THE WHITE HOUSEOffice of the Press SecretaryFor Immediate Release January 2, 2013STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENTToday I have signed into law H.R. 4310, the "NationalDefense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013." I haveapproved this annual defense authorization legislation, asI have in previous years, because it authorizes essentialsupport for service members and their families, renews vitalnational security programs, and helps ensure that theUnited States will continue to have the strongest militaryin the world.Even though I support the vast majority of the provisionscontained in this Act, which is comprised of hundreds ofsections spanning more than 680 pages of text, I do not agreewith them all. Our Constitution does not afford the Presidentthe opportunity to approve or reject statutory sections one byone. I am empowered either to sign the bill, or reject it, asa whole. In this case, though I continue to oppose certainsections of the Act, the need to renew critical defenseauthorities and funding was too great to ignore.In a time when all public servants recognize the need toeliminate wasteful or duplicative spending, various sections inthe Act limit the Defense Department's ability to direct scarceresources towards the highest priorities for our nationalsecurity. For example, restrictions on the Defense Department'sability to retire unneeded ships and aircraft will divert scarceresources needed for readiness and result in future unfundedliabilities. Additionally, the Department has endeavored toconstrain manpower costs by recommending prudent cost sharingreforms in its health care programs. By failing to allowsome of these cost savings measures, the Congress may forcereductions in the overall size of our military forces.Section 533 is an unnecessary and ill-advised provision,as the military already appropriately protects the freedom ofconscience of chaplains and service members. The Secretary ofDefense will ensure that the implementing regulations do notpermit or condone discriminatory actions that compromise goodorder and discipline or otherwise violate military codes ofconduct. My Administration remains fully committed tocontinuing the successful implementation of the repeal of Don'tAsk, Don't Tell, and to protecting the rights of gay and lesbianservice members; Section 533 will not alter that.Several provisions in the bill also raise constitutionalconcerns. Section 1025 places limits on the military'sauthority to transfer third country nationals currently held atthe detention facility in Parwan, Afghanistan. That facility islocated within the territory of a foreign sovereign in the midstof an armed conflict. Decisions regarding the disposition ofdetainees captured on foreign battlefields have traditionallybeen based upon the judgment of experienced military commandersand national security professionals without unwarranted
2interference by Members of Congress. Section 1025 threatens toupend that tradition, and could interfere with my ability asCommander in Chief to make time-sensitive determinations aboutthe appropriate disposition of detainees in an active area ofhostilities. Under certain circumstances, the section couldviolate constitutional separation of powers principles. Ifsection 1025 operates in a manner that violates constitutionalseparation of powers principles, my Administration willimplement it to avoid the constitutional conflict.Sections 1022, 1027 and 1028 continue unwise fundingrestrictions that curtail options available to the executivebranch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriatedfunds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees intothe United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose thisprovision, which substitutes the Congress's blanket politicaldetermination for careful and fact-based determinations, made bycounterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, of when andwhere to prosecute Guantanamo detainees. For decades,Republican and Democratic administrations have successfullyprosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Thoseprosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool inour efforts to protect the Nation, and in certain cases may bethe only legally available process for trying detainees.Removing that tool from the executive branch undermines ournational security. Moreover, this provision would, undercertain circumstances, violate constitutional separation ofpowers principles.Section 1028 fundamentally maintains the unwarrantedrestrictions on the executive branch's authority to transferdetainees to a foreign country. This provision hinders theExecutive's ability to carry out its military, nationalsecurity, and foreign relations activities and would, undercertain circumstances, violate constitutional separation ofpowers principles. The executive branch must have theflexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations withforeign countries regarding the circumstances of detaineetransfers. The Congress designed these sections, and has hererenewed them once more, in order to foreclose my ability to shutdown the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. I continue tobelieve that operating the facility weakens our nationalsecurity by wasting resources, damaging our relationships withkey allies, and strengthening our enemies. My Administrationwill interpret these provisions as consistent with existingand future determinations by the agencies of the Executiveresponsible for detainee transfers. And, in the event thatthese statutory restrictions operate in a manner that violatesconstitutional separation of powers principles, myAdministration will implement them in a manner that avoidsthe constitutional conflict.As my Administration previously informed the Congress,certain provisions in this bill, including sections 1225, 913,1531, and 3122, could interfere with my constitutional authorityto conduct the foreign relations of the United States. In theseinstances, my Administration will interpret and implement theseprovisions in a manner that does not interfere with myconstitutional authority to conduct diplomacy. Section 1035,which adds a new section 495(c) to title 10, is deeplyproblematic, as it would impede the fulfillment of future U.S.obligations agreed to in the New START Treaty, which the Senate
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
