - COMPARISON OF ISSUES RAISED AT 11 JANUARY 1978 MEETING AND 18 JANUARY 1978 DRAFT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP81M00980R000700030053-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 17, 2004
• Sequence Number: 53
• Publication Date: January 30, 1978
• Content Type: MFR

Approved For Release 2004/05/21 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R000700030053-4
M?
OLC: 78-0199
30 January 1978
SUBJECT: Title I - Intelligence Charter Legislation - Comparison
of Issues Raised at 11 January 1978 Meeting and
18 January 1978 Draft
1. On 11 January 1978 members of OLC I
and the undersienedl; F- I OGC, as well as
IC Staff, met with Elliot Mavel. and Pat Norton, Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence staff, to discuss issues relating
to the SSCI's latest version of Title I of the intelligence charter
legislation. Also present were representatives of the I-louse Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, Bill Funk and Mike O'Neil. Tom
Latimer, of the IIPSCI staff, and Bill Miller and John Elliff, of the
SSCI staff, were present for a portion o:' the meeting.
2. The purpose of the meeting was -o allow Agency representatives
to raise specific issues in Title I with a view to underscoring the
problems posed thereby to the Agency. I- was made clear to all attendees
that any discussion on the issues was enTered into in an unofficial
manner and in no way represents or should be construed as representing
the official CIA position on the issues.
3. On 13 January 1978 a paper outlining the issues raised and
discussed at the 11 January 1978 meeting as well as the positions taken
by various parties present was circulatefi. On 18 January 1978 SSCI
submitted a revised draft of Title I.
4. Attached is a paper which compares the issues raised at the
11 January 1978 meeting with the language in the 18 January 1978 revised
draft to determine if SSCI drafters took into account CIA concerns.
STAT
STAT
Approved For Release 2004/05/21 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R000700030053-4
 Approved For Release 2004/05/21 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R000700030053-4
Title I - Comparison of Issues Raised at 11 January 1978
Meeting and 18 January 1978 Draft
1. 18 January 1978 draft contains all sections previously left out of
9 January 1978 draft:
Section 102 - Statement of Findings
Section 104 - Definitions
Section 114-120 - Sensitive Intelligence Collection Projects
and Special Activities and Restrictions/
Prohibitions
Section 125 - Oversight and Accountability
Section 126 - Congressional. Committee Reports
Section 127 - Annual Reports of the Director
2 . Section 102(1) a n d ( 2 ) , p. 2- retains the phrase "national defense"
in "statement of findings."
Section 103(l), . 3 - retains the phrase "national defense" in
"Statement of-Purposes."
3. Section 103(4), p. 3 - "Judicial branch" dropped from phrase "to
ensure that the executive and legislative branches are provided..."
4. Section 105, p. 10 - "counterterrorism" activities retained as
a "national intelligence activity."
5. Section 106(a) -"Presidential Designation of National Intelligence
Activities" - this section retained in its entirety notwithstanding our
arguing that the same effect could be gained in a definition rather than
in a separate section.
6. Section 106(b) - SSCI staff has dropped the congressional review
portion of this subsection as agreed at 11 January 1978 meeting, only to
restate it in section 112(a)(4).
7. Section 107(g), p. 14 - the second sentence of this subsection
has been appropriately changed to include the phrase "whenever there is
no Deputy Director" as suggested by CIA representatives at the 11 January
1978 meeting to rectify ambiguity of previous language.
Approved For Release 2004/05/21 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R000700030053-4
 Approved For Release 2004/05/21 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R000700030053-4
8. Section 108(b), p. 15 - under subsection (b)(3) the phrase
"counterterrorism activities" has been retained notwithstanding CIA's
arguments that CIA and particularly DDO do not engage in "counterterrorism
activities." Note that at the 11 January meeting Bill Funk (f-IPSCI)
pointed out that the definition of counterterrorism, as it appeared
in the 18 October 77 draft Title I and as it appears in this, the
18 January 78 draft at p. 5, section 104[8), includes the "collection,
retention, processing, or dissemination of counterterrorism intelligence"
(Section 104(8)(A)). Bill Funk cautioned that we carefully consider our
position on this point because of section 104(8) (A) subsection being included
in the definition of "counterterrorism activity."
9. Section 108(b), p. 15 - with regard to the issue of the responsi-
bilities of t, SSCI attendees agreed to look to the Executive Order
to consider how to handle this (E.O. signed 24 January 1978 #12030) .
10. Section 108(c), p. 15 - in line 3 of this subsection the term
"ensure" is retained notwithstanding arguments made to him by CIA and
Bill Funk (HPSCI) that it: (a) creates an impossible statutory task and
(b) could result in the creation of an entire bureaucratic entity within
the CIA to monitor and "ensure" that each activity is done properly, etc.
11. Section 108(c), p. 15 - the phrase "in the most efficient manner"
in lines 5 and 6 has been substituted for "at the lowest possible cost."
12. Section 108(c), 15 - all reference to the "judicial branch"
in line 6 has --been dropped.
13. Section 108(c), MI5 - with regard to the phrase "that those
activities do not affect adversely the national security, national defense
or foreign relations of the U.S." appearing on lines 11, 12, 13, CIA
representatives argued at the 11 January 78 meeting that this merely states
the obvious, has a negative implication and therefore should not be included
in the statute. CIA's argument was not h-:ceded.
14. Section 108(c), p. 15 - the term "guidance" has been substituted
for the term "direction" at line 16 in accordance with CIA admonition.
15. Section 108(d), p. 15 - the fac~ that the DNI will head the CIA
has been clarified in this subsection per CIA admonition.
16. Section 108(e), p. 15 - the phrase "be responsible for" has been
changed in this subsection to "shall coordinate and direct."
17. Section 108(e)(3), P-16 - CIA, at the 11 January 78 meeting, arguer
that this subsection is too restrictive and. that the phrase "utilizing
human sources" may be construed as limiting the Director to coordinating
only foreign intelligence gathered by human sources. What about collection
by technical means? Notwithstanding the fact that the SSCI attendees at
11 January 78 meeting agreed to consider striking the phrase "utilizing
human sources" or, in the alternative,, changing "utilizing' to "including
the utilization of human resources," no changes have in fact been made in
this suko~Fggd,For Release 2004/05/21 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R000700030053-4
 Approved For Release 2004/05/21 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R000700030053-4
"The Director shall, in order to protect intelligence sources
and methods from unauthorized disclosure, establish common security
standards for the handling of information and material relating to
intelligence activities."
CIA argued that this language is unacceptable, that CIA would accept nothing
less than the statutory authority presently in existence and that as written
in the 9 January draft the language grants sources and methods authority only
in so far as the Director is given authority to develop "common security
standards." The 18 January 78 language separates the sources and methods
duty from the duty to develop security standards and in doing so appears
to give the Director authority equivalent to his present authority. Suggest.
that the phrase "such information and material" he changed to "intelligence
sources and methods" since this is a term of art.
23. Section 108(m), pp. _18-19 -: SSCI drafters made no change in the
language from the 9 January to the 18 January drafts. As written this limits
the Director's termination authority to "national security" situations and
requires him to report to SSCI/HPSCI any and all exercise of his authority,
under the termination authority.
24. Section 108(o), p. 20, 9 January 78 draft - the 9 January/
draft section 108(o) read in pertinent part:
"In order to carry out the Director's duties under this title,
the Director is authorized to obtain from any department or agency
such information as the Director deems necessary to perform such
duties; and each department and agency shall furnish such informa-
tion to the Director upon request..."
At the 11 January 78 meeting CIA argued that the language of this subsection
would arguably allow the DCI to get around FOIA. It was agreed that some
limitations such as the phrase "in accordance with applicable laws and
regulations" should be added at the end of the first sentence of this
subsection. Instead it appears that the entire subsection has been
dropped from the 18 January 78 draft.
25. Section 10..(o_),,p19 is the former section 108(p) on p. 21
of the 9 January 78 draft - the phrase "... reports of the Inspectors
General with the various entities of the IC ..." has been deleted. The
subsection remains otherwise unchanged.
26. Section 110(a), p. 21 - CIA raised two issues in the corresponding
subsection of the 9 January 78 draft: (1) why are not the Assistant DNI's
placed at a level III on the Executive Sc!iedule, and (2) why are these
politicized by making them subject to the advice and consent of the Senate?
No account of these discussions has been taken in the 18 January 78 draft.
27. Section _111(a) 23__ a r, the 11 January meeting CIA
questioned the purpose of this whole section and stressed that as written
it reads almost as if to say that nothing is delegable hereunder unless
done P Wp k1ec Pc e12d04/d 1 IYLW REQR41 M0O080R410471 3003-Ame
language as the 11 January draft.
 Approved For Release 2004/05/21 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R000700030053-4
18. Section 108(f)(2), p. 16 - the terms "fully" and "carefully" have
been retained despite our pointing out the impracticality of using such
qualifiers in statute.
19. Section 108(g)(2p. 17 - at the 11 January 78 meeting, CIA
questioned the meaning an d value of the phrase "increase the usefulness .
of information" in statute. IIPSCI agreed that use of such language in
statute is an example of legislating "micromanagement." However, SSCI
has made no change in the language of this subsection.
20. Section 108(g)(3), p. 17 - altiough the wording of this -subsection
has been changed, the effect is the same. CIA argued that not only might
such language "require" access but also that it, along with subsection (g)(2)
serve no purpose in statute.
21. Section 108(j) (1) (c) , pp. 17- 1' -
(a) in line 4 of this subsection the term "international" has
been deleted from in front of the word "agreement";
(b) the phrase "at least 30 days before" has been retained
notwithstanding:
(1) CIA's argument that the "30 days before" should be
replaced by "60 days after" to mike this provision comparable
with the reporting requirements of the Case Act, and
Neither the change to "60 days after' nor the compromise position
shows up in the 18 January 78 draft.
(c) the phrase "is to become effective" in lines 4 and 5 at
the top of page 18 has been substituted for "is entered into by
any officer or employee of the U.S. :m behalf of the U.S."
(d) No provision has been made in the 18 January 78 draft for
transmittal of the agreements to the appropriate committees of Congress
under an "injunction of secrecy," no- have the pertinent portions of
S. Res. 400 re this issue been incorporated by reference into the
18 January 78 draft.
22. Section _ 108(l), 18 - sources and methods issue. The 9 January 7F
draft language re this subsection read in pertinent part:
Approved For Release 2004/05/21 :C IA-RDP81 M00980R000700030053-4
 Approved For Release 2004/05/21 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R000700030053-4
28. Section 112(a), p. 24 - per our admonition DCI has "exclusive
responsibility for the preparation and approval of the national intelligence
budget..."
29. Section 113(a)(1), p. 26 - at the 11 January 1978 meeting, CIA
stated that the Office of Finance wants to retain an annual budget and may
not want to have provision made for appropriations on a two-year basis
as section 113(a)(1) seems to provide. There is no change between the
9 January 1978 and 18 January 1978 draft; Office of Finance in follow-up
comments dated 24 January 1978, however, reiterates that "it is important
to continue to emphasize the cost effectiveness of conducting CIA
activities under a one-year appropriation as has been done until now."
30. Section 113(a)(3), '. 27 of thee- 9 January 1978 draft has been
transferred to Title IV. It read: "The Director shall have exclusive
authority for reprogramming funds within the national intelligence budget."
On 11 January 1978 CIA pointed out that this subsection must be modified
since it reads as if the Director can reprogram between entities notwithstanding
Elliot Maxwell's statement that the intent was not to allow reprogramming
between entities. The former section 113(a)(3) therefore does not appear
in the 18 January 1978 draft.
31. Section 113(b)(1), p 26 - on :11 January 1978 CIA indicated to
SSCI staffers that as written this section (as it appeared in the 9 January
1978 draft) was unclear as to whether the CRF is made up of CIA funds.
Elliot Maxwell stated that this in fact was the intent, viz., to have the
CRF made up of CIA funds. To clarify, SSCI attendees agreed to:
(a) insert the term "CIA" to indicate that only CIA
monies would go into CRF. In the 18 January 1978 draft, instead
of inserting "CIA," the phrase "Office of the Director" is
inserted;
(b) To provide carry-over authority, it was agreed to
include words allowing the Director to "establish and maintain"
a fund; this has been done in the 18 January 1978 draft;
(c) The word "appropriated" in the fourth line (18 January
1978 draft) was to be changed to "designated" to avoid potential
problems relating to the lack of a specific appropriation for
CIA funds; the term "appropriated" has, however, been retained
in the 18 January 1978 draft.
32. Section 113(b)(1)(B), pp. 26-27 - this subsection still contains
onerous reporting requirements. The phrase "facts and circumstances" remains
vague and is left to subsequent procedures to give it substance. Per our
admonition the term "withdrawal" has been added in line 7 of the subsection.
The term "[and] expenditure" after the term "withdrawal" has, however,
been dropped.
Approved For Release 2004/05/21 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R000700030053-4
 Approved For Release 2004/05/21 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R000700030053-4
33. Section 113(c), 28 - on 11 January 1978 CIA indicated that
"quarterly" reporting referred to on line 8 of the subsection should be
relaxed. No subsequent change has been made in the 18 January 1978 draft.
34. Section 113(d)(1), p. 28 - this subsection is the former section
113(d) on pp. 29-30 of the 9 January 1978 draft. At the 11 January 1978
meeting CIA objected to inclusion of the phrase "... with the approval
of any committee of the Congress having jurisdiction over..." which would
on "approval of ..." have subjected funds appropriated to the Director
to have been audited by the Comptroller (,eneral. Per our admonition this
has been limited to request or approval of 11PSCI or SSCI. Note, however,
that the phrase "or upon the request of _C) any other committee of either
House of Congress 11 is newly included. This appears to go beyond_ the
9 January 1978 draft and still does not answer the question of whether
subcommittees can make such request or approval.
35. Section 114, pp. 31-34 -- at the 11 January 1978 meeting CIA
indicated that it found all of the 9 January 1978 draft section 114
language to be intolerable and that it should be redone utilizing as
a base the draft E.O. The 18 January 19''8 section 114 in entirety
must be read against the newly signed E.U. #12036.
36. Section 122, pp. 46-50 must be reviewed to determine if reporting
requirements are consistent with responsibilities, viz., to determine who--
as between the DNI and the AG--has reporting responsibilities in the areas
of domestic and foreign counterintelligence.
37. Section 123(a), p. 51 - at the 11 January 1978 meeting CIA made
the point that as written, subsection (a could be construed to require
Cabinet-level persons to be directly involved in working level discussions
re communications security. Despite agreement to change this subsection,
to allow for the appointment of "designees" to handle such matters, no
such provision has been made.
Approved For Release 2004/05/21 : CIA-RDP81 M00980R000700030053-4
6