```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 161 (Friday, October 3, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2220-E2221]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

INTRODUCTION OF THE SECURITY CLEARANCE OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. ANNA G. ESHOO

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 3, 2008

  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, today I'm proud to introduce the Security 
Clearance Oversight and Accountability Act and I'm pleased that the 
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Intelligence Community Management 
of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Mr. Issa, has 
joined me as a co-sponsor of this legislation. We have spent this 
Congress conducting oversight of the security clearance process.
  Security clearances are determinations that a person is trusted to 
have access to our nation's secrets. They are the gateway to serving 
our nation in national security, homeland security, and many foreign 
policy positions. In recent decades, the number of federal government 
employees and contractors requiring clearances expanded. This was 
especially true after the tragic attacks on September 11, 2001. We also 
realized the importance of sharing information and promoting 
collaboration across government agencies.
  Sadly, our security clearance system was still cumbersome and 
outdated. We were using a cold-war system in the Internet age, where 
the process was primarily paper-based, and relied on investigators 
going door-to-door to talk to neighbors. It did not take advantage of 
the vast stores of data collected on people on line to verify their 
trustworthiness and it did not use electronic tools to speed the 
process.
  In 2004, Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act, which

[[Page E2221]]

contained many provisions to improve the security clearance process. 
The law called for uniform policies and unity of responsibility for 
security clearances across the Federal Government. It required that 
security clearances issued by one agency be accepted by all agencies. 
To make that possible, it called for an integrated data base and for 
the evaluation of available information technologies. Finally, it set 
forth specific targets for the length of time that security clearance 
processes should take, and required annual progress reports.
  During this Congress, our subcommittee has undertaken a thorough 
review of the process. We had round-table meetings with representatives 
of industry and with representatives of the Intelligence Community 
agencies. We carefully reviewed all reports submitted in response to 
the Intelligence Reform Act as well as GAO reports on security 
clearance reform in the Department of Defense. We held a series of open 
hearings with Administration witnesses and GAO to discuss 
accomplishments and areas where progress was lacking.
  We found that though the Act has resulted in significant improvements 
in the clearance timelines, significant work remains to be done. The 
law requires full reciprocity of clearance investigations and 
adjudications, but provides no tools for measuring the implementation 
and success of such measures. The clearance data as it is reported to 
Congress does not provide adequate insight into the improvements that 
have been made. Aggregated data covers up poor performance by averaging 
it with excellent performance.
  We provided the results of our oversight in an ICM Subcommittee 
Report which will be filed with the House. I'm pleased that all members 
of the Subcommittee were supportive of the Report, and it was reported 
out of committee on a unanimous voice vote.
  This provision is designed to remedy the shortcomings we discovered 
in our report. It takes a new approach to reform, by requiring agencies 
to report to Congress annually on certain key metrics related to the 
security clearance process. These metrics would enable Congress and 
HPSCI to perform effective oversight over the security clearance 
process, would allow both branches to track improvements from year to 
year, and would allow agencies to judge the effectiveness of each 
other's security clearance process, improving. confidence in the 
system. In a few areas where adequate metrics have not been developed, 
the Administration is required to propose metrics to Congress.
  I hope that we will move this legislation as soon as possible, given 
the strong bipartisan support that it enjoys. It will improve our 
insight into the security clearance process, and by doing so, improve 
the process itself.
  The security clearance process is key to our national security 
establishment and we must make sure that it works as efficiently as 
possible. An effective security clearance system keeps out those who 
pose a security risk, while quickly identifying those who are 
trustworthy to work in the system. For too long it has been a troubled 
system and I'm hopeful that it is getting back on track and this 
legislation would allow us to know for sure.

                          ____________________
```