69–006 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 110–810 

REDUCING INFORMATION CONTROL DESIGNATIONS ACT 

JULY 30, 2008.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. WAXMAN, from the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 6576] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom 

was referred the bill (H.R. 6576) to require the Archivist of the 

United States to promulgate regulations regarding the use of information control designations, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and 

recommend that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 1 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 2 

Legislative History .................................................................................................. 3 

Section-by-Section .................................................................................................... 3 

Explanation of Amendments ................................................................................... 5 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 5 

Rollcall Votes ............................................................................................................ 5 

Application of Law to the Legislative Branch ....................................................... 6 

Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee ...... 6 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 6 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 6 

Federal Advisory Committee Act ............................................................................ 6 

Unfunded Mandates Statement .............................................................................. 6 

Earmark Identification ............................................................................................ 6 

Committee Estimate ................................................................................................ 6 

Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .................... 7 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 8 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 6576, the Reducing Information Control Designations Act, 

was introduced by Reps. Henry A. Waxman and Tom Davis on July 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
2 

1 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States 

(July 22, 2004). 2Letter from Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Minority Member, to Rep. Christopher Shays, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations (Mar. 1, 2005). 

23, 2008. The purpose of H.R. 6576 is to standardize and limit the 

use of information control designations. 

H.R. 6576 requires the Archivist to promulgate regulations regarding the use of information control designations, requires federal agencies to implement those regulations in a manner that reduces and minimizes the use of information control designations, 

and requires the inspector general of each federal agency to randomly audit unclassified information with information control designations. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

In the final report on the attacks of September 11, 2001, the 

9/11 Commission observed that the government keeps too many secrets. To address this problem, the Commission recommended that 

‘‘[t]he culture of agencies feeling they own the information they 

gathered at taxpayer expense must be replaced by a culture in 

which the agencies instead feel they have a duty . . . to repay the 

taxpayers’ investment by making that information available.’’ 1

In addition, investigations by this Committee have found that 

there has been a proliferation of pseudo-classification designations 

such as ‘‘sensitive but unclassified’’ or ‘‘for official use only.’’ These 

often vague and undefined markings can be used to prevent or 

delay information sharing with interested stakeholders or the public release of that information.2

New categories of information control designations are continuously being created by agencies yet these designations lack a statutory basis, and there is no federal entity monitoring their use. The 

Controlled Unclassified Information Office at the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA) reports that currently there 

are 107 known unique markings, or information control designations, applied across the federal government. 

In May 2008, the White House issued a Memorandum on ‘‘Designation and Sharing of Controlled Unclassified Information 

(CUI),’’ establishing new rules governing the designation and sharing of CUI. However, that memorandum requires these consistent 

procedures only for ‘‘terrorism-related information’’ used in the Information Sharing Environment (ISE), a framework established in 

the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. 

H.R. 6576, the Reducing Information Control Designations Act, is 

written broader in order to address all types of information uses 

across all of the government. H.R. 6576 has the goal of reducing 

the total number of designations used on federal government information. H.R. 6576 attempts to resolve the growing problem of multiple information control designations by authorizing the Archivist 

to establish regulations to minimize and reduce the use of information control designations. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
3 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

The Committee held two hearings in the 109th Congress on the 

issue of information control designations. See Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations 

hearings: Drowning in a Sea of Faux Secrets: Policies on Handling 

of Classified and Sensitive Information (Mar. 14, 2006) and Emerging Threats: Overclassification and Pseudo-classification (Mar. 2, 

2005). 

In addition, during the 109th Congress, the full Committee reported H.R. 5112, the Executive Branch Reform Act, to the House, 

H. Rept. 109–445. H.R. 5112 was ordered reported by a vote of 32– 0. H.R. 5112 included provisions of H.R. 6576, including those requiring the Archivist to issue regulations to standardize and limit 

the use of information control designations. In the 110th Congress, 

on February 14, 2007, H.R. 984, legislation similar to H.R. 5112, 

was favorably ordered reported by the full Committee on a vote of 

29–0. 

H.R. 6576, the Reducing Information Control Designations Act, 

was introduced by Reps. Henry A. Waxman and Tom Davis on July 

23, 2008, and referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 

On July 23, 2008, the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform held a business meeting to consider H.R. 6576, and ordered 

the bill to be favorably reported by a voice vote. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION

Section 1. Short title 

This section provides that the short title of the bill is the ‘‘Reducing Information Control Designations Act.’’

Section 2. Purpose 

This section provides that the purpose of the Act is to increase 

the sharing of information within the government and the availability of information to the public by standardizing and limiting 

the use of information control designations. 

Section 3. Regulations relating to information control designations 

within the Federal Government 

Subsection (a) requires that each federal agency reduce and minimize its use of information control designations on information that 

is not classified. 

Subsection (b) requires the Archivist to promulgate regulations 

regarding the use of information control designations to address: 

standards for the use of the information control designations in a 

way that maximizes public access to information; the duration of 

the designations and a process for their removal; procedures for 

identifying and tracking designated information; provisions to minimize the use of information control designations and protect 

against their misuse; and methods to ensure that compliance protects national security and privacy rights. 

This subsection also requires that the regulations issued by the 

Archivist require federal agencies to establish a process for individuals to challenge the use of information control designations and 

to receive incentives for successful challenges, to establish penalties 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
4 

for individuals who repeatedly fail to abide by these policies, and 

to establish procedures for the public to be able to challenge the 

use of information control designations. 

These regulations should be established in a manner that maximizes public access to information and with the presumption that 

information should not be given these designations. This subsection 

requires the Archivist, in developing the regulations, to consult 

with relevant stakeholders. 

Subsection (c) requires that the head of each federal agency implement these new regulations in a way that encourages the appropriate sharing of information, limits the number of individuals with 

the authority to place these designations on information, and restricts the placement of designations to the portion of a document 

that requires control. 

Section 4. Enforcement of information control designation regulations within the Federal Government 

Subsection (a) requires the inspector general of each federal 

agency, in consultation with the Archivist, to randomly audit unclassified information with information control designations in 

order to determine whether agencies are properly implementing 

the regulations, to describe any problems with implementation, and 

to recommend improvements in awareness and training to address 

those problems. The inspector generals must report to the House 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Senate 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the 

Archivist, and the public on the findings of these audits. 

Under subsection (b), the Archivist must require that when 

marking information with a control designation, an individual provide unique identifying information including the individual’s name 

or personal identifier and the individual’s agency, office, and position. The purpose of this requirement is for the agency to be able 

to identify and address problems or misuse and assess the impact 

on information sharing of any problems or misuse. 

Subsection (c) requires the Archivist to require federal agencies 

to train, as needed, those who apply information control designations. That training shall include the standards for using information control designations, the proper use of information control designations, and the consequences of repeated improper use of these 

designations and of failing to comply with the policies and procedures established under this section. This subsection clarifies that 

this training is to be conducted in conjunction with other training 

programs required by the agency to reduce the burden of this new 

requirement. 

Subsection (d) requires the Archivist to establish a program to 

detail personnel from federal agencies to NARA, on a nonreimbursable basis, in order to assist NARA with its oversight responsibilities and to provide the detailed employees with more extensive 

training on the use of information control designations. This subsection provides that the detailee program will continue through 

the year 2012. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
5 

Section 5. Releasing information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 

This section explains that information control designations 

should have no relationship to determinations of public disclosure 

pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 

Subsection (a) requires the head of each federal agency to ensure 

that information control designations are not a determinant of public disclosure pursuant to FOIA. This means that the agency must 

conduct an independent review of information to determine whether it is releasable pursuant to FOIA and should not consider the 

existence of an information control designation in that independent 

review. If the agency determines in response to a FOIA request 

that the information is releasable, the agency is required under 

this subsection to make that information publicly available. 

Subsection (b) clarifies that nothing in this Act is intended to 

limit or discourage agency officials from voluntarily releasing any 

unclassified information that is not exempt under FOIA. 

Section 6. Definitions 

The term ‘‘information control designations’’ is defined in this 

section as information dissemination controls that are not defined 

by federal statute or by an executive order relating to the classification of national security information, that are used to manage, 

direct, or route information, or control the accessibility of information, regardless of its form or format. The term includes, but is not 

limited to, the designations of ‘‘controlled unclassified information,’’

‘‘sensitive but unclassified,’’ and ‘‘for official use only.’’

The term ‘‘information’’ is defined in this section as any communicable knowledge or documentary material, regardless of its physical form or characteristics, which is owned by, is produced by or 

for, or is under control of the federal government. 

The term ‘‘federal agency’’ is defined in this section as (1) any executive agency, which means an executive department, a government corporation, and an independent establishment; (2) any military department, which means the Department of the Army, the 

Department of the Navy, or the Department of the Air Force; and 

(3) any other entity within the executive branch that comes into 

the possession of classified information. 

Section 7. Deadline for regulations and implementation 

This section provides that the regulations required by the bill 

must be promulgated in final form with implementation to begin 

no later than 18 months after the date of enactment. 

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

No amendments were offered to this legislation. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On Wednesday, July 23, 2008, the Committee met in open session and favorably ordered H.R. 6576 to be reported to the House 

by a voice vote. 

ROLLCALL VOTES

No rollcall votes were held. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
6 

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of P.L. 104–1 requires a description of the application of this bill to the legislative branch where the bill relates 

to terms and conditions of employment or access to public services 

and accommodations. H.R. 6576 relates to the use of information 

controls by the executive branch and therefore does not apply to 

the legislative branch. 

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE

COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 2(b)(1) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 

descriptive portions of this report, including the need to standardize and limit the use of information control designations. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee’s performance goals and 

objectives are reflected in the descriptive portions of this report, including reducing and minimizing the use of information control 

designations. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Under clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the Committee must include a statement citing 

the specific powers granted to Congress to enact the law proposed 

by H.R. 6576. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution of 

the United States grants the Congress the power to enact this law. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT

The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish or 

authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within the 

definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b). 

UNFUNDED MANDATES STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement on whether the 

provisions of the report include unfunded mandates. In compliance 

with this requirement the Committee has received a letter from the 

Congressional Budget Office included herein. 

EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

H.R. 6576 does not include any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), 

or 9(f) of rule XXI. 

COMMITTEE ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 

6576. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides that this reVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:41 Aug 03, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR810.XXX HR810

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
7 

quirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its 

report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of 

the Congressional Budget Act. 

BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST

ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements 

of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 

Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 6576 

from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

JULY 29, 2008. 

Hon. HENRY A. WAXMAN, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 6576, the Reducing Information Control Designations Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. 

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 6576—Reducing Information Control Designations Act 

Summary: H.R. 6576 would amend federal law concerning the security classification of government documents. The legislation 

would require the National Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA), in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence 

and other affected federal agencies, to develop regulations that 

minimize and reduce the government’s use of information-control 

designations on information that is not classified. The bill also 

would require training for employees and contractors on using classifications and random audits by inspectors general on the proper 

use of information-control designations. 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 6576 would have a discretionary cost of $15 million in 2009 and $45 million over the 

2009–2013 period to implement the new regulations, provide training, and conduct audits that would be required under the bill. Although the legislation could affect agencies not funded through annual appropriations (such as the Tennessee Valley Authority or the 

U.S. Postal Service), CBO estimates that any net increase in 

spending by those agencies would not be significant. As a result, 

enacting the bill would have no significant impact on direct spending or revenues. 

H.R. 6576 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 6576 is shown in the following table. The costs 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
8 

of this legislation fall within most budget functions that contain 

salaries and expenses. 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009– 

2013 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level ...................................................... 15 15 5 5 5 45 

Estimated Outlays ........................................................................ 15 15 5 5 5 45 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill 

will be enacted near the start of fiscal year 2009 and that spending 

would follow historical patterns for similar programs. 

Under current law, agencies are required to develop policies for 

handling terrorism-related and homeland security information. 

However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported that there are no governmentwide policies and procedures 

for agencies to use to classify sensitive, but unclassified information. 

Based on the information provided by GAO, NARA, and selected 

federal agencies and inspectors general about the current use of information-control designations, CBO estimates that implementing 

H.R. 6576 would cost $15 million in 2009 and $45 million over the 

2009–2013 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary 

amounts. Initial costs would total about $20 million and would be 

incurred over the first two years. Ongoing costs would total about 

$25 million over the 2009–2013 period, mostly for subsequent 

training and random audits by inspectors general. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 6576 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 

governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Matthew Pickford; Impact 

on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Elizabeth Cove; Impact 

on the Private-Sector: Paige Piper/Bach. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

No changes to existing law are made by H.R. 6576, as reported. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS