Annual Message to the Congress on the District of Columbia Budget.

To the Congress of the United States:

I am transmitting to the Congress the budget for the District of Columbia for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1971.

This budget presents the District government's plans and programs to meet the highest priority needs of the city. Consistent with the objectives of the Reorganization Plan #3 of 1967, this budget is the product of full, intensive deliberations by both the Mayor and the City Council.

My review of the proposed fiscal year 1972 District budget approved by the District of Columbia Council indicates that its appropriation requests do not provide for the full year costs of programs which have been approved by the Council for partial year funding in fiscal year 1971. These costs were included in the Mayor's budget proposals submitted to the City Council, but were eliminated during Council review.

Under the District budget approved by the Council, such important programs as implementation of the new court reform legislation and expansion of the Washington Technical Institute and Federal City College are not funded after June 30, 1971. Furthermore, the budget requests do not provide for the fiscal year 1972 costs of the pay raises granted during fiscal year 1971 and which are currently in effect.

In view of these omissions, the District budget approved by the City Council does not present to the Congress a complete statement of the budget requirements of the District for fiscal year 1972. I have therefore modified the fiscal year 1972 District budget request to include the full year costs--totalling approximately $31 million--of programs and pay raises which have been or will be initiated in fiscal year 1971 by supplemental appropriation requests. I feel this is clearly the only fiscally responsible course of action and is in accord with the budgetary practices and standards which have been established for Federal agencies.

The proposed fiscal year 1972 District expenditure requests I am transmitting today will require over $90 million from revenue sources which are not now authorized. To help balance these D.C. budget requests, I have requested a $27 million increase in the Federal contribution to the city, and the Mayor has proposed over $53 million in new local taxes which require Congressional approval. If these revenue proposals prove to be unacceptable to the Congress, I do not believe that the District's budget should be balanced solely by a slash in expenditure requests. I am sure that a more suitable resolution of issues can be arrived at through minor expenditure adjustments and consideration of other revenue sources.

Last year the Congress completed appropriation action on the District's annual budget request prior to enactment of supporting D.C. revenue legislation. Because of the need to balance expenditure requests with available revenues, the result of this Congressional timing was that the D.C. appropriation requests were substantially reduced because of the lack of needed revenues. This is neither an effective nor an efficient way to review the city's fiscal requirements, and I urge that the Congress act promptly on the D.C. revenue proposals prior to the final appropriation action on the fiscal year 1972 D.C. budget requests.

RICHARD NIXON

April 19, 1971