CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE January 3, 1991

nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

In summary, H.R. 4653 contains serious and

unacceptable flaws that would hamper our

efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and to ease restrictions on the legitimate sale of dual-use goods

to acceptable users. Rather than sign this

bill. I have chosen to take a series of steps

under existing authorities to ensure that

mutually shared objectives are met in a

timely and effective manner. I will work

with the Congress, upon its return, to enact

an appropriate extension of the Export Administration Act.

GEORGE BUSH.

THE WHITE HOUSE, November 16, 1990.

H.R. 3134-MEMORANDUM Or DISAPPROVAL

In the closing days of the 101st Congress,

two bills were passed providing for somewhat

different benefits for the surviving spouses of

assassinated Federal judges. These survivors

have suffered profound and tragic losses, and

they have our deepest sympathies. I am

pleased that the Congress has passed legislation allowing these individuals to receive additional benefits.

One bill-H.R. 5316, the "Judicial Improvements Act of 1990"-has not yet been presented to me for approval. Upon its presentation to me, I plan to approve H.R. 5316,

which contains provisions that would increase the benefits, subject to certain limits,

for surviving spouses of all assassinated Federal judges on an equitable basis.

My approval of H.R. 5316 makes the approval of another bill-H.R. 3134-unnecessary. Therefore, I am withholding my approval of H.R. 3134, a bill which would have

provided somewhat different benefits for

Mrs. Joan R. Daronco. This action, in conJunction with my planned approval of H.R.

5316, will ensure that Mrs. Daronco and all

such surviving spouses receive their benefits

in an equitable manner.

GEORGE BUSH.

THE WHITE HOUSE, November 16, 1990.

S. 321-MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL

I am withholding my approval of S. 321, the

"Indian Preference Act of 1990." S. 321 would

establish, among other things, a program to

provide preferences to qualifying Indian enterprises in the award of Federal grants or

contracts using funds appropriated for the

benefit of Indians. The bill would impose

new, expensive, and often duplicative program responsibilities on the Secretary of the

Interior that would be difficult to implement. It would also likely result in Federal

agencies assuming new, unfunded liabilities

related to Indian preference enterprises.

My Administration strongly supports the

goals of S. 321 and is committed to helping

alleviate the widespread unemployment and

underemployment on Indian reservations.

Moreover, the Administration supports efforts to prevent companies from misusing

Federal Indian preference programs. Accordingly, amendments are needed to the "Buy

Indian Act" to increase Indian economic

self-sufficiency and employment opportunities and to prevent utilization of preference

provisions by non-qualifying companies.

However, S. 321 is seriously flawed and would

create more problems than it would solve.

I am withholding my approval of S. 321 to

allow further review of the issues in the

102nd Congress. Many of the issues raised by

S. 321 are complex and deserve a full airing

in both Houses of Congress. The House

passed S. 321 in the final days of the 101st

Congress without sufficient consideration of

these complex issues.

In the interim, I am directing the Secretary of the Interior to take the necessary

steps to address the contracting problems

identified in the November 1989 report of the

Special Committee on Investigations of the

Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs.

In particular, I am directing the Secretary

to issue guidelines that set forth specific

procedures to govern Bureau of Indian Affairs field contracting officers in conducting

pre-award reviews of grants and contracts. I

am also directing the Secretary to develop

and submit proposed regulations to implement the "Buy Indian Act" for Executive review within 90 days.

GEORGE BUSH.

THE WHITE HOUSE, November 16, 1990.

S. 2834-MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL

I have withheld my signature from S. 2834,

the proposed "Intelligence Authorization

Act, Fiscal Year 1991," thereby preventing it

from becoming law. I am compelled to take

this action due to the bill's treatment of one

highly sensitive and important issue that directly affects the Nation's security, although

there also are several objectionable elements

of the bill that trouble me.

I cannot accept the broad language that

was added in Conference to the definition of

covert action. Section 602 of the bill defines

"covert action" to include any "request" by

the United States to a foreign government or

a private citizen to conduct a covert action

on behalf of the United States. This provision purports to regulate diplomacy by the

President and other members of the executive branch by forbidding the expression of

certain views to foreign governments and

private citizens absent compliance with

specified procedures; this could require, in

most instances, prior reporting to the Congress of the intent to express those views.

I am particularly concerned that the

vagueness of this provision could seriously

impair the effective conduct of our Nation's

foreign relations. It is unclear exactly what

sort of discussions with foreign governments

would constitute reportable "requests"

under this provision, and the very possibility

of a broad construction of this term could

have a chilling effect on the ability of our

diplomats to conduct highly sensitive discussions concerning projects that are vital to

our national security. Furthermore, the

mere existence of this provision could deter

foreign governments from discussing certain

topics with the United States at all. Such a

provision could result in frequent and divisive disputes on whether an activity is covered by the definition and whether individuals in the executive branch have complied

with a statutory requirement.

My objections to this provision should not

be misinterpreted to mean that executive

branch officials can somehow conduct activities otherwise prohibited by law or Executive order. Quite the contrary. It remains

Administration policy that our intelligence

services will not ask third parties to carry

out activities that they are themselves forbidden to undertake under Executive Order

No. 12333 on U.S. intelligence activities. I

have also directed that the notice to the

Congress of covert actions indicate whether

a foreign government will participate significantly.

Beyond this issue, I am also concerned by

the treatment in the Joint Explanatory

Statement accompanying the Conference Report of notification to the Congress of covert

actions. I reached an accommodation with

the Intelligence Committees on the issues of

notifying the Congress of covert actions "in

a timely fashion," as required by current

law, and hr.va provided letters to the Intelligence Committees outlining bow I intend

to provide such notice. I was consequently

dismayed by the fact that language was insorted in the Joint Explanatory Statement

accompanying the Conference Report that

could be conistrued to undercut the agreement reached with the Committees. This

language asserts that prior notice may be

withheld only in "exigent circumstances"

and that notice "in a timely fashion" should

now be interpreted to mean "within a few

days" without exception. Such as interpretation would unconstitutionally infringe on

the authority of the President and impair

any Administration's effective implementation of covert action programs. I deeply regret this action.

Additionally, I am concerned that there

are several legislatively direted policy determinations restricting programs of vital

importance to the United States that I do

not believe are helpful to U.S. foreign policy.

This bill, like its predecessor last year, also

contains language that purports to condition

specified actions on the Prosident's obtaining the prior approval of committees of the

Congress. This language is ,3learly unconstitutional under the Presentment clause of the

Constitution and the Supreme Court's decision in INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). 1

again urge the Congress to cease including

such unconstitutional provisions in bills presented to me for signature.

This Administration hat, had a good relationship with the Intelligence Committees. I

am willing to work with the Congress to address the primary issue *;hat has prompted

my veto as well as other ciffieulties with the

bill. I will also continue to work with the

Congress to ensure there is no change in our

shared understanding of what constitutes a

covert action, particularly with respect to

the historic missions of the armed forces. I

am confident that these issues can be resolved quickly in the next Congress through

mutual trust and a good-faith effort on the

part of the Administrat on and the Congress.

GEORGE BUSH.

THE WHITE HOUSE. November 30, 1990.

MESSAGES AND COMMUNICATIONS

RECEIVED FOLLOWING THE SINE

DIE ADJOURNMENT OF THE

101ST CONGRESS AND FOLLOWING THE PUBLICATION OF THE

FINAL ADDITION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OF THE

101ST CONGRESS

COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE

HOUSE

The text of the communication from

the Clerk of the House of Representatives dated November 2, 1990, is as follows:

WASHINGTON, DC,

November 2, 1990.

Hon. THOMAS S. FOLEY,

The Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to the permission granted in Clause 5 of Rule III of the

Rules of the U.S. Hcase of Representatives,

the Clerk received the following messages

from the Secretary of the Senate:

1. Received at 1:17 a.m. on Sunday, October

28, 1990: That the Senate passed without

amendment, H.J. Res. 687;

118