Deficit Concerns Stall Flood Aid Bill : Relief: The House blocked the $3-billion emergency bill because it didn’t include offsetting spending cuts. The move jolts the leadership.

WASHINGTON — In an extraordinary action that shows growing congressional resolve to cut the budget deficit, the House Thursday blocked approval, at least temporarily, of a $3-billion flood relief bill because the measure did not include offsetting reductions in spending.

The 216-205 vote against consideration of a bill providing emergency aid to flood victims in eight Midwestern states jolted the House Democratic leadership and even surprised those who advocate paying for disaster aid by cutting other federal spending--a stricture known as “pay-as-you-go.”

Many who voted to block the measure Thursday did so largely in an effort to force the House to consider the issue of offsetting cuts. They are expected to vote for the aid eventually, even if proposed spending cuts are turned down.

Normally, disaster relief measures are approved by overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate and are not subject to pay-as-you-go requirements. As a result of the vote, the bill was set aside temporarily so House leaders can decide how to respond. No House action is likely before Monday, although approval is expected sometime next week.

The flood relief revolt was backed by a solid bloc of 171 Republicans and 45 Democrats, including many freshmen who were elected specifically to confront the deficit. It was the first time since approval of the 1990 budget act, which requires pay-as-you-go for most federal outlays, that Congress has balked at providing disaster aid without offsetting reductions, which it is not required to do.

The vote dramatized new congressional concern over spending at a time when President Clinton is pushing for passage of a budget plan designed to reduce the deficit by $500 billion.

It also poses a tricky political problem for those who blocked the relief because they may be blamed for delaying assistance to hundreds of thousands of flood victims to make a point about fiscal prudence.

“Time is of the essence,” said Rep. William H. Natcher (D-Ky.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, which rushed the legislation to the floor at Clinton’s request.

“The pay-as-you-go approach is unprecedented,” complained Rep. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), a chief advocate of emergency flood aid. “People from Florida who had their hands out after Hurricane Andrew are voting against aid for Midwesterners.”

But Rep. Jim Nussle (R-Iowa), who led the battle for new spending cuts to offset the amount of flood aid, declared: “This sets a precedent: We won today the opportunity to discuss how we are going to pay for it.”

Nussle acknowledged, however, that he would vote in favor of flood relief even if he loses his attempt to get offsetting reductions in spending and he seemed anxious to have another chance to do just that.

Showing similar political uneasiness, House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) demanded another vote Thursday night but he was rebuffed by House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), whose hometown of St. Louis has been battered by floodwaters.

Gephardt said that he would try to produce a rule governing debate that would take into consideration the demands of those who want to finance flood relief by cutting spending. He noted that no such offsets were required for other major disasters in the last four years--hurricanes in Florida, Hawaii and South Carolina and the 1989 California earthquake.

“I don’t want my constituents to have to fork up the money or accept cuts in Social Security or some other program,” Gephardt said.

The argument for offsetting flood relief with spending cuts was led by two members of Congress from flooded areas--Nussle and Rep. Timothy J. Penny (D-Minn.)--and others from flood-affected states joined with them.

The emotional debate featured a series of loud disputes. Noting the flowery tributes paid to flood victims, Durbin shouted: “Member after member stood up to salute their courage and valor and then turned around to stick a knife in their backs when it came to sending federal disaster aid.”

Rep. Carrie Meek (D-Fla.) said that the public does not understand the delay in approving the aid, adding that some members were having a “mental disaster.”

Defending his position, Nussle replied, “It’s very easy to spend other people’s money, particularly when you are in a mood of compassion.”

But Durbin noted that a $3-billion cut in spending for the current fiscal year--which ends Sept. 30--would be difficult, if not impossible, because most of the funds already have been obligated.

“Nussle wants to cut the Corps of Engineers by 16%, and they are the ones who are dealing with the flood,” Durbin complained.