[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 32, Number 16 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Pages 661-662]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Message to the House of Representatives Returning Without Approval 
Foreign Relations Legislation

April 12, 1996

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 bi-
partisan policy toward China 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

[[Page 662]]

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. and to reduce the assessed U.S. 
share of 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.

Note: This item was not received in time for publication in the 
appropriate issue.