Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 5313 - HUD/Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill, 1987

(House)
(Sponsors: Whitten (D), Mississippi; Boland (D), Massachusetts)

The President's senior advisors will recommend veto of this bill in its present form. The bill provides $1.6 billion more than the President's request and nearly $370 million more than the CBO/OMB average Gradison baseline specified by Gramm-Rudman-Hollings for budget authority for discretionary programs other than subsidized housing, substantial increases above the requested level for subsidized housing programs, and several objectionable language provisions.

Past economic activity as well as revised economic assumptions point to slower growth and a higher projected deficit than was forecast earlier. In the Administration's opinion as well as that of the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Budget Resolution, including its allocation to the HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, will be inadequate to avoid the necessity of a Gramm-Rudman-Hollings sequester. The Administration believes Congress should act to cut spending in areas of lower priority in the bill so that a sequester, which would hit high-priority and low-priority areas alike, can be avoided.

The major areas of concern are:

— the inclusion of $275 million in unrequested funding for HUD Urban Development Action Grants, continuing an inefficient and unnecessary program;

— an increase of $600 million above the President's request for EPA construction grants;

— an additional $403 million in unrequested funding for VA, Medical Care, which is not necessary for the continued provision of quality health care to the nation's veterans and for the administration of the means test and third party reimbursement;

— $225 million in unrequested funding for the HUD Rental Housing Development Grant program, an expensive, poorly targeted program that subsidizes housing for middle and

— $250 million for the HUD Rental Rehabilitation Grant program that was not requested and that more than triples the 1986 appropriations.

— funding increases in salaries and expenses accounts that are not consistent with corresponding Committee action on related program levels;

— the inclusion of language linking vouchers to the rental rehabilitation grant program, despite passage last month by the House of a bill that would relax this relationship; and

— objectionable Committee language prohibiting the Veterans Administration from implementing their management proposal to consolidate the operation of insurance programs. The VA proposal would save $7.75 million over six years.