Clinton Vetoes Classified-Leaks Bill
AP 4nov00

NEW YORK -- President Clinton on Saturday vetoed a bill that would have criminalized the leaking of government secrets. The legislation, he said, might ``chill legitimate activities that are at the heart of a democracy.''

The proposal had drawn criticism from news organizations which said it would stifle their ability to obtain information vital to the public.

``We must never forget that the free flow of information is essential to a democratic society,'' Clinton said in a statement.

He cited the ``badly flawed provision'' as the reason he vetoed a bill that authorizes spending for the CIA, National Security Agency and other intelligence activities for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. The total intelligence budget is classified and is not made public, but is believed to be about $30 billion.

The president urged Congress ``to pursue a more narrowly drawn provision tested in public hearings so that those they represent can also be heard on this important issue.''

GOP Rep. Porter Goss of Florida, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said the administration did not express concerns about the provision in earlier negotiations.

``To veto this critical piece of legislation now is disruptive and may send a dangerous signal to those who would harm U.S. interests,'' Goss said.

The provision would have extended penalties that now exist for leaking classified, national defense information, to the leaking of other classified, but nondefense data that could harm the United States if made public or given to foreign governments.

Clinton said he agreed with congressional sponsors of the legislation that unauthorized disclosures of classified information ``can be extraordinarily harmful to United States national security and that too many such disclosures occur.''

``Those who disclose classified information inappropriately commit a gross breach of the public trust and may recklessly put our national security at risk,'' he said.

Clinton, however, said that in dispute was not the seriousness of the problem but the best way to respond to it.

``As president ... it is my responsibility to protect not only our government's vital information from improper disclosure but also to protect the rights of citizens to receive the information necessary for democracy to work,'' he said.

The president said it takes a careful balance to reconcile the goals of protecting national security and the public's right to know. ``This legislation does not achieve the proper balance,'' Clinton said.

Four of the nation's largest news organizations -- CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times and the Newspaper Association of America -- asked Clinton last week to veto the bill.

They and other critics, including some from both parties in Congress, feared the measure could have silenced whistle-blowers and stopped news media from getting information to the public.

Clinton said the measure could chill the legitimate activities of government officials.

``A desire to avoid the risk that their good faith choice of words -- their exercise of judgment -- could become the subject of a criminal referral for prosecution might discourage government officials from engaging even in appropriate public discussion, press briefings, or other legitimate official activities,'' Clinton said.

The legislation also could have also discouraged or restrained former government officials from teaching, writing or engaging ``in any activity aimed at building public understanding of complex issues,'' he said.

``Incurring such risks is unnecessary and inappropriate in a society built on freedom of expression and the consent of the governed and is particularly inadvisable in a context in which the range of classified materials is so extensive,'' he said.

``In such circumstances, this criminal provision would, in my view, create an undue chilling effect,'' Clinton said.

Attorney General Janet Reno predicted last week that the provision would not have dramatically increased the number of prosecutions. The proposal would have closed what she called ``a very narrow gap'' in existing law. She said the difficulty finding leakers rather than the legal gap was the reason for the small number of prosecutions.

The only leak prosecution in recent memory occurred in 1985 when a Navy researcher was prosecuted for leaking a satellite photo of a Soviet Navy ship under construction to the publication, Jane's Fighting Ships. But there are numerous leak investigations that fall short of prosecution, although some have lead to resignations or administrative discipline.

• Bill, H.R. 4392, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/

  ---

Clinton Vetoes a Bill on Protecting Secrets
JOHN M. BRODER / New York Times 5nov00

WASHINGTON  — President Clinton vetoed a bill renewing the authority of the nation's intelligence agencies today because it contained what he called a "badly flawed provision" that would make it a crime for a government official to disclose classified information.

The measure was hotly debated within the administration and vigorously opposed by news executives and civil libertarians, who said the bill would stanch the flow of information vital to a free society.

Critics said the bill would create the equivalent of Britain's Official Secrets Act that imposes harsh punishment on those who transmit classified information and on those who receive and publish it.

Mr. Clinton rejected the bill, even though it had been supported by the Justice Department and Central Intelligence Agency. He said in his veto message that he concluded that the bill "is overbroad and may unnecessarily chill legitimate activities that are at the heart of a democracy."

The provision, part of the intelligence authorization bill, would have made leaking classified information a felony punishable by fines and up to three years in prison. It would have applied to present or former government officials and private individuals with security clearances.

The White House at first appeared to support the measure because it only prohibited disclosure of information that was "properly classified," not merely embarrassing.

But the president concluded that the bill was fatally flawed because it covered too much data and too many people in and out of government, officials said. Millions of pages of documents are routinely stamped "secret" each year not only at the C.I.A., the Pentagon and the National Security Council, but throughout the government as well.

Mr. Clinton, like all presidents who have supervised the sprawling intelligence bureaucracy that arose during the cold war, has expressed concern about unauthorized leaks of secret information.

Representative Porter J. Goss, the Florida Republican who is chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, criticized the veto. "This legislation, including the offending anti-leak provision, was approved by the administration before final passage," Mr. Goss said. "To veto this critical piece of legislation now is disruptive, and may send a dangerous message to those who would harm U.S. interests."

Robert M. O'Neil, director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression at the University of Virginia, praised President Clinton's veto. Mr. O'Neil said the legislation had dangerous implications. The measure, he said, while intended to prevent leaks, "could have had the effect of preventing the true flow of information."

John F. Sturm, president and chief executive of the Newspaper Association of America, said, "The president has taken an important step toward protecting the rights of all citizens to receive the information that keeps government accountable to its people." He added, "Just the threat of criminal prosecution has a chilling effect on the free flow of information to the public."

Mr. Clinton said he accepted the argument that leaks of secret information at times jeopardize intelligence sources and methods, and put the lives of spies and informants at risk. "I agree that unauthorized disclosures can be extraordinarily harmful to United States national security interests and that far too many such disclosures occur," Mr. Clinton said in the message to Congress accompanying his veto. "Unauthorized disclosures damage our intelligence relationships abroad, compromise intelligence gathering, jeopardize lives and increase the threat of terrorism."

However, he said, the remedy in the bill was a greater threat to liberty than security breaches. He cited two Supreme Court Justices, Potter Stewart and Louis E. Brandeis, who wrote in opinions decades apart that an enlightened citizenry and public discussion, even of issues of life and death, are at the heart of the American system of self-governance.

Mr. Clinton said that the broadly written legislation could constrain officials from engaging in public statements or media briefings on national security matters, even when not classified. The bill could also prevent former officials from exploring complex issues in a historical context, he said.

"Incurring such risks is unnecessary and inappropriate in a society built on freedom of expression and the consent of the governed, and is particularly inadvisable in a context in which the range of classified materials is so extensive," Mr. Clinton said. "In such circumstances, this criminal provision would, in my view, create an undue chilling effect."

The bill, drafted by leaders of the Senate and House intelligence committees, was approved this week without public hearings or a recorded vote.

In an unusual joint statement earlier this week, the chief executives of CNN, The Washington Post, the Newspaper Association of America and The New York Times appealed to the president to veto the secrecy bill. "For the first time in our nation's history," the executives wrote, "a law would criminalize all unauthorized disclosures of classified information — in effect creating an `official secrets act' of the sort that exists elsewhere but that has always been rejected in this country."