When Is a Secret No Longer a Secret? Debate Rages On

The federal government is preparing to issue new rules that would declassify millions of secret documents and overhaul the entire defense industrial security system, setting off a fierce debate over whether the regulations go too far or not far enough.

Under a proposed executive order prepared for President Clinton, federal agencies will be required in most cases to declassify top secret documents automatically after 15 years and secret documents after 10 years.

The 53-page draft order would require federal officials for the first time to weigh the public’s right to know against the need for secrecy. The new rules also would clamp down on a rapidly growing area of secrecy known as special access programs, which operate with their own more stringent rules for physical security and personnel clearances.

In the aftermath of the Cold War, three separate federal panels are working to streamline the huge federal security system. A dozen federal agencies have authority to create secret documents, operate secure facilities and administer clearances for workers.

The cost of this security apparatus for the defense industry alone is estimated at $13.8 billion annually. Major contractors have argued for years that these costs, borne by taxpayers, could be substantially pared if agencies would adopt uniform security standards and eliminate the current tangled web of rules. The first federal panel issuing recommendations is the Information Security Oversight Office, which was asked by Clinton to develop new rules governing the creation of classified documents and the declassification of existing secret papers.

“This is a very controversial issue,” said Steven Garfinkel, director of the office. “You are going to hear criticism from those who want greater openness and those who say that greater openness will damage national security.”

A copy of Garfinkel’s draft order was leaked by the Federation of American Scientists, a major proponent of liberalization. After the leak, a senior Clinton Administration official said that the order will be revised and made bolder.

Steven Aftergood, a research analyst at the scientists’ group, criticized the draft order, saying the declassification takes too long under the new rules and liberal exceptions allow documents to remain secret indefinitely. The group has called for declassification of every secret document after 20 years, with very limited exceptions.

“While it is an improvement over the status quo, it does not go far enough,” Aftergood said. “Somebody needs to decide whether the Cold War is over or not. Judging by this draft order, the Cold War is not yet over.”

Garfinkel disagrees with that assessment, adding that the draft rules would reduce the creation of new secrets by 10% initially and by up to 50% in the long run.

A separate federal panel, known as the Joint Security Commission, has a much wider scope of authority to overhaul the entire security apparatus, covering personnel clearances and government facilities.

Jeffrey Smith, commission chairman and a private attorney in Washington, said the group would issue “sweeping recommendations” on Feb. 1, but he declined to identify any of the proposed changes.

The commission is studying changes to personnel clearance rules that minority groups say are discriminatory and congressional demands for appeals procedures for special access programs.

A third group, the National Industrial Security Program, is developing a new security manual for the defense industry. It was scheduled to release the manual this month, but has postponed the new regulations until June, according to Harry Volz, the group’s chairman and head of security at Grumman Corp.

Volz, Garfinkel and Smith said they are encountering significant resistance to liberalization from the defense and intelligence communities, although those opponents have never made a public statement against liberalization.

“They are folks just opposed to change,” Volz said. “Some are opposed because they see a change to the status quo as a threat to their rice bowl. There are others who feel that change could jeopardize the security of information they are trying to protect.”