[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 47 (Monday, April 15, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3304-H3305]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




AMERICAN OVERSEAS INTERESTS ACT--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
                  UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 104-197)

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto 
message from the President of the United States:

To the House of Representatives:
  I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 1561, the ``Foreign 
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997.''
  This legislation contains many unacceptable provisions that would 
undercut U.S. leadership abroad and damage our ability to assure the 
future security and prosperity of the American people. It would 
unacceptably restrict the President's ability to address the complex 
international challenges and opportunities of the post-Cold War era. It 
would also restrict Presidential authority needed to conduct foreign 
affairs and to control state secrets, thereby raising serious 
constitutional concerns.
  First, the bill contains foreign policy provisions, particularly 
those involving East Asia, that are of serious concern. It would amend 
the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) to state that the TRA supersedes the 
provisions of the 1982 Joint Communique between the United States and 
China. The 1982 Communique has been one of the cornerstones of our 
bipartisan policy toward China

[[Page H3305]]

for over 13 years. The ongoing management of our relations with China 
is one of the central challenges of United States foreign policy, but 
this bill would complicate, not facilitate that task. The bill would 
also sharply restrict the use of funds to further normalize relations 
with Vietnam, hampering the President's ability to pursue our national 
interests there and potentially jeopardizing further progress on POW/
MIA issues. If read literally, this restriction would also raise 
constitutional concerns.
  Second, the bill would seriously impede the President's authority to 
organize and administer foreign affairs agencies to best serve the 
Nation's interests and the Administration's foreign policy priorities. 
I am a strong supporter of appropriate reform and, building on 
bipartisan support, my Administration has already implemented 
significant steps to reinvent our international operations in a way 
that has allowed us to reduce funding significantly, eliminate 
positions, and close embassies, consulates, and other posts overseas. 
But this bill proceeds in an improvident fashion, mandating the 
abolition of at least one of three important foreign affairs agencies, 
even though each agency has a distinct and important mission that 
warrants a separate existence. Moreover, the inflexible, detailed 
mandates and artificial deadlines included in this section of the bill 
should not be imposed on any President.
  Third, the appropriations authorizations included in the bill, for 
fiscal years 1996 and 1997, fall unacceptably below the levels 
necessary to conduct the Nation's foreign policy and to protect U.S. 
interests abroad. These inadequate levels would adversely affect the 
operation of overseas posts of the foreign affairs agencies and weaken 
critical U.S. efforts to promote arms control and nonproliferation, 
reform international organizations and peacekeeping, streamline public 
diplomacy, and implement sustainable development activities. These 
levels would cause undue reductions in force of highly skilled 
personnel at several foreign affairs agencies at a time when they face 
increasingly complex challenges.
  Fourth, this bill contains a series of objectionable provisions that 
limit U.S. participation in international organizations, particularly 
the United Nations (U.N.). For example, a provision on intelligence 
sharing with the U.N. would unconstitutionally infringe on the 
President's power to conduct diplomatic relations and limit 
Presidential control over the use of state secrets. Other provisions 
contain problematic notification, withholding, and certification 
requirements.
  These limits on participation in international organizations, 
particularly when combined with the low appropriation authorization 
levels, would undermine current U.S. diplomatic efforts--which enjoy 
bipartisan support--to reform the U.N. budget. The provisions included 
in the bill are also at odds with ongoing discussions between the 
Administration and the Congress aimed at achieving consensus on these 
issues.

  Fifth, the bill fails to remedy the severe limitations placed on U.S. 
population assistance programs by the Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public Law 
104-107). That law imposes unacceptable spending restrictions pending 
authorization for U.S. bilateral and multilateral population assistance 
programs. But H.R. 1561 does not authorize these programs. 
Consequently, these restrictions will remain in place and will have a 
significant, adverse impact on women and families in the developing 
world. It is estimated that nearly 7 million couples in developing 
countries will have no access to safe, voluntary family planning 
services. The result will be millions of unwanted pregnancies and an 
increase in the number of abortions.
  Finally, the bill contains a number of other objectionable 
provisions. Some of the most problematic would: (1) abruptly terminate 
the Agency for International Development's housing guaranty (HG) 
program, as well as abrogate existing HG agreements, except for South 
Africa, and prohibit foreign assistance to any country that fails to 
make timely payments or reimbursements on HG loans; (2) hinder 
negotiations aimed at resolving the plight of Vietnamese boat people; 
(3) unduly restrict the ability of the United States to participate in 
the United Nations Human Rights Committee; and (4) extend provisions of 
the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act that I have objected to in the 
past. I am also concerned that the bill, by restricting the time period 
during which economic assistance funds can be expended for longer-term 
development projects, would diminish the effectiveness of U.S. 
assistance programs.
  In returning H.R. 1561, I recognize that the bill contains a number 
of important authorities for the Department of State and the United 
States Information Agency. In its current form, however, the bill is 
inconsistent with the decades-long tradition of bipartisanship in U.S. 
foreign policy. It unduly interferes with the constitutional 
prerogatives of the President and would seriously impair the conduct of 
U.S. foreign affairs.
  For all these reasons, I am compelled to return H.R. 1561 without my 
approval.
                                                  William J. Clinton.  
  The White House, April 12, 1996.

                              {time}  2345

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Riggs). The objections of the President 
will be spread at large upon the Journal, and the message and the bill 
will be printed as a House document.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that further 
consideration of the veto message on the bill, H.R. 1561, be postponed 
until Tuesday, April 23, 1996.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________