GOP to Seek 1.4% Domestic Spending Cut

House Republican leaders, seeking to avoid having to dip into the projected surplus in the Social Security trust fund, outlined plans Friday for a 1.4% across-the-board cut in most domestic spending categories to finance specific spending increases.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said that the plan, to be tacked onto the remaining unpassed appropriation bill as early as Tuesday, would slash outlays for a variety of programs, ranging from defense to education, saving $4.5 billion in fiscal 2000.

Strategists conceded that the across-the-board approach is needed because lawmakers have proved unable to come up with the deep cuts in specific programs that are necessary to offset hikes in defense and education without violating the GOP pledge to protect Social Security.

But Republicans admitted that it is not yet certain the leadership will be able to carry the day when the plan comes up for a vote sometime next week. Although GOP lawmakers generally are expected to back the plan, even a few defections could defeat it.

The GOP proposal was offered as the House adjourned Friday morning, delaying until next week planned votes on the appropriation bill--which covers labor, health and education--and on a measure that effectively would nullify an Oregon law that allows physician-assisted suicides.

Meanwhile, negotiators for the White House and the Republican congressional leadership continued private talks on how to resolve their budget impasse, apparently with little progress for the second day in a row.

Both sides conceded that the negotiations, which began after President Clinton met with Republican congressional leaders Tuesday night to kick off the discussions, had been faltering but may pick up next week.

The Republicans once again are in a bind over the budget situation. Although they have passed 12 of the 13 funding bills that they must approve this session, overspending in defense and other areas has left them close to violating their pledge to protect the Social Security surplus. In addition, Clinton is considered likely to veto several funding bills because they contain provisions he opposes.

As a result, the Republicans have been forced to turn to negotiations with the White House in an effort to work out a comprehensive deal that would leave the Social Security surplus intact and avoid a government-wide shutdown, such as the two that occurred during the winter of 1995 and 1996.

Clinton said that the two sides are “actually working to try to work through our differences on the budget” and vowed to “turn the other cheek” and ignore Republican political barbs on the issue “until we see if we can work it out together.”

But both sides continued to blame each other for the current budgetary bind, with House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) lambasting Democrats for trying to “raid the Social Security trust fund.”

White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart told reporters that there are “forces,” such as DeLay, who are trying to roil the waters. “It’s much more difficult . . . to get something done when they’re just trying to score political points,” he said.

On Friday, Clinton signed a record $8.7-billion bill to aid farmers hit by bad weather and plummeting commodity prices. The measure includes $1.2 billion for disaster relief in the wake of floods and drought and $7.5 billion to offset the drop in market prices.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) introduced legislation that would extend a series of tax breaks for businesses and individuals that otherwise would expire this year now that Clinton has vetoed the omnibus tax cut bill that Republicans pushed through Congress.

The measure, similar to a bill approved earlier by the Senate Finance Committee, would make permanent the tax cut for business research and development. But, to reduce the effect in fiscal 2000, companies would not be able to claim it until Sept. 30. The proposal is expected to be passed sometime in the next two weeks.

Although House leaders insisted that their plan for a 1.4% across-the-board spending cut would enable them to avoid having to dip into the Social Security trust fund, outside experts were less sanguine.

Stanley E. Collender, budget analyst for the Federal Budget Consulting Group, a unit of the Fleishman-Hillard public relations firm, said that the cuts would “certainly make life a little easier” for GOP budget makers, but “it won’t be enough” to bring spending into line.