MEETING WITH SSCI STAFF ON S. 1721

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90M01264R000100030019-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 14, 2013
• Sequence Number: 19
• Publication Date: December 2, 1987
• Content Type: MEMO

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/14: CIA-RDP90M01264R000100030019-5
2 December 1987
OCA 87-5927
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: Meeting with SSCI Staff on S. 1721
1. On 30 November 1987, representatives of the
Administration met with the SSCI staff to discuss S. 1721, the
Intelligence Oversight Act of 1987. Representing the
STAT Administration were Dave Gries and CIA; Barry
Kelly, Alison Fortier, and Nick Rostow, NSC; John McGinnes,
Rick Cinquegrana, and Mary Lawton, DoJ; Ed Cummings, State
Department; Frank McNeil, DoD; and Ron Sable, White House
Office of Legislative Affairs. Representing the SSCI were Sven
Holmes, Jim Dykstra, Keith Hall, Brit Snider, Dave Holliday, Ed
Levine, John Elliff, Charlie Bataglia, and Natalie Bocock.
Mike O'Neil was also present as an observer for HPSCI.
2. The meeting began with Kelly and Holmes agreeing that
this meeting was not for purposes of negotiation. Instead, the
meeting would allow the Administration an opportunity to
express particular concerns over the provisions of the bill.
Kelly confirmed that Alison Fortier would be the main staff
contact for the Administration on the bill. Ms. Fortier stated
that Carlucci and Chuck Cooper would testify in open hearings
on the bill. She informed the Committee staff that the State
Department had not reached a decision on whether it would
testify on the bill. The bill was then reviewed
section-by-section, and everyone had an opportunity to comment
on the individual sections. Stated below are the comments made
on each section:
?501(a) Consultation: Mary Lawton asked Holmes several
times what types of intelligence activities would fall within
the scope of the consultation provision. Holmes refused to
provide an answer. Lawton said it was impossible to analyze
the provision without this information. Elliff suggested that
legislative history could limit the scope of the provision to
significant anticipated intelligence activities.
S501(b) Notification of Illegal Intelligence Activities:
Snider stated that the provision would not require instant
reporting of illegal intelligence activities even though the
discretion to report such activities in "a timely fashion" had
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/14: CIA-RDP90M01264R000100030019-5
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/14: CIA-RDP90M01264R000100030019-5
been deleted. Snider suggested that procedures could be
formulated by the President that would allow the President to
gather the necessary facts before making a report.
?502 Collection of Intelligence: Elliff stated that the
provision does not change current practice on reporting of
intelligence collection activities prior to initiation of those
activities. Elliff also stated that the requirement to furnish
the Committee information was contingent on the proviso that
reporting shall be carried out with due regard for the
protection of classified information relating to sensitive
intelligence sources and methods. Elliff also stated that
notification could be limited for sensitive projects even
though the legislation did not provide for this alternative. I
expressed doubt on this point.
?503(a)(3) Participation of Other Government Agencies in
Special Activities: I stated that the Agency should not be
required to list other government agencies that provide routine
support for a special activity. Only significant support
should be listed. Holmes agreed that the Agency had a
legitimate point and would consider modifying the section.
Frank McNeil, DoD, also expressed concern that the provision
would allow the DCI to supervise the use of DoD personnel to
support a special activity. DoD did not want the DCI to have
such power.
? 503(a)(4) Participation of Third Parties in Special
Activities: Holmes again provided assurances that the Agency
would not be required to identify in the Finding foreign
countries supporting a special activity. The identification
could be provided in subsequent briefings. I reminded Holmes
that CIA would still have concerns since the DCI needed the
authority in certain instances to withhold from the Committee
information identifying the foreign country supporting the
special activity. I also pointed out that the provision should
be amended to require the listing of only third parties
providing significant support. Holmes agreed that this latter
point was a legitimate concern. He did not budge on the need
for the Committee to obtain the identity of third parties
assisting in the Finding.
?503(a)(5) Requirement that Findings Cannot Authorize
Action Contrary or Inconsistent with U.S. Law: We pointed out
that it was not clear what the term "inconsistent with any
statute of the U.S." is meant to cover. Snider agreed the term
was ambiguous, but there was no commitment to drop the phrase.
?503(b) Reporting of Special Activities: Holmes noted the
Director's concern about protection of sources and methods, and
stated that in the view of the Director's testimony there was
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/14: CIA-RDP90M01264R000100030019-5
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/14: CIA-RDP90M01264R000100030019-5
STAT
no need to cover this area again. McNeil raised the concern
that the reporting obligation was being placed on all agencies
that participate in "any way" in the special activity. McNeil
stated that DoD may participate in a minor way in the special
activity and should not be on the "hook" to report because of
this minor participation. Elliff stated that if CIA reported
on DoD assistance, it would not be necessary for DoD to provide
a separate report.
?503(c) Notification of Finding with 48 Hours: Holmes
stated that the position of the White House was known on this
provision. Holmes stated that the provision was not meant to
punish the President for the Iran fiasco. Kelly again stated
the Administration's strong opposition to the provision.
Justice promised to address the constitutionality of the
provision in its testimony before the Committee.
?503(e) Definition of Special Activities: Concern was
noted by Justice and DoD over the definition of a special
activity. Holmes stated that the Committee was looking for
Administration help in coming up with a definition of special
activities, and Ms. Fortier agreed to convene a special working
group consisting of Justice, DoD and State to work with the
Committee staff in re-working the definition. The group would
focus on language excluding certain activities of these
organizations from being considered special activities.
S504(d) Use of Non-Appropriated Income to Finance Special
Activities: I raised the same concern as that stated in the
Director's testimony. The Committee staff did not accept the
argument that obtaining a Finding to authorize a request to
solicit foreign countries to finance a special activity would
make CIA responsible for ensuring that the foreign country's
activities remained within the scope of the Finding. Kelly
also stated that the Administration was inclined to obtain a
Finding to authorize a request to solicit funds from a foreign
country. Mike O'Neil noted that it was also the position of
Frank Carlucci while he was at CIA that a Finding was necessary
to authorize foreign solicitation.
Distribution;
cOri;Ti171 - OcA/ L egAStrbib-Cf-Fil e
Congressional Overs-ight
- DDCl/EA IL -
- DMP/Signer
STAT OCA/Leg
1
1
1
- OCARead
pap:wr: (2 December 1987)
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/01/14: CIA-RDP90M01264R000100030019-5