[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 30, Number 18 (Monday, May 9, 1994)]
[Pages 948-951]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Statement on Signing the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal 
Years 1994 and 1995

April 30, 1994

    Today I have signed into law H.R. 2333, the ``Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995.'' This Act authorizes 
critically needed appropriations and provides important authorities for 
the Department of State, the United States Information Agency (USIA), 
the Peace Corps, and the United States Arms Control and Disarmament 
Agency (USACDA). I appreciate the Congress' cooperation in passing a 
bill that maintains many of the Administration's requests and provides 
management authorities that will improve the operations of the 
Department of State and related agencies during a period of fiscal 
constraint.
    I am especially pleased that this legislation includes language 
authorizing implementation of the Administration's international 
broadcasting reorganization plan. The plan, to be implemented over 2 
fiscal years, will achieve projected savings of approximately $400 
million over 4 years, while preserving and enhancing the program 
quality, effectiveness, and professional integrity of U.S.-funded 
broadcast services. These services include the Voice of America, Radio 
Free Europe, Radio Liberty, Radio and Television Marti, WorldNet, and a 
new Radio Free Asia operation.
    I very much appreciate that the funding authorizations for the 
Department of State, USIA, and other agencies are sufficient to cover 
appropriations for this fiscal year, and for the levels requested by the 
Administration for fiscal year 1995. I also appreciate the 
authorizations for Contributions to International Organizations and 
Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities, which are at 
the Administration's request level, plus an additional $670 million in 
authorization provided for a portion of the anticipated

[[Page 949]]

shortfall in fiscal year 1994 peacekeeping funds.
    However, earmarks in the Department of State's main operating 
accounts for activities not requested by the Administration will 
severely restrict the Department's ability to meet planned levels for 
critical investments in its information system and other infrastructure 
improvements. As part of the Department's streamlining efforts, and with 
a constrained budget, the Secretary of State needs the flexibility to 
allocate scarce resources where they are needed most.
    I am pleased at the inclusion of authorities necessary to implement 
the Department of State's reorganization plan. I regret, however, the 
provision that interferes with the Secretary's plan to merge the Office 
of the Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism into the proposed Bureau of 
Narcotics, Terrorism, and Crime, where this activity would receive the 
coordinated, high-level attention that I believe would be the most 
effective in fighting terrorism.
    The bill also contains many useful authorities that will assist the 
Department in improving the efficiency of its operations both 
domestically and overseas. These include a new visa fee to be used for 
upgrading consular systems and expanded authority to hire U.S. citizens 
at posts abroad. Despite these and many other useful authorities 
contained in this bill, I have serious reservations concerning a number 
of its provisions.
    Section 141 would require the Department of State to allow local 
guard contracts awarded to U.S. firms to be paid in U.S. dollars in 
certain countries. Because many countries require that payment for 
services rendered locally be paid in local currency, this provision 
could force the United States to violate both host country law and its 
obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. I will 
seek to implement this section in the manner most consistent with U.S. 
obligations under international law.
    Other provisions raise constitutional concerns. Article II of the 
Constitution confers the Executive power of the United States on the 
President alone. Executive power includes special authority in the area 
of foreign affairs. Certain provisions in H.R. 2333, however, could be 
construed so as to interfere with the discharge of my constitutional 
responsibilities.
    For example, section 412 (reforms in the World Health Organization), 
section 501 (protection of refugee women and children), section 527(b) 
(loans by international financial institutions to governments that have 
expropriated property of U.S. citizens), and section 823 (loans or other 
payments by international financial institutions for the purpose of 
acquiring nuclear materials by non-nuclear states), purport specifically 
to direct the President on how to proceed in negotiations with 
international organizations. These provisions might be construed to 
require the Executive branch to espouse certain substantive positions 
regarding specific issues. I support the policies underlying these 
sections. My constitutional authority over foreign affairs, however, 
necessarily entails discretion over these matters. Accordingly, I shall 
construe these provisions to be precatory.
    Section 221 (the establishment of an office in Lhasa, Tibet), 
section 236 (an exchange program with the people of Tibet), and section 
573 (an Office of Cambodian Genocide Investigation, the activities of 
which are to be carried out primarily in Cambodia), could also interfere 
with the President's constitutional prerogatives. I am sympathetic to 
the goals of these provisions. However, they could be construed to 
require the President to negotiate with foreign countries or to take 
actions in those countries without their consent. I will, therefore, 
implement them to the extent consistent with my constitutional 
responsibilities.
    As with the resources allocated to the Department of State, I 
appreciate the appropriations authorizations provided for USIA for 
fiscal years 1994 and 1995. There are, however, certain earmarks, 
particularly in the exchange programs, that inhibit the flexibility that 
USIA needs to meet changing priorities. In addition, I understand that 
the 1994 appropriations authorizations provided for USIA for salaries 
and expenses includes the authorization for administrative and staff 
costs for the ``Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs.''
    I regret the repeal of the Voice of America broadcast charter 
language (P.L. 94-350).

[[Page 950]]

My Administration will work with the Congress to address this issue 
further.
    Section 401 requires certain withholdings from U.S. assessed 
contributions for the United Nations (U.N.) regular budget, and from the 
fiscal year 1994 supplemental until the President makes the requisite 
certification that the U.N. has established an office of and appointed 
an Inspector General, empowered with specified authorities. Section 404 
also sets forth ceilings on assessments on the United States for 
peacekeeping contributions. Although I share the Congress' goal of 
encouraging U.N. reform and broader cost sharing, I cannot endorse the 
method proposed by these provisions because they could place the United 
States in violation of its international treaty obligations if reform is 
not achieved within the stated time.
    Section 407 sets forth new reporting and notification requirements, 
including a requirement for 15-day advance notification (with no waiver 
provision) before the United States provides certain in-kind assistance 
to support U.N. peacekeeping operations. It is understood that the 
Congress, however, does not consider this provision to be subject to the 
regular procedures on reprogramming notifications. It is imperative at 
times to provide such assistance on an urgent basis to further U.S. 
foreign policy interests. I will, therefore, construe these reporting 
and notification requirements consistent with my constitutional 
prerogatives and responsibilities as Commander in Chief and head of the 
Executive branch. I also note the understanding reached with the 
Congress that this notification process will not include congressional 
``holds'' on assistance when notification does occur.
    The conference report accompanying H.R. 2333, with respect to 
section 525(a), Free Trade in Ideas, purports to describe the 
Administration's policy with respect to restrictions on travel or 
exchanges in the context of economic embargoes. We will carefully 
consider the sense of the Congress as we complete our review of the 
standards for general and specific licenses under embargo programs. We 
have not, however, committed as a matter of policy to broad regulatory 
or administrative changes to remove restrictions affecting travel or 
exchanges for informational, educational, religious, cultural, or 
humanitarian purposes or for public performance or exhibitions. Nor have 
we initiated any action with respect to visa or currency restrictions.
    Title VII, the Arms Control and Nonproliferation Act of 1994, 
reflects the principle that the USACDA must be a key participant on arms 
control and nonproliferation matters. The conference report accompanying 
H.R. 2333 calls for a presumption that the President should direct the 
USACDA to have primary responsibility for nonproliferation matters 
absent compelling reasons to do otherwise. It also suggests specific 
areas of responsibility in the nonproliferation field that should be 
shifted to the USACDA. I do not accept either the stated presumption or 
the suggested shift, since such limitations would infringe on the 
discretion of the President in carrying out foreign affairs.
    Title VIII contains provisions that raise significant constitutional 
concerns. Section 824 would require an ``opportunity for a hearing on 
the record'' prior to a Presidential determination to impose sanctions 
on any person contributing to nuclear proliferation through financial 
transactions. It would also subject this determination to judicial 
review under the Administrative Procedures Act. These are extraordinary 
and unwarranted procedural requirements for a Presidential determination 
in the area of foreign affairs, and they raise serious constitutional 
concerns. The delay in holding hearings and the possibility of delay 
pending judicial review would severely undermine the effectiveness of 
these sanctions. They would also eliminate the flexibility needed to 
impose sanctions quickly to address urgent foreign policy problems and 
interfere with our nonproliferation efforts. Nor is it clear how these 
procedures could function in view of the classified nature of much of 
the material involved. In addition, the broad reach of section 824 
(which covers any person, not just financial entities) would complicate 
Federal enforcement of the proposed sanctions and raises additional 
constitutional questions when coupled with the extent of the specified 
sanctions (i.e., a complete prohibition on the conduct of any new 
business activities).

[[Page 951]]

    The juxtaposition of these elements in section 824 makes the 
provision essentially unworkable. I have been assured that this 
provision will be corrected in a manner acceptable to the Administration 
at the earliest possible date. Pending these corrections, and 
particularly in light of the constitutional problems, I will interpret 
the statute as providing me discretion to make the determinations 
provided for in this section.
    Finally, section 134 provides that whenever the Department of State 
enters into a lease-purchase agreement involving foreign countries, the 
Department shall account for such transactions ``in accordance with 
fiscal year obligations.'' The Administration's interpretation is that 
this provision does not waive the scoring rules governing lease-
purchases under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.
                                            William J. Clinton
The White House,
April 30, 1994.

Note: H.R. 2333, approved April 30, was assigned Public Law No. 103-236.