Statement on Proposed Foreign Relations Legislation

Congress is now considering legislation—S. 908, "The Foreign Relations Revitalization Act of 1995"—that would undermine the President's authority to conduct our Nation's foreign policy and deny us the resources we need to lead in the world. If this legislation comes to my desk in its present form, I will veto it.

S. 908 attacks the President's constitutional authority to conduct America's foreign policy. No President, Democrat or Republican, could accept these restrictions because they threaten the President's ability to protect and promote American interests around the world.

The legislation would ban or severely restrict diplomatic relations with key countries. Indeed, had it been in effect a few months ago, it would have prevented us from concluding the agreement with North Korea to dismantle its nuclear program. The legislation would handcuff our ability to take part in and lead United Nations operations, limiting our choice each time a crisis arose to acting alone or not at all. The legislation would abolish three important agencies, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the Agency for International Development, and the U.S. Information Agency. Each is already making serious and successful efforts to streamline its operations, as part of my administration's reinventing Government program. Eliminating them entirely would undermine our effectiveness, not enhance it.

In short, the legislation would put Congress in the business of micromanaging our Nation's foreign policy, a business it should not be in.

This legislation combined with S. 961, "The Foreign Aid Reduction Act of 1995," would also slash our international affairs budget, which already is only a little over 1.3 percent of our total Federal budget. We use these funds to fight the spread of nuclear weapons and technology; to combat terrorists, drug traffickers, and international criminals; to create American jobs by opening new markets for our exports; and to support the forces of peace, democracy, and human rights around the world who look to America for leadership.

The proposed cuts in the international affairs budget are dangerous and shortsighted. We know from experience that it is a lot less costly, in terms of money spent and lives lost, to rely on development aid and diplomacy now than it is to send in our troops later. There is a price to be paid for American leadership. But the return on our investment, in terms of increased security and greater prosperity for the American people, more than makes up for the cost. What America cannot afford are the foreign affairs budget cuts proposed in these bills.

As I have made clear before, I want to work with Congress to get an international affairs bill I can sign, a bill that protects the President's authority to conduct foreign policy, maintains vital resources, and reflects a bipartisan spirit that serves America's interests. The legislation Congress is considering fails each of those tests. If it is sent to me as it now stands, I will veto it.