Conservative Legislators Savor Their Victory : Politics: Californians celebrate success in attaching to quake relief measure an amendment to ban long-term aid for illegal immigrants.

Rep. Ron Packard was beaming. Dana Rohrabacher, his younger, more rambunctious Orange County Republican colleague, was brimming with the usual combative flourishes.

Backed by several other conservative California members during an upbeat morning news conference Wednesday in the Capitol, they were luxuriating in a rare moment of victory over more liberal Democratic forces that so often have been able to dismiss their protestations about illegal immigration as political posturing.

After some hardheaded bargaining with other Appropriations Committee members Tuesday, Packard succeeded in attaching an amendment to the California earthquake relief package that would deny long-term emergency benefits to illegal immigrants.

Declaring a “huge, huge victory,” Packard said, “This is the beginning of changing government policy on how we spend our social dollars.” It also appeared to be the curtain-raising on a more prominent Washington role for Packard, who has usually chosen a behind-the-scenes persona.

The former Carlsbad mayor, midway through his sixth term in the House, has long been engaged by the immigration issue, and his ascension to the Appropriations Committee last year gives him increased visibility and clout.

But Packard has generally kept his focus on the issue’s politically safer aspects, such as cracking down on illegal immigration at the border and pressing the federal government to reimburse the state for the billions it spends on education, health care and imprisonment of illegal immigrants.

By taking a lead role in the attempt to restrict emergency funds to illegal immigrants, Packard, a former dentist from Oceanside, has stepped into a political mine field. It is a move that he felt he had to make, but one that runs counter to his make-no-waves Capitol Hill pragmatism.

“I did not want to exacerbate what was already a sensitive issue,” Packard said. “But it’s the biggest issue in my district . . . the most crucial problem all my cities struggle with.”

In a letter to constituents in December, he vowed to add his amendment to every appropriations bill.

But he wishes some other legislation would have been the guinea pig.

“I’m a little disappointed that this is the first bill out of the chute. The amendment will fit a lot better and be more acceptable to other members of Congress on several other appropriations bills. This is not the issue that I would have preferred to be the very first test.”

Even some Republicans were surprised that the avuncular Packard, who once was named by a Capitol Hill newspaper to its “obscure caucus,” would tackle such an explosive topic.

“Why is he fighting this fight? You naturally expect others to do it,” said a veteran California Republican staffer. “He tapped into something very emotional and it makes you wonder if he was put up to it by some of his colleagues on the right.”

Others noted that he appeared awkward, even ill-prepared, when the interplay with committee Democrats became heated and personal.

“I am not a vocal or outspoken person,” Packard said. “I don’t get heated up quickly. But when some members of (the) committee accused me of immigrant-bashing and being mean-spirited, I wanted to make it clear that was not my motivation at all.

“I represent a lot of Hispanic-surnamed families, I hired Hispanic citizens in my office long before I got to Congress. . . . I have nothing but compassion and love for them as a people, but I am sworn to uphold the Constitution.”

Despite any personal unease that Packard may have felt going into the committee negotiations Tuesday, he entered them with optimism.

“I was not surprised (by the outcome). I had talked to (California Democrats on the Appropriations Committee) Reps. (Esteban) Torres, (Julian) Dixon and (Vic) Fazio, and I knew they were anxious to move the bill. I thought we could reach some compromise.”

Rep. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) thought the amendment language was too vague because it didn’t spell out what emergency services--except medical care--would be offered to illegal immigrants; Rep. Ronald D. Coleman (D-Texas) foresaw problems in determining whether quake victims were illegal immigrants.

Packard immediately agreed to be more specific about benefits, and Dixon offered a compromise to keep the bill alive.

And Rep. Jose E. Serrano (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, railed: “This issue is not an honest issue. . . . This issue speaks to meanness, it speaks to immigrant-bashing . . . it says that everyone who looks different is going to be questioned over and over and over again.” Then Coleman proposed language that would key emergency benefits to existing immigration laws and the U.S. Constitution. Saying the move merely clouded the issue, Republicans objected but the Demorats tacked it onto the Dixon amendment.

Packard then withdrew the entire amendment.

Fazio, Torres and Dixon huddled with Packard and Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands) at a long table in a committee hearing room, hoping to find some middle ground. The Democrats wanted to avoid potentially more damaging attacks on the House floor by addressing the amendment in committee, whereas Republicans saw an opening to win a slightly diluted ideological point.

Torres offered a revised amendment--stripped of the Coleman language--and Packard had his victory.

Ultimate success depends on the outcome of floor debate today, but Packard and his fellow Republicans had clearly lifted the illegal immigration issue to a new plateau.

For Rohrabacher, of Huntington Beach, the legislative victory gave flight to his more visceral kind of rhetoric. “This will have real impact on federal agencies’ ability to put out a flyer, saying (to illegal immigrants), ‘Come on in and get the money.’ We’re all part of the same family, of all racial backgrounds. When you’re in an emergency situation, what kind of person takes limited emergency resources from his own family and gives it to a stranger? We cannot afford to supply benefits for illegals without hurting our citizens and legal residents.”