PDF版本

S. HRG。110-636安全检查的改革：未来之路=======================================================================监督政府管理，联邦劳动力，和哥伦比亚小组委员会的前区HEARING在国土安全委员会和政府事务美国参议院第一○第十届大会的第二届会议__________ 2008年5月22日通过__________可http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html用于印刷国土安全委员会使用的and Governmental Affairs ---------- U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 47-095 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (866) 512-1800 end_of_the_skype_highlighting; DC area (202) 512-1800 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (202) 512-1800 end_of_the_skype_highlighting Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana TOM COBURN, Oklahoma BARACK OBAMA, Illinois PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN WARNER, Virginia JON TESTER, Montana JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman CARL LEVIN, Michigan GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware TED STEVENS, Alaska MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas TOM COBURN, Oklahoma MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN WARNER, Virginia Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director Evan W. Cash, Professional Staff Member Jennifer A. Hemingway, Minority Staff Director Tara L. Shaw, Minority Counsel Jessica Nagasako, Chief Clerk C O N T E N T S ------ Opening statements: Page Senator Akaka................................................ 1 Senator Voinovich............................................ 2 WITNESSES Thursday, May 22, 2008 Brenda S. Farrell, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office.......................... 6 Hon. Clay Johnson, III, Deputy Director for Management, U.S. Office of Management and Budget................................ 7 Elizabeth McGrath, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Business Transformation, U.S. Department of Defense........ 9 John P. Fitzpatrick, Director, Special Security Center, Office of the Director of National Intelligence.......................... 10 Kathy L. Dillaman, Associate Director, Federal Investigative Services Division, U.S. Office of Personnel Management......... 12 Alphabetical List of Witnesses Dillaman, Kathy L.: Testimony.................................................... 12 Prepared statement........................................... 55 Farrell, Brenda S.: Testimony.................................................... 6 Prepared statement........................................... 33 Fitzpatrick, John P.: Testimony.................................................... 10 Joint prepared statement with Ms. McGrath.................... 49 Johnson, Hon. Clay III: Testimony.................................................... 7 Prepared statement........................................... 48 McGrath, Elizabeth: Testimony.................................................... 9 Joint prepared statement with Mr. Fitzpatrick................ 49 APPENDIX Background....................................................... 59 Questions and Responses for the Record from: Ms. Farrell.................................................. 64 Mr. Johnson.................................................. 67 Ms. McGrath.................................................. 73 Mr. Fitzpatrick with an attachment........................... 78 Ms. Dillaman................................................. 93 SECURITY CLEARANCE REFORM: THE WAY FORWARD ---------- THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008 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 2:37 p.m., in Room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. Present: Senators Akaka and Voinovich. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA Senator Akaka. Good afternoon, everyone. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia is called to order. This is our fifth hearing on security clearance reform and testifies to the difficulty of solving this important problem. Three years ago, Senator Voinovich and I began this series after the Department of Defense's personnel security clearance program was placed on the Government Accountability Office's high-risk list. Since that time, we have uncovered several systemic problems which demonstrate that the current security clearance process is outdated and needs fundamental reform. After last year's hearing, the Administration took steps to begin that reform. All of the Federal Government stakeholders in security clearances from the military, intelligence, and civilian communities came together, forming what we now know as the Joint Security and Suitability Reform Team, which is represented here today by many members of our panel. The team crafted a plan to finally bring the security clearance process into the 21st Century. I look forward to hearing more about this plan and how these reforms will move forward. I want to applaud the hard work that has been put in over the past year to reduce the clearance backlogs and speed up processing. The Office of Personnel Management, who is in charge of most investigations, has made a huge investment in manpower to attack the backlog. The backlog finally seems to be under control and waiting times have come down. However, I still think that the processes and technology now in use do not allow for very much more improvement. There is far too much manual activity going on in the clearance process today. Literally caves full of hundreds of thousands of file folders along with a dozen computer programs bolted together make up the backbone of the investigation process at OPM. Though some may consider this system the Cadillac of IT solutions, unfortunately, it is a 25-year-old model, probably suited for a car museum. More of the security clearance process should be automated and electronic. That data must then be portable so that it can be efficiently sent to agencies for adjudication. The current process of shipping or printing off investigation files to adjudicators rather than sending data to agencies is very burdensome. The information must also be easily accessible for reinvestigations and readjudications. Reforming clearances is a national security issue and increasingly a fiscal issue. Delays in the clearance process, especially for ``Top Secret'' clearances, cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Cleared individuals are in such high demand that they are paid inflated signing bonuses or given expensive cars just to work for a contracting firm hired to support Federal agencies. Those costs are eventually borne by the Federal Government in the form of more expensive contracts. More importantly, however, getting people cleared is essential for national security. Rightly or not, it is a fact that the government relies on contractors to support critical national security functions, from the tanker drivers in Iraq to the intelligence analysts here at home. Whether an individual works for the Federal Government or works as a contractor, it is essential that we can fill positions that support our national security. I have great hope that what has been outlined by the Joint Security and Suitability Reform Team are all steps in the right direction. Their recommendations go to what we have been pushing for over the course of these hearings. I will be interested in what GAO has to say about the report, as they are the ones that initially placed this issue on the high-risk list. However, I note that the report is still short on much detail. I will be asking for some of those details today, and as recommendations are implemented over time, I will continue to ask those questions. I am pleased that in looking at our panel, who will all play a role in implementing these reforms, that most are career civil servants who will still be here after January 20. I can assure you that this Subcommittee will still be here after January and that we will make sure that the progress made does not get lost in the shuffle of transitioning to a new Administration. I now call on Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Voinovich. I appreciate your continued dedication to this issue and look forward to continuing to work with you on moving this along. Senator Voinovich. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Akaka. I first of all want to say that one of the joys of being on this Subcommittee with you is that the two of us have shared the same agenda for a long period of time. There were some who were concerned that perhaps after the leadership change and I became Ranking and you became Chairman that some of the things that we worked on might disappear, but the fact of the matter is that you have stayed on top of them and have been very aggressive and hopefully the hard work that we do will bear some fruition. While I commend the Joint Security and Suitability Reform Team for producing its April 30 reform document, I do have a hard time understanding why it took the Federal Government 4 years to get to this point, a 10-page outline on how to transform our current process, and I am hopeful that this effort will find result and sustained reform. Since 2004, we have been attempting to bring a performance- based approach to how government manages access to sensitive national security information. In June 2005, following our first hearing on this matter after the Department of Defense security clearance process was added to the GAO's 2005 High- Risk List, I believed significant progress could be made in the short-term and this management challenge would be removed from GAO's 2007 High-Risk List. At the rate we are going, I am afraid the process will remain on the list in 2009. Thus far, the most meaningful reform effort appears to be the hiring of additional investigative staff by OPM to support a cumbersome process reliant on antiquated computer systems. More investigative staff has helped. For our first hearing on this matter in June 2005, GAO estimated a backlog of about 270,000 clearance investigations for DOD alone. In February 2008, OPM has reduced that number to about 42,000 pending investigations over 180 days old for all agencies it conducts investigations for. However, additional reforms are needed, including the use of 21st Century technology, as Senator Akaka made reference to. OPM highlights its success in transferring virtual files among agencies, but those files are printed prior to adjudication. The automated system, which is essentially a computerized fax machine that does not allow for online manipulation of case files, isn't really the type of system I envisioned when Senator Akaka and I began working on this management challenge. Senator Akaka and I held hearings earlier this month to examine the Federal Government's outdated hiring process. At that hearing, witnesses tried to tout the ability of individuals to apply for Federal jobs using an online process, but many of those individuals, after wading through the Federal Government's hiring process and receiving a job offer, are being told that they have to apply on paper for a security clearance and that process could take months. As Senator Akaka and I discussed at that hearing, Generation X and Y job seekers get frustrated with the lack of response from our agencies when applying for jobs. Imagine their level of frustration when they are told that clearances for such jobs could take months, reinforcing their impression of an inflexible bureaucracy. The delay in clearing individuals simply adds to the overall hiring delay and gives the wrong impression of those seeking to work for the Federal Government. We need to create a seamless hiring and clearing process. Until we do, our human capital crisis will be exacerbated. The Federal Government is trying to find the best and brightest people in an increasingly competitive era when we are losing high-skilled potential employees to a private sector that offers higher salaries and better benefits. This is a national problem. The government is competing now with the rest of the world and in this country with the private sector big time because of the baby boomer retirement. We need to move expeditiously to hire individuals with the skill sets we need, but even when we find qualified individuals who are willing to be public servants, we subject them to a cumbersome hiring process and outdated security clearance system. It is no wonder that we lose qualified potential employees. The February 2008 report by OMB and the Security Clearance Oversight Group identified several obstacles which impede the current security process. First, agencies had an April 2006 deadline to transmit all their security clearance applications to OPM electronically. After failing to meet the deadline, the 2007 Security Clearance Oversight Group Report indicated that all agencies had plans in place to transmit 100 percent of their applications electronically in fiscal year 2007. However, the 2008 report shows we failed to meet this goal, meeting 83 percent compliance government-wide. The Department of Defense bears most of the burden for this failure. For the first quarter of fiscal year 2008, it submitted only 77 percent of its applications electronically to OPM. Electronic transmission of applications can cut weeks out of the investigation process and agencies need to fully utilize this tool. I was also disheartened to see that the issue of security clearance reciprocity seems to be getting less and less attention, when we are going into a new Administration. I expect some of the people that work for this Administration may work for the other Administration and take on some new security responsibilities, but reciprocity was not listed as a priority challenge in the February 2008 report. The word ``reciprocity'' appears only five times in that April 30 reform outline, and that outline makes no real recommendations on how we are going to achieve reciprocity. Gordon England has a great story about how often he had to get security clearances as he moved from one agency to another agency. Reciprocity is still a problem. It is a problem, and I think that we need to address that. The other thing that the February 2008 report highlighted is a new shortcoming in our current piecemeal approach to security clearance reform. Completing investigations in a more timely manner has simply shifted the security backlog from the investigation to the adjudication phase. At the time of that report, DOD had more than 76,000 adjudications that were over 45 days old. I am anxious to hear how our witnesses intend to deal with that problem. And last, the Security Clearance Oversight Group's February 2008 report shows that our clearance system is not utilizing readily available technology. As important as technological growth has been in the last century, it is likely to be even more important in the coming years. However, making full use of new capabilities will only be possible in a system that values the need for investment in new technology over adding band-aids to antiquated systems, such as PIPS. Technology provides us the opportunity to expedite the security clearance process while minimizing time, cost, and effort. Automation, as described in some of the testimony today, does not mean the ability to e-mail a PDF file. It means using a paperless system at each step to process and allow for continuous reinvestigation based on risk. I think we have to address all of these issues and find a way to achieve meaningful and lasting reform of the current security clearance process. I think failure to do so is going to cost us in many ways. Senator Akaka, I think you know that it costs the taxpayers $684 per day in lost salary and benefits because of the delays on these cases. Over 208 days' failure to complete a ``secret'' clearance for one person costs more than $140,000, almost three times the 2006 median U.S. household income of $48,200. I have a lot more here and I am taking the witnesses' time, so I am just going to wrap it up and say I had really hoped that this would be off the high-risk list and it is not. It is very frustrating that after all this time and all this effort that we still have major problems issuing timely security clearance. I am glad to know that so many of you are going to be around, and as Senator Akaka has indicated, we are going to continue to monitor this process so that we can have a big celebration when this goes off the high-risk list. Thank you. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. You have been a great champion in human capital and we will continue to pursue this. It is my pleasure now to welcome our witnesses here today: Brenda Farrell, Director of Defense Capabilities and Management for the Government Accountability Office; welcome back to the Hon. Clay Johnson, Deputy Director for Management for the Office of Management and Budget; Elizabeth McGrath, Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Business Transformation at the Department of Defense; John Fitzpatrick, Director of the Special Security Center for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; and welcoming back Kathy Dillaman, Associate Director of Investigations for the Office of Personnel Management, Federal Investigative Services Division. It is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear in our witnesses. Will you please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give to this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? Ms. Farrell. I do. Mr. Johnson. I do. Ms. McGrath. I do. Mr. Fitzpatrick. I do. Ms. Dillaman. I do. Senator Akaka. Thank you. Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Although statements are limited to 5 minutes, I want all of our witnesses to know that their entire statement will be included in the record. Ms. Farrell, will you please proceed with your statement. TESTIMONY OF BRENDA S. FARRELL,\1\ DIRECTOR, DEFENSE CAPABILITIES AND MANAGEMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE Ms. Farrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Senator Voinovich, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss reforming the Federal Government's personnel security clearance process. My remarks today are based on GAO's numerous reports that give us a historical view of key factors that should be considered in clearance reform. Our reviews have identified delays and other impediments in DOD's program, which represents 80 percent of the Federal Government's clearances. These longstanding delays resulted in our adding DOD's clearance program to our high-risk list in January 2005, as you noted. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Farrell appears in the Appendix on page 33. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the past few years, several positive changes have been made to the security clearance process because of increased Congressional oversight, such as a number of clearance-related hearings that this Subcommittee has held, recommendations from our body of work, and new legislative and executive requirements, most notable the passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. One important change is the formation of the Interagency Team, of which members of that team are present on the panel today. This team was established to develop a reform clearance process that would be applicable not only to DOD, but across the Federal Government, including the intelligence community. As directed by the President, the Joint Reform Team submitted its proposed design for the reform effort on April 30, 2008. As the Joint Team moves forward, we encourage them to consider the four factors highlighted in my statement today. Two of the four key factors in my written statement essential to the Joint Reform Team achieving positive outcomes, such as greater security clearance reciprocity, involve, one, incorporating quality control steps, and two, establishing metrics for assessing all aspects of the process. First, government agencies have paid little attention to quality, despite GAO's repeated suggestions to place more emphasis on it. For example, the government has documented quality with a single metric on only one of the six phases of the clearance process by using the percentage of investigative reports returned for insufficiency during the adjudicative phase. Further, GAO has identified this metric as being inadequate by itself. Prior GAO work examined a different aspect of quality, the completeness of the documentation in investigative and adjudicative reports. We found that OPM provided incomplete investigative reports to DOD adjudicators, which the adjudicators then used to determine top secret eligibility. Almost all, 47 of 50, of the sampled investigative reports we reviewed were incomplete based on requirements in the Federal investigative standards. In addition, DOD adjudicators granted clearance eligibility without requesting additional information for any of the incomplete investigative reports and did not document that they considered some adjudicative guidelines when adverse information was present in some reports. Further, our October 2007 report documented the reluctance of some agencies, particularly DHS and FBI, to accept clearances used by other agencies. To achieve greater reciprocity, clearance-granting agencies need to have confidence in the quality of the clearance process. The second key factor I wish to discuss is establishing metrics for assessing all aspects of the clearance process. Many efforts to monitor the clearance process emphasize measuring timeliness, but additional metrics could provide a fuller picture of the process. GAO reports, as well as Inspector General reports, have highlighted a variety of metrics that have been used to examine clearance programs, such as completeness of investigative and adjudicative reports, investigators' training, staff and customers' perceptions, and the adequacy of internal controls. Including these and other types of metrics could add value in monitoring clearance processes and provide better information to allow greater Congressional oversight. In summary, the current Joint Reform Team to develop a new government-wide security clearance process represents a positive step to address past impediments and manage security reform efforts. However, past experience has shown that Congress has every reason to remain vigilant. Much remains to be done and GAO stands ready to assist the Congress. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening statement. I will be happy to take questions when the members are ready. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Ms. Farrell. Now we will hear from Director Johnson. TESTIMONY OF HON. CLAY JOHNSON III,\1\ DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT, U.S. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, Senator Voinovich, thank you very much for having me. A couple of comments. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 48. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- One, the intelligence bill in December 2004 called for security clearance reform and the issue to be addressed in this reform was timeliness, and that has been our focus of this reform effort, was to improve timeliness. In 2005, it took approximately 162 days to make a security clearance determination for all clearances, the fastest 80 percent of all clearances. Today, it takes 112 days. Our most recent time, it takes 112 days. The goal as defined by the intelligence bill was 60 days, so the intelligence bill called for us to go from 160 to 60 days. We are 50 days toward that 100 days. We are halfway there on timeliness. I am personally very proud of the work that the reform effort has done, has accomplished, and what we have accomplished to reduce timeliness by almost 2 months in 2006- 2007, 2\1/2\ years that we have been working on this. The reason there is not more, a new-fangled 21st Century technology reform in place is because of a decision that I made with the consent of the reform group, which was to initially focus almost exclusively on the lack of capacity and the lack of accountability in the process. We would not have achieved the 50-day improvement in the process that has been achieved to date if we had focused on developing an altogether new system, if we had not focused before that on expanding investigative and adjudicative capacity and adding accountability across the government for conducting these clearances in a timely fashion. So we have, as all have said, there is much to be accomplished still, but I am very proud, and when I leave here, I am going to be extremely proud for the accomplishments that have been realized and the increases in timeliness with continued emphasis on quality in the 3-plus years that we will have been working on this. A couple of additional comments. You talk about reciprocity and Gordon England's concern, and Mike McConnell has a similar story, and I have a similar story, and so forth. That is a very different process. That is the White House clearance process for Senate-confirmed positions. That is more broken than the system that we are trying to reform, but we are working with the White House Counsel and the investigative units that they use to fix that system, as well. But that is a totally different process than the security clearance suitability determination process that we are trying to reform. On terms of reciprocity, our belief is that there is not a security clearance reciprocity problem. We have checks and balances on whether reciprocity is granted or not. What does not exist is suitability determination reciprocity, and that is one of the reasons why we have decided and have pointed out in this April 30 report that we can't reform clearance determinations and not reform suitability determinations. Those have to be thought of as similar systems with similar levels of accountability and that we don't collect a piece of information to make a suitability determination and then collect the same piece of information according to a different schedule to make a security clearance determination. We need to collect data one time and use it for both, and then we need to have a high level of capacity and a high level of accountability for both of those, which is why we proposed the governance structure that we proposed in the April 30 report. One final comment. The reason that there is not more specifics in the April 30 report about specifically what change in the process we are going to implement by what specific date and what impact it is going to have on the timeliness is the President's charge to us was you come tell me what you know, what you can validate, what you can support by April 30, and then when you know more, you can come and tell me as soon as you know it. So this April 30 is what we know by that date, which is here is the process design, here is the kinds of concepts we want to develop that will be our guiding feature, the guiding light for all future specific developments, but our challenge is and what we will deliver is by the end of this year, there will be the detail that you look for in terms of the specific implementations that are to be made and by when according to this process design, who is accountable, and there will be a governance structure in place to ensure that it happens as promised. So I know both of you have talked about, are we going to have to start all over when the new Administration comes, and the answer is no. There will be a clear path forward. There will be a governance structure to make sure that we proceed down that path with dates and implementation schedules and so forth. And so we don't know all those details by April 30. That is why it is not included in the report. But we will know all of that and we will divulge all of that in a series of reports between now and the end of the year. We will have all of that by the end of the year. Thank you very much. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Director Johnson. Now I will call on Ms. McGrath. I understand that you and Mr. Fitzpatrick are giving a joint statement, but Ms. McGrath, you may begin. TESTIMONY OF ELIZABETH McGRATH,\1\ PRINCIPAL DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Ms. McGrath. Yes, sir. Thank you and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Senator Voinovich. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss security clearance reform and in particular the initial report that we provided from the Joint Team. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The joint prepared statement of Ms. McGrath and Mr. Fitzpatrick appears in the Appendix on page 49. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As the largest industrial organization in the world, the size, complexity, and mission of the Department of Defense presents unique challenges not faced by other entities undergoing transformational change. As in other parts of its operations, this contributes to the challenges and opportunities presented to DOD in clearance reform. For the past few years, the Department has built a strong foundation of agile business practices and management that supports the warfighter and provides accountability to the taxpayer. Deputy Secretary of Defense, Gordon England, has devoted extensive time and energy to this effort and the senior leadership of the Department has been engaged and accountable for the performance of its business operations. Under Secretary England's leadership, we successfully established the Business Transformation Agency (BTA) in 2005 as the accountable entity for DOD-wide business and system improvement efforts. The BTA has brought the best and brightest career civil servants together with highly qualified experts hired from private industry to apply best practices to the business of government which we have applied to this reform effort. As part of the larger business transformation efforts, the Deputy Secretary identified clearance reform as one of the Department's top 25 transformation priorities. Championed by the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, the Office of Business Transformation, my office, which also oversees the implementation, enterprise implementation of continuous process improvement and Lean Six Sigma was asked to apply this methodology to the clearance reform challenge. While recent progress has been made in reducing the security clearance backlog, it is clear that larger reforms remain necessary, leveraging modern methods and tools which are standards based and data driven. For example, the Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office is now meeting the adjudication timelines established by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. Adjudications of those clearances are now down to 17 days. They have also achieved a 20 percent overall reduction in adjudication timelines for the first 6 months of this fiscal year. This improvement was achieved, however, through increased capacity, accountability, and local process improvements, not the broader transformation effort that we are discussing in our report. Opportunities exist for further improvements across the defense enterprise through the implementation of standard processes and information technology. The Department is taking a holistic view of its operations to include processes and the co-location of the 10 adjudicative facilities at Fort Meade as part of their Base Realignment and Closure Commission. This effort is also being led through the Office of Business Transformation in concert with the joint reform efforts also applying the Lean Six Sigma methodologies. The goal of our collective effort is to eliminate arcane and arbitrary processes and procedures that hinder progress. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. That concludes my statement. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Ms. McGrath. Mr. Fitzpatrick. TESTIMONY OF JOHN P. FITZPATRICK,\1\ DIRECTOR, SPECIAL SECURITY CENTER, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE Mr. Fitzpatrick. Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka, Senator Voinovich. Thank you for this opportunity. I am pleased to offer additional information to this Subcommittee regarding ongoing efforts to meet the goal of making hiring and clearing decisions more quickly, effectively, and efficiently. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The joint prepared statement of Mr. Fitzpatrick and Ms. McGrath appears in the Appendix on page 49. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As you are aware, the Joint Security and Suitability Reform Team is composed of representatives of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the Department of Defense (DOD), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management, all represented before you today. I make particular note of the defense and intelligence partnership in this enterprise. Our leaders and organizations greatly desire the outcome of a reformed process, putting people to work in support of our missions. Our commitment is reflected in the joint manner in which we pursue reform, as well as in our presentation of a joint statement for the record today. As this Subcommittee is well aware, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) of 2004 established the first-ever legislated measures of success with regard to the timeliness of security clearance processing, with goals for 2006 and more ambitious goals for 2009. While progress has been made across the Executive Branch, and we note the intelligence community (IC) agencies that conduct their own investigations and adjudications are compliant with the current IRTPA goals, the existing process is not in our estimation likely to allow the U.S. Government to achieve the additional efficiencies needed to meet the 2009 objectives. Further, improvements in terms of timeliness, consistency, and quality require adoption of a standard process across government using end-to-end automation and modern technologies. The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) recognized the need for transformational change to meet such future needs and identified security clearance reform as a top priority in his 100- and 500-day plans. To that end, the DNI along with the Under Secretary of Defense, Intelligence, and the Deputy Director for Management at OMB commissioned a Joint Security Clearance Process Reform Team to systematically examine and improve the way we process and manage security clearances as an enterprise. Recognizing the need to align suitability and security clearance processes where appropriate, this effort combined forces with the Office of Personnel Management to form the Joint Security and Suitability Reform Team, thereafter accelerating and expanding efforts to develop transformed, modernized, fair, and reciprocal security clearance and suitability processes applicable across the Executive Branch. On April 30, 2008, the Joint Team submitted its initial plan to the President, announcing its intent to adopt and pursue implementation of a transformed process that manages the hiring and clearing process from an enterprise end-to-end perspective. This plan proposes a governance structure to drive implementation and near-term actions to develop and put into use modern investigative tools, end-to-end information technology, a risk management philosophy, and efficient, standardized business practices. Also of note, modifications to intelligence community policies are being made to allow for the clearing of more first- and second-generation American candidates. This effort includes careful consideration of ways to balance risk while increasing opportunity for such citizens to be considered by the clearance process. We have studied existing programs within the intelligence community that may offer a model for other IC agencies to build upon. We fully expect the near-term outcome of this DNI-level policy change to result in more applications from first- and second-generation Americans and ultimately a more robust mission capability within the IC. While we do not underestimate the challenge that a reform effort of this magnitude represents, we are resolute in our determination and dedication to achieve the change necessary to ensure effectively and timely hiring and clearing decisions. With the continued interest and commitment from the President, the Congress, and senior executive leadership, we are confident that this effort will ultimately succeed. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity. This concludes my remarks. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Fitzpatrick. And now we will hear from Ms. Dillaman. TESTIMONY OF KATHY L. DILLAMAN,\1\ ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES DIVISION, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Ms. Dillaman. Chairman Akaka, Senator Voinovich, thank you for inviting me back to talk to you about our progress in improving the timeliness of security clearance process and OPM's support of continuing reform efforts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Dillaman in the Appendix on page 55. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As you know and as you said, OPM conducts over 90 percent of the background investigations required by agencies to support their security clearance and suitability decisions for civilian, military, and contractor personnel. The extent of the investigations conducted is based on the subject's level of clearance or access and the type of work or position they are assigned. Investigations are completed for over 100 Federal agencies and their security offices across the country and around the world. With a vast network of field investigators and our current automated processing system, we have sufficient capacity to handle the government's high-volume demand for background investigations. Last fiscal year, we conducted over two million investigations of varying types, including 850,000 for national security positions. Since May 17, 2007, when I last spoke before your Subcommittee, we have continued to improve the overall timeliness for the security clearances process. We are not only meeting the initial goals for 2006, outlined in the Intelligence Reform Act, we also are exceeding these goals for investigations and have substantially reduced our pending inventory. In November 2005, the Performance Improvement Plan that was provided to Congress identified critical areas that had to be addressed. First, agency workload projections had to be reasonably accurate to ensure that there were sufficient resources available to meet the investigation and adjudication staffing needs. We are noting improved accuracy in agencies' projections, which has helped to ensure that enough resources are in place to get the job done. Next, we focused on the timeliness and quality of agencies' requests for investigations. The increased use of OPM's electronic questionnaires for investigations processing (e- QIP), which is a web-based system that allows applicants to submit their background information electronically, has reduced handling and transmission time, while improving the quality of subject-provided information. In the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2008, 86 percent of all submissions for security clearance investigations were made online. The Intelligence Reform Act established a specific goal that 80 percent of the background investigations for initial security clearances be completed within an average of 90 days or less by the end of 2006. We have exceeded that goal. There is a chart in my written testimony that reports the processing time for all initial clearance investigations and further breaks that data down by the level of clearance. As you will note, we are currently completing 80 percent in an average of 60 days, 84 days at the top secret level, which are much more extensive, and 56 days at the secret-confidential level. With a current staff of over 9,300 Federal and contractor employees, there is no longer a backlog of initial clearance investigations due to insufficient resources and we have seen a substantial decrease in the time it takes to complete all types of background investigations. In addition to maintaining an adequate staff level, we are working closely with Federal, State, and local record agencies so that their records required as part of the investigations are provided to OPM more rapidly. We also are working with the State Department and the international community to improve the process of obtaining required international coverage. In 2007, we had 360 agents who were stationed abroad complete more than 24,000 international leads. While improving the timeliness of investigations, we have worked equally hard to retain the quality of these investigations. The quality control processes we have in place ensure that the investigations we conduct meet the national standards and the needs of the adjudicating communities. I should note that many of the metrics that Ms. Farrell described we are now incorporating into our quality measurement process. Once the investigation is completed, we also are tracking the time agencies take to adjudicate and record their adjudication actions in our record system. To speed up and streamline that process, we developed the capacity to transmit completed investigations to adjudication facilities electronically rather than hard copy through the mail, and this does allow for adjudication online, on-screen. In October 2007, we piloted this capability with the Department of Army. To date, over 190,000 investigations have been sent electronically to Army for adjudication, making the process between OPM and Army virtually paperless. Based on the success of this pilot, the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration have converted to receiving completed investigations online and we are in the final stages of implementation with the Department of Energy and Department of Commerce. This capability will be made available to all agencies this fiscal year. The initiatives I have outlined have substantially improved the timeliness of the clearance process. However, we have taken it just about as far as we can take it. In order to achieve the aggressive goals outlined in the Intelligence Reform Act for 2009, additional reform is necessary. As a partner with OMB, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Department of Defense, we are optimistic that the additional reform opportunities that have been identified for the overall security clearance process will allow us to meet these goals. This concludes my remarks and I would be happy to answer any questions you have. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Ms. Dillaman. Ms. Farrell, this Subcommittee took on the security clearance issue in large part because of faults found with it by GAO. You and your predecessors have testified about ongoing problems with the process and outcomes since 2005. Could you tell me what milestones generally would need to be met in order for GAO to move the security clearance process off the high- risk list? Ms. Farrell. We would like to see that happen. There are a number of criteria that we use to determine whether or not we move a program off of the high-risk list. One is we look at leadership. Often these issues need sustained top management attention and we have seen that leadership since 2005 from OMB and OPM in focusing top-level attention on this very important issue. Other criteria that we look at include an action plan that is results oriented, that clearly identifies the roots of the problem, what the goals are in order to correct it, and how you are going to get there, in other words, a road map of how to fix the problem. Another criteria we look for is resources in terms of often additional resources. It may be people. Ms. Dillaman talked about the advances that have been made at OPM in terms of building up the human capacity to handle the backlog. We look for not only the human resources, but funding that may be necessary, such as in the case of using the advanced technology, what is it going to cost, visibility and transparency over that, as well. We currently have work underway--it has been underway for about 6 weeks or so--looking at timeliness and quality and what progress has been made in these areas. We will be positioned later this year to make a determination whether or not the Personnel Security Clearance Program remains on our January 2009 High-Risk List. Senator Akaka. Yes. Do you think that if the Joint Team's recommendations move forward that you may be able to get the issue off the high-risk list in the near future? Ms. Farrell. We look forward to looking at the plan and the accompanying documents that Mr. Johnson mentioned in order to make that determination. Again, we are pleased with the leadership that has been shown and focused on this area and we are pleased to see the concept paper that came out in April. But we are in the process of looking at this paper and seeing what are the details behind it to actually make these actions happen, to show that there really is clear progress being made. Senator Akaka. Thank you, Ms. Farrell. Director Johnson, one of the cornerpieces of the new reform proposal, and you have told us the forthcoming Executive Order, will be the creation of the Performance Accountability Council. Can you tell me more about its make-up, such as who will be on it, who will oversee the security side, and what, if any, input there will be from non-government stakeholders? Mr. Johnson. You have asked several questions. One, as you know, there are two so-called Executive Agents designated, a Suitability Executive Agent and a Security Executive Agent. OPM now is the suitability entity and so OPM will remain the keeper of all things related to suitability. The term ``Executive Agent'' is a new term, but their responsibilities remain largely the same in terms of the keeper of the policy and being one who is officially responsible for suitability performance. There is no Security Executive Agent today. The National Security Council, if there is one, is the closest to being that. There are some policy clearance processes with the National Security Council. Some recommendations have been made about who that Security Executive Agent should be. That decision will be included in the Executive Order that will be produced by the end of June and it would be premature to talk about what has been recommended and what is under discussion, but that will be finalized by the time that Executive Order comes out by the end of June. The industry is one of our most important customers on this process because it costs them money, which means it costs us money, and they are generally--when security clearances are involved, they are working on really important things for our national security, homeland security, and nobody benefits from them taking a long time to get their people on the job. And so we have mechanisms in place to stay in touch with them, to compare what they perceive the situation to be to what the reality is, and they perceive the situation to be not what our numbers indicate, which means that there is a gap between what they perceive to be the timeliness and what our numbers suggest the timeliness. But we reach out to them a lot, particularly DOD, because that is where the industry people are. There are meetings with all their associations. I met with a group of industry folks the first week in May after the April 30 report came out. We are constantly getting information from them, looking for ways to even better communicate what the average timeliness is and the range of timeliness is to get the clearances for the people that they are trying to put on jobs that we are hiring them to do. In terms of who else is on the council, that hasn't been determined yet. Right now, I suspect it will be very similar to--from the security clearance standpoint, to the people that are on our oversight group right now, which is the large customers, DOD, Commerce, State, Transportation, Energy, Department of Homeland Security. It will be the primary people that are involved in the process, OPM, FBI. There will also have to be the large suitability customers, so-called. They are people that make a lot of hiring decisions that don't have much need for a security clearance determination, but now that suitability is being folded into this overall process, we have to look at the suitability process just like we are looking at the clearance process. But all that determination will be made in the latter part of June and the early part of July and our first meeting is already scheduled. Our first meeting, I think, is July 22, which would be the first meeting of this Performance Accountability Council. And the name is important because it is defining what the performance level should be and then holding everybody accountable for doing it, being develop and implement the new processes, new ways of making these determinations, but then also using those processes to perform as they are designed to be adhered to. Senator Akaka. The Joint Team's report also says that the new Security Executive Agent created in that council will consolidate clearance responsibilities that are now spread out among the members of the security community. Can you elaborate on exactly what responsibilities you hope will be consolidated and from who? Mr. Johnson. No, I can't, and I don't know the answer to that question. I don't know what is disseminated throughout the community. So Mr. Fitzpatrick. Senator Akaka. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you will note in the report in the area where it describes the functions of the council, there are policy, process, information technology, and training considerations that apply to these processes. In the realm of the current national security clearance policy development and oversight process, that happens in different communities and it is rolled up to some extent with the Security Clearance Oversight Group and the performance measures that are in that report but are not to date driven to operational impact in the areas of training and technology and touching the process as it is executed in the agencies. So I expect that in the area of the Security Executive Agent, the council will look to that entity for input, performance measures, an organizational approach to achieving the training needs of that process, the information technology needs, to ensure that they are driving towards implementation. In the present day, policy development happens in a series of disconnected working groups that eventually drive a single recommendation up to the Policy Coordinating Committee. That could be better leveraged in the Executive Branch and singly coordinated with the Suitability Executive Agent. One of the keys here is to identify a single point of contact for the security side so that when things need to be brought into alignment with suitability operational needs, that there is a person accountable for leading that charge. Senator Akaka. Senator Voinovich. Senator Voinovich. Thank you. I, first of all, want to thank all of you for the good work that you have done. I know we are up here complaining about the fact that things aren't exactly the way we would like them to be, but I know all of you have conscientiously undertaken the responsibilities that you have had and I want you to know that I appreciate it. Mr. Johnson, I want to say to you, thank you very much for all of your hard work staying on top of this. I don't know whether you are going to stick around until the end--I hope you do--and I know that between now and then you are going to put the frosting on as much of the cake as you can so you can look back and say, we got something done. So thank you very much. I need some clarification here, and that is this. I think we hired somebody from the CIA about 3 years ago after we had the gigantic foul-up over money. We ran out of money and we had to find the money to do the adjudication or whatever it was. I was kind of optimistic about it, that we were going to really take off with that hire. I am not sure whether that person was looking at the big picture or if she was just looking at the DNI aspect of security clearance reform, but it is my understanding that McConnell had said that in his first 100 days and his first 500 days that modernizing the security clearance process was a core initiative and that DNI had come in, they looked at it and said, you know what, this system that we have is from the dark ages and we have to get together and change the system, and that system is different than the system that we are talking about here where the investigations go to OPM and then you send it back for adjudication. Is that all--Mr. Fitzpatrick, why don't you share that with me. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, sir. You could see me getting ready to speak. I think it is important to note that Mr. McConnell, along with Mr. Johnson, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Jim Clapper, and the Director of OPM, Linda Springer, are the four champions of this effort that is represented by the April 30 report, and so while your description of Mr. McConnell's initiative in his first 100 days is entirely accurate, that interest and initiative to do something about the security clearance process led him about 1 year ago into Mr. Johnson's office with General Clapper and launched the security clearance reform effort that I made reference to in my statement that quickly then joined up with suitability and said, if we are going to tackle this, we are going to tackle it at the Federal enterprise level and with security and suitability together. So what you may have discussed with Mr. McConnell in the past is this self-same effort to affect the Federal enterprise process. It is also important to know from the intelligence community perspective that the standards that drive investigations and secret and top secret clearances in all of the Federal space are the same standards used in the intelligence community for secret and top secret clearances---- Senator Voinovich. OK, but do they do the investigations for everybody, including the DNI? Mr. Fitzpatrick. Within the intelligence community, there are six agencies that handle their own investigations and adjudications. Statistically, it is about 5 percent of the total that Ms. Dillaman discussed in her workload, and so some portion of the intelligence community is serviced by the OPM model, a good portion, and the Department of Defense being the largest customer in both the Federal stake and in the intelligence community. Senator Voinovich. But the part of it, that 5 percent or whatever, that is the thing that they were going to try and--it looks like they are trying to put a new personnel system into DNI. In fact, one of my former staffers, Andy Rickardson, is over there working on that. But that is internal within the intelligence community. They have their own investigation and own adjudication procedure. Mr. Fitzpatrick. They operate their own, but to the same Federal standards that we are affecting by this reform. Senator Voinovich. OK. So the point is they are doing it on their own, but you are trying to assimilate the standards that they have set within this big picture that came out in this report, is that right? Mr. Fitzpatrick. Yes. Senator Voinovich. OK. And---- Mr. Johnson. Senator, can I take a shot at this? Senator Voinovich. Sure. Go ahead. Mr. Johnson. The intelligence agencies not part of DOD do their own investigations and adjudications and they do it within the standards that were called for--timeliness standards that were called for by the intelligence reform bill. The intelligence agencies that are part of DOD, their investigations are done by OPM and then they do their own adjudications. When General McConnell came in, it was a very rare opportunity because the head of the DNI and the Under Secretary for Security and Intelligence at DOD, Jim Clapper, and the Secretary of Defense all grew up together in this in the government and they all shared a huge dissatisfaction with the security clearance process. Senator Voinovich. Now you are getting at it. Mr. Johnson. OK. There was this coming together, a crescendo---- Senator Voinovich. Yes. Mr. Johnson. So they came together and they said, we need to fix this system. Tell us what you are already working on. And so we gathered and we say, here is the concept. Here is the process. And they said, well, when are you going to have this done and that done and they said, July, and they said that is not fast enough. It needs to be April. And then what are you thinking about this and doing--well, that is not--so what they have done is taken on the concept. It is not what they have aspired to do and put in their top five goals or 10 goals or whatever it is. It is not a different process than the one that was laid out in concept in the April 30 report. They have come in and, because of their influence, caused us to emphasize this, speed this up, do this faster, do this coincident with this, and so forth, and they have helped us bring government-wide attention to this, particularly within DOD, which is 80 percent of overall. So that short-term, for instance, one of the big problems we laid out and challenges for this year was that industry adjudications be conducted as quickly as employee adjudications. It was taking 20 or 25 days longer because there were a lot of extra steps or they had to go over here or something and nobody could figure out why. Well, I think it is true that as of April, the industry adjudications are being performed as quickly as employee adjudications. That would never have happened if the priority hadn't been placed on it by the Secretary and the Under Secretary. So what they have done is add impetus to it. They were the one that argued strongly for let us get the President to endorse this formally with his letter of February 5. So there was a lot of attention being paid, but when the President issues a letter and those three people say it is going to be done, mountains start moving. And so they have been tremendously helpful to us to provide even a greater force and speed and timeliness, attention to this, which gives us even greater assurance that when I am talking about where we will be at the end of this year, in fact, we will be there. You asked what the CIA--I think that was DOD. I think they were talking about when they--there were adjudications--DOD a couple of years ago stopped accepting applications for security clearances from industry because they ran out of money. It was like in June, I think. Nobody could understand why and there was a hearing and it was not their most comfortable---- Senator Voinovich. So they got somebody over there to go over and---- Mr. Johnson. So then they went and got the money and they got it started again and then they got smarter about what they needed to budget and so forth. Senator Voinovich. The fact of the matter is that the statistics are that right now, in terms of the adjudication, they are still kind of--there is a logjam there. Mr. Johnson. Well, as you talked about earlier, a lot of the jam that was in the investigative world, they got through that. It moved through there. So it is working its way through the snake. There are--you said seventy-some-odd-thousand, whatever the backlog was, their goal is to get it down to--and then we talk about it in the February report what their goal is, and they are on track to achieve that. But for a good bit of this fiscal year, they were going to be working down that backlog. And then we will be, starting in fiscal year 2009, we anticipate virtually no backlogs anywhere in this process. Senator Voinovich. OK. I just want to stay with this. They came together and said the system has to be changed. My assumption is that within the intelligence agencies that do their own investigations and adjudications, there was some frustration about the way that the system worked and the process of doing their work within that framework. That whole business, I would suspect, is in better shape because it is a smaller number of people than the overall problem that you are talking about here today. Mr. Johnson. I will make a general comment, and then Ms. McGrath and Mr. Fitzpatrick--who work firsthand with that--but there were not timeliness problems with the intelligence community the way we looked at it. What we were trying to address was the other 95 percent of the system, because the feeling, the feedback that was coming from the data we were getting from the intelligence community was, by and large, the timeliness of those clearance determinations was satisfactory. Mr. Fitzpatrick. That is also entirely true, and the IRTPA laid out the need to measure performance. The intelligence community did not measure its performance before the rest of government did and joined right along with Mr. Johnson's oversight group when we did, and we discovered at that time what we thought to be true, which seems like the intelligence community agencies get this done faster, turned out to be measurably true, in part because they own both the investigative and adjudicative stages and are able to integrate those better, and that is---- Senator Voinovich. Right, and the point is that in terms of industrial people that need clearance within that, probably there aren't that many of those people who are going to work for the Department of Defense or do a special contract or whatever it is. There probably aren't that many private sector people that you are going to have to clear to do stuff within the DNI and all the agencies. Mr. Fitzpatrick. I am not sure what your perception of not that many is, because it includes the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Officers, and the CIA, there are significant industry partnerships there---- Senator Voinovich. OK, but those people that they are hiring are not in the system you are talking about here. Those are within the internal system of those other agencies. Mr. Fitzpatrick. But they get cleared to the same investigative standard and adjudicative standard as---- Senator Voinovich. Does Ms. Dillman do the work on the investigation? Mr. Fitzpatrick. For some. Senator Voinovich. Yes. Mr. Fitzpatrick. For some agencies. The CIA, for example, handles its workload entirely. NSA, a portion of the NSA industrial program goes to OPM. The priority cases, they keep at home. So it is a little different. These are small in scale. We sometimes refer to them as boutique operations---- Senator Voinovich. I am going to finish, Senator Akaka, because I have taken too much time already, but the complaints that I continue to get from the industry people are not people that are within the DNI group. They are working for the Department of Defense or somebody else and say, we got the contract and we can't get the clearance. We are going to put them on the payroll and they can't do intelligence work. If we don't do that, they are going to do something else. They are still not happy with the process because I continue to get complaints about it. But they are the ones that are involved in this big system that we are talking about right now. Mr. Johnson. Yes. Senator Voinovich. Senator Akaka. Senator Akaka. Thank you. Ms. Dillaman. Ms. Dillaman. Yes, sir. Senator Akaka. As you know, following our hearing last year, and from what I said here this afternoon, I believe that the systems in use by OPM are outdated and antiquated. I do not think that many outside experts believe that OPM is truly leveraging more modern systems. What is OPM doing to modernize or replace or improve its aging systems? Ms. Dillaman. Up until the point where we joined with this reform effort, there certainly were plans and continue to be plans to keep our systems up to date and viable. Now partnering with this reform effort, of course, we are going to keep any modernization consistent with the National Enterprise Plan for an end-to-end system. The core system that you described as an antique Cadillac, and I am thrilled that you at least described it as a Cadillac and not a Pinto, but that system alone is an in-house internal management system that much more modern systems are, in fact, bolted to. Our electronic questionnaire is a relatively newer system designed by industry. Our fingerprint transmission system is actually quite a state-of-the-art system designed by industry to support automated fingerprint processing. Our current imaging system, which allows for transmission of data and images and conversion of paper that we are forced to receive from information suppliers, is a brand new system deployed last year. We are in various stages of antique to modern configuration. But from this point forward, all investments-- and there are planned investments--will be made in conjunction with where the national reform effort is taking us all. Senator Akaka. Let me ask Ms. McGrath and Mr. Fitzpatrick, has DOD or DNI commented or consulted with OPM on any of these proposed improvements? Ms. McGrath. Ms. McGrath. Every week, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is part of the overall joint reform effort and we meet on a weekly basis and have detailed project plans where we go over every, if you will, step of the end-to-end process, information technology being one of them. If you will note in the report, we are proposing in the near term--as a near-term opportunity some of the next-generation application capability in addition to automated records checks capability. Some of that technology currently exists within the Office of Personnel Management and we are looking to leverage those systems, if you will, and the platforms that are currently in use to see if they can be adopted to fit into the overall strategy. We still are not--we have not finalized the IT strategy. We will not be in position to do that until definitely the end of the fiscal year, but it might be closer to the fall. Senator Akaka. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Fitzpatrick. I would only add that that is a very complete answer. Senator Akaka. Ms. Dillaman. Ms. Dillaman. And if I may, sir, not only have I been involved personally with the reform effort with Mr. Johnson and the team from the very beginning, I have assigned a career senior executive to work with the reform team virtually full time on this effort. So, OPM has a very dedicated staff that has been partnered with this from the beginning. Senator Akaka. Ms. Dillaman, to follow up on an IT-related issue, I wanted to mention an article that was in this morning's Washington Post about the Investigative Services Division. Ms. Dillaman. Yes, sir. Senator Akaka. The article focused on a billing error---- Ms. Dillaman. Yes, sir. Senator Akaka [continuing]. Attributed to your case processing and your billing systems. What role did your investigation processing system, PIPS, play in this error, and are we likely to see such problems with these linked-together systems in the future? Ms. Dillaman. I believe any automated system is capable of having logic errors in programs that are isolated and hard to detect. The billing error in question--the automated processing system, PIPS, tracked it accurately. What failed to happen was an electronic signaling. It was an odd error because it affected certain adjustments. There were no errors in case billing. All cases were billed accurately. But there were adjustments that had to be made and they were not predictable adjustments. They were ad hoc-type adjustments that an automated signal did not relay properly into OPM's billing system. Because it was infrequent and it happened sporadically, it was not detected quickly. It was a manual audit that identified it. Can it ever happen in an automated program? Of course, it can. The resolution of it is to have good, solid auditing programs to identify it and fix it quickly. Senator Akaka. Ms. McGrath, last week, the Army announced that they would pilot a more automated investigation system using elements found in the Joint Team's recommendations, such as automated records check. The system is known as the Automated Continuing Evaluation System (ACES). If the pilot is successful, would this mean that a significant part of OPM's investigation work could be bypassed by using this system? Ms. McGrath. The Army pilot is actually being driven by the Joint Team effort, so we are using the Army's case management system, which is called Central Adjudication Tracking System (CATS)--don't ask me for all of the DOD acronyms. But in addition to the Army case management system, because they can receive files electronically from OPM today, we use their receipt of electronic files from OPM into their adjudication system tied to the ACES capability, which I referred to as the automated records checks. ACES is the capability that DOD has today in a very--we use it in a very limited capacity, much more for research than full-blown implementation. We are trying to demonstrate what we would have from an end-to-end perspective because there is no end-to-end solution that exists today. So we expect to obtain--the Joint Team expects to obtain-- to identify performance gaps, capability gaps, so that at the end of the calendar year we would be able to put together a comprehensive IT strategy that would be applicable broader than the Department of the Army. As you well know, they have most of the casework within the Department of Defense, but it is not tied to the elimination of the investigative piece. It is the automated receipt of the investigative material to then much more quickly screen and make adjudicative decisions. Senator Akaka. Thank you. Let me ask Ms. Dillaman for any comment on this question. Ms. Dillaman. I think the implementation of electronic searches in any capacity certainly could have the benefit of reducing the amount of labor necessary to apply to background investigations. We have seen this for the past couple of years as we have converted other types of record checks from a labor- intensive, feet on the street, sending an agent, knocking on a door to get a record, to an electronic records system. We have converted over one million law checks annually from agents going and visiting police departments to having individuals who have online keyboard access to State records systems and saving a tremendous amount of investigative resources. The types of searches envisioned in ACES or in the automated record check system means that we will have more electronic information available early in the process. It is possible that some of the investigations may be able to be cleared with electronic information up front rather than having labor-intensive field work associated with it. But it also is entirely possible that we will identify issues in these electronic checks that will require an agent to go out and do further probing and resolution. The impact has yet to be determined. At the end of the day, we do end up, though, with a better investigation and much earlier in the process a clear identification of whether or not the individual will be a risk or not. Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. Senator Voinovich. Senator Voinovich. To get back to just the process, I am the Defense Department. I decide that this individual that I have hired and qualified for the job has to get a security clearance. I suspect the Defense Department may have that application up on a computer screen. When they make the request to you, do they do it by computer or do they fax something to you and then you get the piece of paper and you start to investigate it? Ms. Dillaman. No. It comes to us electronically, sir, today. Senator Voinovich. OK. You get it electronically. Ms. Dillaman. Yes. Senator Voinovich. OK. Now you do the research investigation. Ms. Dillaman. Yes. Senator Voinovich. Is the information that you do on the investigation inputted on that screen? Ms. Dillaman. Yes. Senator Voinovich. OK. And then you have done your job and then electronically you get the information back to the Department of Defense, is that right? Ms. Dillaman. Yes, sir. Senator Voinovich. OK. At that stage of the game, they have all this information in front of them, and one of the things that Ms. Farrell said was that in many of those cases, the information is not complete and rather than go back to you to get the information, they just go ahead and take what they have got and make a decision and adjudicate it based on that. Ms. Farrell, maybe you could comment on that at this stage of the game. OPM is talking about some new things that you are doing electronically, but if it was all electronic, it seems to me that if there is something wrong with it, all you have got to do is look at the form and say, you know what? I don't have this information, so I will send it back to OPM, saying ``this is not complete. Give us more information so I can do a better job of adjudicating.'' It is all seamless, all up there. Ms. Dillaman. If I could first address this, sir, I think the quality of the investigation is absolutely of primary concern to everyone. No sense doing it fast if you are not doing it right. Ms. Farrell's study citing the investigations they looked at were from the process during the heart of the transition when merging DSS and OPM. When we had recognized that there were serious problems in how OPM versus the Department of Defense had interpreted the investigative standards, reporting style, etc., we were quite anxious for GAO to come in and take another look. I think there also is a dissatisfaction in some areas of the community. Not with the quality of the investigation, but the investigative standards themselves. There are different levels of investigations for different positions. Certainly what you do at the secret level does not come anywhere near close to what you do at the top secret level, nor should it, because the impact is not the same. And so, measuring the quality of the investigations, agencies do have an option to reject an investigation that they receive that they believe is deficient. That is, in fact, one measure of the quality of our work. We go out annually and ask for quality feedback from all the major clearance-granting agencies, suitability and security. Last year, we surveyed 622 offices. Those were agency offices that had submitted at least, I believe, 200 or 500 investigations for the year. We had about a 50 percent response rate on the survey with a 91 percent satisfaction rate in quality and content of the investigation. And so I do not believe that the quality of the investigations compared to the standards that they are conducted is a problem today. Can we have an agent fail to do what he or she should? Yes, we can. But I believe we have built a very strong structure with tiered review systems and allowed agencies immediate feedback opportunities to correct any deficiencies that are found. Senator Voinovich. Ms. Farrell, you have had a chance to sit here and listen to all this. Would you share with us what is going on in your head in terms of some of the things that have been said here today? Ms. Farrell. I am pleased to hear Ms. Dillaman acknowledge that there are plans to build in quality metrics other than the single metric that has been referred to in the past, which we have said that is inadequate. Regarding the number of investigative reports that are returned by the adjudicators, as a metric, one reason why we have said it is inadequate is because the adjudicators have told us they are reluctant to return those reports because that will just add to the time. Thus, in some cases, they will go ahead and determine the eligibility without it. We believe that not only do they need to establish metrics for that phase of the investigation, which Ms. Dillaman oversees, but also for the other phases. There are six phases, as I said, from the requirement-setting phase to the application-submitting phase to the investigation to the adjudication to the appeals and then the renewal of the clearances. There is very little attention that has been focused on any of these phases. Just one phase, again, had one metric that we had some indication of what was going on. What you were referring to about the adjudicators, with the timeliness issue, we are looking at this right now as we are with the quality, and as I said, we are pleased to hear that there are quality metrics being considered and we are going to be looking at those very carefully to see what they are, and if they do give a fuller picture of the timeliness, as well. In the past, we have had concerns about how the data is presented in terms of the timeliness. It may look like the numbers are going in the right direction, but perhaps they aren't. We have had concerns in the past, for example, regarding the time that is spent sending back a report to the investigators being counted against the adjudicators instead of the investigators. Another concern is the time that is needed to do additional investigative work when it is sent back by the adjudicators, it often takes less time to redo the investigation to satisfy the requirement, but that second time around with the investigation is what is counted instead of the first time. Maybe these issues have been resolved, hopefully so, but we are going to be looking very carefully at the timeliness to see what is behind those numbers. Senator Voinovich. Let us go to reciprocity. And one thing I want to make sure I clear up for the record, Mr. Johnson, you indicated that your metric was timeliness and I don't want anyone to think that you aren't interested in quality, too. I think that---- Mr. Johnson. Yes. Senator Voinovich [continuing]. Timeliness plus you want to make sure it is done right. Why haven't we made the progress in terms of reciprocity that we all would like to have? What is holding it up? Why aren't we doing more there? Mr. Johnson. Again, our belief is that we do not have a security clearance reciprocity problem and that problems that did exist have been largely eliminated. Why do we know that? Why do we think that? If somebody requests an investigation for a security clearance in the 90 percent done by OPM, if they already have a clearance at that level, she doesn't initiate an investigation. So---- Senator Voinovich. OK. What you are saying is that the system that was in place where you had to get another investigation, or the system that was in place where Mr. England had one clearance and then he was told, we are moving you from here to there and---- Mr. Johnson. That is the White House. That is a another whole world. Senator Voinovich. OK. So the point is that it would seem to me that within that framework, are the folks at DNI interested in having that---- Mr. Johnson. For PAS-es? For Senate-confirmed people? Senator Voinovich. Yes. Mr. Johnson. We are separately from this reform effort, separately, I am working with Ms. Dillman and working with Presidential personnel presently and with Fred Fielding to fix that process. But that is separate from this effort and that-- -- Senator Voinovich. OK. So that is the White House process-- -- Mr. Johnson. That is the White House. Senator Voinovich. I am worried about the fact that we are going to have a new Administration---- Mr. Johnson. Right. Oh, yes. Senator Voinovich [continuing]. And I suspect there are some really good people out there that may not be of the same party, but they are qualified people. You want to bring them on board and you want to get them through, get them approved, but you have to get a security clearance on them, and you are saying that you think that---- Mr. Johnson. That process needs to be fixed, and there are a number of things we are looking at and if we want to change that process, we have to do that with the Senate because they give their consent and they review people, their backgrounds, prior to a confirmation hearing and they are used to getting certain kinds of information at certain parts of the process. And if we want to make that process faster and maybe give them this information instead of that information, we have to do that with the Senate. Senator Voinovich. The Senate is not--the law doesn't require the White House to come up with a separate investigation on somebody. You look at the thing and they have had a security clearance and--are you telling me that we are the ones responsible---- Mr. Johnson. No, never. I would not suggest that, sir. Senator Voinovich. Well, sometimes we are. [Laughter.] Mr. Johnson. Well, I have heard rumors, but I personally haven't experienced that, sir. We have to both agree, the White House and the Senate have to agree on what constitutes a background check for a PAS. So if any changes are going to be made, we are going to do it with each other, not to each other, and I am confident that nobody likes that process, either. It takes too long to get a new team on the field, and so there will be a lot of interest, I would suspect, in the Senate. Senator Voinovich. Is there any work being done on it right now? Mr. Johnson. Not in the Senate. What we want to do is we want to get what we think is a smart way forward and then sit down with Senate leadership, and I would hope that you and Senator Akaka would help us bring attention to that and get the right people to sit down and look at this. Senator Voinovich. Well, the sooner you get it to us, I will get a hold of Senator McConnell and talk to Majority Leader Reid and---- Mr. Johnson. Right. Senator Voinovich [continuing]. See if we can facilitate that. Mr. Johnson. Great. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Senator. Senator Voinovich. Yes? Mr. Fitzpatrick. Could I add on the topic of reciprocity, you made reference earlier to perhaps it is a scarce mention in the report and I wanted to highlight a couple of aspects of the transformed process that will serve reciprocity. Mr. Johnson is right in that the security clearance reciprocity issue has been addressed by standards and policy issued out of OMB subsequent to the IRTPA. It is, however, a key component of the automation proposed in this report that will serve the information needed to enable reciprocal decisions. Often, agencies don't have the ability to reach to where the answer is to see that an individual is already cleared and so they revert to their local habits and put someone into the process. Senator Voinovich. In other words, if it is automated, you get the full picture of the individual. They can look at it, see what kind of clearance they have, and say, ah, that is fine. But if you don't have that, then they might say, gee, we better have him checked out or her checked out. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Yes. The transparency of that data, the accessibility of that data. Also, the alignment of security and suitability in this vision are critical, because sometimes an individual is first investigated for one of those purposes and later put into process for the other. Mobility across government, you can go from contractor to government or back and forth, and our goal is to allow the investigative package, if you will, that was used in one decision to serve the other one to reduce or eliminate the need to do re-work, and that, I think, would also fit into the goal of reciprocity. Senator Voinovich. Senator, when we were talking about the REAL ID Act recently when we had the hearings on that, one of the things that we were concerned about is the quality of the databases. And the better they are and the more confidence you have in them, it seems to me that, if you just accessed those databases, that should give you a pretty good idea. In fact, I think Admiral McConnell talked about that, that a lot of this could be done that way. That is the way a lot of businesses look at clearances. How is that coming along? Mr. Johnson. Let me make a comment on that. Admiral McConnell talks about Wall Street firms, in particular, it takes 5 days, and it takes us multiples of 5 days to get this done. If you lay out what Wall Street looks at versus what the Federal Government looks at, it is multiple times longer and there are things we would all agree are important for us to look at for suitability determinations and security clearances that are not concerns of Wall Street. What Wall Street does, they conduct something that is probably not even equivalent to a secret clearance here. They do it very quickly and relatively automated plus--are there lie detectors? Anyway, but it is all automated, but it is not the same thing. It is not the same information. But it does point out very clearly what we have all talked about here is a lot of very relevant data can be gathered electronically. We are doing a good bit of that now. We can do a good bit more of that and save manpower and so forth, and check that data and review it and adjudicate it and make some assessment of it electronically, and we do some of that now. We can do a lot more of it going forward. Senator Voinovich. Thank you. Senator Akaka. Thank you, Senator Voinovich. Senator Voinovich raised a concern that I have, as well. Mr. Fitzpatrick, as you know, some of the computer systems that the intelligence community uses to track investigations and store clearance information makes our oversight more difficult due to the classified information scattered throughout the process. I think this is a concern. One concern I have is that any combining of intelligence systems with Defense and civilian systems could make it harder for us to conduct oversight of the process. Do you believe that it will be necessary to keep the intelligence IT system separate from the rest of the systems in order for this Subcommittee and GAO to continue their oversight? Mr. Fitzpatrick. Very familiar with the concerns regarding the--what is known as the Scattered Castles database. That is the intelligence community repository for clearance and eligibility decisions, which exists on a classified network. We have an initiative underway now--let me back up and say there are three primary such repositories that are relevant to the security clearance reform effort. They are the CVS database operated by OPM, a Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS) database that is operated by the Department of Defense, and Scattered Castles. OPM and DOD's databases are available at an unclassified level. The intelligence community's Scattered Castles database is on a secure network. There are several--this impairs access to the information and impairs reciprocity that we just discussed, so there are several initiatives underway to improve the accessibility of this data. Today, JPAS data is combined in Scattered Castles so that users of Scattered Castles have access to a wider amount of data to make the reciprocal decisions. So that puts more information where the classified users can get to it, but it does not address the opposite issue. So what initiative we have ongoing now in the Special Security Center where I am the Director is an effort to identify the unclassified records in the intelligence community's database for secure transmission down to the unclassified level, to make them more broadly available to where the greater number of users are searching for them and can leverage them. That raises some concerns in the intelligence community. Aggregating data, even though it is unclassified, can lead to conclusions that we don't want to put out there. But the intent is to study and overcome those problems. There are technologies that can permit databases to exchange information in more secure ways, even at the unclassified level, and we are pursuing those. So I share your concern with that, but I hope to assure you that there is attention on that and that this reform effort lays out a standard that the intelligence community is intended to meet to the best of its ability while still protecting those sources and methods. Senator Akaka. Mr. Fitzpatrick, just to follow up on that, how could you open up more of the intelligence community clearance process for additional oversight through changes in your IT system? Mr. Fitzpatrick. To ensure that I understand the question, the emphasis is on access to the classified systems as a means of oversight? Senator Akaka. Yes. Mr. Johnson. Senator, can I make a comment, I think in answer to that question? Senator Akaka. Yes. Mr. Johnson. The whole security clearance community needs to be held accountable, and for performance and quality. We, being the community, which means Congress, can get the information it needs from the intelligence community to track timeliness, quality. We don't have that now to the GAO's satisfaction or to your satisfaction. But when we want timeliness information from the intelligence community, we get it. What we can't get, and I don't think should get, is what is the status about a specific individual who is working on something that nobody knows about or--I think we would all agree, we don't want access to that information. That is why getting into that database should be highly restricted. But performance and quality information can be pulled from that system and pulled from the managers of that system to provide you and the community and the Executive Branch the information it needs to hold the intelligence community accountable for how it is granting these clearances, making these determinations, just like it can be with DOD, the Interior, and Agriculture. Senator Akaka. Ms. Farrell, would you make any comment on that question? Ms. Farrell. We are going to find out what our access is to the intelligence community's security clearance program. We have two requests that have been accepted from the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence, one is to look at the timeliness and quality of the security clearance process within the Intelligence Committee. That is those 16 agencies. That work parallels what we have already begun looking at timeliness and quality with DOD. The second request is to look at the joint reform efforts. As you know, it is more than just a plan. There have been a series of task force and other efforts underway for some time, and our focus will be again looking at what is going on in the intelligence community as well as with DOD. Our people have clearances. There should not be any access problem. We will test that. How reciprocal is it? But we will be getting that work underway shortly and then we will see what our access issues are, if any. Mr. Johnson. The difference between what I just said and what she said about GAO is I assume that if the intelligence community tells me this is their timeliness and their quality and their whatever, I don't believe I have to collect the data myself to verify that it is true and GAO, I think, feels differently. They have to go in and collect the data themselves as opposed to receive summaries from the intelligence community, so that is the difference. Senator Akaka. Director Johnson, two of the major aspects of the Joint Team's reform proposal is the use of more automated record checks from commercial sources and continuous checking of records to replace periodic investigations. Are there any privacy concerns or safeguards envisioned to protect the privacy of individuals that are checked against these commercial sources? Mr. Johnson. One of the things, and it has been a big priority of the reform team that is officed where Mr. Fitzpatrick is officed is to look at privacy issues, legal issues. When someone signs an application, do they know that they--an SF-86--do we have authorization to do periodic or continuous reinvestigations? Do we have the authorization to go look at these databases? And if we don't, what do we do to get that authorization and so forth? So it is a big question for us and we make sure that we aren't going to do anything that we don't have the authority to do and we won't do anything where we put the person's privacy rights at risk. It is a very important part of this process. It is a very relevant question. Senator Akaka. Yes. Well, in a sense, the REAL ID problem is one of these, and that is being careful about privacy. Mr. Johnson. Yes. There are some changes that do need to be made in the consent form the person signs and we are in the process of making those changes. Senator Akaka. Senator Voinovich. Senator Voinovich. No. I have done my thing. Senator Akaka. Well, I thank Senator Voinovich for his abiding faith in what we are doing. We are all trying to work together to take care of these problems. I want to thank our witnesses today. I have other questions that I will submit for the record. Thank you. This is a critically important issue, without question, and it has been now taking years for us to try to set up a system that really cuts the time of the process. Getting the clearance processes working is vital to our national security and we must continue to work to get it off of GAO's high-risk list. We have heard very valuable testimony today from all of you and I think that this will be useful as we go forward. The hearing record will be open for 2 weeks for additional statements or questions from other Members, and we again thank you very much---- Senator Voinovich. Senator Akaka, can I make just one final point? Senator Akaka. Senator Voinovich. Senator Voinovich. I am really anxious to get this off the high-risk list. Senator Akaka. So it is unanimous. Senator Voinovich. Ms. Farrell, does everybody at this table know what it is going to take to get it off the list? Ms. Farrell. We have had conversations with OMB and OPM since 2005 regarding their strategy to work toward that end, and we have continued to have discussions and we are available at any time for those discussions. There is a lot going on with these reform efforts and we will have to--it is one of those issues that you are going to have to stay tuned to see what happens. Senator Voinovich. Well, from my perspective, if I were in their shoes, I would like to know what it is going to take to get it off the list, and from my perspective in the oversight capacity, I would like to know from you what you think--at least I would like to know what your standards are, your metrics, to judge whether they have done their job or not. Ms. Farrell. Well, first, there are several criteria that I mentioned, but the No. 1 that I think you are going to be interested in is the work that we have ongoing looking at the timeliness. There has been much discussion about the improvements in the numbers. We will be going back and looking at timeliness to see if those issues that were there in 2006, about how those numbers were derived, are still there or if there actually has been progress in the time it takes for the investigation or the adjudication phase for the top secret, the secret, and that is a key thing, real progress. That is one thing we will be looking for in terms of those numbers. Another one that we will be looking for that we have not seen are the resources that it is going to take to implement these IT plans that we have been discussing to some extent today. We believe, if you are going to use technology, what is it going to take in terms of resources so that you can make decisions that are transparent and trade-offs, if necessary, with competing demands. That is another example of what we will be looking for. Senator Akaka. Before I call on Director Johnson, may I tell the rest of the panel that I am going to ask you to make any final comments on what has happened today. Director Johnson. Mr. Johnson. Just one comment about resources. We were, in fact, talking about this Tuesday, I think it was. There are two primary resources that we have access to. One, the Defense Department has budgeted in this year and next money to reform their database, JPAS, and because that is 80 percent of all the system, that money can--in effect, if you reform JPAS or replace JPAS, you in effect have a system that is used by the entire community. So that is one major source of resources. Another source of financial resources is the revolving funds--is that what it is called?--a part of the fees that they charge at OPM for their investigative work that is set up to make refinements and reforms to their system. So those are the two primary sources before we get into the need for additional resources. Now, again, we have not spec-ed out if it is going to cost this much or that much. We haven't done that but plan to do that by the end of the year. But right now, our belief is that those two primary sources of financial support will be sufficient to do it. But I can't document that. But there are sufficient sources available to us today. Senator Akaka. Ms. McGrath. Ms. McGrath. Yes, sir. Thank you. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee today and I want to ensure, although we have had a lot of discussion around the information technology piece, if we don't get the process and the policies right, it won't matter what we build, which is why we have focused the last almost year that we have been on this joint reform effort on those things. So process first, policy, and then information technology informed by those, and that is where we are right now in the reform effort. We did, I will say, issue a strategic pause within the Department on ongoing modernization efforts to ensure alignment with the overall strategy and the vision to at least get a handle on most of the transactions. So thank you again for the opportunity. Senator Akaka. Thank you. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Fitzpatrick. Just briefly, a chance to express gratitude for the opportunity to come here and also for your leadership and attention to this problem. It is holding us accountable that will get this done. It is the goal of the Performance Accountability Council and the governance structure to do that, I will say amongst ourselves, but it also is in response to your own attention to this as well as the champions of this reform. Thank you. Senator Akaka. Thank you. Ms. Dillaman. Ms. Dillaman. I think I told you previously that I have spent 32 years as a civil servant, all of it devoted to the background investigations program, and in those 32 years, I have never seen the government come together and be more focused and more dedicated to resolving issues than they are today. When I say I am optimistic, that is putting it lightly. I think that we have swallowed the frog. The worst of it is behind us now and everything we see from this point forward is going to be great improvement. Senator Akaka. Well, I thank you very much. You have the last word on the record. Senator Voinovich. I don't want to have the last word, but---- Senator Akaka. Senator Voinovich. Senator Voinovich [continuing]. One thing that bugs me about this place, big time, is the issue of continuing resolutions and omnibus appropriation bills. Mr. Johnson, it is your last year. Each of you can give stories, I am sure, about what has occurred because we don't pass our budgets on time, or our appropriations on time. It looks like this time around, from everything I can ascertain, that we may not do the appropriations until after the next President is elected and until that next President is sworn in, which means it could be February before we finish our appropriations. I just think that, Mr. Johnson, it would be wonderful if as a gift to the country this Administration would talk about how difficult it is to manage a situation where you really don't know what your budget is for 5 months of the fiscal year, because I don't believe we can continue to do this. And from our oversight position, if you have this kind of budgeting going on, or procedure, it makes it really--it gives an excuse to some people to say, ``We can't perform. We didn't know really what the numbers were for 5 months. We have got plans. We think money is appropriated, we can go forward with it, but it hasn't been authorized yet, or appropriated yet.'' I know I have been doing some work on it and it is a nightmare. It is a nightmare for the Federal Government. It is a nightmare for State Government. It is a nightmare for county government. It is a nightmare as a mayor because of the Federal budget and the impact that it has. I just would really like, Mr. Johnson, to talk to you maybe about that, because I think you could do this country a great favor if you pointed out to the American people that this system that we have been following really doesn't lend itself to good management and delivering the services that the public and the citizens deserve. Mr. Johnson. I understand. Senator Akaka. Again, thank you very much. This hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:28 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]