The House Intelligence Committee privately considered adding a measure to the annual intelligence community authorization bill that would have significantly curtailed the size and scope of the Department of Homeland Security’s core spy agency, according to three people familiar with the matter and a summary of the drafted measure viewed by Nextgov/FCW.
All three sources requested anonymity because they were not permitted to discuss closed-door deliberations about the measure.
The statute — ultimately yanked from the final House draft of the Intelligence Authorization Act — would have prohibited the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis from both collecting and analyzing intelligence, according to two of the people and the draft summary. The measure also would have renamed it as the Office of Intelligence and Information Sharing and reduced its workforce from around 1,000 employees to no more than 250.
The development, which has not been previously reported, highlights that Congress was weighing major overhauls for the lesser-known DHS spy bureau amid recent administration efforts to shed the office’s staffing count, and it adds a chapter to a storied history of debates over how to best reform the agency.
The proposed changes are notable because the measure would have effectively recast the DHS office as a clearinghouse for findings produced elsewhere in the intelligence community, stripping it of common authorities granted to other spy agencies who routinely collect and analyze information on threats concerning U.S. interests.
“The goal [of I&A] was straightforward: provide governors, mayors, police chiefs, transportation officials and emergency managers with intelligence-driven guidance — rooted in the full range of classified and unclassified reporting — to help them make long-term decisions. How much should a city invest in physical security? Does a state need new legal authorities? What training or equipment should local law enforcement prioritize?” Cash said. “No other federal entity is structured to deliver this kind of strategic, locally tailored intelligence support.”
I&A’s collection practices have always been a separate and more sensitive issue, he contended.
“It has never been clear that its domestic collection authorities could be exercised meaningfully without pushing into areas that raise profound civil-liberties and constitutional concerns. That is why, across multiple administrations — starting with President George W. Bush — there was sustained attention to guardrails, oversight mechanisms and a clear understanding that DHS intelligence activities must not evolve into a national-level domestic surveillance service.”