Federal elected officials are dodging questions about why nothing was done to restrict Randy "Duke" Cunningham's access to top-secret information during the five months the former congressman was under federal investigation for bribery.
After phone calls were not returned by several members of Congress early last week, the North County Times sent e-mail requests with a series of questions to 24 members of Congress who either served on defense-related committees with him or could have forced Cunningham to step down temporarily from his committee assignments pending the outcome of the federal probe.
The newspaper followed up the e-mail requests with phone calls to each of the members' offices repeating those requests.
Only one of those 24 elected officials agreed to answer the questions as to why Cunningham's access to classified information was not cut off during the investigation, a move that a Washington watchdog group and a former CIA agent contend may have put national secrets at risk.
The chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., revoked Cunningham's access to classified information two days after the decorated Vietnam War pilot pleaded guilty in federal court to tax evasion and accepting bribes of more than $2.4 million, in exchange for steering government contracts to two defense companies.
Hoekstra was the only member to respond to requests for interviews.
On Wednesday, he defended his decision not to revoke Cunningham's access during the five-month bribery investigation. It would be wrong, Hoekstra said, to take away a member's security clearance or ask him to step down based on unproven allegations.
If such a precedent were set, "it could open the process up to a lot of political mischief," Hoekstra said, while acknowledging that allowing a member continued access during an investigation might pose risks to national security.
No allegations have surfaced that Cunningham disclosed any national secrets, and his attorneys have promised full cooperation with the government during its investigation.
But critics of the committee's decision to allow Cunningham continued access to classified information during the probe said such access posed a risk to national security.
Lee Strickland, a former senior analyst with the Central Intelligence Agency, said Friday that anytime there is a federal investigation that casts serious doubt on a member, his or her access to classified information "should be terminated, pending the outcome of the investigation."
Strickland is also a former special assistant U.S. attorney and currently works as a professor of information policy at the University of Maryland.
A spokesman for the Washington-based congressional watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense said Friday that, without question, Cunningham should have lost his access to classified information as soon as reports surfaced that he was under investigation for allegations of bribery.
"This is not a court of law," spokesman Keith Ashdown said. "We are trying to keep the nation's secrets safe and there is no benefit of the doubt. There is no justification for someone to continue having access when they are under the cloud of an investigation."
Members mum
Requests for interviews and the questions were sent by e-mail to the 11 Republicans and nine Democrats on the House intelligence committee, including: Chairman Hoekstra and ranking Democratic member Jane Harman, D-Venice; Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.; House Minority Whip and ex officio intelligence committee member Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco; House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis, R-Redlands; and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on Defense, Bill Young, R-Fla.
Other than Hoekstra, none of the members agreed to interviews, and 21 of them didn't even acknowledge the request.
The questions read as follows:
Five months and no action
Cunningham sat on the House intelligence committee and served as chairman of its subcommittee on Terrorism, Human Intelligence, Analysis and Counterintelligence. Washington officials have said both assignments provided Cunningham with regular security briefings by federal intelligence agencies, as well as access to classified national security information.
In addition, Cunningham served on the House Appropriations Committee and its subcommittee on defense, a position that also gave him access to classified material.
On Nov. 28, Cunningham pleaded guilty in federal court to one count each of conspiracy to commit bribery and tax evasion. The 33-page plea agreement that he signed listed more than two dozen instances in which Cunningham had accepted money or gifts in exchange for favors. He faces up to 10 years in federal prison when he is sentenced in February.
After his appearance in court, the eight-term congressman made a tearful apology for having betrayed the trust of his family and constituents and announced his resignation from his 50th District seat.
On Nov. 30, intelligence committee Chairman Hoekstra announced that he was revoking Cunningham's access to classified information, and called for a review of Cunningham's work on the panel on which he had served since 2001.
However, Washington watchdog groups have blasted House officials for waiting so long to revoke Cunningham's security clearance. News reports first surfaced in late June that federal law enforcement agencies were investigating Cunningham on allegations of bribery.
Yet, for the five months that elapsed between the start of the probe and the day of his guilty pleas, Cunningham continued to receive briefings from U.S. intelligence agencies and had full access to highly classified national security data.
Chairman says change not needed
Hoekstra said Wednesday that shortly after it was known that Cunningham was under federal investigation, he had a conversation with Cunningham about the matter, and Cunningham professed total innocence. Hoekstra said that at no point did he talk to Cunningham about the possibility of temporarily stepping down from the committee or giving up his security clearance.
Hoekstra said that it would also be wrong to change the system so that members are automatically relieved of their committee responsibilities pending the outcome of an investigation.
He said he also disagrees with the idea of subjecting members of Congress to background checks, similar to the ones required of staff members.
During the election process, candidates are subjected to intense public and media scrutiny, he said.
"That is where the vetting process occurs, a thorough review by constituents before there is an election."
Watchdog questions silence
Taxpayers for Common Sense spokesman Ashdown said Friday that he is "troubled" by the failure of members of Congress to answer questions on Cunningham's continued access to government secrets while under investigation.
"They don't want to respond, because it's not a popular topic," Ashdown said. "On both sides of the aisle, they think that nobody wins when reporters try and look at corruption in Congress."
Ashdown said that Democrats and Republicans who sat on the committees with Cunningham share the blame for not pushing for him to temporarily step down from those assignments.
"Nobody called for this, nobody said his clearance should be pulled before he pleaded guilty," Ashdown said, adding that he had first expressed his concerns on the matter to reporters at the time the federal investigation began.
"The collective congressional synapses must not be registering," he added.
Access posed risks
Like Ashdown, former CIA senior analyst Strickland said Friday that because Cunningham was under federal investigation for bribery, and was under intense financial pressure from legal costs, there was a "risk for blackmail."
He added that he disagrees with a system that subjects government employees to the intense scrutiny of background checks and interviews before granting them access to national secrets, yet does not require the same for members of Congress.
"I think the two-tiered system is dangerous," Strickland said.
Elected officials should be held to the same standard of scrutiny, because "you are entrusting this person with something that could cause grave danger to national security."
"Why would you do an investigation for staff members and not (their bosses)," Strickland asked.
Response by name
To get their responses on why nothing was done to restrict Randy "Duke" Cunningham's access to classified information during the five-month period he was under federal investigation, the North County Times sent by e-mail a list of questions and requests for interviews, as well making follow-up phone calls, to the following members of Congress:
Staff writers Gig Conaughton and Mark Walker contributed to this report. Contact staff writer William Finn Bennett at (760) 740-5426, or wbennett@nctimes.com.
Posted in Local on Sunday, December 18, 2005 12:00 am
© Copyright 2009, North County Times - Californian, Escondido, CA | Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
