From WNYC in New York, this is On the Media. I'm Bob Garfield.

And I'm Brooke Gladstone. Currently in the nation's capital, there is an argument brewing over a measure that would give the government sweeping authority to prosecute anyone who told its secrets.

It began last fall when officials in the CIA and the FBI quietly worked a provision into the Intelligence

Authorization Act that would make it a felony for federal employees to disclose classified

information. Ultimately, but not without a fight, it was vetoed by President Clinton. Right now,

free press advocates are battling it out with the intelligence community

to stave off hearings on a similar measure.

A few weeks ago on our program, Daniel Ellsberg said such a measure would have made the publication of the Pentagon Papers impossible.

He also said that the intelligence agencies have aimed the measure at a particular reporter and newspaper.

If that is signed, then there will be a number of prosecutions.

There won't be just two. There'll be two in the next month, probably.

They already have their eyes, I think, on the Washington Times, for example.

The act is almost dedicated to getting them.

Daniel Ellsberg, probably the most famous leaker in U.S. history, said the anti-leak provision was meant to get the Washington Times.

Of course, what he told us later is that it was actually meant to get Bill Goertz,

who reports on national security issues for the Washington Times.

Bill Goerts, is that true?

Well, that's what I've heard.

It's been called the anti-Gertz leak statute, and I was surprised that it was, in fact,

vetoed by the president last year. Have you ever felt like you were compromising national security?

I don't feel that way at all. There have been cases where we have withheld information

or modified information at the request of the government, and there have been cases where we've

...