WASHINGTON, July 26 (UPI) -- The Chairman of the House intelligence committee says there has to be major reform of government secrecy rules before zero tolerance of leaks can be imposed.
And Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., entering his second year as head of the powerful House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, says he intends to lead by example, and his panel will hear open testimony this week from the office of the new director of national intelligence about progress in reforming the government's spy agencies.
Hoekstra made the call to toughen up on leaks of classified information in a speech to the Heritage Foundation Monday, putting more than just a toe in the swirling waters of controversy surrounding the Valerie Plame affair -- where top White House aides stand accused of violating a CIA employee's cover for political gain.
He called for "a culture of zero tolerance," on leaks, saying that "some of the worst damage done to our intelligence community has come not from penetration by spies, but from unauthorized leaks by those with access to classified information."
Hoekstra said he would convene hearings -- to which journalists might be invited to give evidence -- in September; and would work with the Justice Department and House Judiciary Committee Chairman rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., to draft legislation in the fall.
But speaking to United Press International, Hoekstra explained that imposing tough new laws against leaking classified information would only be possible if the classification system was reformed.
"We will evaluate the classification system," he told UPI. "We need to ensure that it is only used to protect information that could damage our national security."
"A lot of people believe," he added, "that the system is being abused."
If a smaller, more valuable universe of information was protected, Hoekstra said, the line drawn around it could be brighter, and the penalties for crossing the line more severe.
"You can't take the current system," he said, "and just put new penalties in place ... You've got to do the reform first."
Hoekstra denied that his call for zero tolerance (he said that those who hold security clearances need to be reminded that they are "a privilege, not a right") was in any way an attempt to intervene in the debate surrounding presidential adviser Karl Rove.
But he did acknowledge that he was laying down a marker by mentioning -- the first lawmaker in intelligence oversight to do so -- the case of Larry Franklin, the defense official accused of leaking classified information to employees of the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC.
"The marker is, this is not the first time this individual has been accused of mishandling classified information," he said, adding that the fact nothing happened the first time was hardly a deterrent.
"There were no consequences (the first time), so should we be surprised that the message that sends is 'It's OK to leak?'
"You will get this kind of behavior if you tolerate it," he concluded.
Hoekstra said that he intended to lead classification reform by example -- holding as many open hearings of the House committee as possible. "I personally believe that some of what has been done (by the committee) in secret before can and should be done in public," he said.
Tuesday, he announced that the oversight subcommittee would hear testimony in open session this week from the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Gen. Anthony Hayden.
Hoekstra has long said one of the major tasks of the oversight subcommittee will be ensuring that the big changes the administration and Congress have imposed on the nation's sometimes recalcitrant intelligence agencies stay on track.
But by doing so in open session, he argues, you build trust.
"The more we help people understand what the committees are doing, what the (nation's intelligence agencies are) doing, the more public support you will get."
"If you take those two steps," of doing as much oversight as possible in the open, and reforming the system to end over-classification, "you have a much more compelling case" for tougher penalties, he said.
Hoekstra added that he was concerned to maintain the protected status of whistle-blowers. Asked whether tough new laws protecting classified information might undermine the protections afforded those who highlighted waste, fraud or abuse by revealing secrets, Hoekstra replied, "That's not at all the intention."
He added that it was as complex policy area, in which competing equities had to be balanced.
"That's why you have to be real delicate in putting it together," he said of any new law.
"No one said it would be easy."
Hoekstra concluded that he had "no fixed solution."
"We're calling for a broad dialogue," he said.
Secrecy campaigners generally were critical of Hoekstra's speech.
"Most of the questions that Rep. Hoekstra proposed to ask about leaks in upcoming hearings were already asked and officially answered by the U.S. government as recently as three years ago," wrote Steven Aftergood, of the Federation of American Scientists, in his Secrecy News newsletter.
Aftergood reported that in 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft produced a report for Congress on unauthorized disclosures of classified information "which concluded that the executive branch already had the tools it needed to combat leaks and that new legislation was not required."
"Given the nature of unauthorized disclosures of classified information that have occurred," Ashcroft wrote, "I conclude that current statutes provide a legal basis to prosecute those who engage in unauthorized disclosures, if they can be identified."
