New York's Senator
CHARLES E. SCHUMER

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 1, 2000

SCHUMER: INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT VIOLATES CORE PURPOSE OF FIRST AMENDMENT

Schumer Urges Clinton To Veto Intelligence Bill And Calls On Members of Congress To Take A Stand Against Legislation Which Will Chill Free Speech

US Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) today called on President Bill Clinton to veto the Intelligence Authorization Act, legislation that criminalizes the disclosure of certain types of government information. Schumer said that the bill is far to broad, violates the core purpose of the First Amendment and will chill free speech and cut off the flow of information critical of the government to the press and the public. Schumer announced that he is sending a letter to all members of Congress today asking them to join him in urging Clinton to veto the bill. Schumer made the following statement at a press conference today to urge Clinton to veto the bill:

"I am here today to call on the President to veto the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2001 and to urge my colleagues to take a stand against this bill. This bill violates the core purpose of the First Amendment and it is vital that the President protect the values that have allowed our nation to flourish by vetoing this bill.

"It now appears that we will have a lame duck session in two weeks. The President can now veto this bill with the knowledge that Congress can go back, repass the Intelligence Authorization Act and either fix or remove this potentially devastating provision. There is bipartisan support for, at the very least, fixing this provision so that it won't take affect for another year, allowing us to hold public hearings and decide the issue in the light of day. Senator Grassley and Congressman Hyde have both already expressed support for this idea.

"Today, I am sending a letter to all of my colleagues in both the House and the Senate, asking them to join me in asking the President to veto this bill. We can do better for the American people.

"Momentum is clearly building against this dangerous legislation. Just yesterday, the chief executives of four of our nation's leading news organizations - The New York Times, CNN, the Washington Post and the Newspaper Association of America - took the rare step of writing President Clinton to warn him that signing the bill would come at the cost of an informed public.

"Now it is our turn to take a stand against a bill that violates the very purpose of our First Amendment.

"This legislation may seem well intentioned in its attempt to deter leaks of classified information that could affect our national security. But make no mistake about it, this bill attempts to do so in such broad and vague terms, and without regard for the potential of rampant over-classification of government information, that it will have profound effects on the ability of an informed citizenry to keep our government honest.

"This bill's proponents argue that it only criminalizes the disclosure of "properly classified" information. But in a classic example of legislative legerdemain, "properly classified" is then broadly defined to include any information that a person "has reason to believe has been properly classified by appropriate authorities." That can mean virtually anything.

"This open-ended definition would require all current and past government officials to guess at what might be illegal, while the threat of serious jail time hangs over their heads. This will undoubtedly chill whistle blowers, dissenting officials, and those who occasionally point journalists to public information that is critical of the government.

"Ultimately, this bill will jeopardize our national security by shielding broad categories of information vital to evaluating our government, our policies, and our practices. We should never forget that one of the core purposes of the First Amendment was to prohibit government from suppressing embarrassing information, not criminalizing its release.

"There may be ways to tighten our laws relating to disclosures of our most sensitive information without chilling the press and core political speech. But this legislation attempts to protect our national security at the expense of an informed public. And that, in the end, is really no security at all."

# # #