Security clearances are tied to positions, not people. In order for eligibility for access to classified information to be granted, it has to have the appropriate position designation. In addition to positions of public trust, there are Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret security clearance designations. Beyond Top Secret, special access programs and sensitive compartmented information (SCI) have their own designations – and unless a position is classified to have that type of access, the person working in it can’t see it.
Congressional security clearance processes fall under the same general policies (although it’s worth noting that members of congress do not go through the traditional background investigation process). Like billets and positions within the Pentagon, each congressmember is allocated a certain number of cleared positions – senators and representatives are generally afforded up to two cleared personnel. Current policy only allows committee staff access to SCI/SAP – not personal staff.
But that’s a policy some senators are looking to change, according to Politico. A report yesterday noted Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told Democrats that a bipartisan rules change could allow senators to make one personal aid eligible for SCI information, as well.
Access to Information vs. Protecting Information
Congress has long argued that without staff classified to access SCI information, members without the right committee assignments may lack the same information about programs and procurements. Oversight and access to information is the advantage, but potential for leaks is obviously the risk. Congressional staff members have already been a source of leaks in the past.
Balancing the risk with the need for accountability is key to deciding who needs access and who doesn’t, notes security clearance attorney Sean Bigley.
“As I understand it, the vast majority of classified work is done by the committee staff – and only a handful of committees at that,” he notes. “On the flip side, I really don’t like how powerful the bureaucracy has become and how they often use classification as a means of frustrating congressional and public scrutiny. This may help neuter some of their power. I suppose on balance the pros and the cons might just cancel themselves out on this one.”
