October 5, 1999
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
______________________________________________________
For Immediate Release October 5, 1999
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I have signed into law S. 1059, the "National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000." This Act authorizes FY 2000
appropriations for military activities of the Department of Defense,
military construction, and defense activities of the Department of
Energy. Although I have serious reservations about some portions of this
Act, I believe S. 1059 provides for a strong national defense, maintains
our military readiness, and supports our deep commitment to a better
quality of life for our military personnel and their families.
The more we ask of our Armed Forces, the greater our obligation to
give them the support, training, and equipment they need. We have a
responsibility to give them the tools to take on new missions while
maintaining their readiness to defend our country and defeat any
adversary; to make sure they can deploy away from home, knowing their
families have the quality of life they deserve; to attract talented young
Americans to serve; and to make certain their service is not only
rewarding, but well rewarded -- from recruitment to retirement.
This Act helps us meet that responsibility. It endorses my
comprehensive program of improvements to military pay and retirement
benefits, which add up to the largest increase in military compensation
in a generation. The Act increases bonuses for enlistment and
reenlistment, providing incentives needed to recruit and retain skilled
and motivated personnel and to maintain readiness.
The Act also helps make good on my pledge to keep our Armed Forces the
best equipped fighting force on earth. It carries forward our
modernization program by funding the F-22 stealth fighter, the V-22
Osprey, the Comanche helicopter, advanced destroyers, submarines and
amphibious ships, and a new generation of precision munitions. I commend
the Congress for recognizing the need to improve the way we dispose of
property at closing military bases. In April of this year, I requested
the authority to transfer former military base property to com-munities
at no cost if they use the property for job-generating economic
development. This new policy of no-cost Economic Development Conveyances
will allow us to speed the transfer of such property to local communities
and minimize the time that the property lies fallow. In this way, we can
give an economic jump start to affected communities and help to stimulate
the investments necessary to attract new job-creating businesses.
I am pleased with the Act's support for missile defense capabilities.
The Act authorizes important funding for both theater and national
missile defense. I am particularly pleased that the Act authorizes full
funding for the Medium Extended Air Defense System cooperative program
with Germany and Italy, authorizes funding for national missile defense
military construction planning and design, and helps fix cost growth
problems in the Patriot Advance Capability-3 and Navy Area Defense
programs. The Act's requirement to develop Theater High Altitude Area
Defense and Navy Theater Wide systems concurrently is being taken into
account in the Department's review of its acquisition strategy for these
upper-tier programs.
more
(OVER)
2
Although I believe most provisions of the Act -- especially the
quality of life enhancements -- are beneficial and support a strong
national defense, I have strong reservations about a number of provisions
of S. 1059.
The most troubling features of the Act involve the reorganization of
the nuclear defense functions within the Department of Energy. The
original reorganization plan adopted by the Senate reflected a
constructive effort to strengthen the effectiveness and security of the
activities of the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons laboratories.
Unfortunately, the success of this effort is jeopardized by changes that
emerged from the conference, which altered the final product, making it
weaker in enhancing national security. Particularly objec-tionable are
features of the legislative charter of the new National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) that purport to isolate personnel and contractors
of the NNSA from outside direction, and limit the Secretary's ability to
employ his authorities to direct -- both personally and through
subordinates of his own choosing -- the activities and personnel of the
NNSA. Unaddressed, these deficiencies of the Act would impair effective
health and safety oversight and program direction of the Department's
nuclear defense complex.
Other provisions of S. 1059 have been faulted by the Attorneys General
of over 40 States as placing in question the established duty of the
Department of Energy's nuclear defense complex to comply with the
procedural and substantive requirements of environmental laws. Moreover,
the Act removes from the Secretary his direct authority over certain
extremely sensitive classified programs specified in the Atomic Energy
Act, and establishes in the NNSA separate support functions -- such as
contracting, personnel, public affairs, and legal -- that are redundant
with those now within the Depart-ment. This redundancy even extends to
the counterintelligence office reporting directly to the Secretary that
was established in accordance with my Presidential Decision Directive 61,
and which was designed to be the single authoritative source of
counter-intelligence guidance throughout the Department. The Act
establishes a companion counterintelligence entity within the NNSA,
compounding simple redundancy with the blurring of lines of authority
that can too readily result because the NNSA is largely immunized from
outside direction within the Department.
Experience teaches that these are not abstract deficiencies. As the
Hoover Commission concluded half a century ago, the accountability of a
Cabinet Department head is not complete without the legal authority to
meet the legal respon-sibilities for which that person is accountable.
The Act's provisions summarized above skew that authority. These
provisions blur the clear and unambiguous lines of authority intended by
Presidential Decision Directive 61, and impair the Secretary of Energy's
ability to assure compliance at all levels within the Department of
Energy with instructions he may receive in meeting his national defense
responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act.
The responsibilities placed by S. 1059 in the National Nuclear
Security Administration potentially are of the most significant breadth,
and the extent of the Secretary of Energy's authority with respect to
those responsibilities is placed in doubt by various provisions of the
Act. Therefore, by this Statement I direct and state the following:
1. Until further notice, the Secretary of Energy shall perform all
duties and functions of the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security.
more
3
2. The Secretary is instructed to guide and direct all personnel of
the National Nuclear Security Administration by using his authority, to
the extent permissible by law, to assign any Departmental officer or
employee to a concurrent office within the NNSA.
3. The Secretary is further directed to carry out the foregoing
instructions in a manner that assures the Act is not asserted as having
altered the environmental compliance requirements, both procedural and
substantive, previously imposed by Federal law on all the Department's
activities.
4. In carrying out these instructions, the Secretary shall, to the
extent permissible under law, mitigate the risks to clear chain of
command presented by the Act's establishment of other redundant functions
by the NNSA. He shall also carry out these instructions to enable
research entities, other than those of the Department's nuclear defense
complex that fund research by the weapons laboratories, to continue to
govern conduct of the research they have commissioned.
5. I direct the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to
work expeditiously with the Secretary of Energy to facilitate any
administrative actions that may be necessary to enable the Secretary to
carry out the instructions in this Statement.
The expansive national security responsibilities now apparently
contemplated by the Act for the new Under Secretary for Nuclear Security
make selection of a nominee an especially weighty judgment. Legislative
action by the Congress to remedy the deficiencies described above and to
harmonize the Secretary of Energy's authorities with those of the new
Under Secretary that will be in charge of the NNSA will help identify an
appropriately qualified nominee. The actions directed in this Statement
shall remain in force, to continue until further notice.
I am concerned with the tone and language of a number of provisions of
S. 1059 relating to China, which could be detrimental to our interests.
China is undergoing a profoundly important but uncertain process of
change, and I believe we must work for the best possible outcome, even as
we prepare for any outcome. The Act's provision requiring annual reports
on Chinese military power, similar to those previously produced on Soviet
military power, assumes an outcome that is far from foreordained -- that
China is bent on becoming a military threat to the United States. I
believe we should not make it more likely that China will choose this
path by acting as if the decision has already been made. The provision
establishing the Center for Study of Chinese Military Affairs is
troubling for the same reason. The Secretary of Defense will ensure that
the Center is held to the highest standards of scholarship and
impartiality and that it explores a wide range of perspectives on the
Chinese military.
Our long-term strategy must be to encourage China to grow into a more
prosperous and open society; to integrate China into the institutions
that promote global norms on proliferation, trade, the environment, and
human rights; to cooperate where we agree, even as we defend our
interests and values with realism and candor where we do not. We cannot
do that simply by con-fronting China or seeking to contain it. We can
only do that if we maintain a policy of principled, purposeful engagement
with China's government and China's people.
more
(OVER)
4
I intend to implement the China provisions of the bill in a manner
consistent with this policy, including, where appropriate, combining
several of the reporting requirements.
Further, I am disappointed that S. 1059 contains damaging restrictions
on our threat reduction programs in the former Soviet Union. Since 1992,
these programs have helped to deactivate almost 5,000 nuclear warheads in
the former Soviet Union; eliminate nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Belarus,
and Kazakhstan; strengthen the security of nuclear weapons and materials
at over 100 sites in the region; tighten export controls and detect
illicit trafficking; engage over 30,000 former weapons scientists in
civilian research; and purchase hundreds of tons of highly enriched
uranium from dismantled Russian weapons.
Restrictions on the Cooperative Threat Reduction program and new
certification requirements on the Nuclear Cities Initiative threaten to
slow the pace of Russian disarmament, which is contrary to our national
interests. I urge that future appropriations for the Nuclear Cities
Initiative not be conditioned on this certification. I also urge the
Congress to reverse its current ban on chemical weapons destruction
assistance to Russia.
In order to avoid any confusion among our allies or elsewhere
regarding the new NATO Strategic Concept, I feel compelled to make clear
that the document is a political, not a legal, document. As such, the
Strategic Concept does not create any new commitment or obligation within
my under-standing of section 1221(a) of the Act, and therefore, will not
be submitted to the Senate for advice and consent.
I am concerned about section 1232, which contains a funding limitation
with respect to continuous deployment of United States Armed Forces in
Haiti pursuant to Operation Uphold Democracy. I have decided to
terminate the continuous deployment of forces in Haiti, and I intend to
keep the Congress informed with respect to any future deployments to
Haiti; however, I will interpret this provision consistent with my
constitutional responsibilities as President and Commander in Chief.
A number of other provisions of this bill raise serious constitutional
concerns. Because the President is the Commander in Chief and the Chief
Executive under the Constitution, the Congress may not interfere with the
President's duty to protect classified and other sensitive national
security information or his responsibility to control the disclosure of
such information by subordinate officials of the executive branch
(sections 1042, 3150, and 3164). Furthermore, because the Constitution
vests the conduct of foreign affairs in the President, the Congress may
not direct that the President initiate discussions or negotiations with
foreign governments (sections 1407 and 1408). Nor may the Congress
unduly restrict the President's constitutional appointment authority by
limiting the President's selection to individuals recommended by a
subordinate officer (section 557). To the extent that these provisions
conflict with my constitutional responsibilities in these areas, I will
construe them where possible to avoid such conflicts, and where it is
impossible to do so, I will treat them as advisory. I hereby direct all
executive branch officials to do likewise.
Finally, S. 1059 provides for participation in the Thrift Savings Plan
by full-time members of the uniformed services and reservists, but
subject to my proposing and the Congress'
more
5
passage of separate legislation to pay for the costs of their
participa-tion. I shall consider this proposal when determining my
Fiscal Year 2001 Budget.
Notwithstanding the concerns noted above, I believe that the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, as a whole, will enhance
our national security and help us achieve our military and related
defense objectives. By providing the necessary support for our forces,
it will ensure continued U.S. global leadership well into the 21st
century.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 5, 1999.
# # #
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
