The terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, changed the way we think about security. Much has been said since then about the flaws in intelligence and counterterrorism that resulted in a failure to prevent those attacks. Although we must change the ways we protect our country, we must also guard against policies that appear attractive but offer little real protection and may even impede our ability to protect ourselves. The creation of a new domestic spy agency, separate from both the FBI and the CIA, is the wrong solution.

The creation of a new bureaucracy would rebuild the wall between intelligence and law enforcement that existed prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. We need, as former Attorney General William Barr said in his testimony to the Sept. 11 commission, to "meld intelligence and law enforcement more closely together, not tear them apart." Having torn down the wall between the two with the Patriot Act, why would we want to replace it with a fence?

Under Director Robert Mueller, the FBI is undergoing a dramatic transformation. It created a formal intelligence training program and is developing a permanent intelligence analyst career track. It has integrated some intelligence functions with the CIA. The FBI's ability to pursue an investigation through good old-fashioned police work as well as through intelligence collection is a tremendous asset. It is an asset that should be built upon and strengthened, not taken away.

Proponents of a U.S. version of the British MI5 for domestic intelligence gathering often idealize the concept while ignoring the reality -- and the significant cultural differences between our two countries. One example is the use of surveillance cameras, which are accepted as part of everyday life in the United Kingdom; in the United States, we tend to complain loudly when we get a traffic ticket in the mail accompanied by a picture of our car running a red light.

The British experience highlights the difficulties that come from "stove-piping" (an artificial separation between government agencies) and a lack of coordination between agencies. MI5's role is limited to intelligence gathering and analysis. It has no arrest powers, and its cases are often sent to the police and the courts, which must investigate all over again. According to some experts, MI5 personnel are impressed with the law enforcement tools available to the FBI. It's ironic that some would advocate separate entities for domestic intelligence collection and law enforcement when many who serve in the MI5 model consider the FBI model to be superior.

Rather than further fragmenting our counterterrorism forces or merging them all into one super-bureaucracy, Congress must strengthen the FBI by giving it the tools necessary to ensure the continuation and implementation of reforms already under way. Congress must provide the FBI with the resources it needs to implement reform and use its oversight powers to ensure those reforms take root.

Proposals to structure the FBI similarly to the CIA -- by providing for an Intelligence Division dedicated to domestic intelligence analysis while putting the Bureau's current law enforcement activities in an "Operations Division," for example -- have some merit. I'm encouraged that such proposals, along with others made by several 9/11 commissioners, are already under consideration or undergoing implementation by the FBI.

Congress must not "do something" just for the sake of doing something. We must carefully and thoughtfully consider the implications of any action and whether that action will help or hinder our ultimate mission of protecting U.S. citizens from terror.

(U.S. Rep. Richard Burr, a Winston-Salem Republican, is a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.)