security clearances for politicians

Hello to all, I am a newbie on the board and I look forward to exchanging posts with you.

I work as a DOD contractor in which I must have a security clearance, it has always confused me why myself and thousands of other people have to go through an in depth investigation just to get a job at what we do, while politicians don't even need one, yet they have access to just about anytype of classified materials.

I know they are elected officials and yes they were elected to office due to trust BUT why should others have to go through a security process and they don't? It sounds like a huge double standard to me. All they take is an oath and give their word.

There have been countless politicians busted over the years for corruption and some of them even sent to prison, so why should they be held to a lower standard.

Personally I think that if ANYONE has access to classified materials, which it even states in the security manuals concerning national security issues then they should fill out the paperwork and be cleared through an investigation just as others have.

My question has nothing to do with the current election either, I have always thought about this matter all the way back to the 70's and I am not here just to single out one political party, they all should be held to higher standards.

I have been told by some people that some politicians do actually have authentic clearances that were investigated such as mine and others, but when I ask who they are....no one knew and I asked how can you know for sure then that they were cleared?

I filled out a FOIA request form and sent it in only to be turned down citing privacy issues, I also called the senate security office and they said the same. So with that being said, I would like to ask anyone on this board.

Do you know by chance how I can find out who has a clearance? I have googled and just about everything I can think of doing an online search with no luck.

If I do eventually discover some politician that has actually filled out the paperwork , been investigated and cleared then I will be happy and let my inquiry go because that tells me that the statement about them not needing any type of clearance is not exactly true and there are exceptions to the rule.

If not I will continue to research things and hopefully with any luck, contact my elected officials and ask that the policy be changed. I know thats wishful thinking, but I just think it's wrong. Anyway...with that said I hope someone may have some answers I am seeking and I look forward to hearing from you. You can post me or email at [email protected]

Thanks.

As I recall, (and, my memory is not as good as before), Members of Congress (amazingly) are not required to undergo security clearance...this is what I found...
no sec clearance for congress

I hope someone can post otherwise.....

Not only should they have to go through the proper channels for a security clearance, they should also have to be drug tested like everyone else.

reply to post by habu71


Yes I have seen all that info about members of congress and senators not requiring a clearance. Hopefully someone can provide me a link or something else with some possible answers. Thanks for your response.

Just my opinion here, but I think if it was passed that it was required for all politicians to obtain a clearance, some would be out of a job. LOL!

Security clearances for elected officials depend on thier particular access to materials deemed secret or otherwise. Not all congressmen or senators are cleared to view classified documents because it doesn't directly pertain to thier roles or memberships of committees. I am not sure what level of clearance you obtained but as for me I had the lowest level (SSI clearance), so I would be unable to view anything that anyone say in the DoD could because of my job.Compartmentalization is what keeps the secrets my friend.

[edit on 21-12-2008 by djvexd]

Originally posted by rangersdad
Not only should they have to go through the proper channels for a security clearance, they should also have to be drug tested like everyone else.

A star for that! Yes, they should be subjected to all conditions that they impose on the working class. That would simply be fair.

reply to post by djvexd


So looking at your post, I'm I right in assuming you are saying that politicians do have clearances?

Most couldn't get them..too much drug use, past crimes, psychological issues, can't pass poly, or have no references who will say anything good.

Depending on what commitees they are on. As for the majority, no. For the most part most elected offcials have no need for the security clearance, becasue they do not deal with classified materials on a regualr basis. For example memebers of the committee that has direct budget oversight for the military do have security clearances (not quite sure of the correst designation for this commitee). Alot of closed door commitee sessions are dealing with classified issues hence the closed door nature.
FBI clearnaces for elected officials and law enforcement executives.

[edit on 22-12-2008 by djvexd]

That FBI link talks about state and local officials, what I am seeking is the congressman/women and senators.

That's where I run into the problem, I have people that tell me if a senator or congressman/woman is on some type of intelligence committe or a homeland security, national security oversight team etc.....

They must obtain an authentic clearance instead of just taking an oath. But no one really knows which elected official it is. Check out
www.fas.org...

The PDF is called (Protection of classified information by congress, practices and proposals.) The proposal section is hillarious because all the concerns suddenly the officials bring up about being investigated. Translation....it sounds like they have something to hide to me. If you have done nothing wrong then you should have no problem being investigated.

They are trying to twist the words like the investigators and adjudicator would do something wrong like not be fair, no impartiality, no objectivity and correctness. Basically it sounds like they think they would be set up
the way they discribe things.


Ahhhhhhh, to bad. I had to go through it and Icame through fine.




[edit on 22-12-2008 by hardeeboy]

[edit on 22-12-2008 by hardeeboy]

[edit on 22-12-2008 by hardeeboy]

The thing that is paramount is that any clearances Secret and above require a non-disclosure agreement.......How many in Congress would be willing to sign a document that says that if you reveal info that is deemed currently or in the future as a threat to NATSEC (national security), you surrender most of your rights. Barney Frank????

Senators and congressmen/women are in fact state employees whcihc happen to work in a federal setting. They are elected and employed at the state level to work at the federal level. Which is another reason not all of them are required to have security clearances.

Here is a excerpt from the Senate Comittee of Intelligence Rules of hearing pdf( you can find it on the U.S. Senates .gov website.:
"RULE 9. PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING CLASSIFIED OR COMMITTEE
SENSITIVE MATERIAL
9.1. Committee staff offices shall operate under strict precautions.
At least one United States Capitol Police Officer shall be
on duty at all times at the entrance of the Committee to control
entry. Before entering the Committee office space all persons shall
identify themselves and provide identification as requested.
9.2. Classified documents and material shall be stored in authorized
security containers located within the Committee’s Sensitive
Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). Copying, duplicating,
or removing from the Committee offices of such documents
and other materials is prohibited except as is necessary for the conduct
of Committee business, and in conformity with Rule 10.3 hereof.
All classified documents or materials removed from the Committee
offices for such authorized purposes must be returned to the
Committee’s SCIF for overnight storage.
9.3. ‘‘Committee sensitive’’ means information or material that
pertains to the confidential business or proceedings of the Select
Committee on Intelligence, within the meaning of paragraph 5 of
Rule XXIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate, and is: (1) in the
possession or under the control of the Committee; (2) discussed or
VerDate Aug 31 2005 20:53 Apr 27, 2007 Jkt 34536 PO 00000 Frm 000009 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06602 E:\HR\OC\C536.XXX C536 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
6
presented in an executive session of the Committee; (3) the work
product of a Committee member or staff member; (4) properly identified
or marked by a Committee member or staff member who authored
the document; or (5) designated as such by the Chairman
and Vice Chairman (or by the Staff Director and Minority Staff Director
acting on their behalf). Committee sensitive documents and
materials that are classified shall be handled in the same manner
as classified documents and material in Rule 9.2. Unclassified committee
sensitive documents and materials shall be stored in a manner
to protect against unauthorized disclosure.
9.4. Each member of the Committee shall at all times have access
to all papers and other material received from any source. The
Staff Director shall be responsible for the maintenance, under appropriate
security procedures, of a document control and accountability
registry which will number and identify all classified papers
and other classified materials in the possession of the Committee,
and such registry shall be available to any member of the Committee.
9.5. Whenever the Select Committee on Intelligence makes classified
material available to any other committee of the Senate or
to any member of the Senate not a member of the Committee, such
material shall be accompanied by a verbal or written notice to the
recipients advising of their responsibility to protect such materials
pursuant to section 8 of S. Res. 400 of the 94th Congress. The Security
Director of the Committee shall ensure that such notice is
provided and shall maintain a written record identifying the particular
information transmitted and the committee or members of
the Senate receiving such information.
9.6. Access to classified information supplied to the Committee
shall be limited to those Committee staff members with appropriate
security clearance and a need-to-know, as determined by the
Committee, and, under the Committee’s direction, the Staff Director
and Minority Staff Director.
9.7. No member of the Committee or of the Committee staff
shall disclose, in whole or in part or by way of summary, the contents
of any classified or committee sensitive papers, materials,
briefings, testimony, or other information in the possession of the
Committee to any other person, except as specified in this rule.
Committee members and staff do not need prior approval to disclose
classified or committee sensitive information to persons in the
Executive branch, the members and staff the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, and the members and staff of the
Senate, provided that the following conditions are met: (1) for classified
information, the recipients of the information must possess
appropriate security clearances (or have access to the information
by virtue of their office); (2) for all information, the recipients of the
information must have a need-to-know such information for an official
governmental purpose; and (3) for all information, the Committee
members and staff who provide the information must be engaged
in the routine performance of Committee legislative or oversight
duties. Otherwise, classified and committee sensitive information
may only be disclosed to persons outside the Committee (to include
any congressional committee, Member of Congress, congressional
staff, or specified non-governmental persons who support in-
VerDate Aug 31 2005 20:53 Apr 27, 2007 Jkt 34536 PO 00000 Frm 000010 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06602 E:\HR\OC\C536.XXX C536 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
7
telligence activities) with the prior approval of the Chairman and
Vice Chairman of the Committee, or the Staff Director and Minority
Staff Director acting on their behalf, consistent with the requirements
that classified information may only be disclosed to
persons with appropriate security clearances and a need-to-know
such information for an official governmental purpose. Public disclosure
of classified information in the possession of the Committee
may only be authorized in accordance with Section 8 of S. Res. 400
of the 94th Congress.
9.8. Failure to abide by Rule 9.7 shall constitute grounds for referral..."
Senate Comitee org charts and pdfs

True, those are the regs for the Sen Committee on Intel......those members must be vetted and receive clearances.....

Yes it says they must have the proper clearance but does that mean the secret oath they take clearance or a authentic Gov't security clearance? The one where a sf or esq 86 form is filled out.

See, this is my point, people say they must have the proper clearance but no one really knows what type and level of clearance they have, thats what I am trying to find out.

If you look at those regs posted about, nothing in it says what specific type of clearance for congressman/women or senators is needed, it just basically says they must have a security clearance or the appropriate security clearance.It does not SPECIFY which type or what level, so for all I know they could be talking about only the secret oath they take.

I always have people tell me they don't need clearances as I refer to and then others say they do, BUT no one can really show me proof if they do need one and give specific information that actually states what level they have and did they fill out the paperwork.

Thats what I looking for.

I guess its all ATS huh?

Basically what your thinking about is that politicians ARE cleared. But the process is a little different. You or I when we recieved our clearances had to fill out mounds of paperwork which was then sent to the FBI who then investigated the information then provided the clearance. Public officials who require one are generally given only a non disclosure packet which is about 1/10 the size of the paperwork you or I filled out. This is because politicians are "vetted" or investigated through the media and public when on that large of a stage (i.e congressman or senator). The FBI relies on the opposing campaigns and the newsmedia to do the bulk of the investigation for them. Why do they do this? Geberally they are working on a extremely LARGE backlog of clearing individuals for differnt work ( my low-level clearance took 7 months to come through). As many here would ask "why would they trust the media or an opposing campaign to clear the politician?" That's becasue the media and opposition do have an uncanny knack for diggin up dirt on politicians. Then said person endures the storm and is elected by the people. 95% of it is done for them. Just becasue you been bad once or twice doesn't mean you can't get cleared, and the way the FBI looks at it is, the safest person to trust with state secrets is someone you can control with thiers. Hence the vetting and signing. Now thier staff and aids are a completely different story and must fill out the standard forms but generally do so very early ( as you can be applying for a position and still apply for a clearance without being hired) and are generally moved to the front of the line once elected.

In some things, i must disagree:

What is DISCO?
The Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office (DISCO) is part of the Defense Security Service (DSS), an
agency of the Department of Defense (DoD). DISCO processes and adjudicates Personnel Clearances
(PCL) and Facility Clearances (FCL) for defense contractor personnel and defense contractor facilities. It is
one of eight Central Adjudication Facilities (CAF) within DoD.

Edit:, mistakenly just quoted the industrial part, although DSS does most clearances at Confidential or Secret levels.

who does the secclearance..

The FBI is involved at some of the higher levels of clearance, but not in all....The OP is looking for how Members of congress (lower case intentional) are cleared, if at all. OP's, as well as posters are correct in that as state reps, they do not automatically have a clearance. Their responsiblities in the Senate or House dictate whether they are ever cleared. If their committee positions and responsibilities do not involve classified info, they probably will not have any clearance. If they are candidates for, say hypothetically, the Senate Intel committee, they will be investigated, albeit quickly. This creates the backlog in the normal 'employee" clearance process.

A need for a TS clearance will involve the FBI, and usually a few other agencies.

Bottom line.....Just a new member of the House? no preclearance involved.... Vetting by the media and public has NO connection nor authority to "clear" a politician.

[edit on 24-12-2008 by habu71]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. While the FBI does the bulk of the actual legwork ( and this comes from the adminstrator for CBP), for politicians the OPM conducts something along the lines of what was stated here: Other Investigations
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) conducts other types of investigations. Some are for
employment purposes only, and others are for a combination of employment and security clearance
purposes. These investigations are generally not conducted for the Department of Defense contractor
personnel.
This would encompass most elected offcials whom need access to confidential material and even up to TS docs. This was as of 5 years ago when I was employed. Unfortunatley the strigent requirements for you or I or anyone else do not apply to elected officials unless said official is going to be directly involved in a classified project and not just provide oversight. I was not inferring that they watch tv and say "OK Frank here ya go!" The FBI, CIA NSA have ALL used MSM and other outlets to obtain information on people especially politicians. Is that all they rely on? No. But it is looked upon.

assume you were replying to my post.....Good post......I agree, my point is that you and I undergo much more investigation than John Q Representative, UNLESS he needs access to TS levels of info (as you said)...So, we cannot assume that the Representative that goes to Iraq has a TS clearance or even a clearance at all. I was required to fly certain politicians in my aircraft, when I asked their level of clearance, I was often told, "none, but it was authorized by Gen. XXXXXX") These individuals had visual access to recon and weapons systems data that should have required a TS clearance. Some had had a previous clearance (> 10 yrs old), but some had none.....

Yeah, thats what always got me about being cleared by the top brass. but you were outranked and what are you going to say? F U general, I don't think so! Nope, your going to say YES SIR NO PROBLEM.


I was stationed at Fort Bragg when my unit was mobilized during the build up to Desert Shield before deploying and I remember like yesterday when we were all at Pope AFB waiting on the green ramp area to embark on an aircraft and the Air Force all of a sudden started shutting down that area of the strip down due to a weapons movement.


They had what is referred by the Air Force to as GODZILLA.....basicallly a huge aircraft moving tractor that looked like a cross between a tank and a monster truck, they are use to move the big aircraft like C130s and C5s etc...around. This time they were hauling trailers attached to them with those bombs on the back. There were 6 trailers attached per tractor with each trailer having 10 bombs on them and there were a total of 15 tractors.

The AF police just about shut down everything, I guess it was planned weeks in advance, but no one told us. Figures.

Usually that does not happen but I found out later through scuttlebut that a new special weapon was being loaded called the BLU 109 which at the time was a newly developed bunker busting deep penetrating bomb and had at the time the highest DX rating for the DOD.

Anyway what was strange was seeing a local state representative observing the whole thing and we had to turn around and leave and we all had secrets clearances at the time. I guess secret was not high enough huh?

After that happened thats when I became interested in if these elected officials had actual security clearances.....BUT like you said the general "AKA post Commander" had cleared him.

After that I just could not believe what I saw and was a skeptic from then on. I still think it's a double standard for us to have to go through our crazy paperwork and investigations and these people don't.

It took me 452 days to be cleared, mostly due to backlogs in the system as JPAS put it. I had to take 2 polygraphs, SSBI the whole works.
I was sweating bullets when I had to put down my ex wife on paper, that was a nasty divorce. But in the end, I passed go and collected the money.

Hopefully these new proposals being brought up about revisions in the security procedures in the senate and congress will change things, but I'm not holding my breath.