FAS Homepage | Government Secrecy | S&G Bulletin ||| Index | Search |

DRAFT

SECURITY POLICY FORUM MEETING MINUTES


26 JULY 1996, 1000-1130 HOURS
MITRETEK CORPORATION/HAYES CONFERENCE CENTER
MCLEAN, VIRGINIA

INTRODUCTION

The Security Policy Forum (SPF/Forum) was convened at 1000 hours on 26 July 1996 by the Cochairs, Mr. Richard Wilhelm, Executive Director for Intelligence Community Affairs, and Mr. Douglas Perritt, Principal Director, Information Warfare, Security and Counterintelligence, OSD/C3I.

ATTENDEES

Agencies and departments not represented: Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Interior, the National Archives and Records Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Security Council. All other SPF member departments and agencies were represented. Observers included Defense Investigative Service (DIS) and the Industry Forum focal point.

OPENING COMMENTS

Mr. Perritt introduced Mr. Wilhelm as the new Forum Cochair. The minutes from the 1 March 1996 SPF meeting were accepted as presented.

OLD BUSINESS

Lt Col Gary Harris briefed on the requirement of both the Counterintelligence and Security Enhancement Act and Executive Order (E.O.) 12968 that each cleared person provide the government written consent for access to financial and foreign travel records, to be used only if an espionage investigation proves necessary. The Forum had approved a consent form in principle, subject to legal review, at its 1 March meeting. Legal review resulted in adjustments to legal citations, a tightening of the Privacy Act language, and a recommendatlon to prepare a short implementing instruction for the form.

Some discussion ensued among the members pertinent to procedural aspects of administering and maintaining the form.

Mr. Nelson recommended replacing the words, "in an unauthorized manner" contained in the first sentence of paragraph three of the implementer with the words, "without proper authorization." Mr. Wilson supported the change, arguing that the word "manner" meant method and, therefore, was problematic. However, Col Harris pointed out that the original phrase was taken verbatim from the statute establishing the requirement. The Forum, in approving the proposed form and implementer, asked Justice to provide an opinion regarding the recommended change; it will be included unless there are sufficient legal grounds not to do so.

Mr. Saderholm updated the members on the Security Policy Advisory Board (SPAB). He advised that the SPAB had been formed and had announced in the Federal Register their first "public" meeting to be held on 19 August, 0900 hours, at the Institute for Defense Analysis, 2001 North Beauregard Street, Alexandria, Virginia, Room 121.

Mr. Saderholm indicated that the fourth Information Assurance Document review session was scheduled for 31 July and subsequently a draft document would be forwarded for Forum members to review and consider. He advised that a memorandum, dated 22 July, subject, "Status Report on the Information Assurance Document," had been forwarded to the members and a courtesy copy was contained in their meeting folder.

Mr. Saderholm advised that the Department of Agriculture had been selected as the non-DoD Security Policy Board (Board) member. He mentioned that having non-Cabinet members attending Board meetings in an observer capacity was appropriate depending on the issue(s) before the Board.

Mr. Nelson briefed on the status of DoD's use of data from the Department of Treasury financial centers. He advised that DIS has recently begun conducting automated on-line queries of Treasury's large currency transaction data base when conducting periodic reinvestigations for TOP SECRET/SCI access. DIS now receives currency transaction reports (CTR) on cash transactions over $10,000, CTRs by casinos, reports of international transportation of currency or monetary instruments, and reports of foreign bank and financial accounts. He advised that to date 2.1 percent of the checks have disclosed information, a rate consistent with initial expectations.

At the end of Mr. Nelson's presentation, Mr. Saderholm praised his record of accomplishment as the Chairman of the Personnel Security Committee and presented him with a letter of thanks signed by the Forum Cochairs.

NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Saderholm stated that a wide range of issues regarding the directive had been worked and there were only two remaining issues. The first issue concerned the safeguarding standards for foreign government information (FGI). Mr. Saderholm asked Mr. Wilson to present the concerns pertinent to this issue. Mr. Wilson referred to Annex B of the draft safeguarding directive which enumerates the requirements for controlling FGI. He voiced that this language was acceptable to DoD, DOE, DoS, and a majority of the Forum member entities. He proffered that the provisions contained in Annex B were necessary because the preponderance of existing treaties/international agreements and other obligations mandate the implementation of these provisions. He emphasized that these are the minimum standards used for controlling NAT0 information.

Mr. Wilson continued the discussion of controlling FGI by directing the members' attention to the suggested modifications to the draft safeguarding directive which had been jointly agreed to by OUSD(P) and CMS. He enjoined the Forum to support these changes. After some discussion, the members agreed to the changes which were: (i) to retain Annex B clearly labeled for use in managing existing treaties/agreements/or other obligations; (ii) to retain current draft language on handling unclassified FGI which still requires protection; and (iii) to include in the main body of the draft language stipulating that when new treaties/agreements/or other obligations are negotiated or existing treaties/agreements/or other obligations are amended, the safeguarding standards for US information will be taken into consideration as the starting point.

Mr. Wilhelm advised that before sending the draft safeguarding directive to the Board, we engage in a period of consultation with foreign governments. Mr. Wilson voiced agreement with this concept but stated such consultation should be with the foreign government National Security Authorities vice consultation through intelligence channels. Mr. Wilhelm solicited Mr. Wilson to provide a proposal for how to do this.

Mr. Saderholm suggested that Messrs. Darby and Wilson incorporate the modified language into the draft safeguarding directive which could then be reviewed by the Forum Cochairs and the NSC prior to consultation with the appropriate foreign governments representatives. The members unanimously concurred in this suggestion.

Mr. Rank surfaced a potential concern with the draft safeguarding directive language pertinent to the prohibition on third-country transfers. He proffered that this language may prohibit doing things in the best interest of the US Government. Mr. Wilson advised that this language is in the NATO agreement. Mr. Garfinkel commented that although these words were not in E 0. 12958 it was a logical inference based on the third-agency provision which is contained in the Order. The sentiment of the members was that the third-country transfer language should remain in the draft safeguarding directive.

Mr. Saderholm introduced the second remaining issue of the draft safeguarding directive, the provision to rescind the use of non-GSA-approved security containers for the storage of SECRET and CONFIDENTIAL information after 1 October 2012. Mr. Lamoureux, the industry Forum focal point, stated that the continued use of these containers reflect a good case for risk management and cost avoidance. He added that these containers have been in use for 40 years with no known physical penetration. Additionally, he commented that there is a lack of a defined domestic threat and their replacement will result in an enormous cost to the government.

Considerable discussion ensued relative to cost, threat, vulnerability, and the impact of this policy on industry. A vote was taken with 22 members approving the sunset clause and none opposing.

OPEN FORUM DISCUSSION

Mr. Garmon advised the members of a Congressional request from Senator Ted Stevens concerning the handling of background investigation reports. Mr. Garmon provided a copy of the letter and proposed that if other departments and agencies had received a similar request, we should consider coordinating the format of the responses. Mr. Saderholm suggested an off-line session be held among those affected by this Congressional inquiry. Mr. Nelson indicated the impact on DoD would be enormous and a DoD representative had planned a meeting with a Mr. Fuller of Senator Stevens' staff. Mr. Crandell suggested that Forum members ensure their Personnel Security Committee (PSC) representative is apprised of the issue and recommended it be discussed at the upcoming PSC meeting on 30 July.

Effective 7 July, Mr. Crandell reminded everyone the OPM Office of Federal Investigations had, with the exception of its Boyers, Pennsylvania operations, been privatized and is now operating as the United States Investigations Service.

NEXT MEETING

The next meeting is scheduled for Friday, 27 September 1996, from 1000-1130 hours at the Mitretek Corporation, Hayes Conference Center.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 1110 hours.

FAS Homepage | Government Secrecy | S&G Bulletin ||| Index | Search |