CLEARANCE AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY CONFERENCE. THIS IS AN HOUR. >>> SO THE TOPIC OF THIS PANEL IS SECURITY CLEARANCES WHICH IS ONE OF THOSE AREAS OF NATIONAL SECURITY LAW THAT GENERALLY SEEMS TO BUBBLE ALONG JUST BELOW THE SURFACE WITHOUT GETTING A LOT OF ATTENTION. THERE ARE OVER 4 MILLION PEOPLE TODAY THAT HOLD SECURITY CLEARANCES. AND CLEARANCES ARE, OF COURSE, ESSENTIAL TO THE FUNCTIONING OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY APPARATUS. OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, HOWEVER, THERE HAS BEEN SORT OF AN UNUSUAL AMOUNT OF PUBLIC ATTENTION PAID TO SECURITY CLEARANCES. FIRST THERE WAS THE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PROBLEMS FOR SOME SENIOR PEOPLE IN THE WHITE HOUSE WITH GETTING AND HOLDING SECURITY CLEARANCES. MORE RECENTLY, THE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCED HE WAS REVOKING THE CLEARANCE OF FORMER CIA DIRECTOR JOHN BRENNAN. IT IS UNCLEAR WHETHER THAT HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED. THAT FOCUSSED ATTENTION ON THE ISSUE OF THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN SECURITY CLEARANCES AND LEGAL RIGHTS. THIS PAST JANUARY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE RESTORED THE SECURITY CLEARANCE PROCESS TO THE RISK THAT ARE VULNERABLE TO FRAUD OR MISMANAGEMENT. GAO NOTED THAT IN AUGUST 2014 THERE HAD BEEN A BACK LOG OF ABOUT 190,000 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS. BY SEPTEMBER 2017 THAT NUMBER HAD GROWN TO OVER 700,000. ALTHOUGH THAT NUMBER IS DOWN TO ABOUT 600,000 NOW. THEY CLAIM TO BE MAKING PROGRESS. SIMILARLY, THE AVERAGE TIME FOR SECURITY CLEARANCES RANGES FROM OVER THREE MONTHS FOR A SECRET LEVEL CLEARANCE TO ALMOST SEVEN MONTHS FOR TOP SECRET CLEARANCE S S. PERSPECTIVE CIA EMPLOYEES CAN WAIT FOR UP TO TWO YEARS BEFORE THEY GET THEIR CLEARANCE. SENATOR WARREN HAS INTRODUCED A BILL WHICH IS SEEKING YET AGAIN TO REFORM THE SECURITY CLEARANCE PROCESS. SO THIS IS A GOOD TIME FOR AN OVERVIEW OF HOW THE PROCESS WORKS, WHAT DOESN'T WORK AND WHAT CAN BE DONE TO FIX IT. WE HAVE AN EXCELLENT PANEL TO DO THAT. I WILL JUST BRIEFLY GIVE AN INTRODUCTION TO THEM IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER. AMY APOSTLE IS SPECIAL COUNCIL AT THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT. SHE PREVIOUSLY SERVED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL. GENERAL CONNOR IS THE VICE PRESIDENT AND SECTOR COUNSEL AT NORTHROP GRUMMAN INNOVATION SYSTEMS. SHE WAS THE GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. SHE IS HERE TO OFFER THE PRIVATE PERSPECTIVE AND NOT THE DEFENSE PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE FOR THE DEFENSE PERSPECTIVE WE HAVE PERRY RUSSELL HUNTER WHO HAS BEEN WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR OVER 25 YEARS. HE IS THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS AND WAS NAMED THE DISTINGUISHED ADJUNCT PROFESSOR. I WOULD LIKE TO START BY ASKING AMY IF YOU CAN JUST SET OUT THE BASIC FRAMEWORK UNDER WHICH THE SECURITY CLEARANCE PROCESS OPERATES. >> ...

SO FOR PURPOSES OF OUR CONVERSATION I WILL FOCUS THE DISCUSSION ON TWO EXECUTIVE ORDERS. FOR US IN THE FIELD THEY ARE A LITTLE BIT ANNOYINGLY FLIP-FLOPPED IN TERMS OF THEIR NUMBERING. 1367 AND 13764, NOT TO MAKE ANYTHING COMPLICATED MORE THAN IT ALREADY IS, IN THESE EXECUTIVE ORDERS THEY SET OUT A GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE FOR SECURITY SUITABILITY AND CREDENTIALING CREDENTIALING. WITHIN THAT FOCUSSING ON THE SECURITY CLEARANCE PIECE, THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE IS NAMED AT THE KPUTIVE AGENT FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THIS ROLE FOCUSES ON SETTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND CONDUCTING OVERSIGHT IN THE SECURITY CLEARANCE SPACE. THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE WILL DO OVERSIGHT AND REVIEW OF PROGRAMMATIC EFFORTS RELATED TO BOTH INVESTIGATIONS AND AJUDDICATIONS RELATED TO ACCESS FOR CLASSIFIED INFORMATION OR ELIGIBILITY TO HOLD A SENSITIVE POSITION. THE SECURITY EXECUTIVE AGENT IS FOCUSSED ON EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT AND TIMELY COMPLETION OF INVESTIGATIONS AND SERVES AS PART OF A SMALL TEAM OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS THAT ARE REALLY FOCUSSED BROADLY ON REFORM IN THIS AREA. OTHER THINGS THAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT BOTH WITHIN THE SECURITY EXECUTIVE AGENT AND WITHIN THE GROUP THAT THAT POSITION PARTICIPATES IN IS RESPEROCITY ACROSS THE BOARD TO INCLUDE ACROSS ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES AND FEDERAL CONTRACTORS AS WELL AS ALIGNING PROCESSES. THAT IS A GOOD PAUSING POINT. >> PERRY, DO YOU WANT TO TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT THE RESPECTIVE ROLES OF CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IN THE SECURITY PROCESS? >> SURE. I WILL START OUT BY SAYING THAT THE OPERATIVE RULE SET IN THE SECURITY CLEARANCE PROCESS IS REALLY ONE OF EXECUTIVE ORDER AND NOT LEGISLATION. CONGRESS DOES PROVIDE SOME LEGISLATION. AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE THE INTELLIGENCE FOR TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT FOR 2004 WHICH RATHER THAN TELLING THE GOVERNMENT WHAT TO DO, ESSENTIALLY PROVIDES A FRAMEWORK. ONE OF THE ASPECTS OF THAT THAT IS PROBABLY NOTABLE IS THAT IT PROVIDED FOR TIMELINES IN WHICH BOTH INVESTIGATION AND ADJUD ADJUDICATION NEEDED TO BE COMPLETED. I WANT TO STRESS THAT ALL OF MY COMMENTS HERE ARE MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION AND NOT THE OPINION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. THERE, I HAVE SAID THAT. MY CONCERN ABOUT THAT IS THAT IT CREATES A CULTURE OF RUSHING WHEN IN FACT THE MOST IMPORTANT PROCESS VALUE IS GETTING IT RIGHT. SO I THINK CONGRESS HAS A ROLE. SOMETIMES THE THINGS THEY HAVE DONE HAVE NOT ALWAYS BEEN HELPFUL. THAT HAVING BEEN SAID, THE REAL STRUCTURE IS PROVIDED BY EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT ENSURE THAT INVESTIGATIONS AND ADJUDICATIONS AND THE ULTIMATE DUE PROCESS WHERE NEEDED FOR DENIALS AND REVOCATIONS IS DONE IN AN ORDERLY, CONSISTENT, FAIR AND ULTIMATELY TRANSPARENT MANNER. AND WHILE MANY MAY EXPRESS DIFFERENT OPINIONS ABOUT HOW WELL WE HAVE SUCCEEDED IN MEETING THAT GOAL, THE TRUTH IS THAT WE ARE IN AN EFFORT OF CONTINUING MODERNIZATION THAT AS AN EARLIER PANELIST SUGGESTED IS ALWAYS CATCHING UP WITH REALITY. WE ARE DOING OUR BEST. ONE EXAMPLE OF THIS WHICH I WILL TALK ABOUT LATER IS THE IDEA OF SOCIAL MEDIA RESEARCH AND THE WAYS IN WHICH INVESTIGATIONS NEED TO BE MODERNIZED BECAUSE WE ALL RECOGNIZE THAT INVESTIGATIONS NEED TO BE MODERNIZED. ON THE FLIP SIDE, THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT REMAIN TRUE. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE GATHER INFORMATION ABOUT AN INDIVIDUAL THAT WE ARE GATHERING IT IN AN APPROPRIATE SCOPE, THAT WE ARE CORRECTLY IDENTIFYING THE INDIVIDUAL IN QUESTION AND THAT WE ARE USING IT FOR AN APPROPRIATE PURPOSE. WITH THAT SAID, THERE IS PROBABLY MORE WORK TO BE DONE IN THIS AREA. THE TWO EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT AMY REFERRED TO, WHILE THEIR NUMBERS MAY BE CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR, I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF WORKING ON BOTH OF THEM. I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE VALUE OF EACH IN THEIR DIFFERENT WAYS IS THAT THEY ARE REALLY NONPARTISAN MARKERS THAT SAY WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE ONGOING CLEARANCE REFORM IN A WAY THAT IS DESIGNED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT JUST STUCK IN A MODEL OF THE 1950s OR 1960s, BUT IN FACT THAT WE HAVE MANAGED TO MODERNIZE THE PROCESS TO THE POINT WHERE IT IS FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO KEEP UP WITH THE REALITIES OF THE ...

MODERN WORLD WHILE ALSO NOT LOSING THE VALUES THAT ARE THE BASIS OF THE PROGRAM WHICH IS THAT WE TREAT OUR CITIZENS FAIRLY. >> MARK, YOU HAVE REPRESENTED A LOT OF PEOPLE ON MATTERS INVOLVING THEIR SECURITY CLEARANCES. I KNOW THAT TWO ISSUES THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE APPLYING FOR SECURITY CLEARANCES ARE CONCERNED ABOUT A LOT ARE MARIJUANA USE AND POLYGRAPHS. CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ROLE THAT EACH OF THEM FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE PLAYS AND SHOULD PLAY IN THE SECURITY CLEARANCE PROCESS? >> SO MANY OF YOU IN THIS ROOM HAVE PROBABLY HAD THE FUN EXPERIENCE OF TAKING A POLYGRAPH. ...

THE OTHERS IN THE ROOM PROBABLY KNOW THE POLYGRAPH FROM EITHER WATCHING "MEET THE PARENTS" OR HOWARD STERN. SOMETIMES THEY ARE VERY SIMILAR INTERPRETATIONS, OTHER TIMES NOT. MOST OF YOU WHO HAVE SECURITY CLEARANCES WILL NEVER HAVE TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH. IT IS PRIMARILY FOR THE -- THERE ARE REGULATIONS THAT SAY THAT POLYGRAPH DETERMINATIONS, THE PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES THAT YOU GIVE MEANING TELLING THE TRUTH OR NOT, THAT THOSE CAN'T BE USED ON THEIR OWN. IF YOU ONLY REGISTER A SIGNIFICANT PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE WHICH IS ALL REALLY THE DEVICE CAN TELL, IT CAN'T TELL WHETHER YOU ARE TELLING THE TRUTH OR NOT, THAT THAT FACTOR ALONE OR DETERMINATION CANNOT BE USED. WHAT OFTEN HAPPENS WHEN WE GET THESE CASES IS THAT SOMEBODY HAS MADE A DEROGATORY ADMISSION, SELF ADMISSION, ABOUT THEMSELVES. IT MAY HAVE TO DO WITH MARIJUANA OR IT MAY HAVE TO DO WITH ANY NUMBER OF THE OTHER 13 ADJUDICATIVE GUIDELINES AND IS OFTEN TIMES INFORMATION THAT THE GOVERNMENT NEVER WOULD HAVE FOUND OUT ON ITS OWN. SO THERE IS A UTILITY. I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THIS EVEN THOUGH I HAVE SUED A BUNCH OF AGENCIES ABOUT HOW THEY USE THE POLYGRAPH. THERE IS A UTILITY MOSTLY BECAUSE PEOPLE WATCH "PEOPLE THE PARENTS" AND THINK THE DEVICE WILL TELL IF THEY ARE TELLING THE TRUTH OR NOT. IT IS IRONIC IN 1988 CONGRESS PASSED THE EMPLOYEE INTERROGATION ACT SAYING PRIVATE SECTOR CANNOT USE IT EXCEPT IN NARROW CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT YOU CAN STILL USE IT. THAT IS WHERE WE ARE 30 YEARS LATER AND THE USE HAS ESSENTIALLY INCREASED. MARIJUANA HAS BEEN A THORN IN THE GOVERNMENT'S SIDE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. IT CHANGED -- >> MIXING YOUR METAPHORS THERE. >> IT CHANGES DEPENDING ON THE ADMINISTRATION IN POWER. AS MANY OF YOU PROBABLY KNOW, IF YOU LIVE HERE IN D.C. , YOU MAY GO HOME TONIGHT AND DECIDE YOU WANT TO SMOKE A DOOBY. THAT IS PERFECTLY OKAY ACCORDING TO D.C. LAW. IF YOU ARE STAYING HERE AT THE HILTON, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE STILL MOKINGE SMOKING ROOMS IN HOTELS ANYMORE. UNDERSTAND IT IS STILL AGAINST THE LAW IN THE FEDERAL SECTOR. ANY USE OF MARIJUANA IN PRESENT TIME WILL BE GROUNDS FOR THE DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF YOUR SECURITY CLEARANCE. I TELL CLIENTS I WOULD LOVE TO SEE AT LEAST THREE YEARS IN BETWEEN YOUR LAST USE. SO WHEN I LECTURE TO COLLEGE STUDENTS AND GRAD STUDENTS I SAY GET IT OUT OF THE WAY NOW AND DON'T USE IT LATER. FOR THE MOST PART MOST AGENCIES DON'T CARE IF IT IS THAT FAR AWAY. I HAD A CASE THE OTHER DAY WHERE THE WOMAN WROTE DOWN 1975, WHICH WAS FINE, BUT THEN WENT TO PRESENT. [ LAUGHTER ] SHE ASKED ME WHY DID SHE HAVE A PROBLEM? I'M LIKE THAT IS THE ANSWER RIGHT THERE. WHEN DID YOU LAST USE? PROBABLY TWO YEARS AGO. WHY DID YOU PUT PRESENT THEN? TWO YEARS AGO SEEMS PRESENT. WITH ALL SECURITY CLEARANCE -- ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU GET OLDER AND ALL THE DAYS JUST MERGE -- MOST SECURITY CLEARANCE PROBLEMS COME FROM THE INDIVIDUAL THEMSELVES AND HOW THEY FILL OUT THE SF 86 OR 85 P. WHAT THEY PUT DOWN OR DON'T PUT DOWN BECAUSE THEY DON'T REALIZE WHAT TYPE OF MITIGATING INFORMATION THAT THEY SHOULD PUT DOWN. THOSE ARE ALL SEPARATE ISSUES THAT I'M SURE WE CAN ALL ADDRESS. >> YOU WANT TO OFFER ANY FOLLOW UP? >> THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AGE. JUST A THOUGHT. >> THEY SMOKED TOO MUCH MARIJUANA. >> AS MUCH AS MARK HAS SUGGESTED THIS MAY CHANGE WITH ADMINISTRATIONS, THE TRUTH IS THE UNIFORM CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT HAS REMAINED THE SAME. THAT IS THAT MARIJUANA IS ILLEGAL ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL. BECAUSE WE ARE GIVING OUT SECURITY CLEARANCES AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND NOT COLORADO CLEARANCES, THERE IS A REASON WHY THAT IS STILL A PROBLEM. IN CASE THERE IS ANY DOUBT ABOUT THAT, THE DNI IN OCTOBER OF 2014 PUT OUT A MEMO TO ALL OF GOVERNMENT THAT SAID EVEN THOUGH MARIJUANA HAS BEEN LEGALIZED IN A GROWING NUMBER OF STATES, NO PUN INTENDED, IT IS STILL ILLEGAL AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. THAT WAS FOLLOWED BY A MEMO FOR THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE THE FOLLOWING MAY. >> I GUESS THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD ON THE POLYGRAPH PIECE IS I WOULD JUST EMPHASIZE WHAT MARK SAID ABOUT IT IS A TOOL IN THE TOOL KIT WITH RESPECT TO BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS. IT IS ONE PIECE. THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE ASKED NEED TO BE ...

RELATED AND BE ADJUDICATIVE RELEVANT INFORMATION. I THINK THAT WE INCLUDED ODNI'S SECURITY AGENT DIRECTIVE 4. THAT KIND OF LAYS OUT WHAT THOSE ARE. BUT I THINK THAT THOSE ARE JUST SOME IMPORTANT THINGS THAT ...

AS AN ADJUDICATOR YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE WHOLE PERSON AND THE WHOLE PACKAGE AND ALL THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE. THIS IS ONE PIECE OF THAT. >> I WILL SAY THAT EVEN IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY POLYGRAPHS ARE NOT UNIVERSALLY REQUIRED. THERE WAS AN ARTICLE THAT I SAW RECENTLY TALKING ABOUT SECURITY CLEARANCES THAT SAID -- I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THIS IS TRUE OR NOT, GENERAL DYNAMICS WAS HAVING SUCH TROUBLE GETTING PEOPLE CLEARED THAT THEY HAD TO COVER PARTS OF THEIR SUBMARINES WITH ...

TARPS SO THAT THE WORK, THE UNCLEARED WORKERS WHO WERE WORKING ON SUBDIDN'T SEE THE CLASSIFIED PARTS OF THE SUBMARINE. TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SECURITY CLEARANCES FROM THE CONTRACTOR PERSPECTIVE. >> SECURITY CLEARANCES ARE NECESSARY AND IMPORTANT PART OF THE WORK THAT DEFENSE AND INTELLIGENCE INDUSTRY CONTRACTORS ARE ALL MARRIED UP TO THE MISSION OF THE AGENCIES THEY ARE SUPPORTING AND SO WANT THEIR EMPLOYEES TO BE CLEARED AND MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CUSTOMERS THAT THEY ARE SERVING. BUT IT TAKES A REALLY, REALLY LONG TIME. TIME AND MONEY MAKE IT HARD TO SUPPORT THAT MISSION. SO THE WAY IT KIND OF LOOKS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A CONTRACTOR IS THERE IS A HUGE EFFORT TO ATTRACT AND HIRE NEW TALENT AND TALENT THAT IS MID CAREER TO COME IN AND WORK ON GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS. SO YOU GO THROUGH THE HIRING PROCESS WHICH TAKES WHATEVER AMOUNT OF TIME IT TAKES. AND THEN WE HAVE AN INTERNAL PROCESS. WE HELP TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER THE PERSON WHO WE HAVE HIRED IS SOMEBODY WHO WILL NEED A SECURITY CLEARANCE SO LOOKING AT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROGRAM, LOOKING AT WHETHER THERE IS A VALID REASON FOR IT AND THEN HELPING THE PERSON TO PUT TOGETHER THE SUBMISSION SO THE SF 86 FORM, TAKING A LOOK AT IT TO MAKE SURE IT IS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE AND THEN SENDING IT OFF. THAT ALL HAPPENS BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT PROCESS HAPPENS. THEN THE GOVERNMENT PROCESS IS ONE WHERE THE FORM IS PROCESSED, THE INVESTIGATION TAKES PLACE. THAT CAN TAKE DEPENDING ON THE LEVEL OF THE INVESTIGATION AT LEAST A YEAR AND SOMETIMES MORE. THEN IT COMES BACK WITH A DECISION FOR THE CONTRACTOR WHO THEN GOES THROUGH A TRAINING PROCESS AND READS THE PERSON INTO THE PROGRAM AND OFF THEY GO. IT TAKES A LONG TIME. THERE ARE BIG DOWN SIDES TO THAT, SOME OF WHICH WILL BE OBVIOUS BECAUSE YOU HIRE SOMEBODY WHO IS NEW. IF YOU WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO WORK ON A CLASSIFIED PROGRAM YOU HAVE THIS DOWN TIME WHILE THEY ARE WAITING BEFORE THEY CAN START AND BEFORE YOU CAN PUT THEM ON THE JOB. SO LARGE CONTRACTORS HAVE A BETTER CAPACITY THAN SMALL ONES TO BE ABLE TO CARRY PEOPLE DURING THE CLEARANCE PROCESS. SOMETIMES THE PROGRAM WINDS DOWN AND THEY MIGHT NEED A CLEARANCE. YOU LOSE TALENT WHICH IS REALLY IMPORTANT. IT CAUSES CHAOS. SOMETIMES CHEERED TALENT IS SO VALUABLE THAT CONTRACTORS END UP POACHING FROM ONE TO ANOTHER WHICH DOESN'T SUPPORT THE MISSION AT ALL. AND SOMETIMES THERE IS ADDITIONAL CHAOS CREATED. SOMETIMES THE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM WILL CHANGE ITS CLASSIFICATION LEVEL MID STREAM. IT WILL GO FROM ONE LEVEL TO ANOTHER AND THEN INTO THE ENTIRE EFFORT OF TRYING TO CREATE THE TECHNOLOGY OR THE PRODUCT AT ISSUE IS THE ADDED TIME AND COST AND BURDEN OF RUNNING EVERYBODY THROUGH ANOTHER CLEARANCE PROCESS. SO THERE ARE HUGE HURDLES. I'LL STOP THERE. THERE IS SOME GOOD NEWS, TOO. A LOT OF IT IS GETTING BETTER AND THE AGENCY HAS BEEN WORKING ...

REALLY HARD AT TRYING TO IMPROVE THE PROCESS AND THE NUMBERS OF THE BACK LOG ARE GOING DOWN. THERE IS A LONG WAY TO GO TO MAKE IT REALLY EFFECTIVE, I THINK. PERRY, ONE CONCEPT THAT PEOPLE HERE TALK ABOUT IN CONNECTION WITH SECURITY CLEARANCES IS CONTINUOUS EVALUATION. COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THAT IS AND WHY BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU? THANK YOU FOR THAT INTRODUCTION BECAUSE IN FACT CONTINUOUS EVALUATION IS NOT BIG BROTHER WATCHING YOU. IT IS AN ATTEMPT TO USE MORE MODERNIZED INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES TO COVER THE KIND OF THINGS THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT IN PEOPLE'S BACKGROUNDS. THIS FALLS INTO. I WANT TO TALKMAKE CLEAR WHAT IT IS AND WHAT IT ISN'T. THE REST OF CONTINUOUS INVESTIGATION INCLUDES CHECKING A VARIETY OF BOTH GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE DATA SOURCES TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE A FULL PICTURE OF A PERSON BEFORE WE GRANT THEM ELIGIBILITY. CONTINUOUS EVALUATION IS ALSO ONE OF THE WAYS FORWARD TO REPLACE A SOMEWHAT OUTMODED FORM OF INVESTIGATION WHERE WE GO OUT TO PEOPLE'S NEIGHBORHOODS AND KNOCK ON DOORS AND FIND THAT NOBODY IS THERE AND THE INVESTIGATOR WILL LEAVE A BUSINESS CARD AND THEY MAY OR MAY NOT GET CALLED BACK. IN THE 1950s, THAT WAS THE STATE-OF-THE-ART. IT REALLY ISN'T NOW. IN FACT, THERE IS A GREAT MOVIE FROM 1956 CALLED THREE BRAVE MEN WHICH IS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED WHEN SOMEBODY IN GREEN BELT, THE ACTUAL PERSON WAS ABRAHAM. HE ENDS UP BEING PLAYED BY A BIG BUDGET HOLLYWOOD ACTOR. THIS WAS A BIG MOVIE AT THE TIME. IT BASICALLY SHOWED HOW TALKING TO NEIGHBORS CAN BE WHEN THAT IS YOUR SOURCE OF INFORMATION. NOWADAYS, THE INTERNET IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO TO THE EXTENT THAT WE NEED TO BE FORWARD LOOKING IN HOW WE INVESTIGATE THE CLEARED POPULATION, ONE EXAMPLE OF THIS -- THIS IS THE SOCIAL MEDIA PILOTS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD OF, THE PERSONNEL SECURITY RESEARCH CENTER HAS COME UP WITH SOMETHING CALLED THE AUTOMATED CONTINUOUS EVALUATION SYSTEM. THAT HAS BEEN TESTED IN A VARIETY OF WAYS OVER THE LAST DECADE. SOCIAL MEDIA RESEARCH HAS BEEN UNDERWAY FOR THE LAST DECADE. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT GETTING PEOPLE'S PASSWORDS AND LOOKING AT PRIVATE OR PROTECTED INFORMATION. THERE ARE SOME COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES THAT DO THAT, BY THE WAY. YOU CAN'T IMAGINE THAT WORKING IN THE UNITED STATES. IN FACT, WE DON'T DO THAT. IF YOU WATCH THE RECENT FRONT LINE SPECIAL ABOUT THE CHARLOTTESVILLE EVENTS OF A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU WILL SEE IS THAT TWO OF THE ACTORS -- ONE WAS A CLEARED CONTRACTOR AND ONE WAS AN ENLIST MEMBER OF THE MARINE CORPS WERE ESSENTIALLY CAUGHT FOR WHITE SUPREMACIST VIOLENCE IN CHARLOTTESVILLE WHERE A REGULAR INVESTIGATION WOULD NEVER HAVE RAISED ANYTHING. A REGULAR INVESTIGATION IN BOTH CASES HAD REVEALED NOTHING. IT WAS ACTUALLY NOT THE GOVERNMENT LOOKING AT SOCIAL MEDIA BUT ACTUALLY THIRD PARTY ACTORS LOOKING AT SOCIAL MEDIA THAT DISCOVERED THIS. WE IN GOVERNMENT CANNOT AFFORD TO BE BEHIND THAT CURVE WHEN THERE ARE TERRORISTS OR OTHERWISE BAD PEOPLE POSTING THEIR PLANS AND SCHEMES ONLINE AND WE'RE NOT ABLE TO SEE IT. THE OPM INVESTIGATIVE MANUAL CURRENTLY SAYS THAT YOU CAN'T LOOK AT SOCIAL MEDIA. WE ARE TRYING TO FROM THE DEPARTMENT'S PERSPECTIVE AND FROM THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE DIG INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT, BUT DO IT IN A WAY THAT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH PEOPLE'S PRIVACY BECAUSE WE ARE ONLY LOOKING AT WHAT IS PUBLICALLY POSTED INFORMATION. I THOUGHT I WAS GETTING THE HOOK. THE OTHER PART OF SOCIAL MEDIA IS REALLY JUST FOCUSSING ON SCOPE. THE SCOPE IS GOING TO BE NARROW. THE IDEA OF AUTHENTICITY, MAKING SURE WE ARE LOOKING AT THE RIGHT PERSON AND THEN ULTIMATELY ADJUDICATION FOR A SPECIFIC AND NARROW PURPOSE. WE ARE NOT LOOKING AT PEOPLE'S POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS AND FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTED SPEECH. ON THE OTHER HAND, WHERE SOMEBODY SAYS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO COMMIT A CRIME OR SOMEBODY ADMITS TO HAVING COMMITTED A CRIME WE WOULD BE FOOLISH TO NOT TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT. AS FAR AS THE OTHER ASPECTS OF CONTINUOUS EVALUATION, THESE ARE DATA SETS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN VETTED AND ARE EITHER MAINTAINED BY THE GOVERNMENT OR ARE MAINTAINED BY PRIVATE INDUSTRY. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW THIS, BUT AFTER ALDER JAMES WE HAVE BEEN PULLING A CREDIT REPORT ON EVERYBODY. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE GOVERNMENT PULLS A CREDIT REPORT AS PART OF THE SECURITY CLEARANCE PROCESS YOU CAN THANK ALDER JAMES DIRECTLY. THE IDEA ORIGINALLY WAS THAT CONTINUOUS EVALUATION WOULD BE AN INTERMITTENT CHECK IN BETWEEN THE PERIODIC REINVESTIGATIONS WHICH IN SOME CASES CAN TAKE AS MUCH AS TEN YEARS. I WILL USE THE NAME OF ERIN ALEXIS TO DESCRIBE WHAT CAN GO WRONG IN THE PROCESS. IF WE ARE RUSHING BECAUSE THE INVESTIGATION AND ADJUDICATION WERE RUSHED, BUT THEN ALSO THERE WAS A TEN YEAR GAP BETWEEN HIS INVESTIGATIONS DURING WHICH TIME HE ENGAGED IN CONDUCT THAT WAS I WOULD SAY SCREAMINGLY INAPPROPRIATE THAT NEVER GOT REPORTED. THE IDEA OF CONTINUOUS EVALUATION WHERE CONGRESS HAS BEEN PUTTING PRESSURE ON US BECAUSE WHAT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO IS HAVE EVENTS THAT HAPPEN IN A PERSON'S LIFE WHERE IT IS A PUBLICLY DOCUMENTED EVENT ACTUALLY TRIGGER AN INVESTIGATION. THE INVESTIGATION WILL THEN DETERMINE THE ACCURACY OF WHAT THE FLAG WAS. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO FIND -- WE ARE ALREADY LOOKING FOR ...

A NEEDLE IN A HAY STACK. WE WANT TO FIND THE NEEDLES FASTER WITHOUT MAKING THE HAY STACK BIGGER. >> ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT JOHN BRENNAN'S CLEARANCE RAISED WAS THE QUESTION WHETHER HE COULD GO TO COURT AND SUE TO GET HIS CLEARANCE RESTORED. WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATE OF THE LAW WITH RESPECT TO THE ROLE OF THE COURTS IN THE SECURITY CLEARANCE PROCESS? WHAT ARE THE OPEN QUESTIONS? >> GENERALLY SPEAKING, THERE IS VERY LITTLE LITIGATION IN THE SECURITY CLEARANCE CONTEXT BECAUSE ...

OF A DECISION 30 YEARS AGO CALLED DEPARTMENT OF NAVY VERSUS EGAN WHICH I THINK IS IN THE CLE MATERIALS. THAT WAS A SUPREME COURT DECISION THAT WE CAN DEBATE ERRONEOUSLY OR NOT. IT DECIDED THAT JUDGES BASICALLY DO NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY OR WHEREWITHAL TO RENDER AN INFORMED DECISION ABOUT EXPERT ADJUDICATIVE DECISIONS IN THE SECURITY CLEARANCE CONTEXT. THE CASE ITSELF WAS ACTUALLY A STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION CASE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE MERIT SYSTEM PROTECTION BOARD HAD BEEN GRANTED BY CONGRESS TO HAVE JURISDICTION OVER SECURITY CLEARANCE CASES. THERE WAS DICTA THAT TALKED ABOUT WE'RE NOT THE EXPERTS IN THIS FIELD. IT'S A VERY FRUSTRATING CASE THAT WE ARE STUCK WITH, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE IT IS UNLIKELY THAT ANOTHER CASE WILL MAKE ITS WAY UP TO THE SUPREME COURT IN JUST AS A GENERAL MATTER. ALMOST FOUR MONTHS EARLIER WAS A CASE CALLED WEBSTER V.DOE. IT WAS A CASE AGAINST THE CIA BROUGHT BY AN EMPLOYEE WHO HAD BEEN TERMINATED BECAUSE THEY WERE HOMOSEXUAL. THE COURT MADE IT CLEAR THAT ISSUES OF NATIONAL SECURITY MEANING THE CIA WAS SAYING YOU CAN'T HEAR THIS CASE, THERE IS TOO MUCH CLASSIFIED INFORMATION INVOLVED, THAT THE JUSTICES SAID WE CAN HANDLE IT. DISTRICT COURT JUDGES CAN HANDLE THAT ALL THE TIME. THAT IS NOT A PROBLEM. WHEN EGAN CAME DOWN, WE HAVE BEEN PRETTY MUCH STUCK UNLESS CONGRESS STEPS IN TO DIRECTLY ADDRESS IT WHICH IS UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN. MOSTLY WHAT CASES THAT ARE EVER BROUGHT CAN BE PROCEDURAL. THE AGENCY DIDN'T GIVE CERTAIN PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS. TO THOSE OF YOU IN THE AGENCY, TO YOUR CREDIT, IT IS RARE THAT AN AGENCY DOES NOT AFFORD PROPER PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS. WE CAN TALK ABOUT SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS. OFTEN TIMES, IF THERE IS A MISTAKE MADE I CAN MAKE A PHONE CALL AND SAY LOOK WHAT HAPPENED. THIS WAS WRONG. AS A QUICK EXAMPLE, I HAD THE FBI RECENTLY -- THEY ENDED UP BOOG THE RIGHT DOING THE RIGHT THING. THE FBI RENDERED A DECISION ON AN APPLICANT BECAUSE THEY FOUND OUT THAT SIX YEARS EARLIER THE CIA HAD DENIED THAT INDIVIDUAL A CLEARANCE. SO THEY DIDN'T BOTHER TO EVEN LOOK AT WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED IN SIX YEARS TO POSSIBLY MITIGATE WHATEVER THOSE CONCERNS WERE. THAT IS NOT THE WAY THE PROCESS SHOULD HAVE GONE. THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN -- IF THEY WANTED TO DENY GO AHEAD AND THEN AFFORD THAT PERSON DUE PROCESS. SOMETHING FELL THROUGH THE CRACKS. THEY DIDN'T. I MADE A PHONE CALL OR AN E-MAIL AND FIXED IT AND THE PERSON IS BACK INTO THE ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS. JOHN BRENNAN'S SITUATION, YOU SAW LOTS OF OP-EDS AND TALKING HEADS ON TV WHO HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT ON THIS AREA. >> THIS IS BEING TELEVISED. >> I ONCE HELD A SECURITY CLEARANCE IS NOT GROUNDS TO SAY YOU ARE AN EXPERT IN SECURITY CLEARANCES. THERE IS A DEBATE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE COULD STILL BE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OR A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO CLEARANCES. ALL THE COURTS HAVE SAID THERE IS NO RIGHT TO A CLEARANCE. IT IS A PRIVILEGE. I THINK IN INDIVIDUAL CASES -- I BRING THE CASE. JOHN BRENNAN, IF YOU ARE LISTENING, I WILL BRING THE CASE FOR YOU. JUST BECAUSE SOMETIMES THE WAY TO EFFECT CHANGE IS TO BRING THE CASE AS LONG AS IT IS NOT A RULE 11 PROBLEM TO SEE IF YOU CAN EFFECT THAT CHANGE. I THINK EGAN WOULD CAUSE A PROBLEM. THE QUESTION THAT MOSTLY COMES UP FROM AN ACADEMIC STANDPOINT IS WHAT HAPPENS IF AN AGENCY OR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES -- NOT MAKING COMMENTS ON ANY PARTICULAR ONE -- WOULD SAY NO DEMOCRATS OR NO REPUBLICANS CAN HAVE SECURITY CLEARANCES IN MY ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE IT IS A NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT OR NO PICK THE MINORITY OR PROTECTED CLASS CAN HAVE A SECURITY CLEARANCE, NO MUSLIMS CAN HAVE A SECURITY CLEARANCE. CAN'T COME IN THE COUNTRY, CAN'T HAVE A SECURITY CLEARANCE. IF A PRESIDENT OR AN AGENCY DID THAT, HOW WOULD THE COURTS REACT? I THINK THAT IS A TOTALLY UNANSWERED QUESTION BECAUSE SO MUCH OF NATIONAL SECURITY, WHO WOULD THINK THAT WOULD HAPPEN IN OUR DAY AND AGE AND MODERN AGE? AS AN INDIVIDUAL, I THINK IT IS A PROBLEM FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL STANDPOINT. IF IT STARTS TO GROW BEYOND THAT AND WE START TO SEE THE LIST THE PEOPLE THE WHITE HOUSE HAD RATTLED OFF THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING REVOKING ALL OF THESE PEOPLE'S CLEARANCES DEPENDING ON THE REASONING, WE'LL SEE. I'LL SAY ONE THING FINALLY. WHAT IS INTERESTING, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED SINCE. WAS HIS CLEARANCE ACTUALLY REVOKED? THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, WHAT HE DOES HAVE RIGHTS TO LITIGATE IS IF YOU ARE REVOKING MY CLEARANCE, YOU NEED TO GIVE ME PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS. YOU NEED TO HAVE A LETTER ISSUED BY THE AGENCY SETTING FORTH IN DETAIL WHAT ARE THE REASONS SUBJECT TO NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS, WHAT ARE THE REASONS AND GIVE THAT INDIVIDUAL A RIGHT TO APPEAL. THEORETICALLY THE CIA DIRECTOR COULD SAY MITIGATION EXISTS. OF COURSE, THE PRESIDENT DOESCAN SAY I DISAGREE. WE HAVE NEVER HAD THAT HAPPEN. WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE. >> MARK IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ABOUT SOMETHING AND HE IS ONE OF THE FEW COMMENTATORS IN THE WAKE OF THE BRENNAN ISSUE THAT HAD THIS RIGHT. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACCESS AND ELIGIBILITY. SO ELIGIBILITY FOR ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION DOES CARRY WITH IT DUE PROCESS RIGHTS. THE ABILITY FOR SOMEONE TO HAVE ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS BASED ON THEIR NEED TO KNOW AS DETERMINED BY THE AGENCY HEAD. SO THOSE ARE TWO FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT CONCEPTS AND SOMETHING THAT GOT REALLY IOLITED OVER IN THAT DISCUSSION. I ALSO JUST WANT TO ADD THAT WHAT MIGHT BE DONE TO CATEGORIZE PEOPLE OUT OF SECURITY CLEARANCES IS NOT AT ALL WHAT IS HAPPENING AT PRESENT. THE ADJUDICATIVE GUIDELINES WHICH JUST BECAME EFFECTIVE IN JUNE OF 2017 ARE ACTUALLY REFORMS IN A NUMBER OF WAYS INCLUDING THE FACTS THAT THEY CLEAR UP SUCH CONCEPTS OF IT IS NOT A PROBLEM TO HAVE DUAL CITIZENSHIP AND A SECURITY CLEARANCE. YOU CAN HAVE A FOREIGN PASSPORT AND HAVE A SECURITY CLEARANCE. I WILL ALSO SUGGEST ONE OF THE REFORMS IN THE STANDARD FORM 86 WAS THAT WE CHANGED THE WAY THAT THE QUESTION ON MENTAL HEALTH IS ASKED SO THAT IT IS NO LONGER ASKING FOR ALL TREATMENT AND COUNSELING, BUT NOW ASKS A SERIES OF VERY NARROW QUESTIONS THAT ARE BASED ON SPECIFIC LEGAL AUTHORITY. BOB TAYLOR IS SITTING HERE. THE TWO OF THEM HAD A FUNDAMENTAL ROLE IN MAKING THAT REFORM. >> LET ME JUST ADD ON THAT. I TOTALLY AGREE ...

WITH PERRY IN THE WAY THE WHITE HOUSE WENT ABOUT IT WRONG WAS ALL THEY HAD TO DO WAS SAY UNDER NEED TO KNOW YOU NO LONGER HAVE ANY NEED FOR THAT FOR ACCESS AND NOT ELIGIBILITY. IT'S THE ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION WHERE THEY USE THE WORDS WE ARE GOING TO REVOKE OR ORDERING THE DNI TO LOOK AT REVOKING OR NSC TO ...

REVOKE IT. THAT IS WHAT WOULD HAVE TRIGGERED THE DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS. THAT IS NOT HOW IT WAS AT LEAST PHRASED. >> GOING BACK TO YOU, YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE A VARIETY OF PROBLEMS, BUT THERE IS PROGRESS BEING MADE IN THOSE AREAS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF CONTRACTORS. WHAT ARE THE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE SYSTEM AND HOW IS IT BEING RESOLVED AND WHAT ELSE NEEDS ...

TO BE DONE? >> SO LET ME START WITH ONE BIT OF GOOD NEWS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO ONLY HAVE BAD NEWS. AS I SAID, THE BACK LOGS ARE GOING DOWN, GOOD THINGS ARE HAPPENING. ONE OF THE CONTRIBUTORS TO THAT IS THAT THE AGENCIES AND INDUSTRY ARE WORKING REALLY COOPERATIVELY ON CREATIVE PILOT SORT OF IDEAS FOR HOW TO MAKE THE PROCESS WORK MORE SMOOTHLY. SO FOR EXAMPLE THERE IS THIS CONCEPT OF HUBBING THAT A NUMBER OF COMPANIES HAVE PARTICIPATED IN WITH THE GOVERNMENT WHERE THEY WILL PROVIDE CLEARED SPACE AND SECURE VIDEO CONFERENCE AND SKYPE CAPABILITIES SO THAT THE INVESTIGATORS CAN COME TO WHERE THE PEOPLE WHO NEED TO GO THROUGH A CLEARANCE INVESTIGATION ARE OR CONNECT WITH THEM VIA TECHNOLOGY WITHOUT HAVING TO SPEND THE MONEY TO FLY ACROSS THE COUNTRY OR THE TIME THAT IT TAKES TO DO THAT. SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS HAPPENING IN A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT PLACES AND HAVE HELPED GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY. WE DO THIS, BOTH THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHO NEED CLEARANCES AS WELL AS CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEES WHO NEED CLEARANCES ARE ABLE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS FASTER. ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHALLENGES THAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO WORK OUR WAY THROUGH IS THE ONE THAT IS POSED BY THE FACT THAT EVERY AGENCY DOESN'T ACCEPT EVERY OTHER AGENCY'S DETERMINATION OF A CLEARANCE. FROM THE CONTRACTOR PERSPECTIVE, THIS PLAYS OUT IN ALL SORTS OF REALLY CHALLENGING WAYS. YOU MAY HAVE AN EXPERT IN A PARTICULAR KIND OF TECHNOLOGY WHO HAS A CLEARANCE THAT WAS ISSUED BY AN AGENCY LIKE THE DIA, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS BEEN WORKING ON A PROGRAM AND THEN ANOTHER AGENCY, MAYBE THE CIA WILL HAVE A SIMILAR KIND OF PROBLEM. THIS IS YOUR EXPERT AND THE PERSON WHO KNOWS WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE CHALLENGE. SO YOU SET UP A MEETING. IT TURNS OUT THE PERSON WITH THE CLEARANCE CAN'T GO TO THE MEETING BECAUSE THE NRO DOESN'T RECOGNIZE THE CLEARANCE AND THERE IS A VERY TIME CONSUMING PROCESS THAT IT TAKES TO GET THE PERSON CLEARED BY SISTER AGENCIES. IT'S ALL THE SAME CLEARANCE. IT'S ALL THE SAME INFORMATION. THAT I THINK IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS. THE OTHER BIG CHALLENGE IS THERE IS SO MUCH CHANGE NOW WITHSTANDARDS CHANGES, PROCESSES CHANGING, SYSTEMS CHANGING, AGENCIES CHANGING THAT IT CREATES A LACK OF PREDICTABILITY. FOR A CONTRACTOR BEING ABLE TO TRY TO PLAN HOW AM I GOING TO ACCOMPLISH THIS PROGRAM AND GET THE PEOPLE I NEED AND GET A SCHEDULE, MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, PREDICTABILITY IS A HUGELY IMPORTANT THING. THESE ARE KIND OF SCARY TIMES WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROCESS FOR CONTRACTORS. >> MARK, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF INDIVIDUALS, WHAT ARE THE MAJOR PROBLEMS THAT YOU SEE? >> SO MOST OF THE TIME WHEN YOU HEAR DISCUSSIONS ...

ABOUT CLEARANCES, IT'S VERY OFTEN ABOUT SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT YOU HAVE HEARD, THE LENGTH OF TIME, TRYING TO GET THE PROCESS FROM START TO FINISH TAKEN CARE OF AND ADDRESSED RATHER THAN THE SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS. PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE STATISTICALLY WHERE YOU HAVE LIKE 5 MILLION PEOPLE HAVING CLEARANCES, I REMEMBER SEEING A NUMBER A FEW YEARS AGO, ABOUT 97% OF PEOPLE WERE GOING THROUGH THE SECURITY CLEARANCE PROCESS. THAT IS A GREAT NUMBER. I WISH I COULD GO TO ATLANTIC CITY AND HAVE A 97% CHANCE. THREE PERCENT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT MUCH. THAT IS NATIONAL STADIUM DOWN HAD STREET. THAT IS A LOT OF PEOPLE WHOSE CAREERS MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY IF NOT EGREGIOUSLY HARMED AND THEIR FAMILIES. WHAT ARE SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE SEE? THE TIME THAT IT TAKES FROM AN INVESTIGATIVE STANDPOINT CAN BE A TIME THAT IMPACTS THE COMPANY. BUT HOW ABOUT THE TIME THAT IT TAKES TO GO THROUGH SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS? THERE ARE AGENCIES AND SOME OF THEM ARE LEGITIMATE TATHAT IT TAKES TIME. THERE ARE AGENCIES THAT IT WILL TAKE TWO TO THREE YEARS FOR EACH LEVEL OF APPEAL. IT WILL TAKE ME FIVE OR SIX YEARS TO GET SOMEONE THROUGH THE FULL APPEAL PROCESS. WHEN THEY ARE DENIED A CLEARANCE WHICH THEY WILL BE TOLD ABOUT A MONTH OR TWO AFTER IT ACTUALLY HAPPENS, IT WILL BE 15 TO 18 MONTHS BEFORE THEY HAVE A PERSONAL APPEARANCE BEFORE SOMEONE INSIDE THAT AGENCY. AND THEN ANOTHER SIX TO NINE MONTHS BEFORE A DECISION IS RENDERED. YOU CAN IMAGINE IF THEY ARE DENIED A CLEARANCE AT A DEFENSE CONTRACTOR, WAITING THAT AMOUNT OF TIME IS A PROBLEM. SO THERE IS ANOTHER PROBLEM THAT GOES WITH THAT AT D.O.D. THAT PERRY CAN TALK ABOUT. IT IS CALLED LOSS OF JURISDICTION WHERE IF THE CONTRACTOR DROPS THE INDIVIDUAL AS AN EMPLOYEE -- THERE ARE WAYS AROUND IT. THEY HAVE BEEN FACT IN TRYNTASTIC IN TRYING TO MEET THE TERM -- IF IT THEY DROP THE PERSON IT IS LOSS OF JURISDICTION AND THE ADJUDICATIVE FACILITY WILL STOP PROCESSING. THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE CONTRACTORS AND KNOW THE SYSTEM THAT IS ON ITS WAY OUT, IT USED TO FLASH IN RED IS A DEFENSE CONTRACTOR LOOKED YOU UP. THAT JUST MEANS THERE IS AN INCIDENT. IT JUST MEANS AN UNRESOLVED SITUATION. THE CONTRACTOR WOULDN'T HIRE THE PERSON. SO YOU WOULD BE STUCK IN THIS LIMBO THAT YOU NEVER HAVE YOUR ISSUE ADDRESSED BECAUSE NO ONE WILL SPONSOR YOU AGAIN FOR A CLEARANCE. COLLATERAL ISSUES IS A PROBLEM. THAT IS A HUGE PROBLEM IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE THERE IS NO APPEAL MECHANISM. IT'S MOSTLY WITHIN THE INTEL AGENCY. SO TO BREAK PAST THAT SHIELD TO GET AN AGENCY TO ADDRESS IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE. THIS WOULD BE YOUR TYPICAL SCENARIO. SOMEONE LEAVES AN AGENCY AS AN CIVIL SERVANT UNDER SOMEWHAT OF A CLOUD. THEIRCOMPLETELY RETAPED RETAINED. THEY GO TO ANOTHER AGENCY AND THEIR CLEARANCES ARE STILL ACTIVE IN THE SYSTEM. THEN THAT AGENCY, THAT SISTER AGENCY CALLS UP AND SAYS WILL YOU TRANSFER IT OVER? EITHER THEY DON'T ANSWER THE PHONE OR THE E-MAIL OR JUST SAY NO THERE IS AN UNRESOLVED ISSUE ON OUR END. WE ARE NOT TRANSFERRING IT. THEN THE NEW AGENCY IS STUCK WITH TRYING TO FIGURE OUT ARE WE GOING TO TRY TO RESOLVE THIS ON OUR OWN AND ADJUDICATE IT BECAUSE OFTEN TIMES THEY ARE NOT EVEN TOLD WHAT THE ISSUE IS? THE OTHER AND FINAL ONE I CAN SAY, THE OTHER ISSUE I HAVE SEEN A LOT RECENTLY AND WE ARE ON THE VERGE OF PREPARING A LAWSUIT, SUITABILITY ISSUES. YOU APPLY TO A FEDERAL AGENCY AND THEY DECIDE I DON'T WANT TO HIRE YOU. I HAVE GIVEN YOU A CONDITIONAL OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT, BUT SOMETHING CAME UP IN YOUR BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION. FROM A SUITABILITY STANDPOINT WE ARE RESCINDING THE JOB OFFER. WHY NOT? IF YOU GO TO STARBUCKS THEY CAN DO THE SAME THING. WHY CAN'T THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? THERE IS NO APPEAL PROCESS FOR THAT TYPE OF DECISION. SOME AGENCIES ARE ISSUING LETTERS THAT SAY DURING THE COURSE OF THE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION, WE HAVE DECIDED WE WOULD BE DENYING YOU A SECURITY CLEARANCE, BUT WE ARE GOING TO RESCIND YOUR JOB OFFER INSTEAD TO WHICH YOU HAVE NO APPEAL. DON'T WORRY. YOU DON'T HAVE TO REVEAL ON YOUR SF 86 THAT YOU EVER HAD A CLEARANCE DENIED THINKING THAT IS A GOOD THING THAT THE AGENCIES HAVE DONE. THE PROBLEM IS OFTEN TIMES THESE ISSUES THE PERSON ISN'T TOLD WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM AND HASN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT WHAT THE ISSUE IS AND MOST A GOOD DEAL OF TIME AT LEAST WE SUCCESSFULLY PERSUADE THE AGENCY THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. MAYBE IT WAS A MISTAKE. MAYBE IT'S BEEN MITIGATED. ANY HOST OF ISSUES. SO THESE PEOPLE ARE BEING DENIED -- EFFECTIVELY BEING DENIED A SECURITY CLEARANCE WITHOUT BEING GIVEN ANY DUE PROCESS BECAUSE, AS YOU GUYS ALL KNOW IN THE AGENCIES, THAT INFORMATION STAYS IN THAT AGENCY ON SECTION 25 -- 25 IS BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS, RIGHT? YOU STILL HAVE TO LIST THAT YOU WERE INVESTIGATED. YOU DON'T SAY THAT YOU'VE BEEN DENIED OR REVOKED, BUT YOU STILL SAY INVESTIGATED, WHICH MEANS THAT NEW HIRING AGENCY IS GOING TO GO BACK TO THE OTHER AGENCY AND SAY WHAT HAPPENED? AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE ACCESS TO IT. AND YOU STILL MIGHT NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO ADDRESS IT. SO SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS IS A REALLY DIFFICULT AND PROBLEMATIC ISSUE ...

THAT HASN'T IN MY OPINION AT LEAST BEEN SATISFACTORILY ADDRESSED MOSTLY BECAUSE PEOPLE THINK IT DOESN'T HAPPEN TO SUCH A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS. >> SO I'M GOING TO ASK PERRY AND AMY BOTH JUST TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING TO FIX THESE PROBLEMS, WHAT THE WAY FORWARD IS. AMY, I'D JUST LIKE TO START ...

BY ASKING YOU ABOUT WHY YOUR AGENCY IS GOING OUT OF BUSINESS. >> THANKS A LOT FOR THAT, BOB. WELL, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE OBVIOUSLY THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT, THERE'S LEGISLATION OUT THERE THAT MOVED THE DUTY CLEARANCE PROCESS BACK TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS COME TO THE CONSENSUS THAT THE RIGHT THING FOR THIS PROGRAM IS TO KEEP IT CENTRALIZED AND COHESIVE BECAUSE AND INTACT BECAUSE THAT'S HOW YOU GET THE BEST PRODUCT, THE BEST OUTCOMES AND HOPEFULLY THE BEST TRANSFORMATION EFFORTS FOR THE GOOD OF EVERYONE. SO OUR ORGANIZATION IS THE ONE THAT ACTUALLY GOES OUT AND DOES THE INVESTIGATIONS, THE FIELD INVESTIGATORS GOING OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND ALL THE DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT WE'RE NOT THE POLICY MAKER. SO HISTORICALLY THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF TENSION BETWEEN THOSE WHO ARE ACTUALLY PERFORMING THE FUNCTION AND DOING THE WORK AND THOSE MAKING POLICY. AND I THINK ONE POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT AS THIS CONVERSATION HAS REALLY INTENSIFIED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS IS THAT THERE'S A LOT MORE COLLABORATION ACROSS THE BOARD WITH THE STAKEHOLDER AGENCIES AND THE POLICY PIECES AND THE OPERATIONAL PIECES. AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT MORE DESIRE IN THE INTERAGENCIES TO REALLY LEAN IN ON THIS ISSUE AND IDENTIFY GOOD SOLUTIONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE SUSTAINABLE AND MAKE SENSE IN THE WORLD WE LIVE IN AND INTO THE FUTURE, CLEARLY RECOGNIZING THAT THINGS HAVE BEEN SOMEWHAT STATUS QUO FOR A LONG TIME AND IT'S REALLY TIME TO BE -- USE MORE AUTOMATION AND INNOVATION, LOOK FOR EFFICIENCIES SO THERE'S LESS ADMINISTRATIVE TIME AND MORE FOCUS ON, YOU KNOW, GETTING OUR INVESTIGATORS TO ACTUALLY DO THE WORK THAT MATTERS AND THAT THEY'RE QUALIFIED TO DO, WHICH IS MEETING WITH PEOPLE AND DOING THAT FACT-FINDING, NOT DRIVING AROUND FROM PLACE TO PLACE OR, YOU KNOW, POLLING DIFFERENT INDUSTRY PEOPLE INTO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, SO I THINK THERE'S STRATEGIC THINKING AROUND ALL OF THAT. I THINK THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE A QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY TENSION ESO TENSION, SO MANAGING HOW LONG THINGS TAKE VERSUS DIGGING IN AND FINDING OUT THE INFORMATION ABOUT PEOPLE. PART OF THE DIALOGUE WE'RE HAVING NOW IS ARE WE ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS. AT THE END OF THE DAY WE WANT TO BRING TRUSTWORTHY PEOPLE INTO THE GOVERNMENT AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GIVING RIGHT PEOPLE AND, LIKE I SAID, TRUSTWORTHY PEOPLE ACCESS TO OUR SENSITIVE INFORMATION. SO EVEN FROM THE GROUND UP EVALUATING IS THE SF-86 THE RIGHT QUESTIONS AND HOW WE GO ABOUT EVALUATING THIS BUSINESS. SO I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF DESIRE TO REALLY THINK ABOUT EVERYTHING VERY CRITICALLY, TO PARTNER WITH, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE INTERAGENCY AND EXTERNALLY WITH THE INTERAGENCY AND TO HAVE DIALOGUE WITH CONGRESS ABOUT THESE ISSUES AND REALLY GET THAT SORT OF 360 FEEDBACK. SO, YOU KNOW, FROM WHERE I SIT THERE ARE A LOT OF CHALLENGES, BUT I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF POSITIVE MOMENTUM RIGHT NOW. WE KNOW THE INVENTORY -- CASE INVENTORY IS DOWN ALMOST 100,000 CASES WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS, SO THE POLICY FLEXIBILITIES THAT HAVE BEEN OFFERED, SOME OF THE BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION OFFERS THAT NBI BCHL ISB IS DOING IS COMING TO FRUITION. AS THIS PROGRAM MAKES ITS MOVE TO A NEW HOME, I THINK THERE WILL BE THAT MOMENTUM ALREADY IN PLACE AND A LOT MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR INNOVATION AND TRANSFORMATION. >> PERRY, I'D LIKE TO LEAVE A COUPLE OF MINUTES FOR QUESTIONS SO IF YOU HAVE ANY BRIEF ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ABOUT WHAT'S GOING FORWARD. >> SO HINT TAKEN, I WILL KEEP IT BRIEF. I WANT TO FOLLOW UP QUICKLY ON WHAT AMY SAID TO ASSURE YOU THAT IN FACT THE -- WHAT YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIVE BACKLOGS IS BEING ACTIVELY WORKED AND THE TRANSITION TO DOD IS SOMETHING THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE WORKING ON VERY CAREFULLY TO ENSURE THAT INDUSTRY CUSTOMERS ARE NOT SEEING A DECLINE IN QUALITY OR TIME, BECAUSE THAT'S OBVIOUSLY -- THAT WOULD BE A NONSTARTER. THE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO SAY ABOUT WHAT MARK -- MARK'S COMMENT ABOUT THE AGENCIES, AND I WILL HASTEN TO POINT OUT THESE ARE NOT DOD AGENCIES THAT ARE TAKING THE POSITION WE'LL NOT ADJUDICATE YOUR SECURITY CLEARANCE, BUT WE'RE GOING TO SEND YOU AWAY IN EXCHANGE FOR YOU NOT HAVING TO REPORT THAT YOU LOST YOUR SECURITY CLEARANCE IS REALLY NOT A GOOD PRACTICE, BECAUSE THE BALANCE IN NATIONAL SECURITY DECISIONS IS BETWEEN THE IDEA OF PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND PROTECTING NATIONAL SECURITY. AND IT'S MY FUNDAMENTAL BELIEF THAT THOSE THINGS ARE NEVER IN CONFLICT. THEY ARE ALWAYS RESOLVABLE AND WE RESOLVE THEM EVERY DAY. BUT WHEN AN AGENCY DOES THAT, WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS THEY'RE BOTH DISADVANTAGING THE INDIVIDUAL AND THEN ALSO TAKING THE POSITION THAT THE NEXT AGENCY DOESN'T GET TO KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS AND THAT'S A NATIONAL SECURITY PROBLEM. SO IT'S ONE OF THE POINTS AT WHICH MARK AND I AGREE, BECAUSE IT'S -- THERE ...

IS A RIGHT WAY TO MAKE NATIONAL SECURITY DECISIONS AND I'LL JUST SAY THAT A LOT OF THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS. BUT WE ARE WORKING ON IT. >> SO WE HAVE TIME FOR A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. ELIZABETH. IF YOU SAY THE QUESTION, I'LL REPEAT IT. >> SO I WANT TO JUST SHIFT THE FOCUS AND I WANT TO ASK IF THERE IS ANY WAY YOU PRIORITIZE OR NOT AND I WILL USE MYSELF AS AN EXAMPLE. I HAVE HAD TOP SECURITY CLEARANCE CONSISTENTLY SINCE 1984. THIS PAST MARCH I WENT THROUGH AN AMAZING EXPERIENCE. A PERSONAL INTERVIEW OF FIVE HOURS, QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW COULD IT BE THAT AFTER I LEFT MY JOB AS A DEAN OF A LAW SCHOOL, I CONTINUED ON THE ROLLS BUT WITHOUT A SALARY FOR SIX MONTHS. MY HUSBAND WAS CALLED ABOUT THIS. IT WAS WILD. NOW, THE WOMAN WAS VERY PLEASANT, BUT -- AND I REALIZE THERE'S ALWAYS A MISTAKE WHEN YOU EXTRAPOLATE BASED ON ONE EXPERIENCE BUT IT MADE ME THINK GOOD NIGHT, I MEAN WHAT IS DRIVING THIS KIND OF INTENSITY. HADN'T BEEN ARRESTED. AS FAR AS I KNOW, I'VE LIVED A VERY BORING LIFE. SO IT MAKES ME WONDER, DO YOU PRIORITIZE WHO NEEDS THIS LEVEL OF SCRUTINY AND WHO DOESN'T BASED ...

ON EXPERIENCE? >> I'M ONLY GOING TO SPEAK FOR OUR AGENCY, WHICH ONLY DOES SOME AND PROBABLY NOT MANY OF THE ONES OF PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM, BUT SO, YES, I THINK THAT THERE ARE DEFINITELY SOME FACTS THAT MAY SURFACE DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS THAT WOULD DRIVE THE WAY THAT WE PROCEED WITH THESE INVESTIGATIONS, AND I'M BEING CAREFUL BECAUSE A LOT OF THIS INFORMATION IS PRIVILEGED SO I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THIS TOO DEEPLY. BUT I DO THINK THAT THERE SHOULD IN THE NORMAL COURSE BE ATTENTION PAID TO THOSE INDICATORS THAT MAY BE OUT THERE THAT WOULD -- THAT WOULD SORT OF MAKE THINGS MOVE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AND WHAT KIND OF DIALOGUE THERE WOULD BE. AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S ONE OF -- ONE OF THE ONGOING CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'RE HAVING IN THE GOVERNMENT IS, YOU KNOW, LIKE I WAS SAYING A FEW MINUTES AGO, ARE WE ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS? ARE THERE DIFFERENT WAYS OF DOING THIS AND DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE. YOU KNOW, MAYBE AN 18-YEAR-OLD WHO'S GOING INTO THE MILITARY HAS A LOT LESS BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE, LIFE EXPERIENCE, SO WE MAY LOOK AT THAT ONE WAY VERSUS SOMEONE AT A DIFFERENT POINT IN LIFE WITH DIFFERENT LIFE EXPERIENCES. SO I THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME STANDARDIZATION ...

OUT THERE, BUT I THINK THAT'S ALSO SOMETHING THAT'S PART OF OUR DIALOGUE RIGHT NOW. >> THERE WAS A GREAT OP-ED -- IS IT JOHN HAMRA? >> HAMRAY. >> HE WROTE A GREAT OP-ED THAT WAS IN "THE WASHINGTON POST" RAISING SOME OF THE SAME ISSUES AND QUESTIONS YOU SAID, ELIZABETH ELIZABETH, WHERE HE WAS GETTING HIS SECURITY CLEARANCE AND HAD SOME YOUNG INVESTIGATOR. AND YOU'VE ALL EXPERIENCED THIS PROBABLY, SO HAVE I, WHERE THE PERSON IS LITERALLY JUST GOING THROUGH YOUR SF-86 WITH YOU AND ASKING EVERY QUESTION YOU'VE ALREADY ANSWERED. I ALWAYS LOVE TO DEAL WITH THEM ON SECTION 29, IF I REMEMBER, THE LAST ONE, WHICH IS SORT OF GUILT BY ASSOCIATION. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWINGLY ENGAGED IN A TERRORIST ACT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT? AND I ALWAYS GO LIKE, THANK GOD, I ONLY UNKNOWINGLY PARTICIPATED IN A TERRORIST ACT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. AND SOME OF IT IS JUST YOU'RE GOING THROUGH THIS AND YOU'RE LIKE, SERIOUSLY? AND WE ALWAYS TELL PEOPLE, AND WHEN I TALK TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL AT DOHA AND WHEN I EDUCATE PEOPLE AND TEACH CLE CLASSES, ESPECIALLY AS LAWYERS, WE'RE NOT HERE TO OVERLAWYER THE FORM. WE KNOW WHAT KIND OF INFORMATION THE GOVERNMENT WANTS. THE FORM, QUITE FRANKLY, IS NOT VERY WELL WRITTEN. THERE'S A LOT OF TERMS THAT ARE NOT DEFINED. WHAT DOES COMMON INTEREST MEAN IN SECTION 19 THAT WAS ADDED BACK IN 2010 FOR A FOREIGN NATIONAL CONTEXT, OR AFFECTION OR OBLIGATION OR INFLUENCE? I KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN IF I LOOK THEM UP IN THE DICTIONARY, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE PUT DOWN WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WANTS, AND IT'S HARD WHEN THERE'S NOT A DEFINITION. UNLIKE SECTION 21, WHICH IS NOW ONE OF THE BETTER WRITTEN QUESTIONS ON THAT DOCUMENT TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE GOVERNMENT MEANS WHEN THEY WANT TO ACCESS YOUR INFORMATION. SO IT SEEMS LIKE SUCH A WASTE OF FIVE HOURS OF SOMEBODY'S TIME. THEY PROBABLY HAD A VERY PLEASANT CONVERSATION WITH YOU AND ENJOYED IT OVER TEA AND COOKIES OR SOMETHING, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S WORKING FULLY. >> PERRY, WE'LL GIVE YOU THE LAST WORD. >> SO, MARK, I THINK I KNOW WHY YOUR INVESTIGATION TOOK LONGER. BUT IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, WHAT HAPPENED TO ELIZABETH IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW ANY SYSTEM IS IMPERFECT. THE CONFUSION THAT MAY HAVE EXISTED AROUND YOUR EMPLOYMENT CIRCUMSTANCES WAS PROBABLY THE RESULT OF THE INVESTIGATOR NOT HAVING THAT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR EXPERIENCES, AND SO SOMETIMES THAT HAPPENS. IT'S A REASON WHY WE REALLY ARE FOCUSING ON BETTER TRAINING FOR INVESTIGATORS AND BETTER TRAINING FOR ADJUDICATORS. THERE'S BEEN A MOVE TO PROFESSIONALIZE THE ADJUDICATIVE WORKFORCE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT WITH SOMETHING THAT INCLUDES THE EQUIVALENT OF CONTINUING EDUCATION FOR ADJUDICATORS FOR THE VERY REASON THAT WHEN THEY COME ACROSS SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO THEM, WE ACTUALLY WANT THEM TO QUESTION IT BUT WE WANT THEM TO QUESTION IT IN AN INTELLIGENT WAY. >> MY QUESTION TO YOU REALLY IS THERE OUGHT TO BE A WAY AS TO WHO MIGHT BE WORTHY OF INTENSE ...

QUESTIONING AND WHO NOT? WE KNOW WHAT THE RISKS ARE. THIS WOMAN JUST, AS YOU SAY, MARK -- >> SO ELIZABETH, THE QUESTION IS ARE THERE WAYS OF DOING STATISTICAL ANALYSES AND SORT OF IDENTIFYING WHO THE HIGH-RISK PEOPLE ARE WHO SHOULD REALLY MERIT THE ATTENTION? >> SO I'LL SAY THAT ONE OF THE PIECES OF RESEARCH THAT THE PERSONNEL SECURITY RESEARCH IS LOOKING AT IS WHETHER OR NOT RISK RATING TOOLS CAN BE EMPLOYED TO TARGET INVESTIGATIONS. THE CONCEPT BEHIND CONTINUOUS EVALUATION IS ALWAYS, AND THIS HAS BEEN TRUE THE PAST DECADE, THE CONTINUOUS EVALUATION PROCESS WOULD THEN RAISE ISSUES THAT COULD THEN BE FOCUSED ON IN AN EXPANDIBLE, TARGETED, FOCUSED INVESTIGATION SO THAT IS THE FUTURE. HOWEVER, I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE IT IS NOT THE PRESENT, BUT THAT IS WHAT WE ARE WORKING TOWARD. THE DANGER, HOWEVER, WITH RISK-RATING TOOLS, IF ANY OF YOU HAVE EVER CHECKED OUT WHAT YOUR CREDIT SCORE IS, YOU MAY RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE THINGS THAT CAN AFFECT THAT THAT MAY NOT BE LEGITIMATE AND YOU THEN HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS OF GOING TO THE CREDIT REPORTING COMPANIES AND GETTING THEM TO FIX THE THING THAT THEY INACCURATELY BASED YOUR CREDIT SCORE ON. NOW IMAGINE THAT FOR YOUR PERSONNEL SECURITY CLEARANCE THAT AFFECTS YOUR JOB. SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WE WANT TO DO BLITHELY OR PRECIPITOUSLY BUT THE RESEARCH IS ONGOING. IN FACT THE FUTURE IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU DESCRIBED, WHICH IS USING DATA INTELLIGENTLY TO GET TO THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT WE NEED TO BE SPENDING MORE TIME ON. SO THANK YOU, THAT'S ACTUALLY A VERY ...

GOOD QUESTION AND A GREAT WAY FOR ME TO CLOSE MY COMMENTS. >> I SEE HALLIE LURKING IN THE BACK SO IT'S TIME TO WRAP THIS THING UP. PLEASE GIVE THANKS TO THE PANEL. [ APPLAUSE ] ...