President Clinton's Statement on National Defense Authorization Act

[Susan Gawarecki <loc@icx.net>]

This is a resend due to the CPEO server being down:

Seth Kirshenberg, Executive Director of Energy Communities Alliance sent
the following out on the ECA server:

Below is President Clinton's Statement regarding the signing of S. 1059,
the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000."

Specifically, people interested in DOE issues should read the section on
the National Nuclear Security Administration which the President called
the "most troubling features of the Act"

Also, note that the President highlighted his initiative to assist DOD
base closure commuities "In April of this year, I requested the
authority to transfer former military base property to communities 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." -- DOE should follow the President's lead and assist DOE
communities in the same manner.

Seth Kirshenberg

The full statement is repeated below:

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
communities 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.

   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 objectionable 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 Department.  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 responsibilities 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.

   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 confronting 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.

   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 understanding 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' passage of separate
legislation to pay for the costs of their participation.  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.

                                #  #  #
-- 
==================================================
Susan L. Gawarecki, Ph.D., Executive Director
Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee, Inc.
136 South Illinois Avenue, Suite 208
Oak Ridge, Tennessee  37830
Phone (423) 483-1333; Fax (423) 482-6572; E-mail loc@icx.net
VISIT OUR UPDATED WEB SITE:  http://www.local-oversight.org
==================================================