U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

63–866 PDF 2011

S. Hrg. 111–991 

SECURITY CLEARANCE REFORM: SETTING A 

COURSE FOR SUSTAINABILITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, 

THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

NOVEMBER 16, 2010 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

JOYCE WARD, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL 

WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

LISA M. POWELL, Staff Director 

EVAN W. CASH, Professional Staff Member 

DANA SMULLEN, Minority Staff Director 

KRISTY BROWN, Professional Staff Member 

AARON H. WOOLF, Chief Clerk 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 1 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 10 

Senator Coons ................................................................................................... 12 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2010 

Hon. Jeffrey D. Zients, Deputy Director for Management and Chief Performance Officer, U.S. Office of Management and Budget ....................................... 3 

Hon. James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, Office of the Director of National Intelligence ................................................................................. 5 

Hon. John Berry, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management ..................... 6 

Hon. Elizabeth A. McGrath, Deputy Chief Management Officer, U.S. Department of Defense .................................................................................................... 7 

Brenda A. Farrell, Managing Director, Defense Capabilities and Management, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office .............................................................. 9 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Berry, Hon. John.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Clapper, Hon. James R.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Farrell, Brenda A.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

McGrath, Hon. Elizabeth A.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Zients, Hon. Jeffrey D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

APPENDIX 

Questions and responses for the record: 

Mr. Zients .......................................................................................................... 68 

Mr. Clapper ....................................................................................................... 70 

Mr. Berry ........................................................................................................... 73 

Ms. McGrath ..................................................................................................... 78 

Ms. Farrell ........................................................................................................ 79 

Background .............................................................................................................. 82 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(1) 

SECURITY CLEARANCE REFORM: SETTING A 

COURSE FOR SUSTAINABILITY 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2010 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT

MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE,

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:45 a.m., in 

room SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. 

Akaka, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Akaka, Coons, and Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Senator VOINOVICH. [Presiding.] The hearing will come to order. 

I have been asked by Senator Akaka to get the hearing started 

today. We are very, very fortunate to have a very distinguished 

panel of witnesses to talk about a subject that I have been working 

on for a long period of time. And to begin with, I would like to say 

to all of you I really appreciate the work that you are doing and 

your cooperation and your receptivity to our request that you keep 

us informed on a pretty regular basis. And today what we are 

going to try to do is find out where we are. 

If you will all stand, as is the custom of our Subcommittee, I will 

ask you to be sworn. Do you swear the testimony that you are 

about to give before this Committee is the truth, the whole truth, 

and nothing but the truth? 

Mr. ZIENTS. I do. 

Mr. CLAPPER. I do. 

Mr. BERRY. I do. 

Ms. MCGRATH. I do. 

Ms. FARRELL. I do. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I am grateful to Senator Akaka for calling 

this hearing. Yesterday we were in Akron, Ohio, on another subject 

dealing with human capital. And I am grateful that we continue 

the review of the Federal Government’s efforts to reform the security clearance process. The Chairman and I worked a long time together on a bipartisan basis. I try to remind people that it looks 

like sometimes we are not functional or we are dysfunctional here, 

but there are some wonderful things that are happening in committees in the Senate, and Dan Akaka and I have been friends for a 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

2 

long time, and our agenda has been the same for about 10 years, 

which is awesome. 

My hope is that enough progress would have been made on this 

that you all could say that this is off the high-risk list. I told General Clapper that you are going to have it off for next year. I know 

you will. And I am going to come back when they have the news 

conference just to be in the room to hear it. 

We started these hearings back in 2005 to examine efforts in furtherance of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, 

the (IRTPA), as well as efforts to remove the Department of Defense (DOD) from the high-risk list. But soon thereafter, we recognized that the problem was not exclusive to the Defense Department but was instead a government-wide issue, and it must be addressed collaboratively, such as through the Joint Suitability and 

Security Reform Team. 

I would like to congratulate the team on the significant strides 

it has made in streamlining and improving the timeliness of the 

process. According to the data the Joint Reform Team provided to 

Senator Akaka and me earlier this month, in the fourth quarter of 

fiscal year 2010 Executive Branch agencies investigated and adjudicated 90 percent of all initial security clearances in an average 

of 53 days and 90 percent of initial secret/confidential clearances in 

45 days, thus exceeding the 60-day benchmark, with an impressive 

change from 2007, just 3 years ago, when it took the Department 

of Defense an average of 208 days to process secret clearance requests for contractors. 

While improvement in timeliness of the security process should 

be acknowledged, we must recognize that timeliness is just one aspect of the clearance, and the law necessitates a number of other 

actions, including uniform policies regarding the security clearance 

process, reciprocal recognition of security clearances among agencies, and an evaluation of the use of technology to expedite security 

clearance processes. I am particularly concerned about the lack of 

progress being made in reciprocity. I still consistently hear from individuals who have problems with one agency accepting another 

agency’s clearance. 

Another issue that gives me some concern is the information 

technology, which is an update of existing technologies, despite the 

fact that these technologies are old and outdated as opposed to the 

fact that these technologies—purchasing new technologies would 

likely better sustain efficiency in the security clearance process. 

And, by the way, Mr. Berry, we got into that yesterday in terms 

of Social Security and the technology that you are using in terms 

of those judges. 

Furthermore, lack of timeliness in budget estimates for technology relating to clearance processes is also a concern for me. As 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has pointed out for 

several years now, quality, particularly completeness of investigative and adjudicative files, has been a problem. Fortunately, the 

team has recognized that more work regarding the security clearance process was needed. In December 2008, it issued a report 

identifying its seven-step approach for reform, including, but not 

limited to, validating the need for investigation requests, using 

automated records checks to better target investigations, allowing 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

3 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Zients appears in the appendix on page 27. 

for electronic adjudication of less complex cases, and continuously 

re-evaluating individuals who have been granted clearances. 

As requested, the team has provided monthly updates to us, as 

I mentioned, and I am also interested in learning about additional 

efforts that remain before the goal of security clearance can be 

achieved. 

I want to thank our witnesses for their participation. I am honored by your presence today. I do not think that everybody realizes 

that this is a top group of people here, and I am very, very grateful 

that you thought enough of what we are doing here to come over 

and spend some time with us. As we have the kind of protocol rule 

at 5 minutes; your testimony will be put in the record. 

I would like to start out with Mr. Zients. We will hear from you, 

and, again, thank you for being here. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. JEFFREY D. ZIENTS,1 DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT & CHIEF PERFORMANCE OFFICER, U.S. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

Mr. ZIENTS. Thank you, Senator. It is my privilege to testify in 

my role as the Chairman of the Suitability and Security Clearance 

Performance Accountability Council (PAC)—admittedly, a mouthful—otherwise known as the PAC. Before I start, I want to acknowledge my colleagues who are testifying with me today: General Clapper, John Berry, and Beth McGrath. We have a very 

strong partnership, and the initiative would not be where it is 

today without their leadership. 

In keeping with our partnership, we divided up our time this 

morning, and I will probably run a little longer than the 5 minutes, 

but we will make up time as my colleagues will do brief updates 

on their specific areas. 

Since we last appeared before you in September 2009, the administration has made critical advances in reforming the security 

clearance process. Today I look forward to sharing our accomplishments and discussing the steps necessary to sustain our progress 

moving forward. 

For many years, the backlog of security clearances caused tremendous problems and significant expense for the Federal Government. In 1994, a Joint Security Commission report noted that substantial delays in processing security clearances led to unnecessary 

costs and risks because workers were unable to perform their jobs 

while waiting for a clearance. In light of these results, in 2005, the 

GAO placed security clearances on its high-risk list. 

Today, however, much has changed. The Intelligence Reform and 

Terrorism Prevention Act, otherwise known as IRTPA, was signed 

into law in 2004, challenging the Federal Government to address 

longstanding problems that unnecessarily affected the timeliness 

and quality of security clearances. As a result of actions taken to 

meet the objectives of IRTPA, the average time for security clearance has decreased dramatically. IRTPA required that all agencies 

complete 90 percent of their security clearances in an average of 

60 days. At the time that IRTPA was enacted, the governmentwide average was 205 days. By December 2009—so about a year 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

4 

ago—90 percent of the government’s clearances were completed 

within the IRTPA-required time frame of 60 days. We have met the 

IRTPA target every quarter since. In fact, as you mentioned in 

your opening remarks, Senator, last quarter 90 percent of security 

clearance determinations were completed within 53 days, a 74-percent reduction from the 2004 level. Moreover, the backlog of investigations is gone. 

Now we must ensure that our progress is sustained in the future. 

The Strategic Framework document we submitted to this Committee in February established the path forward. Today I would 

like to emphasize our progress in the most critical areas within 

this larger strategic framework. 

First, we are aligning suitability and security policies and processes to limit redundancies in our investigations and adjudications. 

To achieve this, we are modifying the regulatory and investigative 

standards as well as the information collection forms that underlie 

our clearance operations. For example, in March, we published a 

revised Standard Form 86 that will capture the information necessary to enable more cost-effective security investigations. 

Second, we are working to improve reciprocity through initiatives 

such as enhanced sharing of relevant investigatory data among 

Federal agencies and developing performance metrics for tracking 

reciprocity outcomes. Notably, Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) and DOD data are now integrated through a single interface, allowing agencies to see the data that underlies existing security clearances when they are deciding whether to grant reciprocity. 

Third, we are improving clearance quality by increasing access to 

information and enhancing training. To ensure that our approach 

on quality is most effective, we are also measuring the results. In 

May 2010, in partnership with GAO, we reported to you a set of 

quality metrics, which we will continue to refine and deploy by 

early next year. 

Finally, we are using enhanced technology to improve timeliness 

and reduce the number of unnecessary questions or the possibility 

of receiving incomplete forms. We have made important advances 

in converting paper-based application processes to automated solutions such as Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP). Notably, over 98 percent of clearance application 

submissions to OPM are now completed electronically. 

Although this reform process has achieved many successes, work 

still remains to be done. We are making progress in establishing 

a five-tier framework for investigations that will enable greater reciprocity of clearances among tiers of equal or lower work. We expect this new framework to be released early next calendar year. 

Next month, we plan to deploy the new Standard Form 86 in an 

electronic format. And, importantly, we will continue to develop 

and improve metrics to track reciprocity and quality. 

Throughout this process, three key principles drove our reform 

effort. 

First, IRTPA set clear, outcomes-based goals, and each month, 

the administration delivers to your Committee a report on our 

progress relative to these goals. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Clapper appears in the appendix on page 34. 

Second, we hold the appropriate agency leadership accountable 

for results. Since I joined the administration, I have met regularly 

with my colleagues testifying here today as well as with their 

teams who drive the day-to-day effort. The administration has also 

used our High Priority Goal Initiative to hold officials at OPM and 

DOD responsible for their respective deliverables. 

And, third, the backbone of the reform effort has been effective 

partnership. The PAC has helped foster collaboration among various Federal stakeholders, and the Joint Reform Team has provided technical leadership, training, and monthly progress reports. 

The GAO has offered insightful and important counsel, and this 

Subcommittee has held us accountable to the goals set forth in 

IRTPA. 

In closing, we have made significant progress on improving the 

suitability and security clearance processes. In fact, I believe that 

this effort serves as a model for our broader government-wide reform initiatives. I would like to thank you, Senator Voinovich, for 

the extraordinary work that you have done on this issue and for 

your leadership throughout your Senate career. I think I speak for 

all of us in saying we will certainly miss you. 

I would also like to recognize the talented staff who have been 

instrumental in the security clearance reform effort, in particular 

my Vice-Chair, Beth McGrath, Kathy Dillaman from OPM, and 

John Fitzpatrick from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). With their hard work, as well as that of the agency 

leadership testifying with me today, and the continued support of 

this Subcommittee, I am confident that we will continue to improve 

the timeliness, reciprocity, and quality of clearance decisions. 

Once again, thank you for the opportunity, and I look forward to 

questions. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much. I think you have really done a good job as Director of Management and Chief Performance Officer. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Thank you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. We enjoyed working with you. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Thank you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Our next witness is General James Clapper, 

Director of the National Intelligence, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and, General, we are glad that you are here 

today, and we appreciate the fact that you are continuing to serve 

your country. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. JAMES R. CLAPPER,1 DIRECTOR OF 

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF 

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE 

Mr. CLAPPER. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. I, too, 

am pleased to be here to highlight the progress we have made on 

security clearance reform. And as Jeff said, I am also very pleased 

to appear beside my principal partners of reform with whom I have 

bonded over the last couple years, and that is Jeff, John Berry, and 

Beth McGrath, as well as our GAO colleague, Brenda Farrell, to 

update you on the work we have done together to ensure that imH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

6 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Berry appears in the appendix on page 39. 

provements to clearance timeliness, quality, and reciprocity are institutionalized and sustained. 

In both my former role as Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and now as Security Executive Agent as the Director of National Intelligence, I have pushed this effort and will continue to 

do so to transform the end-to-end security clearance process across 

the Federal Government. The intelligence community (IC) is a key 

player in this, and I assure you the IC as a whole continues to pay 

attention to this as a top priority. 

As Jeff mentioned, we are all pleased to note that our performance continues to meet the timelines set forth in the Intelligence 

Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. 

As Security Executive Agent, I continue to support the Performance Accountability Council’s emphasis on sustaining timeliness 

performance by hosting Executive Branch-wide reform briefings 

where we address agencies’ performance and progress. Together 

with the Council, we will also continue to develop new and meaningful performance measures, including reciprocity, and also assess 

agencies’ progress in adopting reform practices in the context of 

their own technology and process improvement goals. 

I would be remiss if I did not recognize the crucial role that GAO 

continues to play in keeping the heat on the Executive Branch for 

security clearance reform and also on areas they have identified 

where more work is required. Reform leaders have long focused on 

the goal of removing DOD from GAO’s high-risk list. In this regard, 

I also want to recognize the value of this Subcommittee’s continued 

attention to this issue, and specifically you, Senator Voinovich, for 

your leadership. You leave a lasting legacy that will ensure a secure and capable Federal workforce for the future. 

So thanks very much for your efforts to ensure effective and efficient processes, and certainly when the time comes, we will stand 

ready to answer your questions. Thank you very much. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Berry, Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

John, I remember when we first met, and I thought you were an 

eager beaver, and you talked a good game, and I thought, if he can 

just do half as good as it looks like he wants to do. And you have 

done a very, very good job. I have dealt with your predecessors, and 

I am really pleased with what you are doing and your outreach to 

other agencies and working with them. It is extremely important. 

I do not think that this country realizes how important your operation is to human capital, and you have done a very good job, and 

I am grateful for your service. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. JOHN BERRY,1 DIRECTOR, U.S. 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 

Mr. BERRY. Senator, right back at you. It has been an incredible 

honor to serve with you, sir, and I appreciate very much your allowing me the opportunity to hold this position, and having your 

support at the beginning meant a lot. You are one of those leaders 

who not only, on this issue, is concerned with the effectiveness and 

the efficiency of our government, but your appreciation for the men 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

7 

1The prepared statement of Ms. McGrath appears in the appendix on page 44. 

and women who serve our country, both in uniform and in the civilian service, day in and day out. And you are amongst a handful 

who really understands and appreciates the importance of their 

role and responsibility in our Republic. And you are going to be 

sorely missed. On behalf of everyone in the civil service, sir, thank 

you for your service to your Nation and for your emphasis on quality. It has been an honor, and the Nation has been fortunate for 

your service. 

I am going to try to even be briefer than General Clapper, sir. 

I think what this comes down to is four keys. We, in our piece of 

this puzzle, have focused very diligently on timeliness, on quality 

and accuracy, and on cost, because at the end of the day we have 

to bill agencies, and we want to make sure that we are doing this 

in a responsible manner. 

But I think it is the fourth—and it has been alluded to by everybody at this table—that has really made the difference on this, and 

that is teamwork. None of us could have taken on this task by ourselves and succeeded. We only did it because all of the players at 

this table, and GAO included, really rolled up their sleeves, recognized the criticality of this issue, and I think are delivering solid 

progress for you and for the country. My promise to you while I remain in this post is that I will continue to maintain high attention 

and focus on this and will continue to be a productive member of 

the team. As General Clapper mentioned, we have actually all become, I think, good friends over this process as well, which also bespeaks the attention that has been focused. 

So with that, sir, I will yield back and look forward to discussing 

more in questions. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much. Thank you for your 

kind words. 

Our next witness is the Hon. Elizabeth McGrath, Deputy Chief 

Management Officer of the U.S. Department of Defense. Beth, you 

have played a key leadership role in bringing folks together, and 

I am very much impressed with your work and your leadership. I 

think that, as I have looked over the last 12 years and I have observed this, if you can get people to work together and develop good 

interpersonal relationships, it is amazing what you can get done. 

And I think that is what has happened here, and that is why I 

think you are doing as well as you are. And it takes somebody like 

you to understand that and keep the team together. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. ELIZABETH A. MCGRATH,1 DEPUTY 

CHIEF MANAGEMENT OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Ms. MCGRATH. Senator, thank you very much. As all of the witnesses have mentioned, the teamwork really has gelled over the 

last probably 3 years, so I think General Clapper and I have tenure 

in terms of the clearance reform effort. Certainly it would not compete with yours, sir, but it has been very much a team effort to enable the progress to have been made, and it is not just with—it 

also includes the Government Accountability Office (GAO). 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

8 

I, too, appreciate your continued oversight and interest and also 

the opportunity to testify today regarding DOD’s continued commitment to and progress in reforming the personnel security clearance 

process. 

As the Deputy Chief Management Officer, I am the primary 

agent for improving cross-cutting management of the Department’s 

business activities. Secretary Gates and Deputy Secretary Lynn 

have both clearly articulated the pressing need for departmental 

reforms that include: Modernization of our financial management 

strategy; a different, more streamlined approach to information 

technology acquisition; and a transformed hiring process to get the 

right talent on board in a timely manner. 

DOD’s overarching management agenda is focused on creating an 

effective, agile, and innovative business environment that is fiscally 

responsible. 

The Department has invested a significant amount of attention 

and energy on the improvement of personnel security clearance 

processes, both within the Department and as part of the integrated Federal reform effort. As GAO placed the DOD’s Security 

Clearance Program on its high-risk list in 2005 due to timeliness 

issues which included extensive backlogs and significant delays. 

Each year since then, the Department has taken proactive steps 

and made improvements. This includes direct leadership engagement, sufficient resources to resolve risk, a corrective action plan, 

the presence of a program to monitor and independently validate 

effectiveness and sustainability of corrective actions, and the ability 

to demonstrate the implementation of corrective measures. My 

written testimony highlights the activities we have undertaken to 

improve security clearance cycle times and institute proactive management and accountability, as well as describes the actions the 

Department has taken to address all of the GAO’s high-risk list removal criteria. 

To specifically address the issue of timeliness of investigations, 

DOD partnered with its primary Investigative Service Provider, 

OPM, and together has made remarkable progress. In 2006, DOD 

military and civilian clearances averaged 155 days and industry 

clearances averaged approximately 196 days. As has been mentioned, the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act 

required all agencies to complete 90 percent of their security clearances in an average of 60 days by December 2009. DOD has met 

that requirement and has continued to improve. 

This remarkable performance is attributable to several initiatives. The first came from OPM and its ability to significantly reduce the amount of time needed to conduct the investigation portion of the clearance process. OPM’s proactive processing steps, 

coupled with DOD’s improved clearance forecasting capability, enabled effective workload balancing for both investigations and adjudications. 

Next came DOD’s transition away from hard-copy paper reports 

of investigation to electronic transmission and receipt of these documents, eliminating the need to deploy trucks to deliver the investigative packages. This process improvement alone is estimated to 

have eliminated up to 15 days of processing time for each clearance 

package. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

9 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Farrell appears in the appendix on page 50. 

We have also made extensive progress in the quality of our clearances by focusing on improvements to our policies, use of information technology, and training for those involved in security clearance and adjudicative processes. In short, I believe the Department 

has taken all the necessary steps to warrant removal from the 

GAO high-risk list for personnel security clearances. Our demonstrated and sustained performance that exceeds the requirements set by both the IRTPA and the Performance Accountability 

Council is evidence of our ability to demonstrate the implementation of corrective measures. The decades-old backlog of investigations, which as recently as October 2006 stood at almost 100,000 

cases, has been eliminated. 

I would like to thank Chairman Akaka but also and especially 

Senator Voinovich for your leadership and commitment and strong 

oversight of this issue. Your continued call for an efficient, effective 

Federal security clearance process has helped bring positive and 

lasting change to the way we do business at DOD. I wish you all 

the best as you prepared to leave the Senate. 

Thank you for the opportunity again, and I look forward to your 

questions. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. [Presiding.] Thank you. 

Now we will hear from Director Farrell. 

TESTIMONY OF BRENDA A. FARRELL,1 MANAGING DIRECTOR, 

DEFENSE CAPABILITIES AND MANAGEMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. FARRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see you 

again. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Voinovich, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss DOD’s progress on addressing timeliness and quality with its 

personnel security clearance process. The recent unauthorized leak 

this past year of about 500,000 pages of classified documents posted to the Internet related to the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and 

Iraq is an example of the inherent risk involved when granting an 

individual a security clearance. We have testified on clearance-related issues in six prior hearings that this Subcommittee has had 

since January 2005 when we first placed DOD’s personnel security 

clearance program, which represents the vast majority of clearances adjudicated, on our list of high-risk government programs. 

Over the years, we have conducted a broad body of work on 

clearance issues that gives us a unique historical perspective. My 

remarks today draw on both our ongoing work and prior work on 

the personnel security clearance process. My main message today 

is that DOD has made significant and noteworthy progress to reduce delays in granting clearances and taken positive steps to integrate quality into its investigative and adjudicative processes. 

My written statement submitted for the record is divided into 

two parts. The first addresses DOD’s progress in reducing delays 

in its clearance process. In 2007, we found that initial clearances 

for DOD industry personnel took almost a year to complete. When 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

10 

I testified before this Subcommittee last year, I noted that DOD 

had made significant improvements in reducing delays. However, 

despite these improvements, we continued to designate DOD’s program as a high-risk area due to more stringent timeliness objectives that were to take effect later in the year. As of December 

2009, by law the timeliness objective is for each Federal agency to 

process the fastest 90 percent of initial clearances within an average of 60 days. I have good news to confirm. DOD met the 60-day 

objective for each of the first, second, and third quarters of fiscal 

year 2010. GAO’s ongoing work will continue to examine the timeliness for the last quarter. 

The second part of my statement addresses DOD’s progress in 

building quality into the process used to investigate and adjudicate 

security clearances. We have stated many times that timeliness 

alone does not provide a complete picture of the clearance process. 

For example, in our prior work, we estimated that with respect to 

initial top secret clearances adjudicated in July 2008, documentation was incomplete for most OPM investigative reports that DOD 

adjudicators used to grant clearances. Today I am pleased to report 

that DOD has taken a number of positive steps to integrate quality 

into OPM’s investigative process and its adjudicative process, including issuing guidance and developing tools to measure quality. 

For example, in March 2010, DOD issued guidance to clarify when 

adjudicators may use incomplete investigative reports as the basis 

for granting clearances. 

In addition, DOD created two electronic quality assessment tools 

to track the quality of investigative and adjudicative documentation. These tools are embedded in a DOD tracking system used by 

all non-intelligence DOD central adjudication facilities. However, 

these tools have not been fully implemented. GAO’s ongoing work 

continues to examine the implementation of these tools. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we are strongly encouraged by the 

progress that GAO has made over the past few years. The progress 

that has been made with respect to the overall government-wide 

reform efforts would not be made possible without the committed 

and sustained leadership of Congress, in particular this Subcommittee, and by the senior leaders involved in the Performance 

Accountability Council. Their continued oversight and stewardship 

of the reform efforts is the cornerstone to sustaining momentum 

and making future progress. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I will be happy to 

take questions when you are ready. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Director Farrell. 

I want to welcome this panel to the Subcommittee and also 

thank my brother and good friend, Senator Voinovich, for his leadership here, and we will begin here with my opening statement. I 

am also going to call on our newest Member to the Subcommittee, 

Senator Chris Coons, for any remarks that he would like to make 

after my statement. Then we will return to the questions. 

Just over 5 years ago, in 2005, this Subcommittee held its first 

hearing on the Department of Defense’s personnel security clearance program after the Government Accountability Office desH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

11 

ignated the program as being at high risk for waste, fraud, abuse, 

or mismanagement. Today, we hold our seventh hearing on security clearance issues, and I am pleased to say that we have seen 

tremendous progress throughout the course of our oversight work. 

Delays in the clearance process began over 20 years ago. By the 

time this issue was added to the GAO high-risk list, DOD industry 

clearances took over 300 days on average to complete. Ongoing 

delays led to a backlog of hundreds of thousands of investigations 

and adjudications. 

Today, as we will hear from our panelists—and we have heard 

from our panelists—the backlogs are gone and timeliness is within 

the goals laid out in the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 

Prevention Act: less than 60 days total for most investigations and 

adjudications. 

The other key aspect of the high-risk designation is investigation 

quality. Until recently, GAO noted that incomplete investigation 

files were routinely sent to adjudicators, who would either send 

them back to OPM or adjudicate them with incomplete information. 

Unfortunately, there was no way to monitor or measure investigation quality. 

I am pleased that earlier this year, in response to a letter from 

Senator Voinovich and me, GAO and the Executive Branch worked 

together to identify metrics that would be consistent with GAO’s 

recommendations on quality. 

Overall, I have been pleased with the work of the Performance 

Accountability Council to address the high-risk designation and to 

modernize and streamline the security clearance process. We will 

continue to rely on its work to sustain the progress and momentum 

for reform in the future. 

Despite the progress, however, there are remaining issues and 

challenges that I believe are crucial to successfully reforming the 

clearance process. The information technology in place, especially 

at the Office of Personnel Management, must be modernized to 

support 21st Century capabilities—as is common across the private 

sector and other government agencies. I look forward to hearing 

more about this and OPM’s enterprise architecture modernization 

project. 

Additionally, it seems reciprocity may be still an issue between 

certain agencies. The intent of several Executive Orders on this 

issue is clear: Agencies need to work together to accept clearances 

from other agencies. This will allow national security positions to 

be filled more quickly with right people in the right jobs. Reciprocity for employment suitability may need to be addressed as 

well. 

Senator Voinovich and I introduced legislation to institutionalize 

these reforms to the security clearance process. Our bill, the Security Clearance Modernization and Reporting Act calls for strategic 

planning, expanded timeliness reporting, and a more formal establishment of the PAC. 

I also look forward to GAO’s next high-risk list update in the 

coming months to see where this issue stands. Regardless of 

whether it remains on the list, I think that we can all agree that 

there has been outstanding progress. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

12 

The progress is in no small part a testament to strong congressional oversight, which is key to making the Federal Government 

more efficient, more effective, and more responsive. I have been 

proud to work with Senator Voinovich on these issues over the 

years, and I will continue our oversight efforts in the future. 

As evidenced by our distinguished panel here today, this particular issue has enjoyed high-level leadership attention, and I 

hope your work will serve as a model for addressing other high-risk 

areas and management challenges. 

We are very pleased to have the Acting Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) Director, the Director of National Intelligence, 

and the OPM Director working so closely together with this Subcommittee. 

I am also honored to have my brother and good friend Senator 

Voinovich by my side as we hold this, one of our last hearings together. He has been a leader on this issue, as he has been on many 

other complicated management challenges our Nation faces. Again, 

I want to thank him for all of his work on these issues over the 

years, and I thank our entire panel for being here today. 

I would like to now call on newest Member, Senator Coons, for 

any remarks that he may have. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COONS 

Senator COONS. Thank you very much, Chairman Akaka, and my 

purpose today is to join you in this hearing, in part to continue the 

good work of Senator Kaufman of Delaware, in whose shoes I attempt to stand today. This is my first day on the job as a U.S. Senator. Thank you, Chairman Akaka, thank you, Senator Voinovich, 

for what from the testimony today has clearly been an effective and 

engaged job of oversight, and thank you to all the panel members 

today for demonstrating in response to both the identification of 

issues by the GAO and repeated and effective engagement by this 

group in a collaborative process that identified critical steps forward, set metrics, and then, in the course of several hearings and 

several years of difficult work, reduced what was a critical, longstanding backlog in a way that improved efficiency, reduced costs, 

and delivered an outcome that is important to the security of our 

Nation. 

I am glad to join you in today’s hearing and look forward to 

working with you in what time I have left on this Committee. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, thank you. You are certainly welcome, and 

I look forward to working with you. 

We will begin now with the questions. Ms. Farrell, last year, 

Senator Voinovich and I sent GAO and members of the PAC a letter asking GAO and the PAC to work together to address performance measures for quality of clearance investigations which have 

been suggested by GAO. 

My question to you is: Was GAO satisfied with the resulting response from the PAC regarding these measures? 

Ms. FARRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, GAO was satisfied 

with the result. There had been a great deal of collaboration that 

we witnessed among the players that you have already acknowledged here, and we have been pleased to see that collaboration conH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

13 

tinue even with the change in the administration almost 2 years 

ago. 

The metrics, the 15 metrics that resulted in the letter to you and 

Senator Voinovich, we have evaluated those against what we consider successful—indicators of successful performance measures. 

There are at least nine criteria that GAO has identified in prior 

work that we have used to measure performance measures against 

to see if they are showing success, and those consist of, for example, being quantifiable, having measurable goals, aligned with an 

agency’s goals, reliable, independent, free from bias so that an 

independent party can make the same determination using those 

performance measures, as well as interim goals with measures to 

show progress as the transformation is playing out. 

We found that most of the performance measures had some of 

the criteria as well as baselines and goals for 2010 and 2011. 

The PAC, once it decided that quality was a high priority, moved 

very quickly, I think, to develop these and put a plan in place with 

some guidelines that can be used as measurement. So we are very 

pleased with what the result was, sir. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for that response. 

General Clapper, I want to follow up with you regarding performance measures. Some elements in the Executive Branch, including 

the intelligence community, do their own investigations rather than 

using OPM. 

How will the quality measures apply to these elements? And does 

the PAC plan to standardize quality standards across all executive 

agencies? 

Mr. CLAPPER. Well, sir, it would be my view that whatever performance metrics we agree on for the community would apply 

across the board regardless of who does the investigation or how 

it is done. And I say this since I signed up to those standards in 

my last job, so it would be a little difficult for me to fall off that 

position, so absolutely. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Director Berry, DOD has initiated the Rapid Assessment of Incomplete Security Evaluations (RAISE), a tool to track and complete investigation files. This tool measures investigation completeness after OPM has delivered its investigation file. 

Does OPM have a system for ensuring the completeness of its 

own investigations? And how do you resolve investigations that 

customers identify as incomplete? 

Mr. BERRY. Thank you, Senator. It is great to be here with you 

again today on this important issue. 

The answer is yes, absolutely, we have in place such a system. 

Kathy Dillaman, who is my Associate Director, who manages this 

project for us on a day-to-day basis, has put in place, consistent 

with the Department of Defense’s systems and these measurements 

that we’ve worked out jointly with GAO, a couple of ways to sort 

of triple-check and have some backstops that we can know what we 

can rely upon. 

Most urgently, we put in place an immediate direct line ability 

for DOD to be in touch with sort of a fast call complaint issue so 

that Kathy can have at her—she knows exactly where shortfalls 

are happening, and so we can decide whether they are the result 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

14 

of factors that are beyond our control. For example we cannot resolve some cases if there is an ongoing criminal investigation or a 

court case. We know that is one—we are obviously not moving forward with that, but there are others that might be a trend indicator. And so one of the most important things we have is for 

Kathy to be able to carefully monitor through all of that feedback 

system so we can identify where there might be a weakness that 

we need to immediately address in our investigations. 

In addition, we are moving forward with upgrading our automated systems so that we can share information in an electronic 

format. And that is one we have made substantial progress to date 

on. We have a long way to go. We are probably—as I say, you have 

to balance costs to the customer to make sure that we can do this. 

We have eight components in our IT system, and all eight are 

being upgraded as we speak. And those will also greatly assist us 

in—as we pass this information back and forth, we are able to do 

that in a much quicker time frame, sir, so that we can get those 

complete cases, back and forth in such a way that the adjudication 

by the agency can be made off of a complete file. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

I would like to follow up with a question to Director Zients on 

this, and I would like to hear from you as well. Do you believe tools 

should be developed at other agencies that do not have the same 

tools? 

Mr. ZIENTS. Yes, although I am hesitant to say that they need 

to be developed, as we have developed good tools at DOD, at OPM, 

and what we should be doing is taking those tools and other best 

practices beyond technologies and transferring those to the smallervolume agencies so that we can get the same efficiencies and quality gains that we have achieved at DOD. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Senator Voinovich, your questions. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Senator Akaka. Again, thank 

you for holding this hearing. We have one more. 

When Senator Akaka and I met with the Joint Reform Team at 

GAO in the spring, I expressed concern about the lack of information regarding budget plans and funding needs for the reform effort. In the past, GAO has suggested that the Joint Reform Team 

provide Congress with ‘‘long-term financing requirements for security clearance reform.’’ With long-term funding requirements—and 

during last year’s hearing, Senator Akaka and I specifically asked 

for such information and expected to see it in the Security and 

Suitability Reform Strategic Framework. However, the framework 

States, ‘‘Resources from DOD and OPM are sufficient to enable implementation of the transformed process designed for the mainstream elements of the process.’’ 

Do you have the resources to continue to do the job that we have 

asked you to do? And, second, is this issue of continuing resolution 

and the omnibus bill or whatever we get, what impact is that having on your ability to do this work? 

So that is two questions. In your budgets currently do you have 

the money? In the budget that is proposed, is the money there for 

you to get the job done? And are you being thwarted right now in 

terms of some things you would like to do because of not being conH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

15 

fident as to when this budget is going to be passed, appropriations 

are passed? 

Ms. MCGRATH. So I can—— 

Mr. ZIENTS. Please. 

Ms. MCGRATH. Our position on the funding has not changed from 

what we provided the Department—between the Department and 

the Office of Personnel Management, we believe we have sufficient 

resources to sustain. 

I will indicate that the information technology that the Department is developing, primarily the DISS, the DISS Program, the Defense Information Security System (DISS), does have a Program 

Objective Memo (POM)–12 request that will ensure that we have 

sufficient development dollars. It has not yet been locked, but I do 

believe that we will have that. It was previously not funded in 12. 

Having said that, we are not impacted by the continuing resolution. The work we have in the budget for 2010 and 2011 is continuing. It is not a new start; therefore, we are not impacted specifically by the CR. 

And then from the long term, we also have sustainment dollars 

that are in the budget to ensure that we can sustain the programs. 

And as Mr. Zients mentioned earlier, many of the information technologies that we are developing within the Department are portable, if you will, to other organizations. We are ensuring that we 

have the proper contracting language so that these can be utilized 

by other Federal agencies so we are not developing new systems, 

that we are leveraging existing technologies. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Berry. 

Mr. BERRY. Senator, I would underscore what Beth is saying, especially from our information technology (IT) needs, which obviously the systems that we discussed we need to upgrade over the 

next period of time. We have been able to keep our rates—which 

is obviously what we charge the agencies for the investigations. We 

have not exceeded the cost of inflation, so we have been able to sort 

of keep our customers happy but build into that approach sufficient 

resources necessary to upgrade the technology as we move along. 

And so, for example, right now almost 70 percent of our fingerprints are done electronically. That has been a significant time 

saver for us, and we look forward—we are not going to be happy 

until that number continues to increase, but it is great and a great 

example of how we have been able to bring the technology forward. 

Right now, 98 percent of all the submissions are done electronically, so a lot of the speed which you have seen in these has been 

in the IT solutions that we have been able to bring online over time 

with this. And because we have been able to build a budget that 

provides for the upgrade of each of these eight components of that 

IT system, we believe we have the resources both now and in the 

future to stay on track with the objectives that we all share. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I think one of the really important things 

about this endeavor is that—General Clapper, you understand how 

important it is, and I think I would be interested—and you do not 

have to do it today, but I would really be interested in—you are 

making this effort, and I would like your—we are spending more 

money, but the issue is we are becoming a lot more efficient. And 

the impact that it is going to have, security clearance and having 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

16 

this move the way it is supposed to in terms of the warfighter and 

other people that—security and how important it is that we get 

this system to where it should be. And I think you are going to 

have to do a lot more of that because of the tight financial situation 

that you have. And I think that—I know you are all busy, but as 

much as you can do that and share that with Congress, I think the 

better off all of us are going to be. 

Now, Ms. Farrell, I congratulate you. You are working with the 

team. Obviously, you have a good interpersonal type of operation 

here. And I want it off the list. Do you think it is possible that— 

I think you put out your high-risk list in, what, February of next 

year? 

Ms. FARRELL. Maybe January. 

Senator VOINOVICH. There is a possibility that it could be? Could 

you list maybe the one or two things—let us say two things that 

you think really need to be addressed if that were to occur? 

Ms. FARRELL. Yes, sir. The Acting Comptroller General, soon-tobe Comptroller General, will make that announcement in January 

of next year, hopefully, and I believe the written statement does reflect a lot of the significant and noteworthy progress that DOD has 

made toward actually implementing actions that we are evaluating 

to make that high-risk determination. Sometimes we will take a 

program off of the high-risk list and we will keep monitoring it always, but sometimes we have to reapply that designation. Hopefully, it will not happen in this case if personnel security clearances 

are removed. But it has happened. The decennial census is an example of one that has been on and off, on and off. 

DOD has been very responsive, again, to our recommendations, 

and it is not just our recommendations that we look at. It is other 

solutions that they are putting in place regarding timeliness and 

quality. 

We have seen great progress with the timeliness and the use of 

IT that you have already discussed, and I think the main message 

today is the progress being made to develop metrics which can be 

used to measure the documentation. 

Senator VOINOVICH. And you all agree on the metrics? 

Ms. FARRELL. Yes, we do. We saw those before they were submitted to you, and we have—at that time we had not done a complete evaluation against our criteria, but we had a number of conversations to help facilitate the development of those metrics. 

We are looking—and I am not in a position to say it is coming 

off or staying on, but obviously there is progress, as you have 

noted. Whether it stays on or off, I do not think—we should not forget how much progress and how far DOD and the other agencies 

have come over the last 5 years. It is truly noteworthy. 

We will continue to monitor the implementation of the tools that 

I mentioned in my opening, the tools that are going to be used or 

are being used for investigations and adjudications. Those tools are 

not fully implemented. There is some more information that we 

want to work with DOD and OPM regarding those tools’ deployment as well as what is the process in place for continuous evaluation for the results of those tools. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

17 

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you think they have the budget to get the 

job done? They both said that they thought they did, but how do 

you feel about that? 

Ms. FARRELL. DOD does have a large budget. I think one of our 

concerns has been that as we are moving into more and more tightening of dollars, what is going to happen to that large budget, not 

only at DOD but at the implementation of some of these IT projects 

at the smaller agencies? We have heard concerns from agencies 

outside of DOD about how they will be able to keep pace with the 

technology and be responsive. 

We still believe that identifying long-term funding for all of the 

reform efforts would help, especially as the money becomes tighter 

and congressional decisionmakers such as yourself have to 

prioritize. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. 

Senator Coons, do you have any questions? 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Chairman Akaka. 

If I might, Ms. McGrath, you had spoken previously that the Department of Defense was working to achieve some cost savings 

through the streamlining of its processes. Have you, in fact, 

achieved some cost savings? I understand the necessary pressure 

for increased appropriations in order to implement some of these 

reform moves. But have you been able to realize cost savings in the 

adjudication process for security clearances? 

Ms. MCGRATH. Senator, thank you for the question. All along, 

this reform effort has taken an approach of one that puts policy, 

process, and information technology in the same conversation in 

addition to cost savings, performance management, and leadership 

engagement. And so all of those attributes must be present, I believe, in order to have an effective outcome. And I think what you 

have heard today is exactly that, and specific to the cost savings 

question, if you do not put the policy, process, and information 

technology as part of the answer, then I think you are falling short 

of the overall outcome. 

And so from specifically the electronic adjudications that the Department has implemented for clean secret cases, where you have 

a very clean case, it is coded that way, and the need for a human 

adjudicator to take a look at a very simple case was not necessary 

based upon business rules and data standards. We have taken that 

step using again, policy, process, and information technology. We 

processed last year over 73,000 cases utilizing this e-adjudication 

capability. And, again, before we launched on the information technology, we ensured we had the appropriate standards and business 

rules, and we also did a 100-percent audit for 6 months to ensure 

that we had the process right. And so with that, we certainly have 

saved dollars but, more importantly, increased productivity in the 

use of our professional adjudicators, put their time and attention 

on those cases that needed it more than those. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Might I chime in on cost? I think Beth is exactly 

right. We are getting better and better, both in terms of cost and 

quality. But I think if you really want to think about the cost here, 

it goes beyond the process to eliminating the backlog and going 

from 200 days down to 60 days, which allows us to get thousands, 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

18 

tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people more productive in protecting our national security interests. 

So I think we need to be cognizant of the cost, and we should 

be using information technology to drive costs down of the process 

and to improve the quality at the same time, which I think can be 

done. I think they are correlated. At the same time—and we at 

OMB will be very careful on this front—we do not want to be 

penny-wise and pound-foolish because the main productivity gain 

here and national security gain is by ensuring we never have a 

backlog again and by ensuring that we get it done within the 60 

days. 

Senator COONS. That is right. Thank you for that point. So, in 

other words, if you are saying a look at total cost is not just a per 

transaction cost, but the total benefit to the public, to the national 

security—— 

Mr. ZIENTS. And I think the latter is much more weighted. 

Senator COONS. In many ways. What are some of the reasons—— 

Mr. CLAPPER. Senator—oh, excuse me. I was going to, if I might 

just add to that. 

Senator COONS. Certainly. 

Mr. CLAPPER. One of the underlying features of the whole security clearance reform process is actually to reduce the need for investigations as a standard uniform requirement and do it on a selective, focused basis. So that in itself, I think, will over time—as 

we implement that feature will accrue great savings. 

At the same time, we are all concerned about forthcoming budget 

pressures, and I think it is clear, at least as far as the intelligence 

community is concerned, that we are going to become smaller and 

we are going to have a lot less reliance on contractors. So the demand here, even though we are going to have less funding, so the 

demand for investigations and clearances is also going to go down 

proportionally. 

I can attest, having spent some time in industry for about 6 

years in one of my sojourns back out of the government, to the 

huge impact this has on industry in the amount of lost time, which 

for a company is money, in waiting for clearances. So in a sense, 

there are opportunity costs there that I think are huge by virtue 

of implementing, fully implementing this process. 

Senator COONS. Having had that experience previously in private 

industry, I agree with you. 

What are some of the reasons that even today there might still 

be a lack of documentation about adjudication in these cases, Ms. 

McGrath? 

Ms. MCGRATH. Although it seems as if an adjudication should be 

an adjudication, it is not. And every adjudicative decision, what we 

talk about, we tend to commingle a hiring adjudicative decision and 

also then a clearance adjudicative decision, and then the different 

levels of adjudications that take place. So what decisions are you 

making? What information do you need? And how trained are you 

and how much risk does a particular case have with it based upon 

the clearance level that you are granting? A secret case would have 

less risk than a top secret case, or a moderate-risk public trust poH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

19 

sition certainly is a lesser risk than a high-risk public trust position. 

So I go through that level of detail to make my point that adjudication is not exactly the same as you go through. Therefore, we 

rely on many things to ensure that the right adjudicative decision 

is made. At the end of the day, that is what we are looking for. 

We want appropriately trained adjudicators having the right information to make the right decision. And so depending on the case, 

that information may or may not be slightly different. If the national standards indicate that you must look at all, prior history of 

10 employment organizations and you get 9 of 10, technically that 

might be an incomplete investigative package. But if it is 9 of 10 

and you have a seasoned investigator, you can make that decision. 

So the risk really is, I am going to say, somewhat on a case-bycase basis, recognizing that we want to drive standards as much 

as we possibly can, ensure that the different types of investigations 

or clearances, be it on the hiring side or the clearance side, build 

upon each other so that the adjudicator has all the information he 

or she needs to make the appropriate adjudicative decision. 

Senator COONS. Thank you for your responses. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your questions, Senator Coons. 

Director Berry, I understand that OPM has been working on 

transforming its investigation IT systems known as EPIC. The E– 

Gov Office has ranked this investment as a 4 out of 10, indicating 

poor performance related to cost and schedule. Your Chief Information Officer (CIO) describes the project as in a ‘‘mixed life cycle.’’ 

Would you please update us on the status of EPIC, the anticipated costs, and when could we expect to see a new IT infrastructure? 

Mr. BERRY. Yes, Senator, if it is OK, we will get you the specifics 

on the costs for the record. What we have, sir, is a system that is 

not sort of one monolith. It is a system that has eight components 

to it, and we are working on all eight in terms of upgrading them. 

Right now, we have a game plan that will provide for the updating of them within our cost structure to the agencies, staying within budget, over the next 3 years. And so we feel we are on schedule 

for that, and we are doing—we are happy with where we are at the 

time, recognizing we need to continue on with this and will not be 

happy until all of them are where we need them to be. 

But just to give you an example, sir, of one of the most important 

components—and I think it is one of the ones that also goes to the 

efficiency Senator Coons was discussing. We have a central 

verification system that allows us to automate the file, essentially 

the investigative history, so the adjudicator can see exactly where 

we are and what pieces may be missing. 

Right now, there are over 258,000 active cases on this system 

that is linked in what has been, I think, a major step forward with 

DOD’s Joint Personnel Adjudication System. And so there are potentially over 3,500 people around the world who are adjudicating 

these issues and need to call up a case to see and, make sure they 

can make an appropriate judgment. And right now, because we 

have been able to integrate those systems, they can now do that, 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

20 

and that has been one of the leaders in terms of increasing our 

time and accuracy. 

We continue to move forward on all of these. Each of these components—for example, one of the systems we talked about is electronic fingerprints. That is one of the eight sub-units, if you will, 

getting that data. Getting background checks from State and local 

law enforcement agencies has been one that has been a major step 

forward. That used to take weeks. It is now done in 3 to 4 days. 

And it is because we have been able to upgrade that system and 

integrate it with 50 different State systems across the country. 

So you can see, as each one of these components of those eight 

components—and we for the record can break down each of the 

eight for you. But I feel we are making good progress. It is bearing 

fruit. The fruit is being borne in the numbers that we are reaching. 

And we can do this within the budget that we discussed, that you 

mentioned, Senator Voinovich. And anytime that we have a savings, the savings is folded into the technology. And then our customer, DOD, obviously the largest, has agreed with us on that, put 

that money into those IT systems so that we can continue the forward progress. And so I think we are on the right track, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you so much for that response. 

Ms. McGrath, DOD also has been in the process of replacing its 

current clearance IT system known as Joint Personnel Adjudication 

System (JPAS) with a new system knows as the Defense Information System for Security. 

What is the status of this system, its funding, and what capabilities will DOD have after it is implemented? 

Ms. MCGRATH. JPAS is currently scheduled for sunset or retirement in mid-2013. That includes a 6-month parallel processing if 

we need it. So our plan is to deploy the Defense Information System for Security in total by the end of 2012, and we will run JPAS 

in parallel for 6 months. So we will cut over essentially at the end 

of 2012. It, too, is a family of systems. I do not think it has quite 

eight parts to it, but it has the access to the information, documentation of adjudicative decisions that have been made. We are 

including the Case Adjudication Tracking System (CATS), in the 

family of systems so that you have somewhat of an end-to-end process within the DISS program. We are leveraging the information 

technology, deploying it across the Department, so from a low side, 

an unclassified perspective, we have singled in on a single solution 

for all of our central adjudication facilities, both in IT and then the 

policy and process, so that it acts as if it is a single unit. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Director Zients, all of OMB’s reform team partners—Office of the 

Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), OPM, and DOD—are updating various components of their respective clearance IT systems. 

The 2004 Intelligence Reform Act called for a single clearance 

verification database which, as I understand it, has not been fully 

implemented. I would like to hear from you, as head of the PAC 

and the Director for Management at OMB, what is being done to 

ensure that IT investments are coordinated across the clearance 

community and that systems work together. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

21 

Mr. ZIENTS. On the actual clearinghouse, or having one database, 

I think we have effectively integrated, as Beth and John talked 

about, their major databases, and that coupled with scattered castles is the IC community, the intelligence community, has accomplished the same goal or outcome that we were looking for in 

IRTPA. 

So I think as to a single clearinghouse, while we have not 

merged all the databases by putting in front-end search capabilities, we have achieved in a very cost-effective way while protecting 

national security interests the same outcome that we were looking 

for. 

Overall, I think that IT here in the security clearance process, 

as is true across government, offers the promise to increase efficiency, timeliness in this case, and quality all at once if indeed we 

manage these projects well. So it is a major push at OMB working 

with the E-Gov Office and our Federal CIO, Vivek Kundra, to make 

sure that projects are appropriately scoped, that we are using developed software and avoiding proprietary development where appropriate, and holding these projects to clear milestones and 

deliverables along the way. Too often these projects historically 

have had years before any deliverable was planned or executed 

upon. We are bringing all that forward. That basic philosophy we 

are applying, as you heard in Beth’s and John’s statements, to the 

IT work that we are doing for security clearance, which I think is 

going well, holds a lot of promise for further efficiencies and quality 

improvements. And as I stated earlier, we are going to take what 

is working at the major agencies and transfer that across government. 

Ms. MCGRATH. Sir, if I might add, through the oversight of the 

Performance Accountability Council, we have asked each of the 

Federal agencies, in addition to the ones that are here, to bring forward their implementation plans for clearance reform and to identify budgets that are required for implementation, information 

technology, and to make available, as I previously mentioned, preexisting or existing information technology like we are deploying at 

the Department. 

The Department of Energy has taken us up on that offer to date, 

and there are others that are interested, so that we are not creating duplicative information technology capability across the Federal space; rather, we are leveraging existing capability. And it is 

through the oversight of the PAC that we are achieving that. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Berry. 

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I would just add that I think what 

was also an item of foresight of the Committee when you created 

this program was conferring on us the revolving fund authority 

that allows us to essentially operate very much like a business 

where we charge the customer for the product and have to meet 

schedules, meet budgets, etc. And that revolving fund authority is 

why, Senator, I think, when we answer your question of do we 

have the resources necessary to do the IT upgrade, at least from 

our component, our piece of this, we do because—— 

Senator VOINOVICH. You charge them. 

Mr. BERRY. You have given us the ability to recoup that. But as 

I say, we have never exceeded the cost of inflation. So we are tryH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

22 

ing to be careful with that authority that you allow us working 

with our customer. 

Senator AKAKA. Director Berry, as the SF–86 form used for applying for a clearance was recently updated. Director Zients said in 

his statement that the electronic form of the new SF–86 will be released soon. 

What new capabilities will this new electronic form have over the 

current e-QIP system? And why is the new electronic form only 

now being deployed? 

Mr. BERRY. Sir, we have had the form. It has been deployed. 

What we are doing is updating it with the changes that we have 

made to the form that the team has worked out. And we are on 

schedule to have those changes online by the end of the year, in 

December. And so we are on schedule and on budget with that update. 

So it is really a refresher, sir, of an electronic form, but we have 

made changes to it regarding—through the team here. 

Ms. MCGRATH. If I could add, the most significant enhancement—there are two—to the Standard Form 86, the form itself was 

approved back in the March time frame, and the deployment that 

Director Berry is mentioning is the deployment of that form 

through the e-QIP solution, which is on schedule for implementation in December of this year. 

The two main attributes of this particular form are the branching questions. If you will recall, back in the 2007 time frame when 

we looked at the end-to-end process, part of what would make the 

process better than what we do today is collecting more information earlier in the process. And the applicant is the most productive 

source of information, so asking those questions as part of the application process was felt by everybody that was the best way to 

initially achieve the collection of that information. So we revised 

the form to include branching questions, much like Quicken does, 

if you are familiar with that software tool. If you answer one way 

for something, it takes you down a series of questions, and that is 

what the electronic form would do. 

The other piece is we revised the consent piece. If you will also 

recall, part of the reform process looks and asks for at the end of 

the process more of a continuous evaluation to manage the cleared 

population. In order to do that, we had to change the consent form, 

the existing consent form on the SF–86. 

So those are the two main changes that are being made, and, 

again, the information technology, the e-QIP upgrade is on schedule for deployment in December. 

Mr. BERRY. And, Mr. Chairman, as you can imagine, what Beth 

just described takes a lot of programming, and there are over 100— 

there are hundreds of screens through this branching that have to 

be developed and programmed to implement, which is why it has 

taken from March until the end of this year to get this done. And 

we have to test it, obviously, to make sure it works and is rigorous. 

But right now I am told we are on schedule with it, and it is looking good. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

23 

I was just thinking about all of this information that you are able 

to get today, and for a long time, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been trying to get like four areas of information. 

We were trying to get the States to have better driver’s licenses to 

get information, and one of the reasons why we have not been able 

to really crack down on them is because the information that they 

need is not available to them. And I was just thinking, through 

what you are all doing here, its applicability to perhaps dealing 

with their problem so that we can do a better job on the State level 

in terms of these licenses that are being granted to individuals. 

That is the big-picture stuff for your shop. 

The other thing is there is reciprocity. It is still a problem. Ms. 

Farrell, do you think we are making—what is the stumbling block 

there? Because I still get complaints from folks about the reciprocity, and that is a big deal because that—if somebody moves 

from one agency to another agency and they just sit there and cannot do things until they—even in my own office, people have come 

to work for me; they have clearances, and they have to go through 

the whole thing all over again in order to come into a meeting with 

me. 

Ms. FARRELL. Senator, I believe everyone has a story, as you are 

conveying, about a neighbor or a friend or a family member that 

has had a security clearance but for some reason it does not transfer when they go to another agency. We have noted that perhaps 

the quality of the investigations or adjudications could be an underlying cause for reciprocity when it not working the way the law intended. 

We do have work ongoing that is looking at reciprocity. That 

work should be completed by the end of this year. Prior to that 

work, there had not been a GAO study or another study that we 

are familiar with that actually gave data on is reciprocity a problem or not. What is the extent to which it is a problem? 

Senator VOINOVICH. The thing is that part of the problem that 

we have had is that some agencies just refuse to do it. In other 

words, they say, ‘‘Your background stuff is not good enough for us.’’ 

And I think, General Clapper, or somebody needs to just say to 

them, ‘‘Look, we have decided that if they have this kind of clearance, it ought to be acceptable in your shop.’’ 

Ms. FARRELL. True, and I think my colleagues will elaborate that 

sometimes agencies are confusing what is needed for suitability 

clearance with the personnel security clearance, and that raises another set of issues. But still, whether we are talking about suitability or clearances, the granting of a clearance to an individual 

we do not really know at this time the extent to which reciprocity 

is an issue or if the agencies are actually refusing. We have work 

that is ongoing, and we have had conversations with agencies outside of DOD about their views, and I will say that their intent is 

to honor the reciprocity. 

Mr. CLAPPER. Senator, as a security executive agent, I can say 

that we have issued reciprocity rules, and, of course, the reporting 

we get back from security managers is that they support and follow 

them. And, of course, this is an area that we will always need to 

pursue improvements to. And as you have heard and you have experienced yourself, reciprocity is something that lends itself to 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

24 

anecdotes. And so one of the things we want to try to do here is 

to quantify some of these anecdotes, and one of the things we are 

thinking about doing is establishing a 1–800 line sort of thing so 

if people have reciprocity complaints, we will have a way to gather 

some actual empirical data on this and just see what the extent of 

the problem is. 

I would also point out that within the intelligence community oftentimes there are degrees of access, so for special access programs, 

if someone’s initial background investigation is, say, 4 years old 

and under the current system it is every 5, a Special Emphasis 

Program (SEP) program manager is authorized—and this pertains 

both in DOD and the rest of the IC—to do an additional check, to 

do a quick bring-up on that initial investigation. Now, hopefully, 

when we get into the continuous evaluation program, some of that 

will be attenuated. But this, again, I would say is a case where it 

is an area that lends itself to anecdotes, and we want to try to 

quantify those anecdotes to see what the actual extent of the problem is. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I would like to say, again, thank you very, 

very much for the good work that you have done. It has been an 

inspiration to me to see the progress that you have made and, 

again, the teamwork that is obvious here at the table. I would also 

like the people that are sitting behind you to—I want to let you 

know how much I appreciate the work that you all do. At this stage 

in my life, I am looking around about, how do you get where you 

are and what can you accomplish. And I have found that all I am 

is a reflection of some wonderful people around me that have made 

a difference for me. And so I want to say I know they are sitting 

there at the table, but I know darn well that what they have been 

able to do would not have been able to happen without the great 

teamwork that you have and the support that all of you give them. 

And I just want you to know how grateful I am to you for what 

you are doing 

Senator Akaka, again, thank you for this hearing, and, Ms. 

Farrell, I hope I am back next year. I will even come back from 

Florida, where I expect to be. [Laughter.] 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses for appearing today. As we 

have heard and as we have seen, great, great progress has been 

made on this issue, and I want to thank the panelists here. You 

have certainly been great leaders in this. Statistics tell us that tremendous progress has been made already through your efforts, and 

I really want to thank you for doing that. And this Subcommittee 

will continue its strong oversight in the coming Congress. 

Again, I want to thank my very good brother and friend Senator 

Voinovich for his attention and leadership on this issue. In 2005, 

he chaired the first in this series of hearings. As you can see, this 

continued when I became Chairman, and we have worked so well 

together in a bipartisan manner, and I would say accomplished so 

much doing it, and have enjoyed it as well. And I look upon him 

as a champion in human capital, and this will, of course, be part 

of the legacy of his life. And I hope your successor will bring the 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

25 

same dedication and energy to all of the high-risk areas and improving government management. 

Senator VOINOVICH. He would be a good one, if we can convince 

him. He was Director of the Office of Budget and Management, so 

he has a pretty good idea of how the system works. 

Senator AKAKA. Yes. Well, this has been a great experience for 

me and for all of us and for the U.S. Senate as well. And I again 

want to say thank you to the Committee Members, this Subcommittee, and I want to say thanks to our staff. Our staff has 

done a tremendous job here on either side of the aisle, and I want 

to say thank you so much. We have made great progress as a Subcommittee. 

The record of the hearing will be open for 2 weeks for additional 

statements or questions other Members may have pertaining to the 

hearing. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(27) 

A P P E N D I X 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.001
28 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.002
29 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.003
30 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.004
31 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.005
32 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.006
33 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.007
34 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.008
35 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.009
36 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.010
37 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.011
38 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.012
39 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.013
40 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.014
41 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.015
42 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.016
43 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.017
44 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.018
45 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.019
46 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.020
47 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.021
48 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.022
49 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.023
50 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.024
51 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.025
52 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.026
53 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.027
54 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.028
55 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.029
56 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.030
57 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.031
58 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.032
59 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.033
60 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.034
61 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.035
62 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.036
63 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.037
64 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.038
65 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.039
66 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.040
67 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.041
68 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.042
69 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.043
70 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.044
71 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.045
72 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.046
73 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.047
74 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.048
75 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.049
76 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.050
77 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.051
78 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.052
79 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.053
80 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.054
81 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.055
82 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.056
83 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.057
84 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.058
85 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.059
86 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.060
87 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.061
88 

Æ 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


63866.062