Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 5311 - District of Columbia Appropriations Bill, FY 1991

(Senate Floor)
(Sponsors: Bvrd (D). West Virginia, Adams (D), Washington)

The Administration continues to oppose Congressional action on appropriations bills in advance of a budget summit agreement. Such action could unnecessarily and perhaps harmfully complicate implementation of a final budget resolution that reflects the agreement. However, inasmuch as the Senate is apparently going to take action, the Administration will express its views on these bills. The purpose of this Statement of Administration Policy is to express views on the District of Columbia Appropriations Bill, FY 1991, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Consistent with the Administration's concern that appropriations action could complicate implementation of the Budget Summit Agreement, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto any appropriations bill that exceeds the President's request for either budget authority or outlays if that bill is presented to him before the completion of the Summit. The Senate bill, as approved by the Committee, exceeds the proposed levels for budget authority and outlavs.

The Administration objects to the provision that is included in this bill concerning the use pf Federal and local funds to finance abortions. Last year, the President vetoed the first FY 1990 District of Columbia appropriations bill because it contained language identical to that included in this bill.

We urge the Congress to send to the President a bill that includes the language concerning abortion that was included in both the FY 1989 and FY 1990 District of Columbia Appropriations Acts. This language is a prohibition on the use of Federal and local funds to perform abortions, except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term. The President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto any District of Columbia appropriations bill that does not contain this language.

This and other concerns the Administration has with the bill are outlined in the attachment.

Attachment

H.R. 5311 - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS BILL, FY 1991

MAJOR PROVISIONS OPPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION

A. Funding Levels

— The Administration opposes the Committee's addition of $31.0 million to the President's request for Federal funding for the District. Federal funding for the District, like other domestic discretionary programs, must share in the burden of meeting Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction targets. It is inappropriate to earmark these Federal tax dollars for purposes that are clearly a local responsibility, especially the following:

Board of Education          $15.1 million

This is a unique, direct federal contribution for maintenance and improvement of the District's public schools. Since 1985, public school enrollment in the District has dropped by 6,376 students (pre-kindergarten through 12th grade). The District already receives $56.0 million of its public school funding from Federal grants that are also available to other local school districts.

DC General Hospital          $5.0 million

The Federal government already pays over 40 percent of the hospital's operating costs through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. This additional $5.0 million is an unnecessary direct Federal grant.

Children's National Medical Center          $4.0 million

The Committee's report identifies a Federal commitment of up to $19.8 million over three years for the National Child Protection, Trauma, and Research Center at the Children's National Medical Center. The Administration opposes the establishment of small categorical programs to finance activities supported through existing block grants and the peer-reviewed research funding system.

Department of Human Services          $2.9 million

The Federal government already provides funds through other programs to alleviate the burden of these activities on local governments.

Commission on Budget and Financial Priorities          $1.0 million

This Commission was established in 1989 to develop a comprehensive plan to reduce or eliminate the District's projected budget deficits. The Commission's report is due on November 15, 1990 and most of the work is completed. We question the need for Federal funding for this local commission, especially at this late stage.

B. Language Provisions

— The Administration objects to the provision included in this bill concerning the use of Federal and local funds to finance abortions. Last year, the President vetoed the first FY 1990 District of Columbia appropriations bill because it contained language identical to that included in the Committee bill. This provision would place no restrictions on the use of District funds for abortion and would prohibit the use of Federal funds to pay for abortions unless: (a) the life of the mother is endangered if the fetus is carried to term or (b) medical procedures are necessary for victims of rape or incest that has been promptly reported to legal or medical authorities. The provision would also allow payment for antipregnancy drugs and for medical procedures to terminate ectopic pregnancies.

We urge the Congress to send to the President a bill that substitutes the language concerning abortion that was included in the FY 1989 and FY 1990 District of Columbia Appropriations Acts. This language is a prohibition on the use of Federal and local funds to perform abortions, except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term. The President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto any District of Columbia Appropriations bill that does not contain this language.

— The Administration requests that legislation excluding Federal fund payments to the District from the apportionment process, contained in section 132 of the FY 1988 District of Columbia Appropriations Act, be repealed. This exclusion is a highly objectionable erosion of Presidential authority. The apportionment restriction also provides the District with a "hidden budget increase". This increase is worth about $13 million in the form of higher interest earnings when the entire Federal payment is provided at the start of the fiscal year rather than apportioned quarterly in four equal payments over the year. Most grants to States and local governments are apportioned quarterly.

— The Administration continues to support legislation that would require Federal agencies to pay the District directly for water and sewer services. Requiring the Department of the Treasury to continue to act as a conduit for funneling payments to the District is an administrative burden and expense to Treasury and contributes nothing to the payment process. The District also reaps a windfall benefit because water and sewer rates charged the Federal government include the cost of direct billing services not provided to Federal buildings. Concerns that Federal agencies won't pay the District are unfounded. There is no record of unreconciled non-payment complaints from utilities providing services to Federal buildings located outside of the District. Furthermore, all Federal agencies are bound by requirements of the Prompt Payment Act.