101st Congress, 1st Session House Document 101-113

VETO OF H.R. 2939

MESSAGE

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

TRANSMITTING

HIS VETO OF H.R. 2939, A BILL MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR

FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1990,

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

N o v e m b e r 19, 1989.—Message and accompanying bill referred to the

Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed

3 9 -0 12

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1989
To the House of Representatives: I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 2939, the ap­ propriations bill for foreign operations, export financing, and relat­ ed programs for the fiscal year 1990. I do not take this action lightly. In a good faith effort to resolve the constitutional and other problems contained in the bill, the Ad­ ministration has engaged in extensive negotiations with the Con­ gress. Those negotiations have not succeeded, and serious problems remain. Consequently, I must veto this bill. Several sections of the bill, and in particular Section 582, inter­ fere with my constitutional authority to conduct the foreign rela­ tions of the United States. The bill would also require the expendi­ ture of millions of dollars to support a United Nations fund that, in turn, strongly defends and supports a foreign nation’s policy of co­ ercive abortion. United States assistance to the fund reverses exist­ ing United States policy and is unacceptable. Section 582(a) would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of funds appropriated by the Act “for the purpose of furthering any military or foreign policy activity which is contrary to United States law.” Section 582(b) would prohibit the use of funds appro­ priated by the Act “to solicit the provision of funds by any foreign government (including any instrumentality or agency thereof), for­ eign person, or United States person, for the purpose of furthering any military or foreign policy objective which is contrary to United States law.” Subsequent provisions include a set of limiting defini­ tions as well as a general limiting construction for the entire sec­ tion. Although I believe that the limiting provision may allow for a constitutional construction of Section 582, the section as a whole remains sufficiently ambiguous to present an unacceptable risk that it will chill the conduct of our Nation’s foreign affairs. Section 582 appears designed to prohibit, among other things, consultation between the United States and another sovereign nation regarding actions that nation may wish to undertake. It has, however, long been recognized—by the Framers, by the Su­ preme Court, and by past Congresses—that the President, both per­ sonally and through his subordinates in the executive branch, pos­ sesses the constitutional authority to communicate freely with rep­ resentatives of foreign governments, and to encourage foreign na­ tions to take such actions as the President believes are in our Na­ tion’s interest. Although Section 582(e) states that the section is no intended to limit the ability of the President or his subordinates to express their views, I am not convinced that this provision is suffi­ cient to remove all constitutional doubt concerning Section 582. There would remain an unacceptable degree of uncertainty con­ cerning what the section is intended to cover, and this uncertainty would inevitably restrict our contacts with foreign governments. I believe that this section impermissibly circumscribes a fundamen­ tal responsibility that the Constitution had entrusted to the Presi­ dent—the protection of our Nation’s security through a vigorous representation of our interests abroad. I believe it is neither fair nor wise to make those who formulate and execute foreign policy serve the public under a vague and sweeping prohibition.

(l)
2

I am sensitive to the concerns that have prompted the adoption of Section 582. I have repeatedly emphasized in my meetings w ith the congressional leadership that through close consultation w ith the Congress I intend to build a new spirit of cooperation and tr u s t between the legislative and executive branches. Section 582, howev­ er, is inimical to that spirit of trust and would cast a shadow over the executive branch in the conduct of our foreign policy at a tim e when the course of world events necessitates great flexibility. The bill would also require the use of appropriated funds to su p ­ port the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, which su p ­ ports and participates in the management of a program in a for­ eign nation that involves coercive abortion. On October 6, 1989, I informed the Congress of my continued strong support of the Kemp-Kasten Amendment, also known as th e Kemp-Inouye-Helms Amendment, which has applied to foreign op­ erations appropriations since 1985. The Kemp-Kasten Amendment denies United States population assistance funds to any organiza­ tion that, as determined by the President, supports, or participates in the management of, a program of coercive abortion or involun­ tary sterilization. I stated that if this bill as ultimately presented to me by the Congress contained any language which would weaken the current Kemp-Kasten provision, or exempt the U nited Nations Fund or any other organization from its full application, I would veto the bill. Let me restate my strong support for international family p la n ­ ning programs, and my view that the United States should support such efforts so long as they do not violate Kemp-Kasten or o th er established policies of the U.S. Government. Unfortunately, the Congress has inserted in the bill the so-called Mikulski Amendment, which would fatally weaken the integrity of the Kemp-Kasten anti-coercion provision by earmarking funds for the United Nations Fund, the only organization that has ever been determined to violate that provision. The Fund participates in and strongly defends the program of a particular foreign government which relies heavily upon compulsory abortion. This fund has re ­ ceived no United States assistance since 1985, precisely because of its involvement in this coercive abortion policy. The current bill thus represents a radical and unwarranted change in policy. The Mikulski Amendment is rendered no more acceptable by a clause which requires the Fund to keep its books in a manner so as .to prevent the direct flow of United States assistance to the p ar­ ticular foreign government. The current Kemp-Kasten law tells all family planning organizations that they must refrain from support­ ing coercive programs, or the United States will direct its resources to alternative organizations which respect the fundamental princi­ ple of voluntariness. The bill would negate this essential hum an rights principle through substitution of a simple accounting* re ­ quirement, and I find this unacceptable. The bookkeeping provision would clearly place the United States in the position of supporting a program that in turn supports coercive abortions, a program th a t is inconsistent with American values. Such support would u n d er­ mine our position that family planning must be voluntary and would contradict the human rights character of our foreign policy around the world.
3

Although these provisions, standing alone, would lead me to veto this bill, many other provisions of the bill also pose constitutional problems. The Administration has discussed those provisions in detail in letters to both houses of Congress. I look forward to working with the Congress to craft a bill that I can enthusiastically support and to passage of an appropriations bill that will facilitate our many foreign policy initiatives.

George Bush.

The White House, November 19, 1989.