Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 4776 - District of Columbia Appropriations, 1989

(Senate)
(Sponsors: Stennis (D), Mississippi; Harkin (D), Iowa)

The Administration objects strongly to a number of provisions in the current bill. If the bill were presented to the President in its present form, the President's senior advisers would recommend that he veto it.

The Committee bill does not include language prohibiting the use of District funds to perform abortions as requested by the Administration. The Administration continues to oppose the use of either District funds or the Federal payment to the District to fund abortions, unless the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term. Applying this restriction solely to the Federal payment makes little sense because the Federal payment comprises only 19 percent of the total District budget. The use of public funding in the District of Columbia for abortions is an unacceptable violation of a basic civil right — the right to life. The absence of such a prohibition would be viewed as a sufficient reason to veto this bill. It is unfortunate that the Full Committee did not accept the Subcommittee language that would have banned the use of District funds as well as the Federal Payment to fund abortions.

The Administration has three other significant concerns regarding the proposed bill:

— The bill exceeds the President's request by $27.1 million in budget authority. The increase results from the proposal to compensate the District Government with a lump sum payment rather than by billing each Federal agency directly for water and sewer services provided to Federal establishments. The President's request for direct billing is consistent with the treatment afforded other State and local governments. Moreover, the Committee has arbitrarily cut the estimated FY 1989 payment by $9 million. This is not a legitimate budget savings — it is at best a deferral because the District will request restoration of these funds. Rather than denying the District timely payment, the Senate could achieve legitimate savings by allowing the General Services Administration (GSA) to pay the District directly for these services for GSA controlled Federal buildings. Other Federal agencies could be phased into direct billing later.

—    The Administration also continues to oppose any attempt to exempt the Federal payment and Federal water and sewer payments to the District Government from the Presidential apportionment process. Last year, the Administration objected to section 132 of the FY 1988 District of Columbia Appropriations Act, as contained in Public Law 100-202. This section permanently excluded these Federal payments to the District from the apportionment process, resulting in a highly objectionable erosion of Executive Branch authority.

—    The Administration opposes sections 133 and 135 of the bill. Section 133 would transfer title of the 216 acre Glendale Hospital site in Prince Georges County, Maryland to the District of Columbia. This provision is contrary to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act 6f 1949, that requires excess Federal property to be transferred to the General Services Administration for disposal. Section 135 would require a Federal guarantee for a $20 million loan by the District Government to a non-profit corporation to build an educational housing facility. Loan guarantees are a subsidy and represent a contingent liability for the Federal Government. If this project is worthwhile, it should receive direct funding without the Federal loan guarantee.

The Administration does, however, commend the Committee for keeping the FY 1989 Federal payment to the District at the level proposed by the President.

The Senate is urged to remove the objectionable provisions noted above so that the President's senior advisers could recommend that he sign the bill.