[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 99 (Wednesday, June 7, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1989-S1991]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Sensible Classification Act

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, when it comes to safeguarding the American 
people, the United States has multiple layers of defenses.
  We have, of course, the world's most powerful military, whose ranks 
are filled with courageous and dedicated servicemembers. Our military 
is equipped with cutting-edge technology, whether it has to do with 
weapons systems, aircraft, ships, submarines--all the tools necessary 
to defend our country and our country's freedoms.
  But an important part of our defenses is our intelligence community, 
the 17 Agencies that make up what is known colloquially as the 
intelligence community. It is the intelligence community that collects 
and analyzes information from around the world to make sure that we can 
always remain at least one step ahead of our adversaries.
  This information gathering is an invaluable part of our national 
defense, and that critical national security information is, of course, 
carefully safeguarded under what is known as the classification 
system--secrets. Classification gives us an invaluable edge when it 
comes to the ability to plan and prepare for threats over the horizon. 
It strengthens our relationship with our allies around the world, with 
whom we share much of this information, and it prevents consequential 
information from falling into the wrong hands.
  It also protects--and these are the keys to the kingdom, when it 
comes to classified information--the sources and methods. In other 
words, the way that our intelligence community collects information and 
the people from whom that information is acquired are among the most 
important secrets maintained by the government, because, many times, if 
that were revealed, either our adversaries would be able to cut off 
that access to information or, frankly, maybe even go so far as to kill 
the sources of that information in the case of human intelligence. So 
protecting sources and methods is absolutely critical.
  Closely guarded intelligence information is vital to our national 
security, but there is a very fine line between strategic 
classification and excessive secrecy. If too much information is 
withheld from the public, it can sow distrust. People let their minds 
run away with them. They wonder what is going on--conspiracy theories 
and the like. But, more fundamentally, the American people will 
question what their government is actually doing and how it is using 
the vast powers that they have delegated to the government.
  Consent of the governed has always been the foundation of our 
democratic system of government and the legitimacy of government 
action, and, of course, the people cannot consent to something that is 
withheld from them. So there is a very fragile balance here from what 
is necessarily kept classified and secret and the information that 
should be made public, because without

[[Page S1990]]

transparency, there is no political accountability. Without 
accountability, there is no confidence that the government is actually 
acting in the best interest of the people.
  I have long been an advocate for reforms to the Freedom of 
Information Act--in other words, the public's right to know. Former 
Senator Pat Leahy was chairman of the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary. He and I were sort of the odd couple when it came to 
``freedom of information'' reforms. Senator Leahy was one of the more 
liberal Members of the U.S. Senate, and I am one of the more 
conservative Members of the Senate. But we found common cause when it 
came to the public's right to know because it is too easy for 
bureaucrats to hide behind a classification system that results in 
overclassification. And when that bureaucrat can hide or bury that 
information using an overly broad classification system, there can be 
no accountability and, thus, the public's confidence in the people who 
actually are governing is compromised.
  So we need to figure out how to make sure our classification system 
is rightsized so that it covers the things that it must cover in the 
interest of our national security. Then we need to figure out what 
represents overreach or overclassification, which undermines the 
public's right to know and the political accountability that should 
come with it, which is a fundamental basis for our form of government.
  America's classification system has been ripe for reform for many 
years. Daniel Patrick Moynihan chaired a committee that made 
recommendations, but unfortunately those recommendations made many 
years ago were put on a bookshelf somewhere and basically ignored. But 
the problems have not gone away, and we have seen in recent days the 
focus come back to how classified documents are handled and what 
exactly represents our Nation's secrets, what should be protected and 
what should not because it is really not important to our national 
security.
  Earlier this year, a trove of highly sensitive military documents 
began appearing online. These documents included classified assessments 
of the war in Ukraine, including tactical information about the 
expected offensive. They detailed conversations between world leaders 
and intelligence on adversaries and allies alike. These documents 
didn't just reveal intelligence itself but also the methods by which 
the United States collected intelligence. This information, of course, 
was supposed to be kept confidential because it was intended for high-
level military and intelligence leaders and policymakers--not a global 
audience.
  Based on the nature of the leaked documents, there was widespread 
speculation that the source was a high-level military or intelligence 
professional, but we now know that was not the case. The source of the 
leak has been identified as a 21-year-old member of the Massachusetts 
Air National Guard. He was an airman first class in the 102nd 
Intelligence Wing, where he worked as an information technology 
specialist.
  So the first question that arose when the leaker was identified was, 
How in the world did this relatively low-ranking 21-year-old 
information technology specialist have access to some of our Nation's 
most guarded secrets? How was he able to view, transcribe, photograph, 
and remove these documents from a secure setting?
  If this young man, who had a history of violent and racist remarks, 
was granted access to our top-secret national security information, is 
that some indication that maybe too many others have been granted 
access to this information and that maybe too many individuals have 
security clearances authorizing them to view this information?
  Well, at last count, there were about 4.2 million Americans in this 
country--4.2 million Americans--who have security clearances. That 
number strikes me as incredibly large and I think is some evidence that 
too many people have been getting too many security clearances because 
too much information is classified when it shouldn't be, when it 
doesn't need to be. Those 4.2 million people with security clearances 
include more than 1.2 million with access to top-secret information.
  The issue isn't just that too many people have access to classified 
information but also that too much information is classified. As 
members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, my colleagues and I 
regularly receive classified briefings and review documents that are 
highly confidential. There have been many times when I left one of 
these briefings thinking, this is something that any reasonably 
informed person already knows. All they need to do is read the major 
newspapers or watch television--television news in particular.
  Many times, we are presented with information which is deemed 
``classified'' in a secure setting which is, frankly, common knowledge. 
That is another indication that our classification system is working in 
overdrive and needs to be rightsized.
  We are presented with information briefed as ``classified'' which 
could be just as easily learned by watching the news or reading a 
newspaper, as I said. Still, these documents are classified at the same 
level as sensitive military documents and intelligence analysis have 
been classified.
  Honestly, I think one reason why we see not only President Trump but 
President Biden and Vice President Pence concerned about access to 
classified information outside of a secure setting is because many 
people who have access to classified information recognize that we have 
an overclassification problem, and so they let down their guard and 
they say: Well, this is information that is not particularly secret 
because a reasonably informed person would already know it or have 
access to it.
  So I submit we have an overclassification problem, plain and simple, 
and we are not doing nearly enough to declassify information for the 
public or our allies and make it available to the American people.
  There are many circumstances in which declassification safeguards our 
national security. We can't just be an absolutist about this. We need 
to be careful. One great example is the way we declassified and shared 
information with our allies in the runup to Russia's invasion of 
Ukraine. That gave Ukraine enough battlefield awareness to push back 
against the initial attack and save countless lives. It also unified 
the Western response, leading to quick condemnation of Russia's attack 
and resources for the Ukrainian forces.
  Declassification is an important way to share valuable intelligence 
with our friends and allies around the world when we can, and it 
promotes cooperation, which is key to combating the threats we face 
today like the Ukrainians are facing with the Russian invasion, but it 
is also a crucial way to show the American people what their government 
is doing on their behalf--declassification, that is.
  Our ability to govern ourselves depends on public access to 
information. As I said earlier, you can't consent to something you 
don't know anything about, and consent of the government is the 
foundation of our system.
  The American people have a right to know what their government is 
doing. Declassification builds trust and transparency. It inspires 
confidence in the incredible work our intelligence professionals are 
doing, and it equips scholars with the information to conduct academic 
research that informs decision making by looking back on our history 
and learning from those lessons of history.

  As all of our colleagues know, there is a very delicate balance 
between transparency and secrecy, but it is time that we tune-up the 
system. We need to examine and refine the processes that govern the 
classification and declassification of sensitive information and make 
some long-overdue reforms.
  Last month, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, 
Senator Warner, and I introduced a bill we called the Sensible 
Classification Act, which includes critical reforms to modernize 
America's classification system. This legislation would increase 
accountability and oversight. It would require training to promote 
sensible classification and also promote efficient declassification. It 
would direct Federal Agencies to justify security clearance 
requirements, so only those individuals who need access, given the 
nature of their jobs, are given access to classified information.
  This legislation has already garnered broad bipartisan support and a 
long list

[[Page S1991]]

of cosponsors, including Senators Moran, Wyden, Collins, King, Rounds, 
Heinrich, Lankford, and Casey.
  As the Senate Intelligence Committee prepares the Intelligence 
Authorization Act, I have offered this legislation as an amendment to 
that bill, which hopefully will be included as part of the National 
Defense Authorization Act. When the committee votes to advance this 
bill in the coming weeks, I hope this legislation will be included.
  This is an example of broad bipartisan cooperation and the result of 
many conversations we have had with leading intelligence and national 
security experts in the United States.
  I am confident that this legislation will both protect the integrity 
of America's classification system and help restore needed trust and 
confidence in the government.
  Recent headlines have shone a light on the flaws in our 
classification system. It is overwhelmed and in need of reform, and 
that is exactly what the Sensible Classification Act aims to fix.
  I look forward to working with all of our Senate colleagues as we 
fight to restore transparency and accountability and preserve our 
ability to classify the most sensitive national security secrets as 
part of our layered national defense. We can and should and must do 
both.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.