Related Links White House Spokesman Barry Toiv discusses the budget Tuesday. From The Post: President Plans to Battle Hill on Spending Bills (Oct. 18) Two Pilots of GOP Spending Strategy Use Differing Styles (Oct. 17) Congress Getting Around Budget Limits (Oct. 16) GOP May Push Vote on Clinton Tax Hike Package (Oct. 14) On Our Site: Budget Special Report

Monday, October 18, 1999

The yearly tug-of-war between the White House and Congress over appropriations and the budget is in full swing. As both President Clinton and congressional Republicans attempt to portray themselves as champions of the balanced budget without dipping into the Social Security surplus, they have raised the ante with each of their proposed tax and spending plans for the next fiscal year.

John Feehery is the spokesman for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). He discussed the GOP perspective on the budget and appropriations on Monday, Oct. 18. The transcript follows:

washingtonpost.com: Good afternoon, John, and welcome. Now that it appears President Clinton will follow through on his veto of the foreign aid package, what's the next step for congressional Republicans? Do you see any movement possible in the coming weeks?

John Feehery: The President vetoed this spending bill because in his view it doesn't send enough of the taxpayer's money overseas. His budget increased foreign aid spending by more than 30 percent over last year's spending. If the President wants to spend more on foreign aid, he has to find offsets. We simply won't agree to take money from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for more foreign aid spending. If the President can find offsets, we will take a look at them, but right now, that money is coming from the Social Security Trust Fund, and that is not acceptable.

Washington, D.C.: Do you think the president's veto of the foreign aid bill is partly in retaliation for the test ban treaty going down in flames? Are Republicans in Congress likely to portray it that way?

John Feehery: We are very concerned that the President is vetoing our bills because he was upset about the Senate's actions on the Test Ban Treaty. But this no time for the President to let his emotions get in the way of good policy. We sent him a responsible foreign operations spending bill which maintained funding from last year. We hope the President is not trying to get even with the Congress by vetoing common-sense legislation.

Washington, D.C.: Would the Republicans consider a small -12 cents per pack- increase in the cigarette tax along with a small -1 percent- cut in federal discretionary spending?

John Feehery: We have the first on-budget surplus in thirty years. The American taxpayers are paying more in taxes than at any other time since the end of the Second World War. This is not the time to raise taxes on working Americans, especially an excise tax that hits poorer Americans the hardest. We should find ways instead to trim federal spending. If the private sector can get 30 to 40 percent more efficent because of the technological revolution, the federal government can get one percent more efficient.

Arlington, Va.: The president says that he wants a budget that "protects Social Security and Medicare" while proposing more spending on other social programs. Why haven't the Republicans effectively shown that the president is trying to force a government shut down by being unreasonable and unrealistic?

John Feehery: You are right. The Presiden't budget proposal actually raided the Social Security surplus by 40 percent, and it cut Medicare by close to twelve billion dollars, so when he says that wants to protect Social Security and Medicare, he clearly has a credibility problem. The Speaker believes we need to get our work done by completing our spending bills as we protect the Social Security Trust Fund. The President will have to find ways to pay for his additional spending without raising taxes and without dipping into Social Security. If he can't, he should sign our bills.

Annapolis, Md.: Two questions:

Has President Clinton suggested taking money from Social Security to fund foreign aid?

How do you respond to reports that Republican budgeting manuevers reduce Social Security funds?

John Feehery: The President has said that he wants to increase foreign aid spending by 30 percent, but he has not said how he would pay for it. We can only assume that he would want to take this from the Social Security Trust Fund.

Regarding your second question, those reports are incorrect. Actually, the CBO concluded that we did not raid Social Security in 1999, and we will dip into Social Security in the year 2000.

Alexandria, Va.: How will the budget debate affect the environmental budget of EPA? Will President Clinton veto the VA,HUD, and Independent Agencies Bill?

John Feehery: We expect the President to sign the VA Hud spending bill. The EPA budget is in the VA Hud bill, so its budget will only be affected if we adopt a slim reduction of government wide spending in order to protect the Social Security Trust Fund.

Arlington, Va.: I'm not interested in who is going to be blamed for it - the president says the Congress, the Congress says the president- but do you foresee another government shutdown because of a budget impasse?

John Feehery: I don't think the government will shut down, because I believe the Congress will continue to send bills that the President will be able to sign.

Six Mile, S.C.: You say that the budget increased 30 percent. How much more is the president wanting and why is a 30-percent increase not enough?

John Feehery: I said that the President wanted a thirty percent increase in foreign aid spending, but that we kept spending even with last year.

By the way, I had a typo in my last reply. We will not dip into the Social Security surplus in fy 2000.

Mt. Rainier, Md.: The GOP seems to be using a number of very questionable accounting devices to disguise the fact that the budget caps are being ignored. Adding a '13th' month to the year, in effect borrowing against next year, and creating emergency expenditures where there is no emergency. Does the GOP believe they will be able to win the public relations war with these maneuvers?

John Feehery: We are not adding a 13th month to the fiscal year. That was a faulty analysis of a accounting device used by the President and by the Congress to credit spending in the fiscal year that the spending actually occurs. We will use only accounting principles that make sense to the American people. And we will not raid the Social Security surplus to pay for spending in the year 2000, the first time that has happened in 30 years.

Washington, D.C.: The House recently voted to urge its negotiators on the Interior spending bill to oppose Senate-added anti-environmental provisions. The negotiators did little to improve the bill, and most Democratic negotiators refused to sign the compromise. Will you allow this anti-environmental bill to come up for a vote?

John Feehery: Actually, this bill had the support of most Democrats on the committee in the House and all Senate Democrats on the Committee. It seems that they want to play politics with the Appropriations process and withdrew their support at the last minute. The bill funds the national parks of this nation, and deserves the support of the President. We will pass it this week, and we hope the President signs it.

Germantown, Md.: In spite of the fact that the GOP is trying its best to be responsible and stay within the 1997 spending caps, it still gets beat up by the president and the media. When is the GOP going to get its PR act together? And what's the use of having a conservative message if the messengers are inept? When can people expect another positive agenda from the GOP -e.g. the Contract with America-?

John Feehery: The President has the bully pulpit and can more effectively go the media. But we believe that if we get our work done, protect the Social Security trust fund for the first time in three decades, and continue to work to restore dignity and respect to the Congress, that we will win the support of the American people in the long run. The best pr is good policy and we are making great progress on that front.

I have to go to another meeting, but thank you all for your questions. Have a good day.

washingtonpost.com: That was our last question for GOP spokesman John Feehery. Thanks to John and to everyone who participated today. Join us tomorrow at noon EDT for the White House response with spokesman Barry Toiv. If we didn't get to your questions today, please feel free to send them in for tomorrow's discussion.

washingtonpost.com: That was our last question for GOP spokesman John Feehery. Thanks to John and to everyone who participated today. Join us tomorrow at noon EDT for the White House response with spokesman Barry Toiv. If we didn't get to your questions today, please feel free to send them in for tomorrow's discussion.