House Unit Acts to Bar Quake Aid for Illegal Immigrants : Disaster: The $8.6-billion amount brings no opposition. But debate grows over who should get the assistance and how to pay for it.

The Clinton Administration’s $8.6-billion earthquake assistance package took the first step toward congressional approval Tuesday but only after a key committee amended the measure to bar illegal immigrants from receiving housing grants and other longer-term emergency aid.

Little opposition has arisen to the size of the emergency aid bill--which if approved will be the largest in the nation’s history--but debate is growing in Congress over the contentious immigration issue as well as efforts to force budget cuts to pay for the assistance.

Despite the controversies, proponents remain hopeful they can steer the measure to Clinton’s desk by the end of next week. It contains funds to provide rental assistance and temporary housing for those displaced by the Northridge quake, loans for small businesses and homeowners, money to make public buildings more earthquake-proof, and aid to repair damaged freeways, schools, veterans hospitals and other public structures.

Spurred by California Republicans, the measure also appears destined to push the escalating debate over public benefits and illegal immigrants onto the national stage in the coming days.

After rancorous deliberations Tuesday, the powerful House Appropriations Committee adopted a modified version of a proposal by Rep. Ron Packard (R-Oceanside) stipulating that no benefits can go to anyone “when it is known to the federal entity or official to which the funds are made available that the individual is not lawfully within the United States.”

The measure would apply to aid dispensed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency--which coordinates government response to disasters and administers emergency aid--the Small Business Administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. As amended, it explicitly states that undocumented residents would still be eligible for emergency shelter as well as food, water, medical care and other “essential needs.”

The vote was 38-12, with Democrats casting all the opposing votes. Renewed battles over the amendment are expected as the bill--which passed Appropriations on a voice vote--moves through Congress.

Some Democrats on the Appropriations panel claimed that Republicans were seeking to score political points at the expense of illegal immigrants in desperate straits. But the issue deeply divided the Democrats themselves.

Democratic Reps. Julian C. Dixon of Los Angeles and Esteban E. Torres of La Puente, both longtime liberals, said they brokered the compromise in a pragmatic attempt to forestall more severe measures and avoid likely defeat on the House floor.

Packard’s amendment said an individual would be denied benefits when it was “made known” to the government that the person was in the United States illegally. The compromise amendment struck the word made, which some Democrats said would have raised the danger of third parties making allegations to authorities about someone’s status.

Their alternative also explicitly spelled out the range of emergency services to which illegal immigrants would remain entitled. Packard had simply referred to “emergency medical assistance,” although he said he had intended to include a wider range of short-term aid.

After the vote, Dixon noted that the measure does not require federal officials to ask about an applicant’s legal status. Nor, he said, would he expect agencies to do so.

Nevertheless, Rep. Jose E. Serrano (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, angrily derided the proposal as “immigrant bashing” and mean-spirited and said it would lead to discrimination against Latinos. Rep. Ed Pastor (D-Ariz.) complained: “It’s a sad day that we as Democrats are going to have this shoved down our throats.”

Packard, who has vowed to propose a similar amendment on each spending bill considered this year, responded: “My amendment simply says that illegal immigrants should not receive assistance they would not otherwise receive just because there was an earthquake.”

Dixon, who only hours earlier had vowed to oppose Packard’s effort, said the Appropriations fight foreshadows confrontations on an issue that is very divisive for Democrats. Given the solid Republican support for the Packard amendment, he said he determined during a party caucus Tuesday that enough Democrats backed a limit on aid to illegal immigrants to “represent the majority interests in the House.”

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Woodland Hills), advocates of other measures to stem illegal immigration, both voiced support for Packard’s proposal in interviews. Feinstein said the federal government should not “be picking up long-term rent subsidies for illegal immigrants.”

Another leading restrictionist, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach), said late Tuesday that although the amendment was not as strongly worded as he would have liked, it accomplished what he set out to do and he would not pursue his more restrictive proposal.

In Los Angeles, adoption of Packard’s initiative was roundly condemned by immigrant advocate groups. And, on the streets, where relief agencies are struggling with day-to-day difficulties of aiding tens of thousands of quake victims, the amendment raised the specter of further complications.

“You’re asking us in an emergency situation to implement something that will probably be difficult at best, and potentially disruptive,” said Joe Schuldiner, assistant secretary of HUD. “You’d like time to think about it, but, obviously, we’ll do what Congress wants.”

Until the restrictions are passed and implemented, Los Angeles city housing officials emphasized that they will continue with current policies of providing housing assistance regardless of legal status.

“We don’t ask and we’re not looking,” said Steve Rehahan, the city housing authority official who is overseeing distribution of HUD housing vouchers to quake victims.

Elsewhere, there was immediate concern that withdrawal of U.S. aid for illegal immigrants could shift large post-quake costs to city programs--notably a $2.5-million emergency housing grant program established after the temblor.

“It could increase the pressure on our program enormously,” said Barbara Zeidman, assistant general manager of the city Housing Preservation and Production Department. “And it threatens (quake victims) with a more permanent form of homelessness.”

Federal housing officials predicted that it would not be easy to discern who is a legal resident. Because it does not ask aid applicants for proof of citizenship, FEMA has no record of the numbers of undocumented residents who seek aid, though some officials and legal aid groups maintain that the figures are minimal.

Also on Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) called for a vote on whether to offset earthquake aid with reductions in spending in other areas--a move that could make it more difficult to win passage of the money.

In the House, Rep. Gary A. Condit (D-Ceres) joined a bipartisan group of four congressmen pushing for $7.13 billion in cuts to fund the quake aid package.

“We want to give all of the necessary aid to California earthquake victims as we did for the Midwestern flood and Florida hurricane, but there is no reason why we can’t pay for that,” Condit said.

After a Democratic caucus meeting, lawmakers said privately that they expect the Rules Committee today to incorporate the proposal into the aid bill. Administration officials said that some of the proposed cuts--including trimming the federal work force by 252,000--are included in Clinton’s cost-cutting proposals.

The Administration added to the earthquake package nearly $1.2 billion in funds for peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia, Somalia and elsewhere as well as $750 million largely for additional costs of the Midwestern floods and the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.

Staff writers Rich Connell and Carla Rivera in Los Angeles and Karen Tumulty in Washington contributed to this story.