Office of Management and Budget | Print this document |
July 26, 1999
(House Rules) |
|
This Statement of Administration Policy provides the Administration's views on the District of Columbia Appropriations Bill, FY 2000, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee. Your consideration of the Administration's views would be appreciated.
While the Administration appreciates the support of the Committee in developing a bill that provides requested funding for the Administration's priorities, we strongly oppose a number of provisions included in the Committee bill that would seriously undermine local control. The Administration views the following highly objectionable provisions as unwarranted intrusions into the affairs of the District and would support amendments, if offered, to strike these provisions:
Needle Exchange The Administration appreciates the Committee's action to drop the ban on the use of local funds for needle exchange programs and looks forward to working with the Congress to ensure that no such prohibition is enacted. However, we continue to oppose the provision prohibiting the use of Federal funds for such programs and ask that this provision be struck from the bill. Resident Tuition Support The Administration appreciates and strongly supports the Committee's inclusion of funding for a tuition assistance program for District of Columbia residents. We will continue to work closely with members of the authorizing committees on a bipartisan and bicameral basis, and with the Mayor, to determine how best to structure and administer the D.C. tuition assistance program. Objectionable Amendments The Administration understands that amendments may be offered to provide funding for private school vouchers in the District, to restore the prohibition on the use of local funds for needle exchange programs, and to include other objectionable provisions that are intrusions into the affairs of the District. If such amendments were adopted and included in the bill presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend that the President veto the bill.
|