[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 32, Number 7 (Monday, February 19, 1996)]
[Pages 260-262]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Statement on Signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1996

February 10, 1996

    Today I have signed into law S. 1124, the ``National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996.'' This Act authorizes 
appropriations for Department of Defense military activities, including 
military construction, and defense activities of the Department of 
Energy. It also provides, extends, or amends various authorities 
relating to national defense programs and activities.
    I vetoed the original version of this legislation, H.R. 1530, on 
December 28, 1995. Since that time, the Congress has addressed my three 
central national security concerns about the earlier bill. First, the 
Congress deleted the provisions requiring deployment by 2003 of a costly 
missile defense system designed to defend against a long-range missile 
threat, which our intelligence community does not foresee in the next 
decade. Such a course of action would have prevented us from deploying 
the best possible technology if a real threat were to emerge at a later 
time. Moreover, implementation of the system called for in H.R. 1530 
would probably have been inconsistent with the Anti-Ballistic Missile 
Treaty.
    Second, the Congress deleted the requirement that the President 
submit a supplemental appropriations request within a defined time 
period after commencement of certain contingency and other operations, 
such as the ongoing military operations in Bosnia. The Act does, 
however, continue to contain unwarranted restrictions on the manner in 
which such operations may be funded.
    Third, the Congress deleted the restriction on the President's 
authority to make and implement decisions relating to the operational or 
tactical control of elements of the U.S. armed forces, a restriction 
which clearly infringed on the President's constitutional authority as 
Commander in Chief.
    The Act also includes a number of provisions of great importance to 
our national defense and to the men and women in our armed forces, 
authorizing critical defense programs to be continued and new ones to be 
initiated. The Act authorizes the full 2.4% increase in pay and 
allowances for our military personnel. It authorizes the Military 
Housing Privatization Initiative, which provides new authority to 
acquire and improve military housing and supporting facilities through 
the use of private expertise and capital. It authorizes necessary 
military construction and NATO infrastructure programs. It continues the 
Department of Energy's science-based Stockpile Stewardship program. It 
provides for the sale of the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve.
    The Act also contains the Administration's proposal to allow the 
United States to extra- 

[[Page 261]]

dite indicted war criminals and provide evidence directly to the 
International War Crimes Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and 
Rwanda--a provision that should encourage others to cooperate fully with 
the War Crimes Tribunal.
    And, this legislation makes important strides in the area of 
procurement reform, which will help produce a better-equipped military 
for less money. The legislation gives agencies enhanced authority and 
flexibility in their use of computers and telecommunications, while 
insisting on accountability. Consistent with the Administration's 
efforts under the National Performance Review to create a government 
that works better and costs less, the Act encourages agencies to adopt 
the best practices of successful companies in the private sector. And 
the Act includes measures to facilitate the purchase of commercially-
available goods and services, to streamline and clarify procurement 
integrity laws, and to substantially improve the process for resolving 
bid protests for information technology.
    All of these measures are important to the effective and efficient 
operation of our armed forces. I regret, however, that this legislation 
continues to contain a number of provisions, identified in my earlier 
veto message, that will adversely affect the Defense Department's 
ability to carry out its national defense mission.
    First, I am strongly opposed, as is the Department of Defense, to 
the provision requiring the discharge of military personnel living with 
the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), where such discharge is not 
required by any medical, public health, or military purpose. This 
provision is blatantly discriminatory and highly punitive to service 
members and their families. People living with HIV can and do lead full 
and productive lives, provide for their families, and contribute to the 
well-being of our Nation. The men and women affected by this provision 
are ready, willing and able to serve their country with honor and should 
be allowed to continue to do so.
    Therefore, I strongly support the current efforts in the Congress to 
repeal this provision before a single service member is discharged from 
the armed forces.
    Moreover, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff have advised me that the arbitrary discharge of these 
men and women would be both unwarranted and unwise; that such discharge 
is unnecessary as a matter of sound military policy; and that 
discharging service members deemed fit for duty would waste the 
Government's investment in the training of these people and would be 
disruptive to the military programs in which they play an integral role.
    I agree.
    Consequently, I have concluded that this discriminatory provision is 
unconstitutional. Specifically, it violates equal protection by 
requiring the discharge of qualified service members living with HIV who 
are medically able to serve, without furthering any legitimate 
governmental purpose. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt said in 1943, 
explaining his decision to sign an important appropriations bill 
notwithstanding the fact that it contained a provision that infringed 
upon individual rights, ``I cannot . . . yield without placing on record 
my view that this provision is not only unwise and discriminatory, but 
unconstitutional.''
    In accordance with my constitutional determination, the Attorney 
General will decline to defend this provision. Instead, the Attorney 
General will inform the House and Senate of this determination so that 
they may, if they wish, present to the courts their argument that the 
provision should be sustained.
    Further, to mitigate any unfair burden that this legislation could 
place on these service members and their families pending any repeal or 
judicial invalidation, I have directed the Secretaries of Defense, 
Veterans Affairs, and Transportation, in carrying out the provisions of 
this Act, to take all steps necessary to ensure that these service 
members receive the full benefits to which they are entitled--including, 
among other things, disability retirement pay, health care coverage for 
their families and transition benefits such as vocational education.
    I am troubled by another provision in this Act, which restricts the 
ability of service women and military dependents to obtain privately-
funded abortions in military facili- 

[[Page 262]]

ties overseas. I remain firmly opposed to this provision. In many 
countries, these U.S. facilities provide the only accessible safe source 
for these medical services. I will support congressional efforts to 
repeal this and a similar provision that became law in the ``Department 
of Defense Appropriations Act, 1996.''
    Finally, I note that section 1404 of the Act expresses the sense of 
the Congress that the Secretary of Defense should not take any steps 
toward dismantling or retiring specific strategic nuclear delivery 
systems until the START II Treaty enters into force, and it prohibits 
obligating or expending funds in fiscal year 1996 for such steps. 
Reading the provisions of section 1404 together, I interpret the section 
to prohibit obligations or expenditures only before the START II Treaty 
enters into force. The explanation of Section 1404 in the conference 
report supports this interpretation.
                                            William J. Clinton
The White House,
February 10, 1996.

Note: S. 1124, approved February 10, was assigned Public Law No. 104-
106.