[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 139 (Tuesday, August 21, 2018)] [Senate] [Pages S5741-S5755] DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019--Continued [...] Amendment No. 3761 Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the legislation we are working on that would make sure security clearances are revoked on a going-forward basis only for valid national security reasons--not to change the subject on a bad news day, [[Page S5753]] not to threaten career government employees, and especially not to carry out political retribution. Virginia is home to tens of thousands of dedicated men and women who serve in our intelligence and defense communities. Over the years, as Senator and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I have met literally thousands of FBI agents, CIA officers, military servicemembers, contractors, and other public servants who hold security clearances. These men and women work day in and day out, often thanklessly, to keep America safe. Do you know what? I have no idea, amongst those Americans who have those security clearances, which of them are Democrats and which of them are Republicans, and that is the way our system is supposed to work. The Federal Government grants security clearances only to those individuals who can be trusted with our Nation's secrets. Applicants go through intense, lengthy background checks, interviews, and even, in many cases, lie detector tests, not to mention extensive rechecks for suitability every few years. Only then, after this process, do we allow them to serve in some of the toughest intelligence and national security jobs. We ask a great deal of these dedicated professionals, but what we don't ask about are their political views. Since the mid-1990s, the Code of Federal Regulations has governed the 13 criteria under which personnel are deemed eligible or ineligible for security clearances and access to classified information. Amongst those 13 reasons to actually get a security clearance or to lose a security clearance is included: allegiance to the United States, being subjected to foreign influence, financial considerations, and others. When you look through that list of 13--and I have it over here--none of those criteria includes political speech, nor should they. Our national security is too important to infect with political partisanship. I believe that more than ever, in light of the President's actions last week when this President revoked the clearance of former CIA Director Brennan and, equally important, if not more important, when he threatened to revoke the clearances of numerous former and even current national security professionals. These individuals collectively have hundreds of years of honorable service to our country under their belts. No one can seriously question their fitness or loyalty to this country. Unfortunately, what we know--which is what happened last week and which, unfortunately, happens too many times out of this White House-- is that this is all about politics. According to media reports, White House officials have discussed how to issue the revocations on a going- forward basis to other enumerated individuals to distract from bad news stories. I hope these reports of the White House's plans are mistaken. True or not, we need only listen to the President's words to know these efforts are politically motivated. I will admit I had missed the widely publicized press event at which the White House announced the President's ``enemies' list.'' Yet anyone who looks at this list will notice some common factors in that they all served in the previous administration, and in the time since, several have exercised their First Amendment right to criticize this President for his policies. Many of those on the list have also had some involvement in the investigation into Russia's assault on our democracy in 2016. For that--in many cases, for doing their jobs--they are now being punished or will be potentially punished by this President and this White House. In the President's own words, ``These people led it . . . so I think it's something that had to be done.'' This is truly a dangerous precedent. For the first time since President Eisenhower created the security clearance process as we know it, the President of the United States is abusing one of his most important national security tools in order to punish his political opponents. As one of my friends on the other side of the aisle mentioned, it is something that would be more akin to something coming out of a banana republic. Perhaps even more troubling is the message this President is sending to those who are currently serving in government service. It is pretty clear he is sending a message that says to think twice before working on anything this President doesn't like, to think twice before you express a political opinion, even if it is in private. The White House broadcast this message loud and clear when it threatened to revoke the clearance of a midlevel employee at the Department of Justice. This is a clear attempt of intimidating others in the bureaucracy. If this President is successful in revoking this first wave of clearances, there is no question these actions will threaten the ongoing Russia investigation--an investigation that, again today, claimed two more guilty convictions, an investigation that has already resulted, prior to today, in 5 guilty pleas and 35 indictments. As I mentioned, today included the conviction of the President's campaign manager. Unfortunately, the President's actions don't just harm the individuals involved; these tactics threaten our national security institutions themselves. The Pentagon, the intelligence community, the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the rest of our national security structures depend on seasoned career professionals who do not act out of partisan motivations. Threatening their clearances--threatening their livelihoods and their families--is a clear attempt at undermining an ongoing, legitimate criminal investigation into what Russia did in 2016. If successful, the President's actions threaten to politicize our national security institutions even more so than they have already done. The President has significant authority as head of the executive branch, but there is widespread agreement that he should not be able to use these powers to get payback against Americans who criticize him. All of us in this body agree that no President should be able to order the IRS to audit political enemies, and we all agree no President should be able to order wiretaps against those who displease him. We should also all agree that a President should not have the power to remove clearances for reasons that have nothing to do with national security and certainly not because an individual expresses his or her right to free speech. I ask my colleagues to support the Warner amendment. I ask the majority leader to make sure this amendment gets a fair vote, up or down, on the floor of the Senate because I believe the Senate must take a stand against any attempts to punish political speech or to threaten our national security professionals by arbitrarily taking away their security clearances. We currently have in place real and prudent guidelines for issuing and revoking clearances, guidelines that are based on national security and not on political considerations. We cannot allow those to be supplemented by crass partisanship or attempts by this President to punish his enemies. We have come way too far from the dark days of Watergate to allow this type of attack against career professionals who have faithfully served our Nation with honor and dignity. We should demand better from this President. We can take that action by passing this amendment. I yield the floor.[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 138 (Monday, August 20, 2018)] [Senate] [Pages S5721-S5731] TEXT OF AMENDMENTS [...] SA 3761. Mr. WARNER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3695 proposed by Mr. Shelby to the bill H.R. 6157, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the appropriate place in title VIII of division A, insert the following: Sec. ___. None of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made available by this division may be used to grant, deny, or revoke access, or eligibility for access, to classified information except in accordance with the processes and procedures under the following: (1) Executive Orders 12968 and 13467, as such Executive Orders were in effect on August 15, 2018. (2) Part 147 of title 32, Code of Federal Regulations, as such part was in effect on August 15, 2018. (3) Applicable department and agency regulations that govern access to classified information and due process requirements. ______