[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (2000-2001, Book III)]
[November 4, 2000]
[Pages 2466-2467]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



Message on Returning Without Approval to the House of Representatives 
Intelligence Authorization Legislation for Fiscal Year 2001
November 4, 2000

To the House of Representatives:
    Today, I am disapproving H.R. 4392, the ``Intelligence Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2001,'' because of one badly flawed provision that 
would have made a felony of unauthorized disclosures of classified 
information. Although well intentioned, that provision is overbroad and 
may unnecessarily chill legitimate activities that are at the heart of a 
democracy.
    I agree that unauthorized disclosures can be extraordinarily harmful 
to United States national security interests and that far too many such 
disclosures occur. I have been particularly concerned about their 
potential effects on the sometimes irreplaceable intelligence sources 
and methods on which we rely to acquire accurate and timely information 
I need in order to make the most appropriate decisions on matters of 
national security. Unauthorized disclosures damage our intelligence 
relationships abroad, compromise intelligence gathering, jeopardize 
lives, and increase the threat of terrorism. As Justice Stewart stated 
in the Pentagon Papers case, ``it is elementary that the successful 
conduct of international diplomacy and the maintenance of an effective 
national defense require both confidentiality and secrecy. Other nations 
can hardly deal with this Nation in an atmosphere of mutual trust unless 
they can be assured that their confidences will be kept . . . and the 
development of considered and intelligent international policies would 
be impossible if those charged with their formulation could not 
communicate with each other freely.'' Those who disclose classified 
information inappropriately thus commit a gross breach of the public 
trust and may recklessly put our national security at risk. To the 
extent that existing sanctions have proven insufficient to address and 
deter unauthorized disclosures, they should be strengthened. What is in 
dispute is not the gravity of the problem, but the best way to respond 
to it.
    In addressing this issue, we must never forget that the free flow of 
information is essential to a democratic society. Justice Stewart also 
wrote in the Pentagon Papers case that ``the only effective restraint 
upon executive policy in the areas of national defense and international 
affairs may lie in an enlightened citizenry--in an informed and critical 
public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic 
government.''
    Justice Brandeis reminded us that ``those who won our independence 
believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty; and that this 
should be a fundamental principle of the American government.'' His 
words caution that we must always tread carefully when considering 
measures that may limit public discussion--even when those measures are 
intended to achieve laudable, indeed necessary, goals.
    As President, therefore, it is my obligation 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. Furthering these two goals requires a careful 
balancing, which must be assessed in light of our system of classifying 
information over a range of categories. This legislation does not 
achieve the proper balance. For example, there is a serious risk that 
this legislation would tend to have a chilling effect on those who 
engage in legitimate activities. A desire to avoid the risk that their 
good faith choice of words--their exercise of judgment--could become the 
subject of a

[[Page 2467]]

criminal referral for prosecution might discourage Government officials 
from engaging even in appropriate public discussion, press briefings, or 
other legitimate official activities. Similarly, the legislation may 
unduly restrain the ability of former Government officials to teach, 
write, or engage in any activity aimed at building public understanding 
of complex issues.
    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. In such circumstances, this criminal 
provision would, in my view, create an undue chilling effect.
    The problem is compounded because this provision was passed without 
benefit of public hearings--a particular concern given that it is the 
public that this law seeks ultimately to protect. The Administration 
shares the process burden since its deliberations lacked the 
thoroughness this provision warranted, which in turn led to a failure to 
apprise the Congress of the concerns I am expressing today.
    I deeply appreciate the sincere efforts of Members of Congress to 
address the problem of unauthorized disclosures and I fully share their 
commitment. When the Congress returns, I encourage it to send me this 
bill with this provision deleted and I encourage the Congress as soon as 
possible to pursue a more narrowly drawn provision tested in public 
hearings so that those they represent can also be heard on this 
important issue.
    Since the adjournment of the Congress has prevented my return of 
H.R. 4392 within the meaning of Article I, section 7, clause 2 of the 
Constitution, my withholding of approval from the bill precludes its 
becoming law. The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929). In addition to 
withholding my signature and thereby invoking my constitutional power to 
``pocket veto'' bills during an adjournment of the Congress, to avoid 
litigation, I am also sending H.R. 4392 to the House of Representatives 
with my objections, to leave no possible doubt that I have vetoed the 
measure.

                                                      William J. Clinton

 The White House,

 November 4, 2000.