    [Senate Hearing 116-496]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                          S. Hrg. 116-496

                     OPEN HEARING: DECLASSIFICATION POLICY
                            AND PROSPECTS FOR REFORM

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                        SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

                                     OF THE

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                          WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2020

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    43-457 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2021

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

               [Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.]

                     MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Acting Chairman
                    MARK R. WARNER, Virginia, Vice Chairman

    RICHARD BURR, North Carolina         DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    SUSAN COLLINS, Maine                 MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    ROY BLUNT, Missouri                  ANGUS KING, Maine
    TOM COTTON, Arkansas                 KAMALA HARRIS, California
    JOHN CORNYN, Texas                   MICHAEL BENNET, Colorado
    BEN SASSE, Nebraska

                     MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky, Ex Officio
                      CHUCK SCHUMER, New York, Ex Officio
                       JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma, Ex Officio
                      JACK REED, Rhode Island, Ex Officio
                                  ----------
                          Chris Joyner, Staff Director
                     Michael Casey, Minority Staff Director
                       Kelsey Stroud Bailey, Chief Clerk

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               SEPTEMBER 9, 2020

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page

    Moran, Hon. Jerry, a U.S. Senator from Kansas....................     1
    Rubio, Hon. Marco, a U.S. Senator from Florida...................     3
    Warner, Hon. Mark R., a U.S. Senator from Virginia...............     5
    Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from Oregon......................     6

                                   WITNESSES

    Koch, Gregory M., Acting Director, Information Management Office,
      Office of the Director of National Intelligence................     7
    Tierney (Fmr.), John F., Congressman, Member, Public Interest
      Declassification Board.........................................    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    32

                             SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

    Responses of John F. Tierney (Fmr.) to Questions for the Record..    38
    Responses of Mr. Gregory M. Koch to Questions for the Record.....    52

         OPEN HEARING: DECLASSIFICATION POLICY AND PROSPECTS FOR REFORM

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2020

                                           U.S. Senate,
                              Select Committee on Intelligence,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:15 p.m. in Room
    G-50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Marco Rubio (Acting
    Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Rubio, Warner, Risch, Collins, Blunt,
    Cornyn, Sasse, Feinstein, Wyden, Heinrich, and King.
        Chairman Rubio. This hearing will come to order.
        This afternoon, we're going to welcome Mr. Greg Koch from
    the Office of the Director of National Intelligence who, I
    advise our members, we're having trouble getting linked in, but
    hopefully we'll be able to resolve that here at some point.
    Everyone knows we have a third vote here that's pending as
    well.
        Former Representative John Tierney from the Public Interest
    Declassification Board will discuss declassification policy. In
    particular, we'll be discussing striking a balance between
    protecting our Nation's classified material and ensuring
    historical documents can safely get their moment in the sun.
        I'm prepared to defer my opening statement for the
    following reasons. Senator Moran has the chair hearing at 3:30
    and in-between has to go vote. If it's okay with both of you,
    I'll just give my time to Senator Moran so he can open with
    some comments since he's joined us here today on this issue.
    And then, that way, he doesn't have to miss a vote and can
    chair his important hearing at 3:30 where hopefully your WebEx
    is working.
        Vice Chairman Warner. Mr. Chairman, can I reserve some
    special chit or favor from Jerry?
        Chairman Rubio. Absolutely. You should take him for
    everything he's got in that bag of chits.
        So, Senator Moran, do you want to provide your comments so
    you have plenty of time to vote and not miss your hearing?

       STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS

        Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. It's a
    real privilege to testify--to be in front of this Committee. I
    hold the Intel Committee in high regard and recognize its
    important role in securing the security of our citizens. And I
    appreciate the consideration that you and Senator Warner
    provided--and the timing.
        Members of the Committee: Thank you very much for the
    opportunity to advocate for declassification reform and for
    having this open setting, Mr. Chairman. As you may be aware, I
    am a sponsor, alongside a member of this Committee, Senator
    Wyden, of Senate Bill 3733, the Declassification Reform Act.
        Senator Wyden and I worked on this issue for a long time.
    It is surprising to me that the end result is so
    straightforward and relatively simple, but it is an attempt to
    begin the process of modernizing declassification by
    designating the director of National Intelligence as the
    executive agent responsible for promoting programs, processes,
    and systems related to declassification.
        Though the bill itself rests within the jurisdiction of
    another committee, this Committee has previously considered
    this bill as an amendment offered by Senator Wyden to the
    Intelligence Authorization Act. I appreciate the discussion of
    this bill, which many of you have personally visited with me on
    the floor and throughout the Capitol complex.
        The conversations in today's hearing underscore recognition
    that the process which guides our Nation's release of
    declassified information are antiquated and are unable to keep
    up with the overwhelming flood of digital data that is
    classified on a daily basis.
        Congress has been told repeatedly over the years that the
    system is unsustainable. Last year, the Director of the
    Information Security Oversight Office wrote to the President
    that, ``The current framework is unsustainable and desperately
    requires modernization.''
        In 2016, the Public Interest Declassification Board
    reported the classification system is, ``No longer able to
    handle the current volume and forms of information, especially
    given the exponential growth of digital information.''
        Four years later, there's little evidence that the problem
    is on a path to being solved. The current system holds on to
    records that no longer require classification and its impacts
    to taxpayers is estimated to be $18 billion per year. And it
    denies public access to information that can be used to hold
    the Government accountable.
        As the Public Interest Declassification Board notes, the
    overwhelmed system hurts us policymakers as well. Senator Wyden
    approached me in late 2018 and asked me to join him in an
    effort to craft legislation that would begin to address this
    problem.
        While I indicated my great regard for members of this
    Committee, I am not one of them. And so, there might be a
    question as why is this an interest to me. And certainly, the
    ability to save taxpayer dollars is of interest to me. The
    ability to be more transparent to the American public is of
    interest to me. And the ability for us as policymakers to have
    the necessary information available to us is important to me.
        Protecting those taxpayers to the tune of billions that is
    spent on classification and ensuring transparency from the
    Federal Government and the ability to do that without
    jeopardizing national security is a priority.
        For well over a year, we've consulted with experts from the
    Public Interest Declassification Board, Information Security
    Oversight Office, the National Archives, other outside experts,
    the officials from our Nation's intelligence agencies as well
    as staff from this Intelligence Committee. We know technical
    solutions, such as artificial intelligence and machine
    learning, exist to facilitate bringing our system into the 21st
    century. And we know individual agencies are taking steps with
    some of this technology to address the issue, but more
    coordinated effort that implements best practices is clearly
    required.
        The final product, the Declassification Reform Act, adopts
    the key recommendation from the latest report issued in May by
    the Public Interest Declassification Board. Senator Wyden and I
    are not under the impression that naming an executive agent
    will resolve every problem associated with classifying and
    declassifying information, but we do believe appointing an
    official with sufficient authority to implement changes across
    the Federal Government is a really good first step.
        From our consultations over the past year, we know that
    there is resistance, and suggested improvements to the
    Declassification Reform Act. And we also recognize there are
    other ideas that can facilitate reform. I'm pleased today's
    hearing will seek to flesh out our bill and other ideas to
    address the problem of this magnitude.
        Whatever the direction that this Committee determines to
    move forward with reform, resources will be necessary to
    implement it. As a member of the Defense Appropriations
    Subcommittee, please consider me an ally in this endeavor. I've
    been pleased to join Senator Wyden in this effort and I'm
    equally eager to work with the members of this Committee in
    achieving declassification reform that is long overdue and yet
    protects American citizens and our national security.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you, again, for having this open
    hearing that allows me to testify. And I thank you and the
    Committee members for their time and the opportunity to be here
    today.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
                                FLORIDA

        Chairman Rubio. Thank you, Senator Moran. And thank you for
    being here. I'm going to sort of condense my opening statement
    in the interest of time.
        You know, the Congress established the Public Interest
    Declassification Board to advise the Executive Branch on the
    identification, the review, and the release of records. In May
    2020, they released a report on reforming this process and it
    recommended sweeping changes to the way that we declassify
    records. And today, we're going to look to our witness, former
    Congressman Tierney, to explain those recommendations.
        Let me just say broadly, the Intelligence Community agrees
    that reform is needed. The backlog of historical documents is
    large. The system for moving documents to review is completely
    outdated, and the standards, quite frankly, are sometimes
    inconsistent throughout the national security establishment.
        I am concerned, however, that the recommendations don't
    align with the ODNI's current role, given that they have
    neither the authority nor the expertise to serve as the leader
    of the declassification enterprise for the entire government,
    which is one of the issues that we've discussed in terms of
    jurisdiction for this Committee. For example, they are not and
    they should not be in a position at the ODNI to set the
    declassification rules for the Department of Defense's war
    plans or nuclear programs.
        So, we look forward to talking to our witnesses about
    ODNI's view of the declassification process and business
    practices, including the prospects of achievable reform within
    the context of the limits of the ODNI's authority. Separately,
    I think the subject of this hearing allows us to emphasize a
    related point, and that's the difference between a process of
    responsible declassification of secrets that don't need to be
    secret and selfish, irresponsible leaks.
        The reason we classify things is not because you try to
    keep things from people. It is because if it is revealed, you
    will reveal how you learned about those things, and the people
    or entities you're collecting on will realize that you have
    accesses to information and cut you off from more important
    information in the future. So, this is one of the main reasons
    why things are kept secret.
        That is, of course, balanced with the default position,
    generally, of transparency from government. And it's necessary.
    We need transparency in order to have accountability that our
    system of government requires. So, it has to be balanced
    between these two equities, protecting the safety and security
    of the American people through our ability to learn valuable
    information about adversaries and potential adversaries, with
    the need of the American people for transparency on everything
    the Government does.
        I would say that those who--and by that, I'm actually very
    proud of this Committee that by and large has been very
    responsible in my 10 years on this Committee with the
    information we come across. No matter where we fall on the
    issues, I think it's fair to say this Committee has never been,
    in my time on it, a source of these sorts of things.
        But, there are those who do, outside of this Committee,
    casually dismiss the responsibility of holding classified
    information. Many of them have, frankly, either never sat
    through a briefing or been read into billion-dollar programs
    that if revealed, would leave our Nation blind and deaf to the
    threats that we faced. They've never met and heard about the
    brave men and women who risk their lives every single day to
    prevent the next terrorist attack or to steal the plans for a
    deadly new weapons system.
        These are the secrets that Al-Qaeda, that China, that Iran,
    that Russia, and others seek--and they would use that
    information to do us harm. These secrets need to stay secret,
    but not forever. An agreed-upon declassification process that
    allows review of secret documents to be sure that those secrets
    can be given their day in the sun without harming people or
    programs or the American taxpayer. Done responsibly, that would
    build trust between the American people and their government.
    So, Mr. Koch and his colleagues make sure that that happens for
    the Intelligence Community.
        But, some are not willing to play by the rules,
    unfortunately. People who have put their lives on the line to
    give us information deserve better. And to see their hard won
    secrets splashed across the pages of the New York Times or the
    Washington Post just because a bureaucrat or a politician
    wanted to score some cheap political point for their own
    benefit.
        Our Nation deserves better than that. Our people deserve
    better than that. They pay taxes so their government can
    provide for a common defense. And we spend those taxes on
    technological breakthroughs, on brilliant mathematicians, and
    clever computer scientists who could make 10 times their salary
    by working somewhere else.
        These people work for years to gain access to these
    secrets, the secrets that keep us safe from a terrorist attack,
    or from the next enormous hack from China or somewhere else, or
    to stop an oligarch's plans to try to influence and steal an
    election.
        Then, they see that access evaporate when someone decides
    that they are above that higher mission and that scoring a
    political point is more important than protecting our country
    and honoring our taxpayers. And then, the trust is destroyed,
    those dollars dissolve as they never existed, our allies
    suddenly consider us a security risk, and it is no
    overstatement to say that people die.
        From Edward Snowden to a politician who wants to be the
    first to break news, we the American people suffer for their
    selfish acts. And who benefits? Maybe the politicians snag a
    few headlines for a few hours on an interview on cable news,
    but the real winner ultimately is our adversaries.
        All that said, I want to take a minute to thank the
    professionals on whose shoulders these declassification
    decisions rest. Our ODNI briefer, Mr. Koch, represents a very
    small group of people who, in the last three years, has been a
    vital partner for this Committee. We sought to reveal
    information the right way, after working with the Intelligence
    Community to ensure we were doing no harm.
        All five volumes of the Russia report passed through his
    shop for declassification review. And we greatly appreciate his
    efforts, their efforts, to protect our secrets and yet ensure
    the American people were able to see our work.
        I also want to thank Senator Sasse for his perspective, as
    an historian and an academic, and his leadership in ensuring
    that declassification is done properly, while again protecting
    our investment in our Intelligence Community.
        Of course, the Vice Chairman, who has taken an interest in
    this, and Senator Moran who was here today. And on this
    Committee, especially Senator Wyden, who has been a leader,
    perhaps the leader, on trying to reform. Not ``perhaps''--is
    the leader on trying to reform the declassification process.
    So, again, thank you, Senator Moran, for being here.
        And let me just say, as a housekeeping item, we'll let
    everyone know when the votes are coming and so forth. This is
    our first experience with WebEx.
        We are not, by nature, a very open-to-the-public kind of
    Committee. So, we are struggling with that as well. But, we'll
    do the best we can as we hope to work through some of these
    technical glitches in the interim. So, I do ask everybody for
    their patience. It has nothing to do with keeping something
    secret or declassified, we promise that, on this one.
        So, thank you. To the Vice Chairman.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK R. WARNER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
                                VIRGINIA

        Vice Chairman Warner. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And
    let me thank my friend, Senator Moran, my friend, Senator
    Wyden, for taking on this issue. I think it is extraordinarily
    timely. I do hope we're going to get to hear from Congressman
    Tierney and Mr. Koch. I've got a number of questions for him.
        I know declassification is a bit more technical than some
    of the issues that we grapple with, but it is fitting that we
    should have an open session to discuss it.
        I think we all would agree that today's declassification
    system is broken. It's outdated, slow, bulky, costly, and
    almost hopelessly inadequate for the digital age.
        Agencies are using a fragmented, paper-based system that
    lacks the resources, uniformity, and technology to keep pace
    with the exploding volume of digital records. This leads to
    errors, puts classified information at risk, and erodes
    Americans' trust in the system.
        A quarter of a century ago, a commission led by the late
    Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a former Member of this
    Committee, found that while secrecy is important for security
    operations, policy discussions, and weapons systems, and also
    found that excessive secrecy has significant negative
    consequences when the public cannot be engaged in informed
    debate, which is extraordinarily timely now in terms of
    election security. When policymakers are not fully informed and
    government cannot be held accountable for its actions.
        Furthermore, excessive classification saps resources needed
    from protecting those secrets that truly must be kept. I agree
    with the Chairman. Those secrets that are critical, they must
    be kept and honored in, I think, a greater way.
        But, my fear is in today's digital age, if anything, the
    new solution seems much worse--the ease with which tens of
    millions of new documents are classified every year. So, I'm
    going to be anxious to hear from our witnesses on how the
    declassification system is functioning. And I'm sure we'll have
    questions.
        And I want to, like the Chairman, recognize the very
    important work of Senator Wyden, who, without his constant
    persistence, I'm not sure we'd even be at this point.
        I would like to now cede the balance of my time to Senator
    Wyden for some opening comments as well.

        STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

        Senator Wyden. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman. And I especially want to thank my co-sponsor, Senator
    Moran, who I know is getting out the door, and also Chairman
    Rubio. Open hearings are rare, and I very much appreciate him
    doing this.
        Let me start by saying that when our country's safety is at
    stake, there is a very real need to classify documents
    essential to protecting American lives. What there is no need
    for is a dilapidated, out of control classification system that
    costs taxpayers more than $18 billion a year and--get this,
    colleagues--cannot even distinguish between what should and
    should not be kept secret.
        The classification system is so outdated and dysfunctional
    that when it comes time to declassify a document, the agencies
    that have to sign off don't even have the ability to
    communicate about it securely online.
        So, here's what happens, colleagues. Intelligence officials
    have to print out the documents. They put them in a bag and
    drive around from agency to agency. And if they get stuck in
    traffic, they better bring a bag lunch.
        Now, watching these intelligence officials march around
    with their documents might make for a funny ``Saturday Night
    Live'' skit, but it is an absurd waste of taxpayer money and
    it's damaging to our national security and our democracy.
    Documents that should not be classified are just piling up in
    secret databases. The system is choking on itself and it's
    getting worse each year as a flood of new information gets
    classified digitally.
        As the Chairman said, there is widespread consensus there
    is a serious problem here. There's a widespread consensus that
    modernizing the declassification system is the only solution.
    There are lots of good ideas for how to do it. The only thing
    missing is somebody to take responsibility and get it done.
        So, that's what Senator Moran and I are doing: bipartisan
    legislation that would implement the privacy board's
    recommendations and direct the Director of National
    Intelligence to take the leadership role. They're already
    responsible for information management, information technology,
    and the protection of sources and methods. The DNI is already
    responsible for developing uniform policies within the
    Intelligence Community across the Government. Solutions to this
    longstanding problem are at hand.
        One last point. And Chairman Rubio, I'd like just to make
    sure that I impart this to you because I think you raised the
    central concern that I've heard about, the Department of
    Defense. The reform Senator Moran and I are urging does not put
    the DNI in charge of deciding what DOD secrets are
    declassified. It's about modernizing systems for declassifying
    information that the Department of Defense and other agencies
    have already determined are no longer classified.
        So, I'm sure we're going to have a good discussion. Mr.
    Chairman, again, thank you for your courtesy and the
    opportunity to be here.
        Chairman Rubio. Thank you. So, my understanding Mr. Koch is
    on.

      STATEMENT OF GREGORY M. KOCH, ACTING DIRECTOR, INFORMATION
         MANAGEMENT OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
                              INTELLIGENCE

        Mr. Koch. Acting Chairman Rubio, Vice Chairman Warner, and
    Members of the Committee, it is an honor to appear before you
    on this panel to present the Intelligence Community's
    perspective on declassification reform.
        I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss with you
    declassification, one of the most important, often overlooked,
    oversubscribed, and misunderstood areas of the information
    security program. Today, I hope to give you a better
    understanding of the current declassification landscape, share
    an IC perspective on proposed government-wide reform, and
    discuss the level of effort that real reform will require.
        As the Committee is likely aware, the U.S. Government's
    declassification review processes are not ideal for the digital
    age and likely require significant change in order to keep pace
    with the massive increase in digital information eligible for
    declassification. With limited resources and subject matter
    expertise dedicated solely to declassification review, a
    relatively small workforce faces a daunting task in processing
    requests from the massive repositories of records, which by
    some estimates exceeded the equivalent of four million cubic
    feet of paper in the IC alone.
        Facing those kinds of numbers, Federal agencies undoubtedly
    need and support classification reform.
        Modernization must occur to meet the demands of the digital
    age as well as support transparency to the public, while
    simultaneously safeguarding national security information.
        IC recognizes the critical importance of public interest in
    our efforts to be transparent with the American people. As
    such, the ODNI, in consultation with IC elements, works
    diligently to support declassification and public release
    requests for national intelligence information, not only from
    the public but also from congressional committees and the
    President, including, but not limited to, a large volume of
    information related to Argentinian human rights abuses;
    information relating to use of our surveillance authorities;
    intelligence information related to Department of Justice
    Inspector General investigations; and the five volumes of this
    Committee's report on its Russian active measures
    investigations.
        In addition, ODNI facilitated an IC review for release of
    national intelligence information on a wide range of topics,
    including materials on the 50th anniversary of the Tet
    Offensive. IC elements also continue to process thousands of
    Freedom of Information Act, Mandatory Declassification Review,
    and Privacy Act requests each year. The IC invests in and
    continues to prioritize these efforts because they are
    important to the public's understanding of the challenges
    facing our Nation.
        While the ODNI continues to work across the IC to improve
    internal declassification processes and systems, larger
    investments in people and technology are required to see real
    change. In that vein, the IC appreciates the goals and
    objectives of the Declassification Reform Act. However, an
    initial review of the legislation surfaced multiple concerns.
        First and foremost, any proposed reform must be consistent
    with the IC's obligation to protect sources and methods and our
    most sensitive classified information from unauthorized
    disclosure. Reform efforts must also address the individual
    departments and agencies, such as Departments of Defense and
    Energy, which also have significant classification and
    declassification equities.
        Additionally, the required investment and wide sweeping
    whole-of-government change envisioned by the PIDB report and
    the legislation it informed requires more agency program
    analysis to understand and account for all equities.
        The IC agrees modernization is imperative and looks forward
    to more discussion on capability, capacity, and the actual
    price tag of accomplishing the intended objectives of the
    proposed legislation.
        A specific concern to the IC is the recommendation to make
    the DNI the government-wide executive agent for
    declassification, responsible for all policies and processes of
    the U.S. Government. ODNI believes that such an approach takes
    the ODNI well beyond its intended role. The DNI is a delegated
    authority from the President to classify information as are
    other agencies in accordance with Executive Order 13526--
    Classified National Intelligence Information.
        The DNI classification and declassification
    responsibilities and competencies apply to intelligence and
    intelligence-related information within the 17 agencies and
    components that make up the IC, not to information located
    throughout the entire Federal Government. As you know, the
    DNI's authority generally does not extend beyond the IC.
        A government-wide EA role for declassification is not only
    resource intensive, it also supposes that one EA is responsible
    for classification and that all information is treated the
    same. That assumption is false and will likely lead to
    unintended consequences.
        Many agencies have delegated original classification
    authorities specific to their holdings. The ODNI does not have
    the capacity or the expertise to govern declassification of
    information created, collected, classified, and held by the
    entire Federal Government. As such, charging the ODNI with this
    broader mandate would have negative consequences and distract
    from our core mission of protecting its intelligence sources,
    methods, and activities.
        This expanded role for ODNI is also in conflict with, and
    contrary to, the ODNI's constitution as a smaller integration
    body, rather than a larger operational organization. The
    proposed legislation describes an enormous endeavor to reform
    declassification, and the likelihood of success cannot rest
    with one lead agency. Any government structure must address the
    equities of all of the owning government agencies who have
    individual experience and inherent authority over their
    classified information.
        Consistent with the concerns outlined regarding the EA
    role, we also believe the DNI is not well suited to chair a
    committee overseeing government-wide declassification efforts.
    While the ODNI would welcome further discussion on the proposed
    creation of an Executive Committee on Declassification Programs
    and Technology, the ODNI recommends the Committee also engage
    with other federal agencies with longstanding declassification
    programs, such as DOD, DOE, and State, on proposals for
    declassification reform.
        In the midst of discussion about declassification
    governance reforms, we must not lose sight of the way the
    declassification mission is changing fundamentally. As I
    mentioned previously, the overall volume of information
    requiring declassification review is growing exponentially as
    agencies produce more and more digital information.
        With such a flood of information production, the IC agrees
    that investments in IT will be required to deal with the
    growing volumes of information collected and produced in the
    digital age, along with many years' worth of existing analog
    and digital holdings that may hold valuable historical
    insights.
        There are opportunities to apply advanced technologies,
    such as artificial intelligence and machine learning, to
    augment declassification specialists. Incorporating new
    technology would reduce some labor-intensive steps, support
    consistency and referrals during the review process, and
    possibly identify sensitive sources and methods.
        However, it is important to note that technology is not a
    panacea. Human expertise on information holdings and routinely
    validating that technology will always be necessary.
        Finally, coordination of declassification efforts
    throughout the U.S. Government would require something that has
    been exceedingly difficult to do, even within the much smaller
    group of the IC: get all declassification stakeholders on the
    same IT system, network, and platform so that coordination can
    occur smoothly and securely.
        Most agencies have their own individual IT systems.
    Bringing these networks together beyond the level of exchanging
    emails has proven to be a monumental task and requires
    significant resources to deliver the proper secure environment.
    An even greater level of effort will be needed to accomplish
    similar goals throughout the U.S. Government.
        While the ODNI continues to work diligently to address
    timeliness and consistency in the review process, extending
    that process beyond the IC without first creating the
    infrastructure to support it simply wouldn't work.
        The challenges to reform are immense, but ODNI agrees with
    the PIDB that the need for reform cannot be ignored. While we
    differ on the advisability, feasibility, and the obstacles to
    making the DNI the EA for declassification, we look forward to
    working with this Committee, the overall U.S. Government, and
    the PIDB on ways in which the IC can contribute to meaningful
    reforms.
        Acting Chairman Rubio, Vice Chairman Warner, and Members of
    this Committee, thank you for your time and attention on a very
    important topic. I look forward to your questions.
        Chairman Rubio. Thank you.
        Congressman Tierney.

     STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN F. TIERNEY (FMR.) MEMBER OF THE
                 PUBLIC INTEREST DECLASSIFICATION BOARD

        Mr. Tierney. Thank you Acting Chairman Rubio and Vice
    Chairman Warner and also the Members of the Committee. I want
    to thank you for the invitation to testify on the important but
    mutually neglected issue of modernizing the Government's
    national security classification and declassification system.
    I'd also like to thank the Committee staff for their assistance
    on making it possible for me to appear before the Committee by
    video.
        I'm speaking to you today as a member of the Public
    Interest Declassification Board, or the PIDB, and my remarks
    reflect the views of our members. Our staff previously provided
    a much more detailed prepared statement to the Committee staff.
        Congress recognized the critical importance of
    declassification in our democracy and in our Nation's security
    when it created the PIDB in 2000. It recognized the role the
    PIDB can play and should play in improving the health of the
    national security classification and declassification system by
    making recommendations for reform.
        We're gratified with Senators Moran and Wyden cosponsoring
    and introducing The Declassification Reform Act of 2020. This
    proposed legislation includes many of the recommendations for
    our recent report to the President entitled, ``A Vision for the
    Digital Age: Modernization of the United States Classification
    and Declassification System.''
        We're also grateful for the Congress passing and the
    President signing legislation last year, permanently
    authorizing the PIDB and looking forward to continuing our
    advocacy on the imperative to modernize today's antiquated
    classification and declassification systems.
        We've written five reports to the President over the past
    12 years. Each report documented challenges facing the
    Government and recommended new policies to address them.
    Modernization of the classification and declassification system
    is an imperative. It is a necessity for our national security
    and our democracy to operate effectively in the digital age.
        Since issuing our first report in 2008, the Government has
    made little progress. It has not invested nor integrated
    information technology into classification and declassification
    processes. We purposefully designed our most recent report to
    serve as a roadmap for the Government to overcome collective
    individual agency inaction, to harness uncoordinated efforts by
    a few individual agencies, and to integrate them into a
    Government-wide solution.
        We stress the critical importance of sustained leadership
    in driving change by having a senior-level executive agent
    oversee implementation of reforms. We felt that an integrated,
    federated-systems approach would ensure interoperability, allow
    for effective use of advanced technologies, and lead to
    solutions to declassifying large volumes of digital data.
        Our recommendations align with the Administration's
    information technology modernization and artificial
    intelligence strategies, and its efforts to integrate IT across
    agencies to improve performance and reduce cost. They align
    with the DNI's 2019 national intelligence strategy to do things
    differently. And the National Solarium's recommendation to
    reform the United States Government's structure and operations
    for cyberspace.
        There's a widespread agreement that the declassification
    system is at a breaking point. It simply cannot effectively
    handle the volume of digital data generated every day. It
    cannot handle the volume of records requiring declassification
    review. Declassification processes remain much the same from
    what they were when first developed in the Truman
    Administration in an era when secrets were created on paper and
    secured in safes. Without reform, it will be far worse in the
    future.
        I will share one example. In 2012, we learned that one
    intelligence agency estimated it created approximately one
    petabyte of classified data every 18 months. This is the
    equivalent of approximately 1 trillion pieces of paper.
        This agency estimated that using current manual
    declassification review processes, it would take 2 million
    employees one year to review this volume of information. This
    is just one agency eight years ago. The problem has undoubtedly
    grown exponentially since 2012.
        Just as the declassification system was about to collapse,
    over-classification is getting worse and harming current
    government national security operations. Lieutenant General
    James Dickinson, the President's nominee to lead the United
    States Space Command, testified before the Senate Armed
    Services Committee that over-classification was making it more
    difficult for us to support the warfighter.
        In this example, over-classification not only effects
    operations ambitions, but it can lead to costly duplication of
    space systems, limit innovation, diminish private sector
    support, and reduced development of new technologies on
    projects that could aid U.S. space dominance.
        Agencies must reevaluate the needs of their customers to
    maximize their support. For example, the National Geospatial-
    Intelligence Agency, the NGA, created a Consolidated Security
    Classification Guide it calls CoNGA. It is integrated into NGA
    work processes, uses advance technology to automate
    classification decisions, and ensures decisions align with
    mission and customer needs.
        Policy modernization, interagency integration, and
    technology use are critical to the security of our Nation.
    Technology, such as artificial intelligence and machine
    learning, are revolutionizing operations. Specific tools and
    technology solutions exist at agencies now. They can and must
    be used to revolutionize the management of classified data.
        Agency programs currently operate independently in a silo.
    They are duplicative and they only focus on identifying and
    reviewing their own equity information. Many lack the ability
    to communicate securely with each other, including the National
    Declassification Center. This leads to added cost and reduced
    efficiencies as agencies duplicate processes.
        We recommend an executive agent to oversee declassification
    reform and integrate it into a federated system. First, the
    executive agent has the authority to oversee implementation of
    new policies and processes across the agencies, including
    developing precise declassification guidance and metadata
    standards that can be used across agencies.
        The executive agent has authority to direct and organize
    research into advanced technology solutions, ensure its
    interoperability across the federated enterprise system, and
    coordinate technological acquisition.
        We believe the ODNI is strategically empowered to take on
    the coordination role as executive agent. The ODNI has the
    experience. It overcame bureaucratic roadblocks and integrated
    the 17 organizations that comprise the Intelligence Community.
    The ODNI is a proven leader in developing, implementing, and
    managing technological solutions and acquisitions to support
    missions and operations across agencies.
        Implemented development and deployment of the Intelligence
    Community information technology enterprise, ICITE, and it
    manages the joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System.
        The ODNI is a leader in overseeing and managing research in
    advanced information technology, artificial intelligence, and
    other machine-learning technologies. It can leverage expertise
    of the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Agency, National
    Security Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, other
    Intelligence Community agencies, and In-Q-Tel and other private
    sector partners.
        Lastly, the DNI has the stature to bring about change. The
    2019 National Intelligence Strategy recognized the DNI's
    leadership role in getting the Government to do things
    differently by increasing integration and coordination,
    bolstering innovation, and increasing transparency. We felt the
    ODNI was the clear choice to serve as the executive agent.
        ODNI's leadership in establishing a common IT architecture
    can also provide opportunities to gain efficiencies, better
    support missions, and increase cost savings by expanding the
    common IT infrastructure, processes, and data strategy already
    in place to improve classification and declassification.
        We're at a precipice. The declassification system can no
    longer keep pace with the volume of paper records created 25
    years ago; and the exponential growth of digital data will
    cause it to collapse without radical change. The impact of a
    failure to reform the classification and declassification
    system will be felt widely in our democracy and in our national
    security.
        We authorized five reports offering recommendations and
    possible solutions to this challenge. However, they have not
    yet led to a coordinated government effort to radically rethink
    what classification and declassification mean in a digital age,
    how it impacts our national security, and how it impacts our
    democracy. Our board remains hopeful that change is coming.
        The President signed Senate Bill 1790 last year. It
    required the Department of Defense to report to the Congress on
    its plan to integrate advance technologies into
    declassification processes and what it is doing to reduce
    declassification backlogs.
        There is also unanimity among all stakeholders this system
    will not work with digital age. I appreciate the ODNI
    representative's statement that the system is outdated,
    recognizing that there is a problem is a step forward.
        We support Senator Moran's and Senator Wyden's recently
    proposed legislation to modernize declassification and we're
    grateful to this Committee for hosting a hearing on this issue.
    These are also important steps forward.
        There are important steps that will lead to reform. The
    Government is already modernizing information technology
    policies and practices. It is reforming acquisition policies
    and practices for efficiency and reduced costs. It is
    integrating the use of advanced technology across agencies to
    address mission imperatives.
        Adopting the recommendations in our vision report either
    within the executive branch or through legislation are the next
    steps. Appointing the DNI as the executive agent will bring
    needed experience and expertise. It will facilitate development
    of a federated systems approach across agencies. It will
    facilitate the integration of advance information technology
    into new classification and declassification processes.
        Let me again express my appreciation to the Committee for
    addressing this esoteric, yet critically important topic.
    Modernizing the classification and declassification system is
    important for our 21st century national security and it is
    important for transparency and our democracy.
        The time for action is now. The Government must move beyond
    saying, ``it's too costly'' or saying, ``some other agency
    should be responsible.'' Instead, the roadmap in our report
    offers opportunities for reform. It offers possible solutions
    for the Government to engage with stakeholders to truly address
    this challenge, to identify solutions, and to implement them.
        Thank you, again, for your interest and your support. I
    look forward to answering your questions and continuing this
    discussion.
        Chairman Rubio. Thank you both for being here. The Vice
    Chairman went to vote. I'm going to go as soon as he comes
    back. Senator Feinstein is still getting ready.
        So, Senator Blunt, you're next. Are you ready?
        Senator Blunt. Yes, I am, Chairman. Thanks for letting me
    go. I've got a couple of questions.
        You know, clearly, as my former colleague, Congressman
    Tierney, mentioned in his remarks, Congress has asked the ODNI
    to come back with a plan on classification. We all believe that
    we over-classify now. I think that's more likely than not the
    default position. If you don't have a lot of time to think
    about the thing you're classifying and decide there may be
    something in there that possibly should be classified at a
    higher level, it goes there. And it goes there for a long time.
        So, I don't know how much of that we need to establish
    here. We need to get back to where the classification is as
    open as possible and available in the future as quickly as
    possible.
        I would say this is a question for Mr. Koch. You know the
    Pentagon leaders themselves have been pressing pretty
    aggressively for this. The secretary of the Air Force,
    Secretary Barrett, General Hyten, Vice Chair of the Joint
    Chiefs of Staff, have pointed out how hard it is to make the
    case publicly without access to information that is widely
    available now, particularly the overhead architecture
    information. So much of it is virtually available at the
    commercial level, if not absolutely available at the commercial
    level.
        And to make the case for Space Command or to make the
    case--. Senator Moran and I both serve on the Defense
    Appropriating Committee. You know, his challenge is there are
    things that that Committee needs to know that truly aren't at
    the intel level but are at a level to where Members of Congress
    should have more access to them than they have now.
        So, I guess the question, Mr. Koch, is what kinds of things
    would make it easier to explain the needs of Space Command and
    other defense needs if they were classified at a level beyond
    the likely current classification level?
        Mr. Koch. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
    Unfortunately, I don't think I can speak intelligently to what
    Space Command and Space Force is doing. That's a DOD equity. I
    can speak for the IC and what ODNI's doing.
        But, if you're concerned about how agencies in the IC over-
    classify things, I share that concern with you. And you have to
    understand that we are collectively working on updating our
    security classification guides to be more tailored for very
    specific information.
        So [Inaudible] are not [Inaudible] level when they--when
    there's a question. We're preparing better training for our
    workforce and I have utmost confidence that we will get to a
    point where over-classification will not be an issue going
    forward.
        Senator Blunt. Well, I hope so. And I guess, again, part of
    my question was that there is so much that's available at the
    commercial level now and we wind up classifying government
    documents that are widely available at almost the level we have
    them in other ways. But, I think people are reluctant, if it's
    a classified document, to use it and often don't have the time
    to go somewhere else to find it.
        So, a lot of people have, during the COVID period, really
    figured out that there's lots of unclassified material that
    they could access from home. Some agencies better prepared than
    others to work in that unclassified space.
        But, given your declassification background, what have you
    done to assist the various IC agencies as to how they could use
    more unclassified documents during the time that they were
    working remotely? I think that also would be a question, Mr.
    Koch, for you.
        Mr. Koch. Senator, thank you. Thank you for the question.
    To be honest, I have not been personally involved with that.
        As you know the IC works at the classified level for the
    vast majority of the time. So, not only during COVID, but pre-
    COVID it's incredibly difficult for any officer in the IC to
    work in an unclassified setting when they deal with classified
    material. So even if I had been involved with that----
        Senator Blunt. Are you telling you me you didn't have
    people working from home in an unclassified setting during the
    time that the headquarters was man down?
        Mr. Koch. No, we have had people working from home but we
    can't have them working on any kind of declassification
    initiatives or requests.
        Senator Blunt. I guess maybe I'm not making the case here
    right. But the case says that a lot of people have found a way
    to use declassified commercially available material that
    allowed them to do most of what they were doing with the
    classified material. And I guess your answer is you've given no
    advice in that.
        John Tierney, on the move toward more declassification from
    your oversight, you're looking at that. What have you seen that
    you're most encouraged about and what have you seen that you're
    most concerned about as we try to get our hands around this
    whole issue of over classifying.
        Mr. Tierney. Senator, what we've seen is a lack of ability
    to work across the agencies and find standards that can apply
    for anybody on that. And I think that goes back in the form of
    a lack of leadership. We're not asking that the ODNI actually
    go in there and tell people what they're going to classify and
    not classify. But we need somebody to make sure everybody is
    working on updating those and to the extent that it even can be
    uniform making sure that they are.
        And I think what's probably most uncertain to us is that
    there's no activity going on in that realm. Everybody seems to
    just be saying well it's too expensive or it's too much for us
    to do. When in fact somebody has got to do it if it's going to
    be done at all and it is incredibly expensive to not have it
    done, as Senator Warner indicated and also Senator Wyden. Some
    $18-plus billion dollars a year are being spent and we're not
    really on top of the issues here.
        So I think that we need the leadership and we need a set of
    standards that will take care of as much as can be done while
    still leaving the individual agencies the ability to take care
    of their own equities.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Congressman. Chairman, I'm out of
    time. Thanks for the time.
        Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator. I think as
    Chairman Rubio indicated, we're going to do five-minute rounds.
    I'll go. I think Senator Cornyn's up next. Then I understand
    we're doing it this time by seniority. So you'll be right after
    Senator Cornyn. It's Warner, Cornyn, Feinstein next.
        Senator Cornyn. Gentlemen, there's lot of detail here but
    if I could sort of pull us back to a 30,000-foot level or
    above. I'm not really exactly sure there's a common
    understanding about the problem we're trying to solve both
    through the classification system and the declassification
    system. I start from the premise that public information should
    be available unless there is a good reason not to make it
    available.
        And I'm told that there are about four million people with
    security clearances in the United States and it seems to me
    that not only do we over-classify, but that it's so burdensome
    to come up with a method of declassification that it just
    simply--we need to sort of think over again what is the goal
    here?
        We all understand being consumers of classified
    information--the importance of protecting things like sources
    and methods. But just like under the Freedom of Information
    Act, it's too easy for government officials to hide their
    mistakes to prevent public scrutiny and accountability for
    their actions on behalf of the taxpayer. And I wonder maybe I
    could start with you, Mr. Tierney.
        I'd like to get a little bit of your perspective and
    feedback about how we should conceptualize the problem we're
    trying to solve here. And how do we reconcile that with another
    important law, which is the Freedom of Information Act and the
    presumption of openness, along with pretty clear criteria that
    are applied to keep it secret or keep it in the hands of the
    Government rather than to make it available.
        Do you think that's a fair contrast to make and should we
    all be focused--should both systems be focused on the same
    goal?
        Mr. Tierney. Well that's a tough question Senator. I
    appreciate your throwing it to my ballpark.
        You know, I had some of the same frustrations when I was on
    the Intelligence Committee in the House and on the Oversight
    Committee with National Security--that you're never quite sure
    that people are applying the proper standards to anything that
    they're classifying. And sometimes you get the notion that they
    might be classifying something for reasons of avoiding
    embarrassment or just because they're not sure whether it
    should be or not on that.
        I don't have the magic bullet on that and I don't think
    that our PIDB necessarily does either, except to say that it is
    something that has to be done across agencies and that it needs
    some leadership. Somebody has to take charge of saying this is
    a problem and we're going to get a working group together,
    which is one reason we have the executive committee working
    with the executive agent in our recommendations to deal with
    just this sort of a problem.
        There's identifying what is the glitch that is over-
    classifying things and what to do while setting standards that
    will allow people to apply them readily so that we don't get
    into that situation and make the clearness there. I think it'll
    be a decision that the communities make working together and
    that the Congress then will have to assess and make sure that
    they think that they're appropriate, as with the Executive, on
    that.
        We don't have the magic bullet on how to tell right now--
    how to classify one item and not classify another within the
    equities of each individual agency. But nobody seems to be
    doing it yet and nobody seems to be really pushing down on the
    pedal to make sure that they do. And that's where the lack of
    leadership comes in on that. Why I think it's so essential that
    somebody lead the project.
        Senator Cornyn. Well thank you for your answer. I wonder,
    do you as a former Member of Congress, do you see this as a
    legislative branch responsibility for identifying what
    information's classified or not? Or exclusively an executive
    branch decision?
        Mr. Tierney. I think that the Congress has an oversight
    role to play on that. I think that initially, particularly
    within the Intelligence Community, it is an Executive situation
    and that they have to be responsible for it. But I think that
    the Congress has an oversight view to make sure that it isn't
    overly broad and that it serves the underlying purpose of
    making sure there's transparency and that the public does get
    as a default mechanism those things which should not absolutely
    be classified.
        So while, again, the Executive can certainly take a lot of
    leeway on that and be very active in making sure that this
    moves forward, I don't think that Congress can abdicate its
    responsibility of oversight to make sure that it's being done
    properly and that classification does not continue to be over-
    broad in its application.
        Senator Cornyn. And again, Mr. Tierney, have you seen a
    construct or a reform in this area with regard to the
    classification system that you think is useful or something we
    ought to--? Or that gets it right? Or is it just simply an
    absence of proposals that would help us get our arms around
    that?
        Mr. Tierney. With respect to the classification versus
    items that shouldn't be classified, I don't think that I've
    seen a construct on that. I'd check with the other board
    members to see if they have or not. But I do think that there's
    a construct of having leadership in an agency that makes sure
    people are moving toward that goal and meeting benchmarks.
        And then working together to make sure there's as much
    standard application as possible. And that's the ODNI itself
    and the work that it did amongst the 17 agencies in the
    Intelligence Community. And some of that, of course, reaches
    outside the Intelligence Community where people have access to
    some of that information and they need to know.
        So, in that sense, there is a good example of how you can
    provide the leadership and it can work across agencies and even
    outside of the Intelligence Community is in the ODNI, the
    actual construct of classification versus don't classify
    something--I've not seen that prototype yet.
        Senator Cornyn. Well thank you very much. Mr. Chairman.
    I'll yield back.
        Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you. And there are five minutes
    left on the vote if you've not voted on the last one.
        Mr. Tierney, let me start with you and let me get both you
    and Mr. Koch on this one. This Committee has wrestled for two
    or three years on what I think is an analogous problem. And
    that is security clearance reform.
        We worked closely with the Administration. Took the backlog
    on clearances down from over 700,000 to about 200,000. Still
    waiting for an EO called the Trusted Workforce 2.0. But I guess
    I'm interested in both the witnesses.
        One is that there are the lessons learned from security
    clearance reform--and you may not be as familiar. But I'd like
    to have your comment there. And then what does a
    declassification system look like in a digital era? Since we
    obviously, I think, all agree that we're still kind of paper
    based. Either one of the witnesses. I guess I'll start with Mr.
    Tierney.
        Mr. Tierney. Okay. Well on the declassification in the
    digital age it looks like, again, the need for there to be
    technologies that are identified and methods of machine
    learning. The architecture we put together to even to work on
    that. And again, that's going to take somebody with experience
    in doing that. The ODNI fits that bill in terms of this idea.
    And I think it's going to be very important.
        And could you remind me the first part of your question
    Senator?
        Vice Chairman Warner. The first part of my question was--
    and you may not be as familiar with this part--but we worked
    quite closely with the Administration on a security clearance
    reform process. It's taken us three years but it seems like
    there were at least some similarities in terms of type of
    problem. And I don't know if you have observed any of that.
        Mr. Tierney. No, I haven't. I'm not familiar with it
    Senator, although I will note that I had a security clearance
    serving on the Intelligence Committee in the House. But when I
    went to work on this board they started the process and that
    was what three years ago? And I'm proud to say that last week
    they finished it. So if there's reform, it certainly has----
        Vice Chairman Warner. So much for that reform playing out
    in your case.
        Mr. Tierney. [Inaudible]
        Vice Chairman Warner. Mr. Koch, do you have any questions--
    either analogy--to security clearance reform and what are the
    metrics in a digital age?
        Mr. Koch. Sure Senator. So first let me say I'm not an
    expert at all in security classification reform. But the
    processes for security clearance investigation and access to
    classified information are fairly uniform. But when you're
    talking about the classification declassification system
    they're not. Because OCAs are delegated to departments and
    agencies from the President. And each agency develops their own
    security classification guides.
        So federating that is not the same as dealing with security
    EA processes and issues. On the digital front, I know that
    there are multiple working groups at the national level
    interagency level that are already dealing with these issues
    and have been over the past few years. And we are continuing to
    do that.
        Hopefully, after COVID finishes, we can get back to doing
    that business. But I will point out that the director of the
    ISOO already has the authorities that the PIDB suggests the DNI
    take over for declassification.
        Specifically, the ISOO is directed by the President to
    establish standards for classification/declassification marking
    principles. And they should be the ones in our view that should
    continue doing those things in this area and not just shift
    those responsibilities to another agency.
        Vice Chairman Warner. But when we're talking about a
    digital era, though, isn't there almost an immediate bias
    toward over-classification when you've got so much voluminous
    digital product at this point? Is there any kind of guidepost
    you'd give us on how you could stop that--that proclivity?
    You've got so much data at this point, it's just easier to
    declassify and sort--or easier to classify--then even try to
    sort through.
        Mr. Koch. Well, Senator, that's a hard question to answer.
    There's just so much out there. When you have humans making
    their own decisions on whether something should be classified
    or not, they're basing their decision on their own experience
    as well as following specific security classification guidance
    on what should and should not be classified.
        However, I do agree that we should get automation in this
    area, which would definitely cut down the over-classification
    issues that we have seen over the years. I know that there are
    some efforts underway throughout the IC to come up with some
    kind of program that can help automate as you're typing
    something that is immediately recognize as classified or not
    and therefore can mark a document for you so you don't have to
    do it yourself.
        I don't think that we're there yet, but we've definitely
    made some progress in that area.
        Vice Chairman Warner. I do think AI will be an important
    tool. When Senator Rubio was making his opening comments he
    singled out--in addition to Senator Wyden--he singled out one
    of our newer Members as the philosopher-scholar. So maybe
    Senator Sasse has got the answers. He's up next.
        Senator Sasse. It's unfortunate that you begin with an
    insult, but thank you Vice Chairman for chairing today.
        Senator Wyden, thank you for your work on this, and Senator
    Moran for your earlier statement. To the folks on the PIDB,
    thanks for your work in an area that's really important. It
    obviously sounds like a niche topic but I think it's incredibly
    important.
        I want to associate myself with comments from Members on
    both sides of the aisle today about the risks of over-
    classification, because it fosters public distrust. For all 15
    of us who serve on this Committee, I really appreciate the work
    of all the hard working men and women who often labor in the
    shadows. And even their families don't always get to know what
    they're going through and all the suffering and sacrifices that
    they do.
        We obviously value the classified product that we get on a
    regular basis. But I would push back a tiny little bit, Mr.
    Koch, against your last answer when you said people are making
    decisions about classification based on their individual
    histories and assessments. I think in addition they make
    decisions based on the structural incentives in the system
    where, if you over-classify something, there's no way you get
    in trouble. If you under-classify something, you can get in
    trouble.
        So the easy move--this is not to say that the people doing
    this work are lazy. It's that they're risk averse because all
    humans are. The easy move is to over-classify when you can't
    decide what to do. And so one of the things that I think, Mr.
    Tierney, your group has done so much important work on is just
    providing some simple ways for us to get our hands around it,
    and for the broader public to understand what problem we're
    dealing with.
        And so one piece of your report talks about how we spend
    about $18 billion a year on these classification/
    declassification systems that aren't really working because we
    have millions of pages of documents even from the Reagan
    administration. And I say as a historian, not just as a regular
    consumer of intelligence--as a historian, I think it's really
    important for the public and for scholars to be able to get
    access to all of this information.
        And instead of even wrestling around the hard dividing-line
    about what should or shouldn't still be declassified, I think
    Mr. Tierney what your report showed was that millions of pages
    of documents from the Reagan administration that should have
    already been declassified have not been simply because they
    require manual review. I think the bias for these older
    documents should be toward an inertia of motion path toward
    declassification.
        And if a manual review is required, then these documents
    don't get declassified. The incentives in the system are
    rewarded to having over-classified. Historians and other
    scholars can't get access to them. There's not enough scrutiny
    and that fosters public distrust.
        So Mr. Tierney, first of all thank you again for all of
    your hard work in this space. But as you arrived at the
    recommendation to make the ODNI--the DNI--the executive agent
    for declassification, could you walk us through a little bit of
    the process of how you landed there? What other alternatives
    you considered and how you decided that the DNI is the best or
    the least bad agent to be responsible here? That was directed
    at Congressman Tierney.
        Mr. Tierney. Thank you very much Senator.
        Senator Sasse. Thank you.
        Mr. Tierney. Look, a prioritization on declassification is
    very important. I'm glad you brought that up. And the last
    report we made, we recommended that the National
    Declassification Center and the agencies of public discuss
    which to be reviewed so that others essentially would have an
    insight into what records the public or other agencies want to
    see. And by the fall those records that has no interest in
    seeing or very little interest in seeing. And that
    prioritization would allow for a coordinated government-wide
    approach to declassifying information based on the records most
    sought and the most historical significance to the public.
        So those things are certainly important; and for the bond
    digital records in particular, the advanced technology would be
    able to assist in that declassification effort. It is costly,
    what's going on now. Some $18.5 billion are already being spent
    on an annual basis on that and it is more than a little crazy
    on that. There are 46 million pages in 2017 that were
    declassified. And each page costs about $2.23 per page.
        So we went through a process of recognizing just what the
    expense was to the citizens and taxpayers and the need for our
    prioritization. And we kept coming back to the notion that
    there needed to be somebody driving the train. There had to be
    some leadership here. Because everybody recognizes the problem.
    Everybody will admit right away that it needs to have some
    technology involved in it. Different infrastructure
    architecturally. It needs to have action taken cooperatively
    amongst agents as we see interoperability.
        All of those things people agree to but nobody seems to
    want to take the challenge on. We did at first look at the ISOO
    group and decided whether or not that would be a group that
    would be appropriate to take it. But unfortunately, ISOO is
    only 18 people. And it has a huge responsibility to do many
    other things that the executive orders have put on it. And I
    just can tell you some of them.
        It supports several executive orders including Executive
    Order 13526, to classify national security information; 18-
    12829, the National Industrial Security Program; 3549, to
    classify National Security Information Program with State,
    local, tribal, and private--and so on and so on. You get to see
    the issue on that.
        With only 18 people and its budget of $360 million this
    year, is $40 million decreased over the past 5 years. So we
    really couldn't, by a process of elimination, couldn't find an
    agency that would have the power and the respect in the
    community and that came from the ODNI's office.
        They do command the respect and the authority that's going
    to be needed for somebody to be able to say to the other
    agencies: you need to address this problem. You need to focus
    on it and get an answer. You need to work with us on
    identifying technologies. You need to work with us on getting
    answers about the machine learning. And then those agents--you
    need somebody who's had experience doing it. We didn't have any
    other organization that we were able to come across that had
    the kind of experience that the ODNI had.
        And even with the NGA--the Geospatial Agency--the work that
    they've done in CoNGA, solved some of the problems that were
    mentioned by you, Senators, earlier on that. But mostly looking
    back on that, a process of elimination of other agencies not
    having any experience, not having the authority perceived by
    other people to do that. And those things were very important
    and driven to us to say that this is what we need. We need
    somebody that--move on.
        Senator Sasse. Congressman, I'll cut in here just to say
    thank you because we're at time, and I know that I need to give
    the microphone back to the Chairman. But Mr. Chairman, I would
    note for the record that I'm going to followup with a letter as
    well, asking about how the pilot project is going with the
    applied research lab at the University of Texas at Austin,
    which is trying to figure out how to use artificial
    intelligence and machine learning to expedite the
    declassification process. But I'll do that by letter. Thank
    you.
        Chairman Rubio. Excellent. Senator Wyden.
        Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. For
    colleagues that have just joined us, I want to mention one
    issue that the Chairman raised that I also did some research on
    during the break. The reforms Senator Moran and I are urging do
    not put the DNI in charge of deciding what DOD secrets are
    declassified. The same principle is true of Department of
    Energy secrets, State Department secrets; those agencies are
    going to decide what they're going to declassify.
        What our bill's about is modernizing the systems for
    declassifying information that these agencies would use and
    have already determined are no longer classified. So that's an
    important issue, and I think we're going to have a dialogue on
    this. So Senator Moran and I very much want to work to develop
    a bipartisan coalition in this Committee to modernize the
    bureaucracy and we've proposed an approach that we think makes
    some sense.
        So I'd like to start by having Mr. Tierney--because he's
    got a chance to respond to Mr. Koch. I think it would be good
    to have Mr. Tierney paint for the Committee a picture of the
    declassification process five, 10 years from now--if this
    Committee can't get that bipartisan coalition for reform. What
    would be withheld from the American people simply because we
    didn't get a bipartisan coalition to modernize the bureaucracy?
        Congressman?
        Mr. Tierney. Well, Senator, it certainly won't be a pretty
    picture. I can tell you that. We don't know right now how many
    classified documents agencies create. And we can't tell exactly
    how big the problem is. But we do know that the figure
    continues to grow exponentially. I cited one example in my
    remarks. We also know the Government will be unable to
    declassify any large volume of digital data that--. The
    abilities just aren't there.
        Here's an example of a body of records that has or will
    have significant historical interest. The National Archives
    receive all the Presidential records at the conclusion of each
    Administration. It's an accession between one and two
    terabytes, I'm sorry, of data in the 12-year span of the Ronald
    Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.
        The volume increased to four terabytes in the Clinton
    administration, mostly emails and structured data. And the
    archives received 80 terabytes from the George W. Bush
    administration. Eight years later the National Archives
    accessioned an astonishing 250 terabytes of data from the Obama
    administration including a complex array of structured and
    unstructured data.
        So you just see how exponentially it grows in that one
    single category. And you take that and you blow it out amongst
    all the different agencies and aspects on that you get a
    picture of how ugly it's going to be years down the road when
    you don't have machine learning--you don't have the technology
    involved, you don't have some sort of coordinated effort.
        Senator Wyden. Now on the question of essentially how you
    handle this, how important--and this was very important to
    Senator Moran and I--is that declassification reform not be
    stove piped in different parts of the U.S. Government.
        Mr. Tierney. Well it's very important on that. How to
    encapsulate that is difficult. I mean, you have so many
    different agencies classifying. You have so many different
    aspects of ways now that it's almost impossible for people to
    do it. I mean there's one example of--it was mentioned
    earlier--that when somebody may declassify a document that is
    also involved with the equities of another agency. If you're
    doing it manually then you have to get it from one point to
    another.
        If there's no ability to get it technologically one point
    to another, it has to be physically brought from one place to
    another or somebody has to come in and visit and review the
    document in a secure setting to do it.
        So it just gets completely out of control. And I think it
    just moves on from there.
        Senator Wyden. One last question if I might, Mr. Tierney.
        So, Mr. Koch basically--and this is a common refrain--said
    well let's look somewhere else to do this important job of
    really cleaning up declassification. And he seems to think that
    ISOO and NDC--the National Center--are able to play the role to
    really bring about declassification reform. We were concerned
    that these offices don't really have the kind of bureaucratic
    heft--the kind of bureaucratic muscle--to actually get federal
    agencies to integrate and modernize their declassification
    systems. What's your take on that?
        Mr. Tierney. My take is exactly that, Senator. You're
    right. They can do it either way. You can say why did the DNI--
    should serve as executive agency or I can come in and say why--
    you know--the Information Security Oversight Office is not as
    suited to serve. But if it comes right down to it, one is the
    authority issue as you point out.
        I've heard all wonderful things the people at ISOO do and I
    want to thank them for all the work they do. They don't carry
    the kind of authority and weight that the ODNI does when it
    says something should be done or people should work together
    and get it done by a certain time in a certain way.
        And it's not equipped in that manner to serve. Also, as I
    mentioned, it has a quite heavy workload for 18 staff people
    and a budget that is shrinking instead of growing. The things
    that it can't do, it doesn't have the technical expertise that
    the ODNI has. It doesn't have access to the advanced technology
    that is already in place at the Intelligence Community
    agencies.
        Unlike the ODNI, it doesn't have the experience of
    developing or deploying or managing large multi-agency secure
    cloud based enterprise systems like the ICITE system I
    mentioned that is run by the ODNI.
        Unlike ODNI, it does not have the experience managing a
    secure communications network like JWICS. In fact, the National
    Archives only has two JWICS terminals for the entire agency.
        Unlike ODNI, it does not have the experience of focus on
    protecting sources and methods, something the ODNI has
    highlighted to us in 2018.
        And one reason I would think ODNI would want to be taking
    on this leadership role so it does have a good say in
    protecting sources and methods and be able to do that.
        And unlike the DNI, the director of ISOO does not have the
    same stature and ability to corral those agencies that I
    mentioned on their policies. And it probably would be in
    conflict with their main oversight mission to boot.
        So we've had discussions with Archives, leaders,
    historians, researchers, civil societies, organizations,
    records managers, or other agencies. We found that the National
    Archives is not the appropriate organization to serve as
    executive agent or to lead the reform of classification and
    declassification.
        And we have tried to have discussions on this with the
    folks at the ODNI's office and we've not been successful to
    date. But we're open to more discussions with them on that.
    Because all the things I mentioned ISOO doesn't have, the ODNI
    does have. And I'm not aware of another agency that has it to
    the extent that the ODNI does.
        Senator Wyden. Thank you. I'm well over my time. And Mr.
    Chairman and Vice Chairman Warner, thank you both very much for
    scheduling this hearing and giving Senator Moran and I this
    opportunity.
        Chairman Rubio. Important topic. I'm glad we were able to
    get to it in an open setting.
        Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
        Representative Tierney, welcome. And I want to thank not
    only you, but your fellow Public Interest Declassification
    Board members for your most recent report on modernizing and
    reforming our declassification system. I really worry very much
    about the stakes of inaction in this field. And as you
    mentioned, a lack of reform means that we'll continue to spend
    an outrageous amount of money--$18 billion or more per year on
    a Fifties-era paper-based declassification system.
        So Representative Tierney, while many say that
    modernization is too costly, I think there is clearly a risk of
    not making these kinds of investments now in a modernized
    system that'll bring cost savings down the road. What
    investments do you think are needed to modernize
    declassification? And do you think that there is the potential
    for actual cost savings in the future based on a more
    streamlined technology dependent modernized system?
        Mr. Tierney. Well thank you, Senator. Nice to see you again
    as well. I do believe that and we--the Board--do believe that
    there'll be significant savings on this. The estimate of $18-
    and-a half-billion may actually underestimate the cost to the
    American public at the present time. We need to evaluate those
    costs and we obviously can't afford to continue on the way that
    we're going.
        We need to, I would say, get an information technology
    architecture that is going to be somewhat costly. You need to
    have a lot more machine learning and the research and ability
    to do on that. There are some pilot programs out there, as
    Senator Sasse mentioned, that we can learn from.
        And those are going to be costly. But they're one-time
    costs with a minimal sort of maintenance cost going forward,
    versus this continually growing cost and the cost of not
    getting the information out for use by this--, whether it's the
    Space Command or other government agencies or access to the
    public for their need to know and to Congress for its need to
    know.
        So with the cost both in dollars and ability to access this
    information, it's huge. And while the outlay on these
    technologies and machine learning aspects of everything may be
    significant initially, I think over time there will be a big
    cost saver on that and we'll get the information to people when
    they need it both inside government and out.
        Senator Heinrich. Congressman Tierney, one of the things
    that I find ironic is that this is a committee that really
    understands the utility of using machine learning, using
    artificial intelligence, so that the same set of eyes doesn't
    have to go over the same product over and over and over all day
    long. Because humans don't do well in that environment. And so
    weeding that down to a few documents that need to be looked at
    is something that I think, almost in our entirety, we
    understand the power of that to change how we evaluate
    intelligence product.
        How can we scale up those pilots that you mentioned in AI
    and machine learning and begin to take the same, I guess, zeal
    for utilizing those tools in declassification that you already
    see in terms of analysis of other intelligence product?
        Mr. Tierney. Well, we have the ability and experiences that
    we have to date. And it sounds a little bit like a broken
    record. Most of those are within the Intelligence Community in
    fact. So we have to acknowledge those and learn from them and
    build upon them. But then we have to do it in a coordinated
    fashion so that we're not duplicating everything we do. We're
    not doing the research twice; we're not giving the same
    technology twice. And that we're making sure that when we do
    get it that it's applicable and usable by everybody across the
    way.
        So that again takes leadership--and to be the right
    person--to be able to say that this is what we're going to do.
    At the end, this is the decision. Everybody's going to move,
    march in that direction.
        So we suggested the executive agent. We suggested the
    executive committee for that. And I think those are the
    important factors to take into consideration and to get those
    types of things done in a way that makes sure you're not
    duplicating cost and energy.
        Senator Heinrich. The new Commander of Space Command
    recently testified that over-classification is making it more
    difficult for Space Command to support the warfighter.
        Congressman Tierney, can you talk a little bit about how
    over-classification affects operations and missions, not just
    the public's right to know, but also very real day-to-day,
    risk-laden scenarios?
        Mr. Tierney. I can, Senator. I'm looking for some notes
    that I have on that, because it was not just Lieutenant General
    Dickinson that talked about that. It was also General Hyten,
    who's the predecessor on that, and talked about the fact that
    they were just duplicating things when they shouldn't and
    didn't need to be doing that. It has a serious effect on it,
    and I think those were the two best examples that we had. And
    let's see if I can find that.
        Well, General Hyten was talking about just the over-
    classification of information within the Defense Department. In
    his own--and I quote him--what he said was it was unbelievably
    ridiculous. The officials, he said, like so many others who are
    worried by classification's effect on operations, has an effect
    there; has an effect on costs; has an effect on innovation and
    the ability to partner with industry in the private sector. So
    all those things were impacted.
        So he worries about the over-classification limits, the
    public's insight of the Government operation and programs and
    especially the costly ones like the defense program. So all of
    those things had to come in. Not just the dollar costs, but the
    costs and operations, innovation, and the ability to partner
    with private industries--impact our ability to carry on as a
    government in all fields.
        Chairman Rubio. Thank you. Senator King, are you on? Is he
    still with us? Senator King?
        Senator King. Okay. I come at this unburdened by a great
    deal of knowledge. But one question, Mr. Tierney, is are we
    swamped by declassification because we are trying to declassify
    everything? Or what about a system that just said, we're just
    going to work on the declassification of things that people ask
    for? It seems to me that cuts the universe of declassification
    down considerably. Or are we swamped even in terms of what
    people are asking for? Do you see where I'm going here?
        Mr. Tierney. I do see what you're saying and I agree. There
    are certain statutes and executive orders that require that
    things be declassified on timetables, and that can always be
    adjusted when somebody takes a look at it. But I think you're
    right on the money when you talk about prioritization.
        It's one of the things we've said, that there has to be a
    system put in place that, prioritizing what we need in the
    government agencies in order to avoid all those costs that I
    talked about--the inability to work in the private sector, the
    innovation and all of that. And also when the public, be it
    historians, Congress, or the public at a large, can take those
    issues of what people want and put them at the top of the list.
    Then work it down to those things least claimed for and then
    the ones that aren't being sought at all.
        Senator King. Well, and another idea along that same line
    is to just say, everything is going to be declassified after
    five years or 10 years or whatever, and that's the fallback.
    And then the burden is on the agencies to reclassify if they
    feel it's justified. In other words, it would be an automatic
    declassification. And again, the burden would be on those who
    did the classification in the first place to say, yes, we've
    got to keep this classified. Or we'll just let it go along with
    these other million pages.
        Mr. Tierney. Well, I'll leave it to my friend at ODNI to
    respond with what I think will be the obvious intelligence
    reactions to that, in terms of, at present at least, the lack
    of manpower and technology to actually make the kind of review
    that it would require to see whether or not they should
    continue with the declassification status they're at, or be
    reduced or be released on that.
        I know that we just went through the Kennedy pages, for
    instance. It was 50 years after the incident on that. There was
    a great deal of discussion with the FBI and the CIA as to what
    would release sources and procedures and things of that nature
    on that, and that was after that many years. So that was a
    great way to do it. That would presume that everybody had the
    ability to do it and protect what really needed to be
    protected.
        Senator King. Well, let me in my limited time--Mr. Koch,
    you, not surprisingly, said, ``Not me. I don't want to be
    asked.'' But if not the DNI, then who? My experience in
    management is you need somebody who's responsible. My
    management principle is one throat to choke.
        And one of the problems with this whole issue is it's
    scattered throughout the Government and there's nobody that can
    be held accountable for backlogs and delays. So if you don't
    think it should be the DNI, who do you think it ought to be?
        Mr. Koch. Well, thank you, Senator, for the question.
        So as I mentioned previously, the President has already
    authorized both the ISOO and the NDC to coordinate across the
    executive branch on all declassification activities. The NDC,
    for example, has been given authority from the President to
    streamline declassification processes, as well as to prioritize
    what should and should not be reviewed by agencies.
        I think that they should continue that process. And for
    your awareness, we have been working in multiple national level
    and interagency groups over the past few years to specifically
    address that prioritization issue. So we can get down to
    exactly what the American people really want to know, as
    opposed to reviewing in some ways meaningless information that
    no one cares about and our agency is spending so much time
    reviewing in the first place.
        Senator King. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Again, I want to express my appreciation to Senator Wyden and
    Senator Moran for leading on this issue, and thank you to you
    and the Vice Chair for holding this hearing. I think it's an
    important issue.
        Chairman Rubio. Senator King, you look comfortable. There's
    some people here saying that you have a brandy and a cigar that
    we can't see that's not in sight of camera.
        Senator King. I'm somewhere in the bowels of the Capitol,
    but in an undisclosed location.
        Chairman Rubio. I didn't see any smoke. I defended you,
    just wanted you to know.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        Chairman Rubio. Thank you.
        Is there anybody else online, or am I the last one? Okay,
    so then I think a lot of the topics have been covered. I did
    want to get to a couple things.
        Congressman, if I could first just briefly ask you to
    explain the methodology of the report, because I didn't
    personally review it, but our staff looked at it again last
    night. It's not outlined in the document.
        I'm just curious, you know, who did you interview? What's
    the data we gathered, and then how was that all incorporated in
    the recommendations? It looked like a lot of work, so I'm just
    curious.
        Mr. Tierney. It was a tremendous amount of work, and a lot
    of it, of course, was done with the help of our staff, which
    has been tremendous on that. I would be happy to have us
    respond to you with a longer list of who exactly we spoke to
    and when, to try to give you a real good idea of what the
    methodology [Inaudible].
        Chairman Rubio. What I'm getting at with the question is--
    you'll understand in a moment--is we're trying to sort of
    understand what the reforms would cost. And I'll tell you why
    I'm asking that, not because we shouldn't do it. But I think
    from what you've heard here today, I think there's broad-based
    support for the idea that the system we have in place now is
    Byzantine and confederated and broken and it needs to be
    modernized. And it needs to be brought in the 21st century and
    fully utilize all of the technology that's now available to us.
        It seems to me that there seems to be not much controversy
    around the idea that there needs to be an executive agent,
    someone who has ball control on this in terms of overseeing
    strategy, implementing the plan, driving the investments. Where
    I think sort of the debate on the topic is who's going to be
    that agent who sort of runs it. And it would appear that in
    order to design and implement and drive the investment, you
    would need a pretty substantial investment above what we are
    doing now, at least at the design phase, because there's a lot
    of new pieces to move in.
        And so I guess the question I'd have for Mr. Koch is given,
    obviously, the resources you have now are not--I think the
    answer to this question is going to be an easy yes--the
    resources you have available now to you would not be enough to
    drive this. It would require additional resources if, in fact,
    you are tasked with this or your office was tasked with this
    [Inaudible] given the personnel you have now?
        Mr. Koch. Senator, yes. I would absolutely say yes, that's
    correct.
        Chairman Rubio. Because, Congressman, the estimate of
    $18.39 billion for 2017, was that the cost for the current
    system, and does it include the cost of evaluating the
    documents for public release? Or do you know if that number
    just reflected maintaining the current classified system?
        Mr. Tierney. That is the current maintenance of the system,
    the $18.5 billion on that. It does not take into account what
    would be needed to give the ODNI in order to be able to do the
    types of things that we've requested that they've done.
        Just to broadly address some of your issue on it, we had
    discussion with National Archives leaders. A lot of them you'll
    see when we give you the information. Historians, researchers,
    civil society organizations, the record managers at other
    agencies. And obviously, we've met with the ODNI office and
    others in the Intelligence Community, but we offered to meet
    with them more once we hear their resistance on that; and we
    still remain willing to do that.
        And we were able to make the comparison why ISOO and the
    National Declassification Center weren't the appropriate ones
    for lack of experience, for lack of resources, for lack of
    authority, and all of those things which the ODNI had. But we'd
    be more than happy to go into that in more detail with them,
    should we be able to effect a meeting with them.
        Chairman Rubio. Okay, yes. No, and again, it's not because
    it wouldn't be money or an investment worth spending. Just to
    be clear, this is not a plug-and-play where we could just
    use--. I mean no matter who gets this assignment, they're going
    to need resources, especially at the front end, to sort of
    implement it. Hopefully, at that point like anything else,
    there's front-end investments and the maintenance on the back
    end.
        And just in terms of the notion that--and I guess, Mr.
    Koch, I want to accurately represent what the ODNI's position
    is on this recommendation. It's not that you're against a
    reform or even against a notion of an executive agent. It is a
    level of discomfort in particular with designing a system that
    other agencies you don't have authorities over would have to
    abide by. Even if you're not making the specific decisions,
    you're designing a system they would have to live by.
        Is that an accurate assessment of some of the angst or, I
    guess, some of the resistance to this recommendation of the
    ODNI being the executive agent?
        Mr. Koch. Yes, Senator, that's correct.
        But I think part of the point is just simply transferring
    the authorities that already exist with both ISOO and NDC to
    another agency just doesn't make sense. I mean, if the issue is
    resources and money at both ISOO and NDC, why can't those
    agencies be given the same type of resources that it's being
    proposed for the DNI?
        I don't think that we're actually suggesting that an EA is
    needed, but we are agreeing that significant reform is
    necessary in this area, and we have been working toward that in
    multiple working groups across the executive branch.
        Chairman Rubio. All right, yes, go ahead, Congressman.
        Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
        I think we covered that in fairly good ground, and I'll be
    happy to do it again. But there are so many things that the
    ODNI has that ISOO and the National Declassification Center
    don't have, in terms of experience in developing and deploying
    and managing multiagency cloud-based enterprise systems,
    securing a communications network like JWICS, protecting
    sources and methods. And the ISOO doesn't have that stature
    that the ODNI has. It doesn't have the ability to corral
    agencies.
        It also has an oversight mission that it would be in direct
    conflict with this. So it's not authorized by the President to
    do this, nor is the National Declassification Center with those
    types of authorities. So some executive agent will have to be
    given it, and we just think it should be the one with the
    experience and the authority and the capabilities that have
    been exercised and shown to be so effective in other settings
    with those outside the Intelligence Community, and some of them
    worldwide.
        Chairman Rubio. Yes, I think what it boils down to at this
    point is--I think there's widespread agreement that it needs to
    be reformed, and someone needs to be in charge of the reforms.
    And really, the question we have to work through is who is that
    right entity to be responsible for designing it, implementing
    it, and then maintaining it on an ongoing basis. And then from
    us here, in an internal perspective, there's obviously some
    jurisdictional grounds, because if it touches on State
    Department or DOD, then this Committee's probably not going to
    be the sole place that will have oversight over it.
        But look, it's a topic that I think, as you've seen, I
    think there's strong bipartisan widespread support for
    pursuing. And this report certainly, and the bill that's been
    filed, certainly gives us a baseline upon which to work. And I
    hope we fleshed out a little bit through this public hearing
    today some of the remaining outstanding topics about where our
    options are.
        I want to thank both of you for being patient with us and
    contributing today to this hearing. It's one we have been
    trying to get on the books for a couple months, and I'm glad we
    were able to do. And again, I thank you both for being willing
    to come online and be with us as a part of this today.
        There may be some followup questions that members might
    send in writing. We would ask that if we have some of those, if
    you would just help get us answered. Some people may not have
    been able to come over today. But again, I want to thank both
    of you for being a part of this and everyone who came.
        And with that, our hearing is adjourned.
        Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                             Supplemental Material
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                      [all]