[Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: WILLIAM J. CLINTON (2000-2001, Book III)]
[October 30, 2000]
[Pages 2379-2382]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]



[[Page 2379]]


Statement on Signing the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2001
October 30, 2000

    Today I have signed into law H.R. 4205, the ``Floyd D. Spence 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001,'' which 
authorizes FY 2001 appropriations for military activities of the 
Department of Defense (DOD), military construction, and defense 
activities of the Department of Energy (DOE). While I have concerns with 
several provisions in this Act, I have determined that H.R. 4205 
generally reflects my strong commitment to the Nation's security. It 
provides for critical national defense needs and priorities, maintains 
the readiness of our Armed Forces, supports my continued commitment to 
improving the quality of life for our military personnel and their 
families, and allows for the modernization of our weapons systems.
    In particular, this Act authorizes key elements of my plan to 
improve military compensation, including my request for a 3.7 percent 
across-the-board increase in basic pay for our Armed Forces. I am also 
pleased that the Act authorizes my request for increases in housing 
allowances, which will reduce servicemembers' out-of-pocket expenses. In 
providing service members with a supplemental subsistence allowance, 
H.R. 4205 begins to address the concern the Congress and I share with 
regard to servicemembers. In addition, the bill provides military 
retirees access to prescription drugs with low out-of-pocket costs, a 
significant benefit. I strongly support enactment of the 
Administration's prescription drug benefit for all Medicare retirees 
through the Medicare program. As prescription drugs play an increasingly 
important role in health care, it is imperative that our seniors have 
prescription drug coverage. Finally, the Act provides comprehensive 
health care coverage to military retirees over the age of 65. Although I 
am concerned that the Congress fails to deal fully with the high, long-
term cost of this new benefit, I am pleased overall with the way the Act 
supports individuals, who dedicated so much to the service of our 
country.
    I am also pleased that the Act supports my request for key programs 
to continue modernizing our military forces and reaffirms the $60 
billion in overall procurement funding I requested to meet the 
recommendation of the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review. I am encouraged 
that the Act includes funding for the Navy's LPD-17 Amphibious Ship, DD-
21 (the next-generation destroyer), the F/A-18 E/F, the Air Force's F-22 
tactical fighter aircraft, the Joint Strike Fighter, and support for the 
Army's transformation effort. These programs are critical to ensuring 
our Nation's military superiority into the 21st century. I am 
disappointed, however, that the Congress has again failed to support my 
proposal to authorize two additional rounds of base closure and 
realignment. The Department of Defense's base infrastructure is far too 
large for its military forces and must be reduced if the Department is 
to obtain adequate appropriations for readiness and modernization 
requirements during the next decade.
    I am pleased that the bill includes a program to compensate 
individuals who have suffered disabling and potentially fatal illnesses 
as a result of their work in the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons 
complex. My Administration has advocated compensating these workers for 
their heroic sacrifices in a manner that is fair, science-based, and 
workable, and I commend those in the Congress and in my Administration 
who have worked tirelessly toward this goal. The passage of this 
legislation is very encouraging and, while there are constitutional 
concerns with this provision that I will interpret as advisory, I 
recognize that much work will need to be done to ensure that this 
program is successfully implemented so that these workers can be fully 
and fairly compensated for their sacrifices.
    I am also pleased that the conferees included a provision 
transferring a majority of Naval Oil Shale Reserve No. 2 to the Ute 
Indian Tribe in Utah, and providing for cleanup of a former uranium mill 
tailings site near Moab, Utah, on the Colorado River. About 84,000 acres 
would be returned to the Ute Indian Tribe.
    H.R. 4205 also enacts provisions of the Directives I issued 
regarding the Navy range on Vieques, Puerto Rico. The Directives reflect 
an agreement with the Government of Puerto Rico that meets local 
concerns and enables our military personnel to resume training at 
Vieques. Like the agreement, the Act, most importantly,

[[Page 2380]]

provides that the residents will determine through a referendum whether 
there will be any training at Vieques beyond that which is critical to 
the readiness of the Navy and the Marine Corps to conduct at Vieques. 
This is training with nonexplosive ordnance for no more than 90 days per 
year through May 1, 2003. In addition to $40 million for projects to 
address the residents' current concerns related to the training, if they 
decide to allow the Navy to extend it, the Act authorizes $50 million to 
provide benefits typically enjoyed by residents in the vicinity of 
important military installations.
    The Act, additionally, requires the Navy to relinquish ownership of 
land not used for training. But, different from the agreement, it would 
have some of this land transferred to the Interior Department rather 
than local ownership and set a deadline for the transfer of May 1, 2001, 
rather than December 31, 2000. Further, if the Viequenses vote for all 
training to end, it requires the Navy to relinquish the land used for 
training, but would have most of that land transferred to Interior 
rather than the General Services Administration for disposal. These 
variations are relatively minor, but they are neither justifiable nor 
prudent. They are not justifiable because Interior and Puerto Rico would 
together manage the land not used for training that requires protection 
under either the Act or the agreement. Further, if the people of Vieques 
vote for all training to end May 1, 2003, there is no known reason why 
the Federal Government would want to continue to maintain most of the 
land used for training. The changes are not prudent because they 
resurrect a basic part of the issue that had largely been put to rest by 
the agreement--the military's credibility on Vieques community matters. 
We are, therefore, submitting legislation to further transfer the land 
at issue to Puerto Rican ownership or to GSA for disposal as is 
appropriate. And the Navy will transfer the land that the Act already 
would transfer to local ownership by December 31.
    I am concerned with two provisions of H.R. 4205 relating to the 
Department of Energy. First, the Act would limit to 3 years the term of 
office for the first person appointed to the position of Under Secretary 
for Nuclear Security at the Department of Energy and would restrict the 
President's ability to remove that official to cases of ``inefficiency, 
neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.'' Particularly in light of 
the sensitive duties assigned to this officer in the area of national 
security, I understand the phrase ``neglect of duty'' to include, among 
other things, a failure to comply with the lawful directives or policies 
of the President.
    Second, I am deeply disappointed that the Congress has taken upon 
itself to set greatly increased polygraph requirements that are 
unrealistic in scope, impractical in execution, and that would be 
strongly counterproductive in their impact on our national security. The 
bill also micromanages the Secretary of Energy's authority to grant 
temporary waivers to the polygraph requirement in a potentially damaging 
way, by explicitly directing him not to consider the scientific vitality 
of DOE laboratories. This directs the Secretary not to do his job, since 
maintaining the scientific vitality of DOE national laboratories is 
essential to our national security and is one of the Secretary's most 
important responsibilities. I am therefore signing the bill with the 
understanding that it cannot supersede the Secretary's responsibility to 
fulfill his national security obligations.
    I am disappointed that the Congress did not fund the chemical weapon 
destruction facility in Shchuch'ye, Russia. It is vital to U.S. security 
and nonproliferation interests to work with Russia to eliminate the 
5,450 tons of modern, nerve agent munitions at this site. I urge the 
Congress to restore funding for this critical threat reduction program 
next year.
    My Administration has worked hard to modernize our export controls 
and protect our national security while strengthening the global 
competitiveness of our high tech companies. Through our efforts, U.S. 
companies have been allowed to export computers that do not pose a 
threat to our national security. That is why I asked the Congress to 
reduce the congressional review period required from 180 to 30 days 
before I can adjust the notification threshold for high performance 
computer exports. Although the bill makes an adjustment that is an 
improvement from the status quo (60 days, but excluding time when the 
Congress has adjourned sine die), this notification period is still too 
long. Neither U.S. national security nor the global competitiveness of 
U.S. companies will be well served by such delays.
    The Act also would require the Department of Defense to contract 
only with U.S. air carriers that participate in the Civil Reserve Air 
Fleet program for the transportation abroad of passengers and property. 
This provision would limit

[[Page 2381]]

the ability of the executive branch, including DOD, to use the narrow 
authority in current law to waive Fly America restrictions on 
international transport of U.S. Government passengers and property in 
cases where the United States receives ``rights or benefits of similar 
magnitude.'' It could also impair the executive branch's ability to open 
foreign aviation markets, thus denying economic benefits to U.S. 
airlines, communities and consumers. My Administration strongly opposed 
this provision and favors its repeal.
    I am disappointed that the conferees did not include hate crimes 
legislation in this Act. The hate crimes legislation would have enhanced 
the Federal Government's ability to prosecute violent crimes motivated 
by race, color, religion, or national origin, and would have authorized 
Federal prosecution of crimes motivated by a victim's sexual 
orientation, gender, or disability. I will continue to fight for this 
important legislation, and urge Congress to enact it before it adjourns.
    The Act also raises other constitutional concerns. The 
constitutional separation of powers does not allow for a single Member 
of Congress to direct executive branch officers to take specified action 
through means other than duly enacted legislation. Thus, I will instruct 
the Secretaries concerned to treat congressional members' requests for 
the review and determination of proposals for posthumous or honorary 
promotions or appointments as precatory rather than mandatory. Another 
provision establishes a Board of Governors for the Civil Air Patrol. 
Insofar as this Board is an office of the Federal Government exercising 
significant authority, the provision for the appointment of the Board's 
members would raise concerns under the Appointments Clause. Accordingly, 
I will instruct the Secretary of the Air Force, in issuing the 
regulations authorized by this provision, to retain a degree of control 
over the Board that appropriately limits its authority. Finally, because 
the Constitution vests in the President the authority and responsibility 
to conduct the foreign and diplomatic relations of the United States, 
the Congress cannot purport to direct the executive branch to enter into 
an agreement with another country, and thus I will treat such language 
as advisory only.
    With respect to Government Information Security Reform, the Act 
directs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to delegate 
certain security policy and oversight authorities to the Secretary of 
Defense, the Director of Central Intelligence, and another agency head. 
The policies, programs, and procedures established by the Secretary of 
Defense, the Director of Central Intelligence, and other agency heads 
will remain subject to the approval of and oversight by the President 
and by offices within the Executive Office of the President in a manner 
consistent with existing law and policy.
    Finally, I have serious concerns with several personnel provisions. 
One provision of this Act requires the Secretary of Defense to authorize 
a pilot program for the resolution of equal employment opportunity 
complaints of civilian employees of the Department of Defense that 
waives procedural requirements of the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission (EEOC). Eliminating these procedural safeguards could leave 
civilian employees without important means to ensure the protection of 
their civil rights. Therefore, I am directing the Secretary of Defense 
to personally approve any pilot program, and that the Secretary approve 
no more than 3 pilot programs, 1 in a military department and 2 in 
Defense agencies. In order to assure that participation by civilian 
employees is truly voluntary, I am directing that the pilots provide 
that complaining parties may opt out of participation in the pilot at 
any time. Finally, I am directing that the Secretary submit an 
assessment of the pilots, together with the underlying data, to the EEOC 
within 180 days of the completion of the 3-year pilot period.
    I am also troubled by a provision affecting personnel demonstration 
projects that could undermine the merit system principles and might 
result in adverse budgetary consequences. I am, therefore, directing the 
Department of Defense to work with the Office of Personnel Management to 
resolve these issues before developing any plan to implement this new 
authority.
    Notwithstanding these concerns, I have signed this Act because it 
demonstrates this Nation's commitment to the readiness and well-being of 
our Armed Forces and provides for a modernization effort that will 
ensure the acquisition of weapon systems with the technologies necessary 
to meet the challenges of this new century.

                                                      William J. Clinton

 The White House,

 October 30, 2000.

[[Page 2382]]

Note: H.R. 4205, approved October 30, which incorporated the Floyd D. 
Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 as an 
appendix, was assigned Public Law No. 106-398.