[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 69 (Wednesday, June 7, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4649-S4661]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 3197

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the pending business is the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Arizona; am I not correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 33 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. It is my intention to yield back the time, I say to my 
colleagues. I will wait momentarily, and we can proceed to the vote. 
Has the vote been ordered, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays on the McCain-Levin 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we jointly yield back all time. The vote 
may proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3197. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 35, nays 63, as follows:--
  The result was announced--yeas 35, nays 63, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 120 Leg.]

                                YEAS--35

     Bayh
     Biden
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     DeWine
     Feingold
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     Moynihan
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Smith (OR)
     Thompson
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--63

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Lautenberg
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Crapo
     Domenici
       
  The amendment (No. 3197) was rejected.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to keep all Senators informed. We 
are making progress on this bill. We are still anxious to get 
indications from Senators with regard to their amendments. We are 
having very good cooperation on both sides. I will address that later 
this evening.
  Under the existing order, I believe it is now the amendment of the 
Senator from Virginia. Am I not correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be laid aside 
temporarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
disposition of the Wellstone amendment--that will now be the pending 
business as soon as I yield the floor. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Following the disposition of the Wellstone amendment, 
which is subject to a 30-minute time agreement, I ask unanimous consent 
that Senator Robert Smith be recognized to offer his amendment 
regarding security clearances on which there will be 30 minutes equally 
divided with no amendments in order prior to the vote in relation to 
the amendment.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will 
object, unless I can be assured that I have an agreement to 1 hour 
equally divided. If I can be put in the order after Senator Smith, I 
will not object.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am trying to move things forward. 
Senator Helms and I are working out language. I think we will have an 
agreement, but I thought I would start speaking on this amendment so we 
can move this forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment 
that deals with the importance of condemning the use of child soldiers 
in dozens of countries around the world. It is also about very 
important protocol that is being developed and the importance of 
building support for it and moving forward as expeditiously as possible 
on this question.
  Today, there are 300,000 children who are currently serving as 
soldiers in current armed conflicts. Child soldiers are being used in 
30 countries around the world, including Colombia, Lebanon, and Sierra 
Leone. Child soldiers witness and are often forced to participate in 
horrible atrocities.
  I am talking about 10-year-olds being abducted, forced to participate 
in horrible atrocities, including beheadings, amputations, rape, and 
the burning of people alive. These young combatants are forced to 
participate in all kinds of contemporary warfare. They wield AK-47s and 
M 16s on the front lines. They serve as human mine detectors. They 
participate in suicide missions. They carry supplies and act as spies, 
messengers, or lookouts.
  One 14-year-old girl abducted in January 1999 by the Revolutionary 
United Front, a rebel group in Sierra Leone, reported to human rights 
observers:

       I've seen people get their hands cut off, a ten-year-old 
     girl raped and then die, and so many men and women burned 
     alive * * * So many times I just cried inside my heart 
     because I didn't dare cry out loud.

  Mr. President, no child should experience such trauma. No child 
should experience such pain.
  Last year, I introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the 
Congress

[[Page S4650]]

that U.S. policy permit consensus on language on this optional protocol 
on child soldiers, directing the State Department to work positively to 
address its concerns, in language within the United Nations Working 
Group on Child Soldiers. Today I thank the State Department for its 
work, and I thank the Department of Defense for its conscientious work, 
and I thank the Joint Chiefs of Staff for signing off on this protocol. 
I think it is terribly important work.

  On January 21 in Geneva, representatives from more than 80 countries, 
including the United States, worked out an agreement raising the 
minimum wage for conscription in direct participation in armed conflict 
to 18 and prohibiting the recruitment and use in armed conflict of 
persons under the age of 18 by nongovernmental armed forces. The 
agreement calls on governments to raise the minimum wage for voluntary 
recruitment above the current standard of 15 but still allows the armed 
forces to accept voluntary recruits from the age of 16, subject to 
certain safeguards.
  The Pentagon, and again the State Department, Harold Cohen in 
particular, have been great to work with. I believe this is a 
humanitarian crisis that we ought to address now. It is absolutely 
unbelievable that in the year 2000 we see people as young as age 10 
abducted--I have talked to some of the mothers of these children who 
are abducted--and forced to commit atrocities. It is unbelievable that 
we see children age 10 cutting off the arms of other people, engaging 
in murder. It is unbelievable the extent to which young women are 
abducted, and they themselves are terrorized and raped. This is a 
practice that takes place in 30 countries around the world involving 
300,000 children.
  Finally, after years of work, the United Nations has put together an 
important protocol. We are, I believe, close to supporting this.
  In conclusion, this is just a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that the 
Congress joins in condemning the use of children as soldiers by 
governmental and nongovernmental armed forces. We talk about the 
importance of taking this action. We make it clear that it is essential 
that the President consult closely with the Senate in the objective of 
building support for the protocol, and we also urge the Senate to move 
forward as expeditiously as possible.
  I think it is important that all of us support this. I urge my 
colleagues to do so. I want colleagues to know that Congressman Lewis 
and Congressman Lantos on the House side have a very similar 
resolution.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Minnesota yield for a question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. I commend my colleague for bringing this issue to our 
attention. I think it is particularly timely that he would raise this 
on the floor of the Senate. In a trip to Africa just a few months ago, 
I discovered the ravages of the AIDS epidemic. There are some 10 
million AIDS orphans. These children are likely to become the soldiers 
in these armies the Senator from Minnesota has just described. The 
young girls are likely to become either victimized or prostitutes 
themselves, who are going to really, in a way, continue this cycle of 
disease and dependency and death.
  I commend my colleague from the State of Minnesota, Senator 
Wellstone, for calling this important moral issue to the attention of 
the Senate. I rise in strong support. I ask him if he has considered 
the impact of the AIDS epidemic and similar health problems that have 
created so many orphans in Africa, and now we have the fastest growth 
of HIV infection in the world in India, and the impact this could have 
on the issue he has raised.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, in the time I have remaining let me say 
to my colleague from Illinois, I believe my colleague from Illinois, 
the Senator from California, the Senator from Wisconsin, and others 
have really brought to our attention the number of citizens, not just 
children, who are HIV infected, struggling with AIDS. It is a 
humanitarian crisis of tremendous proportions.
  I think for too long the world has just turned its gaze away from 
this and from the whole question of how to get affordable drug 
treatment to deal with this, prescription drug treatment, to ways in 
which our country ought to be more engaged, to ways in which we can 
encourage governments in Africa to deal directly with this. Finally, we 
are doing so. My colleague is right, it is also true, for the worst of 
economic reasons or reasons of desperation, that these young people, 
including young people infected with AIDS, are the recruits. They 
become the child soldiers--again, colleagues, 300,000 children, many of 
them abducted, in 30 countries, used as child soldiers.
  This resolution, I think, is terribly important. Our Department of 
Defense and State Department have worked hard. A year ago, our 
Government was not supporting this. I think we now have language that 
is important language. This simply urges the Senate to condemn this 
practice and talks about the importance of the President moving forward 
and building support for this protocol, and it calls upon the Senate to 
act expeditiously on this matter.
  I hope there will be 100 votes for this. I thank my colleague Senator 
Helms, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, for working with 
me. We have changed some language, and I think we have a good 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order for 
me to speak from my seat.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I have prepared the best speech you will never hear. I 
was prepared to have to oppose my friend from Minnesota, but we have 
come to an understanding about this matter. We have agreed to amend and 
modify the proposed amendment in a way that makes it satisfactory to 
me.


                           Amendment No. 3211

 (Purpose: To express condemnation of the use of children as soldiers 
 and expressing the belief that the United States should support and, 
    where possible, lead efforts to end this abuse of human rights)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself and 
     Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered 3211.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 462, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 1210. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE USE OF CHILDREN AS 
                   SOLDIERS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) in the year 2000 approximately 300,000 individuals 
     under the age of 18 are participating in armed conflict in 
     more than 30 countries worldwide;
       (2) many of these children are forcibly conscripted through 
     kidnapping or coercion, while others join military units due 
     to economic necessity, to avenge the loss of a family member, 
     or for their own personal safety;
       (3) many military commanders frequently force child 
     soldiers to commit gruesome acts of ritual killings or 
     torture against their enemies, including against other 
     children;
       (4) many military commanders separate children from their 
     families in order to foster dependence on military units and 
     leaders, leaving children vulnerable to manipulation, deep 
     traumatization, and in need of psychological counseling and 
     rehabilitation;
       (5) child soldiers are exposed to hazardous conditions and 
     risk physical injuries, sexually transmitted diseases, 
     malnutrition, deformed backs and shoulders from carrying 
     overweight loads, and respiratory and skin infections;
       (6) many young female soldiers face the additional 
     psychological and physical horrors of rape and sexual abuse, 
     being enslaved for sexual purposes by militia commanders, and 
     forced to endure severe social stigma should they return 
     home;
       (7) children in northern Uganda continue to be kidnapped by 
     the Lords Resistance Army (LRA), which is supported and 
     funded by the Government of Sudan and which has committed and 
     continues to commit gross human rights violations in Uganda;
       (8) children in Sri Lanka have been forcibly recruited by 
     the opposition Tamil Tigers movement and forced to kill or be 
     killed in the armed conflict in that country;
       (9) an estimated 7,000 child soldiers have been involved in 
     the conflict in Sierra Leone, some as young as age 10, with 
     many being

[[Page S4651]]

     forced to commit extrajudicial executions, torture, rape, and 
     amputations for the rebel Revolutionary United Front;
       (10) on January 21, 2000, in Geneva, a United Nations 
     Working Group, including representatives from more than 80 
     governments including the United States, reached consensus on 
     an optional protocol on the use of child soldiers;
       (11) this optional protocol will raise the international 
     minimum age for conscription and direct participation in 
     armed conflict to age eighteen, prohibit the recruitment and 
     use in armed conflict of persons under the age of eighteen by 
     non-governmental armed forces, encourage governments to raise 
     the minimum legal age for voluntary recruits above the 
     current standard of 15 and, commits governments to support 
     the demobilization and rehabilitation of child soldiers, and 
     when possible, to allocate resources to this purpose;
       (12) on October 29, 1998, United Nations Secretary General 
     Kofi Annan set minimum age requirements for United Nations 
     peacekeeping personnel that are made available by member 
     nations of the United Nations;
       (13) United Nations Under-Secretary General for Peace-
     keeping, Bernard Miyet, announced in the Fourth Committee of 
     the General Assembly that contributing governments of member 
     nations were asked not to send civilian police and military 
     observers under the age of 25, and that troops in national 
     contingents should preferably be at least 21 years of age but 
     in no case should they be younger than 18 years of age;
       (14) on August 25, 1999, the United Nations Security 
     Council unanimously passed Resolution 1261 (1999) condemning 
     the use of children in armed conflicts;
       (15) in addressing the Security Council, the Special 
     Representative of the Secretary General for Children and 
     Armed Conflict, Olara Otunnu, urged the adoption of a global 
     three-pronged approach to combat the use of children in armed 
     conflict, first to raise the age limit for recruitment and 
     participation in armed conflict from the present age of 15 to 
     the age of 18, second, to increase international pressure on 
     armed groups which currently abuse children, and third to 
     address the political, social, and economic factors which 
     create an environment where children are induced by appeal of 
     ideology or by socio-economic collapse to become child 
     soldiers;
       (16) the United States delegation to the United Nations 
     working group relating to child soldiers, which included 
     representatives from the Department of Defense, supported the 
     Geneva agreement on the optional protocol;
       (17) on May 25, 2000, the United Nations General Assembly 
     unanimously adopted the optional protocol on the use of child 
     soldiers;
       (18) the optional protocol was opened for signature on June 
     5, 2000; and
       (17) President Clinton has publicly announced his support 
     of the optional protocol and a speedy process of review and 
     signature.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--(1) Congress joins the 
     international community in--
       (A) condemning the use of children as soldiers by 
     governmental and nongovernmental armed forces worldwide; and
       (B) welcoming the optional protocol as a critical first 
     step in ending the use of children as soldiers.
       (2) It is the sense of Congress that--
       (A) it is essential that the President consult closely with 
     the Senate with the objective of building support for this 
     protocol, and the Senate move forward as expeditiously as 
     possible;
       (B) the President and Congress should work together to 
     enact a law that establishes a fund for the rehabilitation 
     and reintegration into society of child soldiers; and
        (C) the Departments of State and Defense should undertake 
     all possible efforts to persuade and encourage other 
     governments to ratify and endorse the new optional protocol 
     on the use of child soldiers.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to colleagues, I will not require 
a recorded vote. If we want to go forward with a voice vote, that will 
be fine with me if it is fine with my colleague.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I strongly urge we consider this matter by 
voice vote.
  I urge the question.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3211) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3210

     (Purpose: To prohibit granting security clearances to felons)

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 
3210 at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state the inquiry.
  Mr. LEVIN. Do I understand there is a pending Warner amendment which 
is being temporarily laid aside for this?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no pending Warner amendment. There 
was just an agreement that Senator Warner be recognized to offer an 
amendment. If he does not seek recognition, he waives that right.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I just ask that be temporarily laid aside.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, what is being temporarily laid aside if 
there is not a pending amendment?
  Mr. WARNER. It is the right to offer the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The right to offer the amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. So as I understand it, after the disposition of the Smith 
amendment, there would be an opportunity for Senator Warner to offer an 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. Am I correct, as the manager of the bill he would have 
that opportunity in any event? If he sought recognition, he would be 
first to be recognized after the leadership; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, this amendment No. 3210--
--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will withhold.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3210.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC.   . PERSONNEL SECURITY POLICIES.

       No officer or employee of the Department of Defense or any 
     contractor thereof, and no member of the Armed Forces shall 
     be granted a security clearance unless that person:
       (1) has not been convicted in any court of a crime 
     punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;
       (2) is not an unlawful user of or addicted to any 
     controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act);
       (3) has not been adjudicated as mentally incompetent;
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, this amendment is really 
quite simple. It involves the issue of whether or not a felon should 
get a security clearance. That is the essence. If you favor felons 
having a security clearance, you would vote against my amendment. If 
you think it is wrong that convicted felon should have a security 
clearance, then you would vote with me.
  On April 6 there was a hearing the Armed Services Committee held that 
touched upon an important and urgent issue, that of the longstanding 
protections set in place to guard the most vital secrets of the Nation 
and of our national security community. But we had a virtual security 
meltdown in this administration, from our DOE labs to people without 
clearances getting White House passes, to the recent scandal of missing 
and highly classified State Department laptops. It goes on and on. 
While we couldn't possibly begin to address all our Nation's security 
deficiencies within this one authorization bill, I believe we can make 
progress in one very specific area.
  A reporter by the name of Ed Pound of USA Today has done an 
outstanding job with recent news reports and investigative reporting on 
this issue.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that articles written by Mr. 
Pound from USA Today be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Probe of Security Clearances Urged--Senator Says Contract Hirings Pose 
                                a Threat

                          (By Edward T. Pound)

       WASHINGTON.--Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., urged the Senate Armed 
     Services Committee Tuesday to investigate why the Defense 
     Department is granting high-level security clearances to 
     employees of military contractors who have long histories of 
     problems, even criminal activity.
       Smith, a senior member of the armed services panel, asked 
     its chairman, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., to conduct the inquiry 
     and hold a hearing. In a letter to Warner, Smith

[[Page S4652]]

     said industrial espionage is on the upswing. ``One person can 
     cause immeasurable damage to national security,'' he wrote.
       Smith said that white felons can't vote in some states, 
     they have been allowed by the Pentagon to retain access to 
     sensitive classified information. ``This doesn't pass the 
     smell test,'' he said.
       Warner could not be reached Tuesday for comment.
       Smith is chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
     Committee. He is the second senior senator to seek reform in 
     the wake of a USA TODAY story last week. It detailed how the 
     Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, or DOHA, regularly 
     granted clearances to contractors with histories of drug and 
     alcohol abuse, sexual misconduct, financial problems or 
     criminal activity.
       Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, urged Defense Secretary William 
     Cohen last week to correct the situation. ``All necessary 
     steps must be taken to correct this problem immediately,'' he 
     said in a statement. ``Our nation's security depends on it.''
       The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of 
     Congress, also will review DOHA and other Pentagon clearance 
     agencies. While defending DOHA, a Pentagon spokesman said 
     that any problems uncovered by the GAO would be corrected.
       In his letter, Smith also asked Warner to explore why the 
     Defense Department is struggling to process security 
     background investigations, which serve as the basis for 
     issuing clearances. The Pentagon has a backlog of more than 
     600,000 investigations for renewals of clearances. Smith and 
     others say the problem poses a national security risk because 
     spies usually are trusted insiders.
       Smith said many clearances granted by DOHA violated an 
     executive order issued by President Clinton in 1995. It 
     requires that clearances be issued only to those whose 
     history indicates ``loyalty in the United States, strength of 
     character, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, discretion 
     and sound judgment.''
       Clearance officials evaluate security applicants under 
     ``adjudicative guidelines,'' the standards for granting 
     clearances. They cover, among other matters, allegiance to 
     the United States, foreign influence, security violations, 
     sexual behavior, financial problems criminal conduct, and 
     drug and alcohol abuse.
       Smith said the armed services panel could force reform. ``I 
     would strongly urge you to task your staff to investigate'' 
     the clearance problems, Smith wrote Warner. He said an 
     inquiry could ``restore integrity and quality control'' to 
     the clearance process.
                                  ____


                    [From USA Today, Dec. 29, 1999]

               Felons Gain Access to the Nation's Secrets

                          (By Edward T. Pound)

       WASHINGTON.--As a teenager, he was in trouble many times 
     and built an imposing rap sheet: delinquency, disorderly 
     conduct, resisting arrest, attempted theft, possession of a 
     deadly weapon, possession of marijuana, five counts of 
     burglary and three of theft. He got jail time and probation.
       In 1978, at age 21 and a heavy drug user, he and two 
     accomplices kidnapped, robbed and murdered a fellow drug 
     user. He was charged in the murder, convicted and sentenced 
     to 30 years in prison.
       Today, at 42, he is out of prison and working in a white-
     collar job in the defense industry. He remains on parole 
     until 2006. As a convicted felon, he can't vote in many 
     states. But under federal law, he can and does hold a 
     government-issued security clearance, a privilege that allows 
     access to sensitive classified information off-limits to most 
     Americans.
       His case is not exceptional. A USA Today review of more 
     than 1,500 security clearance decisions at the Department of 
     Defense shows that a Pentagon agency regularly grants 
     clearances to employees of defense contractors who have long 
     histories of financial problems, drug use, alcoholism, sexual 
     misconduct or criminal activity.
       Applicants have been given sensitive clearances despite 
     repeatedly lying about past misconduct to Defense Department 
     investigators. One employee lied at least four times about 
     his drug history, including twice in sworn statements. 
     Officials didn't refer the matter to the Justice Department 
     for prosecution, something they rarely do; instead, they 
     allowed him to retain his secret-level clearance.
       In other instances, contractor employees involved in 
     significant criminal frauds were granted clearances. So, too, 
     were applicants who had violated state and federal laws by 
     not filing income tax returns for several years, including a 
     woman who had not submitted timely returns for 11 years 
     because she was depressed.
       Another employee mishandled classified material during a 
     five-year period but didn't lose his top-secret access. A 
     clearance official excused his actions because he had been 
     working in a ``pressure-cooker environment.''
       All of these clearances were approved by the Defense Office 
     of Hearings and Appeals, or DOHA, a little-known Pentagon 
     agency that decides whether to grant or deny clearances to 
     employees of defense contractors. The decisions were made by 
     DOHA (pronounced DOUGH-ha) administrative judges. They rule 
     in cases in which applicants seek to overturn preliminary 
     decisions denying them access to classified information.
       DOHA's quasi-judicial program, now in its 40th year, was 
     developed to give employees of contractors the right to 
     review the evidence against them and to challenge denials in 
     hearings, if they so choose, before an administrative judge. 
     Most clearance decisions are made by other DOHA officials and 
     never reach the judges.
       About two-thirds of the time, the judges decide against 
     granting clearances. However, their approval of clearances 
     for some employees with deeply troubled histories concerns 
     other clearance officials in the military as well as security 
     investigators in the Defense Department.
       They argue that DOHA has gone too far, granting clearances 
     to unstable people who might pose a risk to national 
     security. They worry that some employees with pressing 
     financial problems might sell secrets to foreign powers or 
     that others, vulnerable because of embarrassing personal 
     problems, could be blackmailed into espionage.
       Army and Navy clearance officials criticize the agency for 
     being too ``lenient.'' Along with former DOHA officials, they 
     complain that the agency sometimes ignores the government's 
     ``adjudicative guidelines''--the standards for granting 
     clearances--in issuing decisions.
       ``To be honest with you, I think DOHA often finds in favor 
     of the individual and not national security,'' says Edwin 
     Forrest, executive director of the Navy's Personnel Security 
     Appeal Board, which reviews clearance appeals from Navy 
     employees. ``What we see coming from DOHA are decisions that 
     go outside the envelope--outside the adjudicative 
     guidelines.''
       Howard Strouse, a former senior DOHA official who retired 
     last January, is blunt: ``Any Americans who looked at these 
     DOHA decisions would be horrified. To know that we are giving 
     clearances to some of these people is just intolerable.''
       But DOHA officials strongly defend their program and say 
     they put national security first. ``The decisions speak for 
     themselves,'' says Leon Schachter, the agency's director the 
     past 10 years. ``Do I believe in, or agree, with every 
     decision? Of course not. But it is important to treat people 
     fairly, and we have a system designed to be fair.''
       He says the idea is not to punish security applicants for 
     past misconduct. ``The goal is to understand past conduct and 
     predict the future on it,'' he says. ``We are being asked to 
     use a crystal ball. It is a very difficult job.''
       Indeed it is. On the one hand, President Clinton, in an 
     August 1995 executive order governing access to classified 
     information, directed that government clearances should be 
     given only to people ``whose personal and professional 
     history affirmatively indicates loyalty to the United States, 
     strength of character, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, 
     discretion, and sound judgment.''
       But the guidelines for granting clearances give 
     administrative judges and other federal clearance officials 
     leeway to consider ``mitigating'' circumstances: an applicant 
     who had committed a crime, for instance, might get a 
     clearance if the crime was not recent and there was evidence 
     of rehabilitation.
       DOHA reviews cases involving access to classified 
     information at three levels of sensitivity: top-secret, 
     secret and confidential. A presidential directive says top-
     secret information, if disclosed, could cause ``exceptionally 
     grave damage'' to national security; secret, if disclosed, 
     could cause ``serious damage''; and confidential, if 
     revealed, could cause ``damage.''
       Classified material covers a lot of ground. It includes the 
     design plans and other data on dozens of weapons systems, 
     such as bombers and nuclear submarines, and information on 
     spy satellites, sophisticated technology and communications 
     systems. But it also includes such things as the composition 
     of the radar-absorbing coatings on Stealth bombers and the 
     names of employees who work on sensitive projects.
       People within the contracting community with access to 
     classified information aren't jut top officials. They include 
     consultants, scientists, computer specialists, analysts, 
     secretaries and even blue-collar workers such as janitors and 
     truck drivers with access to classified areas.
       The quality of DOHA's decisions is vital. Though none of 
     the cases involved DOHA decisions, according to agency 
     officials, a government report says 12 contractor employees 
     have been convicted of espionage in the past 17 years. And in 
     the aftermath of the Cold War, industrial espionage is on the 
     upswing. Spies from dozens of nations--some of them 
     friendly--have stepped up efforts to gather industrial 
     intelligence on technologies used in U.S. weapons systems.
       Meanwhile, the Pentagon is struggling to process security 
     background investigations, which serve as the basis for 
     clearance decisions. It has a backlog of more than 600,000 
     periodic reinvestigations--cases in which defense employees 
     and contractor personnel are to be re-evaluated.
       The backlog is significant. Spies traditionally are trusted 
     insiders. Many cases reviewed by DOHA involve requests to 
     retain clearances. This backlog was disclosed last summer by 
     USA Today in an examination of the Defense Security Service, 
     another Pentagon agency, which conducts the background 
     checks.
       In its inquiry into DOHA's actions, USA Today reviewed 
     decisions issued by the agency's 15 administrative judges 
     since 1994. Under the Privacy Act, DOHA deletes the names and 
     other identifying information from the files. The judges 
     review 300 to 400 cases a year. USA Today requested 
     interviews with two senior judges, but the Pentagon wouldn't 
     make them available.

[[Page S4653]]

       In the case involving the murder, government lawyers sought 
     to block the clearance, but Administrative Judge Paul Mason 
     wrote that the man had earned a college degree and had 
     reformed.
       ``Against the heinous nature of the crime,'' he wrote, 
     ``are the positive steps applicant has taken over the years 
     in making himself a productive member of society.'' He said 
     he was persuaded the ``applicant was genuinely remorseful'' 
     and would not resume a criminal career.
       The man's lawyer, James McCune of Williamsburg, Va., won't 
     discuss the criminal case. But, he says, clearance decisions 
     must be weighed carefully because employees often lose their 
     jobs when they lose their clearances. ``It is really a black 
     mark,'' he says.
       A sampling of other approvals:
       On Aug. 27, 1997, Administrative Judge John Erck ruled that 
     a 43-year-old man who had participated in a scheme to defraud 
     the Navy of $2 million could keep his secret-level clearance. 
     The man was employed at the time of the fraud, in 1991, as a 
     ship's master for a company that operated ships for the Navy 
     in the U.S. Merchant Marine program. He and other employees 
     submitted false time sheets for overtime to assist their 
     financially troubled company. Judge Erck wrote that the fraud 
     was not recent and that although it amounted to ``serious 
     criminal activity,'' he was ``impressed'' with the 
     applicant's ``honesty and sincerity.''
       That same year, Administrative Judge Kathryn Moen Braeman 
     allowed a 30-year-old employee of a defense contractor to 
     keep his secret clearance, even though he was a convicted sex 
     offender and on probation. The man was convicted in a state 
     court of two felony charges of criminal sexual contact with a 
     minor in June 1996, less than a year before the 
     administrative judge's decision.
       The case file shows the man fondled his 8-year-old 
     stepdaughter and on 50 occasions entered her bedroom and 
     masturbated while she was asleep. Braeman said there were 
     ``mitigating'' circumstances: the man, she wrote, had 
     completed counseling in a sex-offenders program and his 
     therapist did not believe the pedophilia with his 
     stepdaughter would recur. According to Braeman, the therapist 
     concluded the man would always have a sexual interest in 
     children but had learned through therapy to control himself.
       A 42-year-old employee of a defense contractor was given a 
     secret clearance by Chief Administrative Judge Robert Gales, 
     although earlier in his career, as an investor, he had been 
     convicted of bank fraud, imprisoned and ordered to pay 
     $150,000 restitution. According to DOHA files, the man ``made 
     false entries'' on loan forms to obtain $2.3 million in 
     mortgages. He pleaded guilty in December 1994. Two years 
     later, while the man remained on probation in the criminal 
     case, Judge Gales approved his clearance; Gales cited his 
     cooperation with prosecutors and said he had ``clean(ed) up 
     his act.''
       Judge Erck approved a secret clearance for the 53-year-old 
     owner of a defense contracting business despite his long 
     history of violent altercations with others. In one case, the 
     decision shows, the man tried to bulldoze another car 
     blocking his exit from a parking lot. In another incident, 
     Erck wrote, he ``challenged'' a state court judge in court 
     after the judge ruled in favor of the other party in a civil 
     lawsuit. Police were called and ``an altercation occurred,'' 
     according to Erck. The man was arrested and jailed for 
     resisting arrest. In a third incident, he left a threatening 
     message on his ex-wife's answering machine advising her he 
     had a ``shotgun and two Uzis'' and was coming to her house to 
     get his son. Police arrested him at his former wife's house 
     and he was jailed on an assault conviction.
       ``There is an obvious nexus between Applicant's criminal 
     conduct and the national security,'' Erck wrote in his 
     decision. ``An individual who repeatedly loses his temper and 
     breaks the law is much more likely to violate security rules 
     and regulations.'' Nonetheless, Erck granted the clearance. 
     He said the man had become active in the church and had 
     learned to control his temper. He was, Erck wrote, a 
     ``changed man.''
       In February 1996, a 44-year-old computer software engineer 
     was allowed to retain his top-secret clearance despite a 10-
     year history of sexual exhibitionism. Once, in the early 
     morning, he stood naked outside the kitchen door of a 26-
     year-old woman and masturbated. The police were called and he 
     was charged with two felonies, including ``gross lewdness.'' 
     The man's ``history of exhibitionism reflects adversely on 
     his judgment, reliability and trustworthiness,'' 
     Administrative Judge Elizabeth Matchinski wrote. But, she 
     added, ``his contributions to the defense industry in 
     combination with his recent pursuit of therapy'' justified 
     giving him a clearance.
       Those cases are not unusual. There are other similar 
     decisions in DOHA's files.
       The DOHA process grew out of the abuses of the McCarthy era 
     in the 1950s when many people were attacked for alleged 
     Communist ties. President Eisenhower, acting after the 
     Supreme Court ruled that contractor employees had the right 
     to a hearing if their clearances were jeopardized, issued an 
     executive order requiring hearing procedures.
       The vast majority of cases processed by DOHA never go 
     before the agency's 15 judges.
       When they do review cases, the judges deny clearances in 
     many egregious cases, or their approvals are overturned by 
     the DOHA Appeal Board composed of three of their own members. 
     One example: a 59-year-old man convicted of sexually abusing 
     his granddaughter, a felony, was approved for a clearance by 
     an administrative judge. The appeal board reversed the 
     decision. It said the judge's decision was ``arbitrary, 
     capricious, and contrary to law.''
       Judges and other government clearance officials make 
     decisions based on government-wide adjudicative guidelines. 
     The guidelines cover, among other things, allegiance to the 
     United States, foreign influence, sexual behavior, financial 
     considerations, alcohol and drug use, security violations and 
     criminal conduct. Applicants are evaluated under the ``whole 
     person'' concept, which requires both favorable and 
     unfavorable information to be considered.
       Clearance officials are urged to make ``common sense'' 
     determinations. ``The individual may be disqualified if 
     available information reflects a recent or recurring pattern 
     of questionable judgment, irresponsibility, or emotionally 
     unstable behavior,'' the guidelines state.
       They also require clearance officials to err on the side of 
     national security. ``Any doubt as to whether access to 
     classified information is clearly consistent with national 
     security,'' they state, ``will be resolved in favor of the 
     national security.''
       Most people pass the guidelines without a hitch. Tens of 
     thousands of military and contractor personnel are cleared 
     each year. The Defense Department says only 2% to 4% of its 
     applicants are denied a clearance or have their existing 
     access revoked. In 1998 the Pentagon denied or revoked 
     clearances in 3,516 cases, including 628 contractor 
     employees. About 2.4 million people hold Pentagon-issued 
     clearances.
       DOHA's role is not limited to contractor employees. Its 
     judges also review appeals from military personnel and 
     civilian employees of the Defense Department. The judges 
     issue ``recommended decisions,'' but those opinions are not 
     binding. Final decisions are made by clearance boards 
     established by the Pentagon. Each branch of the service and 
     the Pentagon's administrative arm, Washington Headquarters 
     Services, have their own clearance boards, known as Personnel 
     Security Appeal Boards, or PSABS.
       Those PSABs often reject the judges' recommendations to 
     grant clearances to people with background problems. DOHA 
     statistics show that the judges recommended granting 
     clearances in 271 of 740 cases they have reviewed since 
     1995. The PSABs rejected the advice in 120 cases, or 44% 
     of the time.
       The PSABs say they are tougher.
       ``We are not saying that everybody who drinks too much is a 
     security threat,'' says K.J. Weiman, executive secretary of 
     the Army's PSAB. But, he says, screeners must be concerned 
     when people have financial problems, histories of drug use or 
     heavy drinking.
       ``For instance, are you a quiet drunk or are you a 
     talkative drunk?'' he asks. ``Are you the kind who will have 
     too many drinks and you are sitting in a bar and saying, `Did 
     you know this, that, there is a terrorist threat out for 
     Y2K?' ''
       Private lawyers who represent clients in clearance cases 
     defend DOHA. They say the military process doesn't give 
     applicants all the rights they should have and say the 
     importance of the whole-person concept cannot be over-
     emphasized.
       Sheldon Cohen, an attorney in Arlington, VA., says the 
     government must evaluate the whole person in deciding whether 
     to approve or reject a clearance: ``The use of a variety of 
     drugs by a person in high school or college, even to a 
     substantial degree, might not disqualify that person, while a 
     single use of marijuana by an adult while that person held a 
     security clearance would probably cause loss of a 
     clearance.''
       Adds Elizabeth Newman, a Washington lawyer. ``The fact we 
     don't want them as neighbors does not mean they will misuse 
     classified information.''
       But some former DOHA employees believe there has been too 
     much ``lawyering.'' A clearance is a privilege, not a right, 
     and the Supreme Court has so ruled, they say.
       Howard Strouse, the retired DOHA official who was based in 
     Columbus, Ohio, supervised the preparation of many 
     administrative cases against contractor employees over a 14-
     year-period. He is frank in his assessment of the agency.
       DOHA is doing a lousy job, he says.
       ``DOHA is due process heaven, and I'm not proud of that,'' 
     he says. ``You want due process, yes, but these attorneys and 
     judges who work for DOHA have to realize they work for the 
     government, and we are talking about national security.''
       Strouse says there were countless times when he and his 
     staff pressed cases against applicants with questionable 
     backgrounds but were overruled by the headquarters office in 
     Arlington, VA.
       ``In looking at some of these administrative judge 
     decisions,'' he says, ``you are only seeing the tip of the 
     iceberg.''
       He says he had frequent disputes with senior DOHA lawyers 
     and Schachter, the agency's director, over ``liberal'' 
     decisions. He says Schachter talked about how no spies have 
     ever been cleared by DOHA. But, Strouse says: ``Of course, he 
     can't be disputed because there hasn't been a spy to come up. 
     But I'm sure they are out there. Industry has long been a 
     problem for spying.''
       Schachter declined to answer many questions. In a letter to 
     USA Today, he wrote: ``Sensationalizing a few cases distorts 
     the overall record of seriousness, professionalism and 
     dedication reflected throughout the DOHA staff and judges.''

[[Page S4654]]

       But Thomas Ewald, who directed security background 
     investigations for the Defense Department before retiring in 
     1996, worries that some DOHA decisions will come back to 
     haunt the agency. ``There is no question that all of us in 
     the business felt that many clearances should be denied that 
     weren't,'' he says. ``It only takes one person to cause 
     untold damage to national security.''
                                  ____


                   [From the USA Today, Jan. 4, 2000]

         Easy Access to Nation's Secrets Poses Security Threat

       GAO, USA TODAY reports show erosion of standards for 
     clearances.
       ``No one has a right to a national security clearance.'' At 
     least, that is what the Supreme Court said in 1988, ruling 
     that the government should grant clearances ``only when 
     consistent with the interests of national security.''
       Yet, as an outraged Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, noted, citing 
     a special report in USA TODAY last week, the Pentagon 
     ``apparently has an `ask don't care' policy when it comes to 
     contractor security clearances.'' And this week, Congress' 
     General Accounting Office (GAO) announced that it is 
     undertaking a new inquiry to determine whether the Defense 
     Department consistently complies with government guidelines 
     for issuing clearances.
       There's good reason to wonder. The USA TODAY report 
     detailed numerous instances of defense contractors' workers 
     receiving top-secret clearances despite long histories of 
     financial problems, drug use, alcoholism, sexual misconduct 
     and even criminal activity.
       One was awarded a clearance while on probation for bank 
     fraud. Another was allowed to keep his high-level clearance 
     after taking part in a $2-million fraud against the Navy. 
     Another had a history of criminal sexual misconduct for which 
     he was still receiving therapy.
       Such behavior runs counter to President Clinton's 1995 
     executive order requiring that recipients of clearances have 
     a personal and professional history showing ``loyalty to the 
     United States, strength of character, trustworthiness, 
     honesty, reliability, discretion and sound judgment.''
       And it's not the first example of the Pentagon's relaxed-
     fit attitude when it comes to maintaining the integrity of 
     the security-clearance system that is designated to protect 
     the nation's top secrets. As previous USA TODAY and GAO 
     investigations have shown in recent months, the Pentagon has 
     a backlog of more than 600,000 investigations for renewals of 
     clearances. The GAO also concluded that ``inadequate 
     personal-security investigations pose national security 
     risks.'' It found that 92% of the investigations it audited 
     were deficient on matters including citizenship and criminal 
     history.
       Oversight wasn't the problem with the cases cited by USA 
     TODAY last week. Those individuals received clearances 
     because special judges in the Defense Office of Hearings and 
     Appeals overruled Pentagon investigators and the office's own 
     lawyers.
       Hearings before such judges provide a needed level of 
     protection against the arbitrary and capricious denial of 
     security clearances by the government. People can correct 
     facts and provide mitigating evidence to prove they aren't a 
     threat to national security.
       But prove that they must. And standards shouldn't be 
     lowered for private contractors' employees. Defense 
     contractors build the nation's advanced weapons. They develop 
     the software and hardware for guarding the country's 
     infrastructure and mapping attack or defense plans. Their 
     secrets are as important as any at the Pentagon.
       Harkin is demanding that the Pentagon demonstrate that it 
     is taking steps to ``ensure that security clearance is not 
     granted to people likely to abuse the privilege.''
       As a start, investigators, hearing judges and defense 
     contractors should consider the Supreme Court's message a 
     reminder. Don't allow national security clearances to 
     endanger national security.


                            a security check

       In deciding whether to grant security clearances, federal 
     guidelines require judges to consider the following factors: 
     Allegiance to the United States, Foreign influence, Sexual 
     behavior, Personal conduct, Financial considerations, Alcohol 
     consumption, Drug involvement, Emotional, mental and 
     personality disorders, Criminal conduct, Security violations, 
     Outside activities, and Misuse of information technology 
     systems.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. At the Defense Office of Hearings and 
Appeals, USA Today reported that felons, convicted felons--I want my 
colleagues to listen carefully here--convicted felons, including a 
murderer, individuals with chronic alcohol and drug abuse problems, a 
pedophile, an exhibitionist--all received security clearances in order 
to work for defense contractors.
  I want to repeat that because I think most people would say, you have 
to be kidding, that really happened? The answer is yes, which is why 
this amendment is so urgently needed. This was investigative reporting 
by USA Today that reported that a murderer, people with chronic alcohol 
and drug abuse problems, a pedophile, and an exhibitionist received 
security clearance to work for defense contractors.
  There was another individual who was awarded a clearance while on 
probation for bank fraud. Yet another was allowed to keep his clearance 
after taking part in a $2 million fraud against the U.S. Navy. Another 
had a history of criminal sexual misconduct for which he was still 
undergoing therapy.
  For goodness' sake, I say to my colleagues, most of us and the 
American people would say: Gee, to get a security clearance, that is a 
big deal; you get to see all the secrets. At least that is what the 
people think. We have different levels of security clearances, from 
confidential, to secret, to top secret, to code level. These are 
security clearances for individuals who have no right to get those 
clearances, and I think every American would agree: $2 million in fraud 
against the U.S. Navy, pedophiles, murderers, chronic alcohol and drug 
abusers getting security clearances to see the highest classified 
material on various defense contracts.
  An even more egregious example is that an administrative judge at the 
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals--that is who hears these cases--
granted a clearance to a defense contractor's project manager who had a 
lengthy history of drug and alcohol abuse, including two convictions of 
selling cocaine for which he served two separate terms in Federal 
prison. Overriding Government lawyers who said this man's criminal past 
made him ineligible for a clearance, the judge at this defense hearing 
ruled this individual ``had no desire to ever engage in criminal 
conduct again.''
  I repeat. This is an individual who was granted a clearance by an 
administrative judge at the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals. He 
had a lengthy history of drug and alcohol abuse, including two 
convictions for selling cocaine and served two separate prison terms 
for it. The Government lawyers said: No, this guy should not have a 
clearance; what are you talking about here?
  They were overridden. The judge ruled the individual ``had no desire 
to ever engage in criminal conduct again.'' Therefore, we will give him 
his clearance.
  The case in point, when somebody else comes along tomorrow and says: 
Yes, I robbed a couple of banks, killed a couple of people, but I am 
sorry; I will not do it again if you will just give me my security 
clearance, that is what I am talking about. That is the logic: Yes, I 
sold a little cocaine, maybe I used a little cocaine; I am sorry. Can I 
have my clearance? I want to get access to classified secrets so I can 
work for a defense contractor.
  It is unbelievable to think this is happening in our Government, but 
it is. Common sense dictates that one convicted murderer or one 
convicted drug dealer with a security clearance is one too many.
  I have been told by at least one former DOD official that the USA 
Today's reported cases of felons granted security clearances is 
probably only the tip of the iceberg. These are the ones we know about.
  I am also informed that the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals is 
the only organization dictated to by attorneys, while in the others--
for example, the military services--the security specialists are in 
charge. We want the security specialists to be in charge, and 
apparently they are not.
  A frequent complaint is when there is reasonable doubt about an 
applicant, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals judges rule in 
favor of the applicant rather than the national interest. This is a 
very important point. Do you err on the side of national defense, 
national security, national interest, or do you err on the side of the 
individual?

  This is not rocket science, and it is not a big deal about how they 
do this. Yet it is happening. In other words, err on the side of the 
individual; he will be OK; he is sorry; he is not going to do it again; 
do not worry about the cocaine; do not worry about the murder; do not 
worry about that; it is fine; we think he will be OK so we are going to 
err on his side, not on the side of national security.
  I say to my colleagues, we all have staff who get security 
clearances. My colleagues know how tough it is to get them and how long 
they wait and what they put these guys and gals through. My colleagues 
know what is on the forms and how long it takes to get a

[[Page S4655]]

clearance. It is an outrage this is occurring.
  The adjudicative guidelines require that national security be the 
first priority. Those are the guidelines. These guidelines are not 
being enforced. As my colleagues watch me, they must be thinking: This 
cannot be true; he has to be blowing smoke; no way.
  It is true. I have researched these cases. Senator Harkin, who has 
done an outstanding job, has also researched these cases. Senator 
Harkin is with me on this amendment. In fact, he first helped bring 
this to my attention.
  When I repeatedly questioned the DOD general counsel at the April 6 
hearing about whether it is acceptable to grant a clearance to an 
individual who committed a cold-blooded murder, he would not say no to 
my question.
  I said to him: Is it acceptable ever to grant a clearance to an 
individual who committed a cold-blooded murder? I wanted him to say no. 
I gave him every opportunity to say no, but he refused to say no.
  If you do not say no, it has to mean there is a time when it is in 
the interest of the individual, never mind national defense, to grant 
the clearance because he may not commit a murder anymore and he might 
be great. He could be the greatest contractor employee the Defense 
Department ever saw, but do we want to take the chance? Do we want to 
take a chance?
  If my colleagues had a staff member who was asking for a security 
clearance--I do not know if they would be working for them if he or she 
committed a murder, but if they did and tried to get one, good luck. We 
know they would not get it. Therefore, if that is the rule for staff, 
then it ought to be the rule for those contractors who work for the 
Defense Department.
  Senator Harkin's press release about this scandal when it broke 
argued very persuasively:

       No one has a right to a national security clearance.

  No one has a right to it. Senator Harkin, who testified at the SASC 
hearings on the DSS and DOHA, argued people go through intense scrutiny 
just to serve on the Commission on Library Sciences, and they do not 
have to handle any Government secrets. We should at least have the same 
high standards for those holding security clearances as we require of 
those serving on the Commission of Library Sciences. Senator Harkin is 
absolutely right. I agree with him.
  Additionally, there were examples of the Defense Office of Hearings 
and Appeals granting clearances to people with recent drug and alcohol 
addictions. Why is the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, knowing 
there will always be risks that some people with clearances will betray 
their country for money or for ideology, placing an additional risk 
into the system by giving these felons clearances? Why do we take the 
risk? There are many good, decent people who have never committed a 
crime in their lives who do not gain access to classified material 
because they do not need to know and, therefore, they do not get their 
clearances because they do not need to know. Why does a convicted 
murderer, rapist, or convicted drug dealer need to know? The answer is 
simply they do not.
  You might say: We should give this person a chance. No, we should 
not, no, no, no; not if we are going to risk the national defense of 
our country, we should not give them a chance.
  As Senator Harkin has said: It is not a right. It is a privilege that 
you earn. Additionally, there were examples of, as I said, clearances 
for those with recent drug and alcohol problems. Why would we want 
these convicted lawbreakers given access to these secrets? We know how 
much damage just one individual can wreak on national security. We have 
heard the stories--the legacy of Aldrich Ames, Jonathan Pollard, and 
the Walkers, the Rosenbergs. Go back as far as you want to go. It is 
well known to all of us who have dealt with national security issues, 
we simply cannot afford to have loose standards when it comes to 
protecting our secrets and protecting lives. They are loose enough as 
it is.
  We have had stolen secrets from our atomic weapons labs going to the 
Chinese. We certainly do not need to invite people into critical areas, 
where sensitive technology and sensitive information is bandied about, 
to have a person who would have that kind of a background to get a 
security clearance.
  I emphasize, again, I know in America we are all in favor--and I am, 
too--of giving people a break, giving a person a chance, giving them a 
second chance, but not when it comes to national security.
  I guarantee you, for every cocaine dealer you think is fine now and 
would be a great person to work for a Government contractor--I 
guarantee you--there are 100 who never had any cocaine convictions who 
would be just as good. I guarantee it. We ought to start looking down 
the line to find them.
  In some States, an individual would lose his or her right to vote 
based on a felony conviction. The 1968 Gun Control Act stripped 
individuals convicted of felonies of their constitutionally protected 
second amendment right. I have known of an instance where a Capitol 
Hill staffer was denied a clearance because he was a few months behind 
in his student loan payment.
  Keep in mind, a security clearance is not a right; it is a privilege. 
In fact, it is more than that. It is an honor. That says something 
about this person, that this is a special person who can be trusted 
with the secrets, sensitive information about the U.S. Government, 
about the weapons we make.
  To say that we would dumb those standards down at that level is a 
disgrace and, frankly, it is an embarrassment to our country, to our 
Government, to our Defense Department, to our administration, to 
everybody involved, and, yes, even an embarrassment to the members of 
the Armed Services Committee of the Senate that this is happening. It 
is an embarrassment. The only way to correct it is to stop it and say 
it is wrong.
  Right now you can have a felony conviction and still be granted a 
clearance and access to sensitive secrets; and that does not pass the 
commonsense test. It does not pass the smell test, folks, that a 
convicted murderer can be granted a security clearance. Believe it or 
not, they had an explanation for it. It was not a good one. They had an 
explanation for it: He's reformed now. He's OK now.
  In conclusion, the bottom line is, my amendment is very simple. It 
would prevent DOD from granting security clearances to those who have 
been convicted in a court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a 
term exceeding 1 year. It would also disallow a clearance for anyone 
who is an unlawful user or addicted to any controlled substance or has 
been adjudicated as mentally incompetent or has been dishonorably 
discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces.

  It is sad, though, that we have to pass an amendment on the floor of 
the Senate, add language to the DOD authorization bill that says the 
people who do these things--the people who review these cases, who 
review these individuals--we have to pass an amendment which is nothing 
more than common sense that says you cannot put murderers and felons 
and cocaine dealers, people who have been convicted of these crimes, in 
positions where they have access to national security information. We 
have to pass an amendment because the people we put in charge are not 
doing this, are not stopping this. Can you imagine that?
  That is what it has come to. I am embarrassed by it. But I will tell 
you what. I would rather be embarrassed by it than have it continue to 
happen, where our secrets get compromised because somebody could be 
compromised as a result of this kind of background.
  We cannot take all the risks out of the system no matter how good we 
are, no matter how good the DOHA, the Defense Office of Hearings and 
Appeals. No matter how good they are, they are going to make mistakes. 
That is human. Sometimes people such as Pollard and Walker get 
clearances, unfortunately. And they ought to pay the price for it when 
they are caught. But let's not take this kind of ridiculous risk and 
dumb down the entire operation.
  I might add--it does not say this in the amendment--if we have people 
who are looking at these cases, and assessing the risks, and they are 
concluding that people with these kinds of backgrounds can get security 
clearances, we may want to change some of the people who are doing the 
evaluating as well. That may be the next step if it does not stop.

[[Page S4656]]

  I regret that many of the committee members missed the DSS, the 
Department of Security Services, and the Defense Office of Hearings and 
Appeals hearing that we had because it was an eye-opener for me. Even 
though I read the press articles relating to the scandal, I was 
surprised those individuals I questioned--when I gave them the 
opportunity when I questioned them--still said they would not say no 
when I asked them whether they believed it would be all right to give 
somebody such as that a clearance. They would not say no, which gives 
me the impression there would be circumstances where they should be 
able to get the clearances.
  That is my amendment. I know the manager of the bill is not prepared 
to vote at this time. But at this point, Mr. President, I ask for the 
yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I will take this moment to thank my colleague, Senator Warner, the 
chairman of the committee, for the outstanding leadership he has 
provided as the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and simply say we are 
endeavoring and working with the other side of the aisle to see if we 
might come up with some clarification to his amendment.
  I yield the floor.


                Amendment No. 3214 To Amendment No. 3210

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
pending amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, Mr. 
     Feingold and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3214 to amendment No. 3210.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of 
myself, Senator Feingold, and Senator Lieberman.
  This amendment would mandate that the names of contributors to 
entities operating under section 527 of the Tax Code be disclosed. This 
amendment is simple. It is straightforward. It would impose no 
substantial burdens on any entity. And most importantly, it is 
constitutional and in no way infringes on the free speech of any 
individual or group.
  Before I discuss the matter further, I thank my colleagues, Senator 
Lieberman and Senator Feingold, for all they have done to close this 
527 loophole. They have been stalwarts in this effort, and their hard 
work and dedication deserves note and praise. In fact, Senator 
Lieberman has separate legislation supported by myself and Senator 
Feingold on this very issue.
  On May 18 of this year, USA Today stated:

       What's happening? Clever lawyers for partisan activists, 
     ideological causes and special interests have invented a new 
     way to channel unlimited money into campaigns and avoid all 
     accountability. Hiding behind the guise of ``issue advocacy'' 
     and an obscure part of the tax law, nameless benefactors with 
     thick bankrolls can donate unlimited sums to entities known 
     as ``section 527 committees,'' beyond the reach of the 
     campaign-reporting laws designed to curb such abuses.
       If the Chinese Army had discovered this tactic first, its 
     infamous contributions of 1996 would have been quite legal. 
     It wasn't supposed to be this way. Post-Watergate reforms a 
     quarter-century ago required that all donations of $200 and 
     more be publicly reported by name. There would be no more 
     ``hidden gifts'' of $2 million and up like those that helped 
     fuel the illegal activities of Richard Nixon's re-election 
     campaign. At least voters would know where a candidate's 
     political debts lay.
       But that is not the way the system has evolved. And today 
     no one knows how many anonymous contributors are exploiting 
     the loopholes in the law or how much these loopholes are 
     adding to the swamp of money in politics.

  USA Today sums it up well. This is a dark, uncontrolled sector of the 
political landscape. It is a danger to our electoral system. 
Unfortunately, unless we act, the problem will only grow worse.
  The Associated Press reported on June 6:

       At crucial moments in the presidential campaign, George W. 
     Bush has benefited from millions of dollars in advertising 
     paid for by mysterious groups and secret donors.
       Similar ads have also boosted Vice President Al Gore, but 
     they generally were done by well-established organizations 
     with clear agendas. Still, their donors remained secret, too.
       It's a new form of political warfare that's quickly 
     becoming the tool of choice for people looking to influence 
     Election 2000, made possible by a once-obscure provision in 
     the tax code that lets anyone form a group and spend money on 
     campaign-style ads without saying who is paying for them.

  This amendment in no way restricts the ability of any individual or 
organization from spending money to influence a political or electoral 
system. I believe 527 should be abolished completely. I am not sure 
that at this moment in time we have sufficient votes to do that in the 
Senate.
  This amendment protects free speech but recognizes that the public 
has a right to know who is speaking. This amendment gives the American 
public an answer to the question raised by the Associated Press story; 
namely, who is paying for these multimillion-dollar ad campaigns?
  While the rhetoric of speech being protected is sometimes bantered 
around without much thought, it is not actually speech that is 
constitutionally protected but the individual who is protected to speak 
his or her thoughts. Speech is not naturally occurring. It is not 
created of matter and therefore exists outside of the human realm. It 
is the individual who is protected. Under this amendment, the 
individual is protected. He or she can speak their will. Again, the 
public is given the right to know who is speaking.
  The 2000 Federal election cycle has brought a new threat to the 
integrity of our Nation's election process: the proliferation of so-
called stealth PACs operating under section 527 of the Tax Code. These 
groups exploit a recently discovered loophole in the Tax Code that 
allows organizations seeking to influence Federal elections to fund 
their election work with undisclosed and unlimited contributions at the 
same time as they claim exemption from both Federal taxation and the 
Federal election laws.
  Section 527 of the Tax Code offers tax exemption to organizations 
primarily involved in election-related activities such as campaign 
committees, party committees, and PACs. It defines the type of 
organization it covers as one whose function is, among other things, 
``influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, 
election, or appointment of any individual to any Federal, State, or 
local public office. . ..''

  Because the Federal Election Campaign Act uses near identical 
language in defining entities it regulates, organizations that spend or 
receive money ``for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal 
office,'' section 527 formerly had been generally understood to apply 
only to those organizations that register as political committees 
under, and comply with, Federal election campaign laws, unless they 
focus on State or local activities and do not meet certain other FECA 
requirements.
  Nevertheless, a number of groups engaged in what they term ``issue 
advocacy campaigns'' and other election-related activity recently began 
arguing that the near identical language of FECA and section 527 
actually mean two different things. In their view, they can gain 
freedom from taxation by claiming they are seeking to influence the 
election of individuals to Federal office but may evade regulation 
under FECA by asserting they are not seeking to directly influence an 
election for Federal office.
  Let me repeat that. This is what these organizations are saying: They 
can gain freedom from taxation by claiming they are seeking to 
influence the election of individuals to Federal office, but they evade 
regulation under Federal election laws by asserting they are not 
seeking to directly influence an election for Federal office.
  As we have seen in the past, they simply avoid using the infamous six 
words noted in the Buckley decision as

[[Page S4657]]

a footnote; namely, ``vote for, vote against, support'' or ``oppose.'' 
As a result--because unlike other tax exempt groups such as 501(c)(3)s 
and (c)(4)s, section 527 groups don't even have to publicly disclose 
their existence--these groups gain both the public subsidy of tax 
exemption and the ability to shield from the American public the 
identity of those spending their money to try to influence our 
elections.
  Indeed, according to news reports, newly formed 527 organizations 
pushing the agenda of political parties are using the ability to mask 
the identity of their contributors as a means of courting wealthy 
donors who are seeking anonymity in their efforts to influence our 
elections.
  There are some in this body who would fully regulate 527s under the 
FECA. This amendment doesn't do that. While I would personally support 
such an effort, this amendment does not impose the burdens mandated 
under FECA to 527 organizations. This amendment would, however, require 
527 organizations to disclose their existence to the IRS, to file 
publicly available tax returns, and to file with the IRS or make public 
reports specifying annual expenditures of over $500 and identifying 
those who contribute more than $200 annually to the organization. What 
could be more simple? What could be more fair, honest, and 
straightforward?
  The Washington Post recently stated:

       For years, opponents of campaign finance reform have been 
     saying that disclosure is disinfectant enough. Don't enter 
     the swamp of trying to regulate the raising and spending of 
     campaign money, they say; just require the prompt reporting 
     of contributions, and let the voters perform the regulatory 
     function at the polls.

  This is an argument that has been made continuously by my colleagues. 
On September 26, 1997, the senior Senator from Kentucky stated, in 
regards to contributor information reported by the Democratic National 
Committee:

       Disclosure would have been the best disinfectant.

  On the same day, on the floor of the Senate, the majority leader 
stated:

       Why don't we, instead, go with freedom, open it up, have 
     full disclosure and let everybody participate to the maximum 
     they wish?

  I believe this amendment is 100 percent in accordance with Senator 
Lott's comments. For the information of my colleagues, the amendment 
places no new restrictions of any kind on giving to so-called 527 
organizations or how they spend their money. It merely mandates full 
disclosure.
  Senator Lott stated on May 13, 1992:

       It seems to me that something that has that big an 
     influence on an election, campaign election, should at least 
     be reported. Disclosure. That is the key. Let us always 
     disclose to the American people where we are getting our 
     money, where it is being spent. That is the answer.

  On September 26, 1997, Senator Bennett stated:

       So, if you are going to look for a local example of 
     something that works, you could say, based on my state's 
     experience, that we ought to open the whole thing up and let 
     corporate contributions come in as well as individual 
     contributions. The one thing that we do have in Utah that has 
     made it work is full and complete disclosure so that 
     everybody knows that, if the Utah Power and Light company is 
     giving to X campaign, that is on the public record. And when 
     the Governor goes to deal with utility regulation, everybody 
     knows how much the power company gave him.

  Under this amendment, 527 entities would disclose their contributors 
exactly in the manner Senator Bennett claims should be done.
  Senator Craig, on February 24, 1998, stated:

       Instead [of McCain-Feingold] full and immediate public 
     disclosure of campaign donations would be a much more logical 
     approach.

  To be fair, Senator Craig was referring to contributions to 
candidates. But we all recognize that political ads that run under the 
527 loophole are designed to accomplish the exact same goal as 
candidate-run ads: to elect or defeat candidates or causes and, as 
such, the contributors to 527s, such as contributors to candidates, 
should be immediately and fully disclosed.
  The clarion call for greater disclosure has been heard and it is time 
we acted. This amendment is not designed to give any one party any 
advantage over the other. As I noted earlier in my remarks, both 
parties are the beneficiaries of 527 expenditures.
  As the Washington Post editorialized:

       Both parties use these Section 527 committees. The failure 
     to disclose is insidious, the ultimate corruption of a 
     political system in which offices if not the office holders 
     themselves, are increasingly bought. At least, they could 
     vote for sunshine. Or is the truth too embarrassing for 
     either donors or recipients?

  Many times, I have stood on the floor of the Senate and argued for 
the constitutionality of the so-called McCain-Feingold legislation. I 
strongly believe that campaign contributions should not only be 
disclosed but that they can be constitutionally limited. Recent Supreme 
Court decisions clearly affirm that fact.
  But there was dissent noted in the most recent Supreme Court case on 
campaign finance reform. I want to note for the Record that in Justice 
Kennedy's dissent he stated:

       What the Court does not do is examine and defend the 
     substitute it has encouraged, covert speech funded by 
     unlimited soft money. In my view, that system creates dangers 
     greater than the one it has replaced. The first danger is the 
     one already mentioned: that we require contributors of soft 
     money and its beneficiaries mask their real purpose. Second, 
     we have an indirect system of accountability that is 
     confusing, if not dispiriting, to the voter. The very 
     disaffection or distrust that the Court cites as the 
     justification for limits on direct contributions has now 
     spread to the entire discourse.

  In his dissent, Justice Kennedy also points out:

       Among the facts the Court declines to take into account is 
     the emergence of cyberspace communication by which political 
     contributions can be reported almost simultaneously with 
     payment. The public can then judge for itself whether the 
     candidate or the officeholder has so overstepped that we no 
     longer trust him or her to make a detached neutral judgment. 
     This is a far more immediate way to assess the integrity and 
     the performance of our leaders than through the hidden world 
     of soft money and covert speech.

  In his dissent concerning the same campaign finance reform case, 
Justice Thomas paraphrases the Buckley case and states:

       And disclosure laws ``deter actual corruption and avoid the 
     appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and 
     expenditures to the light of publicity.''
  Based on the dissent issued in the Missouri case and what was clearly 
stated by the majority, the kind of disclosure mandated by this 
amendment would not only be constitutional but is clearly in the 
public's best interest.
  Mr. President, this amendment is the right thing to do. It is not as 
comprehensive an approach as I believe is necessary to deal with the 
numerous problems associated with our current campaign finance system. 
I believe much more needs to be done, and I intend to continue my fight 
with my friend from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, to truly reform our 
campaign finance laws. But it is a simple, easy-to-understand solution 
to one specific problem that currently plagues our electoral system. It 
is a solution we can enact today or tomorrow. It is a solution to a 
problem that has just begun and one that is easily solved. I hope my 
colleagues will support this amendment.
  I have been in elected office since 1983. I first came to the other 
body and then to this one. If at the time I first came to the Congress 
of the United States you told me tickets would be sold by fundraisers 
for $500,000, that we would have organizations that took part in our 
political system and directly intervened in our elections, where it was 
not even required for contributors to disclose unlimited amounts of 
money, if you had told me that we would have a situation which would 
cause so much concern and anger and discontent, as in the 1996 election 
where money poured in even from foreign sources, that huge amounts of 
money from a Communist country, China, would pour into our elections--
we may never know how much--that, in my view, would have been illegal 
and deserved the appointment of an independent counsel. The 
machinations that went into the Justice Department to prevent that from 
happening have been revealed.
  If we don't require full disclosure of these 527s, then we will say 
as a body that it is legal for money to come from anywhere, from 
anyone, and it doesn't even have to be disclosed to the American 
people. That is a sad state of affairs, a very sad state of affairs.
  I see my friend, Senator Feingold, here waiting to speak, and I know 
others want to speak on this. I have said a

[[Page S4658]]

couple of times on the floor of the Senate that I learned a lot in the 
last campaign in which I was involved. The most disheartening thing 
that I learned--which was affirmed long before I learned it by the 1998 
election, which had the lowest voter turnout in history of the 18 to 
26-year-olds in this country--was that particularly young Americans are 
becoming more and more disconnected and even alienated from their 
Government. Young Americans don't believe they are represented anymore. 
Young Americans in a focus group conducted by the Secretaries of State 
of America--those responsible for our elections in every State --the 
focus groups of young people were very alarming in their results. A lot 
of young people said they thought we were corrupt. A lot of young 
people said they would never run for public office. There is an 
unwillingness to serve the country--at least in the area of public 
service today--because young Americans believe that we no longer 
represent their hopes, dreams, and aspirations.
  This situation has gradually evolved, as any evil does in life. We 
started out with a situation where soft money was set up that required 
full disclosure, and different organizations calling themselves 
``independent'' began to accept unlimited amounts of money. But at 
least they fell under laws that required full disclosure. Now we have 
this new, burgeoning industry. I have no idea if it is tens of millions 
or hundreds of millions of dollars that will go into this political 
campaign under the guise of 527. I intend, later in the debate, to 
quote from news articles describing the dramatic growth of these 527s. 
Mr. President, it has to stop.
  A funny thing is happening in the world. Today, the former Chancellor 
of the Federal Republic of Germany, Mr. Helmut Kohl, is in disgrace in 
his nation--the man who led his nation through a great deal of the cold 
war for 16 years. Helmut Kohl is in disgrace in the eyes of his 
countrymen because Helmut Kohl refuses to disclose the names of the 
people who gave him money for political purposes while he was the 
Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany.
  In the United States of America, the beacon of home and freedom and 
the institutions of democracy throughout the world, we now have a 
situation where it is legal for anyone to give unlimited amounts of 
money which will directly affect American political campaigns. There is 
not even disclosure. It is evil in itself that unlimited amounts of 
money are able to be contributed because it is a direct violation of 
the $1,000 contribution limit which the U.S. Supreme Court just upheld 
as constitutional. But now we have reached a point where the Washington 
Post says failure to disclose is insidious, the ultimate corruption of 
a political system in which offices, if not the officeholders 
themselves, are increasingly bought. At least we could vote for 
sunshine.
  I would like to yield to my friend from New York briefly because 
Senator Feingold is waiting.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I want to ask the Senator a question to 
clarify. His amendment is one of disclosure. Is that the same as the 
one the Senator from Connecticut introduced? It would not affect first 
amendment rights. It would not affect limits on how much you give but 
simply disclose what is given. Am I correct in that assumption?
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from New York is correct. I would like to say 
to the Senator from New York that we are doing this because perhaps we 
can't sell the whole package; perhaps we can't do the whole thing. This 
is in no way an indication that Senator Feingold and I or the Senator 
from New York or the Senator from Connecticut are not equally committed 
to McCain-Feingold soft money elimination, et cetera. But at least 
let's get this ill cured.
  How in the world a vote can be cast against disclosure of this is not 
comprehensible to me.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I think it is an excellent idea. I would like to speak 
later in support of the Senator's amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to again be on the 
floor with my colleague and friend, the Senator from Arizona, and to 
join with him in offering this amendment.
  I am especially pleased also to be offering this amendment with the 
Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, who has offered a bill in this 
same form.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, 
be added as a cosponsor of the amendment as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if there is one thing on which the 
entire Senate should be able to agree, it is that we need to have full 
disclosure by groups participating in the electoral process by running 
advertisements that mention candidates.
  This is a first step. In fact, it is only a first step on this bill. 
We intend to offer other steps, including our McCain-Feingold 
legislation concerning soft money, on this bill. But this is the first 
step.
  The so-called 527 organizations that this amendment addresses are the 
newest wrinkle in the breakdown of our campaign finance laws.
  These 527 groups are now openly and proudly flouting the election 
laws by running phony issue ads and refusing to register with the FEC 
as political committees or disclose their spending and contributors. It 
is time that Congress called a stop to this, not to try to keep anyone 
from speaking or otherwise participating in elections, but to give the 
American people information that they desperately need and deserve 
about who is behind the ads that are already flooding our airwaves, six 
months before the election.
  There is no reason that our tax laws should give protection to any 
group that refuses to play by the election law rules. For that reason, 
I have cosponsored and wholeheartedly endorse S. 2582, a bill 
introduced earlier this year by Senators Lieberman, Daschle, McCain, 
and others to restrict the tax exempt status available under section 
527 of the Internal Revenue Code only to those groups that register and 
report with the FEC. This amendment is even more mild. But at the very 
least, the public deserves more information on the financial backers 
and activities of groups that benefit from this tax exempt status, and 
that is what this amendment attempts to provide. This amendment simply 
seeks disclosure. It would be a small step towards addressing one of 
the loopholes in our current campaign laws that is eroding the public's 
faith in our electoral system. It's a small step, but an important 
step. It is the first step, and the second step is the ban on soft 
money.
  Time and time again when we have debated reform here on the floor of 
the Senate, the opponents of the McCain-Feingold bill have said that 
they favor full and complete disclosure of campaign contributions and 
spending.
  The Senator from Arizona did a fine job of sharing with us some of 
the quotes from Senators who said they would support disclosure even if 
they couldn't support a ban on soft money.
  Well, those Senators who so confidently proclaim that full disclosure 
is the answer to our campaign finance problems should realize that they 
cannot be consistent in that view if they don't support this amendment. 
All this amendments seeks is disclosure, the most basic and commonsense 
tenet of our campaign finance laws, by groups that are spending 
millions of dollars to influence elections. It is said that sunshine is 
the best disinfectant. Here is our chance to throw some sunshine on 
this latest effort to cast a dark cloud on our campaign finance system.
  Sadly, what to me is perhaps the most shameful thing about this whole 
process is we know that many Members of Congress are involved in 
raising money for these 527s.
  Recently, there was a very disturbing report in the Washington Post 
about the majority leader urging hi-tech companies to contribute to a 
new group called Americans for Job Security that is now running ads 
supporting one of our colleagues who is up for reelection. Americans 
for Job Security is almost certainly claiming a tax exemption under 
section 527, but at the same time it will not disclose its contributors 
or its spending. And we all know of the highly publicized connections 
between the majority whip in the House, Mr. DeLay, and various 527 
organizations.

[[Page S4659]]

  These groups pose a special danger to the political process because 
if Members of Congress can organize them or raise money for them, the 
real possibility of corruption emerges. What is the difference between 
a million dollar contribution directly to a candidate and a million 
dollar contribution requested by a candidate that goes to a group that 
plans to run ads to support that candidate or, more likely, attack his 
or her opponent? There really is no difference when you come right down 
to it, but right now, the first contribution is illegal, as it should 
be, and the second contribution is not. It is legal. Our amendment does 
not prohibit that second contribution, it just asks that it be made 
public.
  As groups proliferate, the chances of scandal increase as well. It 
will not be long before reports of legislative favors received by big 
donors to 527 groups start making the headlines. Or foreign money or 
money derived from organized crime making its way into our election 
process by way of 527s. The 527 loophole is a ticking time bomb of 
scandal.
  As noted in the recent Common Cause report, ``Under the Radar: The 
Attack of Stealth PACs on our Nation's Elections,'' here are some of 
the groups that are taking advantage of the 527 loophole to collect 
unlimited contributions and use them to influence federal elections 
without any disclosure. Saving America's Families Everyday, the 
Republican Majority issues Committee, Citizens for Better Medicare, 
Republicans for Clean Air, Shape the Debate, Business Leaders for 
Sensible Priorities, the Peace Voter Fund, citizens for Reform, and the 
Sierra Club. When the American people see an ad by one of these groups, 
they will know it is coming from a Stealth PAC, a 527, but that's all 
they will know because these groups are currently not reporting 
anything to the FEC or the IRS.
  Money, politics, and secrecy is a dangerous mixture. Mr. President. 
The least we can do is address the secrecy ingredient in this potion 
with this amendment. There is no justification whatsoever for allowing 
these groups to operate under the radar. None. Citizens deserve to know 
who is behind a message that is being delivered to them in the heat of 
a campaign. These groups that hide behind apple pie names are trying to 
obscure their identities from the public. The public is entitled to 
that information. And it is entitled to withhold a tax exemption from 
any group that would refuse to provide the information.
  I think I have heard from almost every one of my colleagues recently 
that they believe this campaign finance system is completely out of 
control, that they sense it is about to completely explode. We all know 
it. It is completely out of control. This is a first step to try to 
bring that control back and then to move on quickly to the effort to 
address the other even more enormous problem at this point--the problem 
of soft money being contributed to political parties.
  I thank the Senator from Arizona and my colleagues on the floor, the 
Senators from Connecticut and New York, for their work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  I rise to support the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona. 
I am proud to be a cosponsor of it and to join with him and the Senator 
from Wisconsin, my friend, and also my colleague from New York.
  This is a bold but absolutely necessary step which was initiated by 
the Senator from Arizona, based on some work a bipartisan group did 
together earlier in the year to try to respond to this latest threat to 
the integrity of our Nation's election process, and that is the 
proliferation of so-called ``stealth'' PACs operating under section 527 
of the Tax Code.
  As my colleagues have indicated, these groups exploit a relatively 
recently discovered loophole in the Tax Code that allows organizations 
seeking to influence Federal elections to fund those elections with 
undisclosed and unlimited contributions at the same time as they claim 
exemption from both Federal taxation and the Federal election laws.
  As I say these words, and as I have listened to my colleagues, I 
wonder about the folks listening to the proceedings on C-SPAN. People 
must justifiably be scratching their heads or, I hope, standing up in 
outrage at what is happening within our political system.
  I was taught as a student at school long ago about the power of 
water, the natural force of water, to move and find weakness and then 
move through that weakness to continue to go forward. The flow of money 
in our political system today, which is not as natural as the movement 
of water through nature, seems to follow the same kind of unstoppable 
movement where it pursues a point of weakness in our legal system and 
pushes through, to the detriment of our democracy.

  Section 527 is the latest point of vulnerability that has been found 
by the forces and flow of money in our political system. Section 527 
offers tax exemption to organizations, primarily involved in election-
related activities such as campaign committees, party committees, and 
PACs. That is what the law says it is supposed to do. It defines the 
type of organization it discovers as one whose function is, among other 
things, ``Influencing or attempting to influence the selection, 
nomination, election, or appointment of any individual to any Federal, 
State, or local public office.''
  Because the Federal Election Campaign Act uses nearly identical 
language to define the entities it regulates, section 527 formally had 
been generally understood to apply only to those organizations that 
register as political committees under the Federal Election Campaign 
Act.
  Nevertheless, the flow of money moves to find a point of 
vulnerability in our existing legal system. A number of groups engaging 
in what they term ``issue advocacy campaigns'' and other election-
related activities, have begun arguing that the near identical language 
of our Federal Election Campaign Act and section 527 actually mean two 
different things. This would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious. In 
their view, these groups gain freedom from taxation by claiming they 
are seeking to influence the election of individuals to Federal office, 
but they claim they can evade regulation under the Campaign Act by 
asserting that they are not seeking to influence an election for 
Federal office.
  They are going two ways at once, trying to claim the benefit of two 
inconsistent laws, and, for the time being, getting away with it. As a 
result, unlike other tax-exempt groups, section 527 groups don't even 
have to publicly disclose their existence. They gain both the public 
subsidy of tax exemption and the ability to shield from the American 
public the identity of those spending their money to try to influence 
our elections. Indeed, according to news reports, newly formed 527 
organizations pushing the agenda of political parties are using the 
ability to mask the identity of their contributors as a means of 
courting wealthy donors who are seeking anonymity in their efforts to 
influence our elections.
  This is so venal, an end run on the clear intention of our laws, that 
I cannot believe we will let it continue. Section 527 organizations are 
not required to publicly disclose their existence. It is impossible to 
know the precise scope of this problem. The Internal Revenue Service 
private letter rulings, though, make clear that organizations that are 
intent on running what they call ``issue ad campaigns'' and engaging in 
other election-related activities are free to assert section 527 
status. Of course, there have been numerous news reports that provide 
specific examples of groups taking advantage of these rulings.
  Common Cause recently issued a report which is engaging in unsettling 
reading, under the title ``Under the Radar: The Attack of the Stealth 
PACs on Our Nations's Elections,'' which offers details on 527 groups 
set up by politicians, industry groups, right-leaning ideological 
groups, and left-leaning ideological groups. The advantages conferred 
by assuming this 527 form, which are the anonymity provided to both the 
organization and its donors, the ability to engage in unlimited 
political activity without losing your tax-exempt status, and 
significantly the exemption from gift tax which otherwise would be 
imposed on large donors, leaves no doubt that

[[Page S4660]]

these groups will continue to proliferate as the November election 
approaches.
  No one should doubt that the expansion of these groups poses a real 
and significant threat to the integrity and the fairness of our 
election system. One of the basic promises that our system makes is for 
full disclosure. Senator McCain and Senator Feingold have spoken of 
comments that have been made on this floor and elsewhere by those who 
opposed other forms of regulating and limiting campaign finance 
contributions, limits on expenditures, but at least support disclosure, 
sunshine, the right to know. The identity of the messenger, the 
identity of the contributor supporting a message, naturally, would help 
a citizen, a voter, reach a judgment on the quality and the effect of 
that message.
  The risk posed by the 527 loophole goes even further than depriving 
the American people of critical information. I believe it threatens the 
very heart of our democratic political process because allowing these 
groups to operate in the shadows poses a real and present danger of 
corruption and makes it difficult for anyone to vigilantly guard 
against that risk. The press has reported that a growing number of 527 
groups have connections to, or even have been set up by, candidates and 
elected officials who are otherwise limited--clearly, at least so is 
the intention of the law--by other laws. Allowing individuals to give 
to these groups and allowing elected officials to solicit money for 
these groups without ever having to disclose their dealings to the 
public, at a minimum leads to exactly the appearance of corruption that 
the Supreme Court in some of its election law cases has warned against 
and sets the conditions clearly that would allow corruption to thrive.
  If people in public life are allowed to continue seeking money 
secretly, particularly sums of money that exceed what the average 
American makes in a year, there is no telling what will be asked for in 
return. And there is no predicting how many more tens of thousands, 
hundreds of thousands, millions of our fellow citizens will turn away 
from our political system because they reach the conclusion that there 
is not actually equal access to our Government; that an individual or 
group or corporation that gives hundreds of thousands of dollars 
secretly to this kind of political committee clearly have more 
influence than they do, and it is not worth even turning out to vote.
  In the hopes of forestalling this growing cancer in our body politic, 
a bipartisan group of Members of the Senate earlier this year 
introduced two bills to deal with this 527 problem. The first was what 
we called our aspirational bill. It would have completely closed the 
527 loophole by making clear that tax exemption under 527 is available 
only to organizations regulated under the Federal Elections Campaign 
Act. It was pretty straightforward and, in my opinion, eminently 
sensible and logical. If this bill were ever enacted, groups would no 
longer be able to tell one thing to the IRS to get a tax benefit and 
then deny the same thing to the FEC, the Federal Election Commission, 
in order to evade Federal Election Campaign Act regulation.
  But recognizing that a complete closing of this ever growing 527 
loophole might not be possible to achieve in this Congress, we also 
offered a second alternative, slightly narrower. That is what this 
amendment is before the Senate now. It is aimed at forcing section 527 
organizations simply to emerge from the dark shadows, from the secret 
corners, and let the public know who they are--that is not asking too 
much--where they get their money--that is a fundamental right--and how 
they spend it.
  This amendment would require 527 organizations to disclose their 
existence to the IRS, to file publicly available tax returns and to 
file with the IRS and make public reports specifying annual 
expenditures of at least $500 and identifying those who contribute at 
least $200 annually to the organization. That is not asking very much. 
It is simple fairness, basic facts, respecting the public's right to 
know.
  No doubt opponents of this amendment may claim the proposal infringes 
on their first amendment rights, perhaps, to free speech and 
association. But nothing in this amendment infringes on those cherished 
freedoms in the slightest bit. This amendment does not prohibit anyone 
from speaking. It does not force any group that does not currently have 
to comply with the Federal Elections Campaign Act or disclose 
information about itself to do either of those things. This amendment 
speaks only to what a group must do if it wants the public subsidy of 
tax exemption, something the Supreme Court has made clear that no one 
has a constitutional right to have. We in Congress, Representatives of 
the people, makers of the law, have the right to attach conditions in 
return for the public subsidy of tax exemption. As the Supreme Court 
explained in Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, a 
1983 case:

       Both tax exemptions and tax-deductibility are a form of 
     subsidy that is administered through the tax system, [and] 
     Congressional selection of particular entities or persons for 
     entitlement to this sort of largess is obviously a matter of 
     policy and discretion. . . .

  That is policy and discretion to be exercised in the public interest 
by this Congress. Under this proposal, any group not wanting to 
disclose information about itself or abide by the election laws would 
be able to continue doing whatever it is doing now. It would just have 
to do so without the public subsidy of tax exemption conferred by 
section 527. Again, that is not asking too much.
  We have become so used to our campaign finance system's long, slow 
descent that I fear it is sometimes hard to ignite the kind of outrage 
that should result when a new loophole starts to shred the very spirit 
of yet another law aimed at protecting the integrity of our system.
  I suppose if there is any direct relevance of this proposal to the 
Department of Defense Authorization Act on which it is offered, it is 
that generations of Americans have fought, been injured, and died for 
our political system, our principles, our values: The right to exercise 
the franchise, the right to know. We are witnessing, without acting to 
correct it, the corruption and erosion of those basic freedoms.
  This new 527 loophole should outrage us and we should act, I hope 
unanimously, across party lines, by adopting this amendment to put a 
stop to it.
  Mr. President, I urge all our colleagues to join us in supporting 
this proposal. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senators be 
allowed to speak on this issue, and therefore ask further proceedings 
under the quorum call be suspended.
  Mr. ALLARD. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ALLARD. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
McCain amendment and the Robert Smith amendment be laid aside, the 
McCain amendment become the pending business at 1 p.m. on Thursday, and 
there be 2 hours equally divided on the McCain amendment, with a vote 
to occur in relation to the McCain amendment immediately following the 
scheduled vote re: HMO at 5 p.m. on Thursday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. In light of this agreement, there will be no further 
votes this evening, and the Senate will resume the DOD authorization 
bill at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Byrd,

[[Page S4661]]

who has been a tremendous leader on campaign finance reform for 
decades, Senator Biden, Senator Reid of Nevada, and Senator Levin be 
added as cosponsors to the McCain-Feingold-Lieberman amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

                          ____________________