McKeon’s Aid Vote Clashes With Ideology

Caught between the pleas of earthquake victims for billions of dollars in federal aid and the demands of party ideology to pay for it with budget cuts, California House Republicans Thursday found themselves in a classic political dilemma. How do you remain faithful to the tenets of fiscal conservatism when the devastation is in your home state?

How about in your back yard?

“I’m not worried about explaining it,” said Rep. Howard P. (Buck) McKeon, the Santa Clarita Republican, whose hearty conservatism collided head-on with the needs of his quake-ravaged district surrounding the temblor’s Northridge epicenter.

“You do what is right. I support cutting the deficit and I want relief for disaster victims,” said McKeon wishfully before the series of votes that led to House passage of the aid package.

But as a lawmaker, he could not have it both ways. Perhaps more than any other California Republican, McKeon’s predicament pointed up the difficult political choices facing conservative House members representing areas near the quake’s worst destruction.

McKeon wanted to get aid to his shattered district as swiftly as possible. But he also had to reconcile his district’s needs with the Republican doctrine he so deeply embraces.

It wasn’t easy.

“I don’t want to build up the deficit,” McKeon said, “but some things aren’t black and white.”

“Personally, I’m not strongly in favor of paying for it (through budget cuts in other programs). I want to bring some organization to it and set up an insurance-type program to deal with future disasters.”

On Tuesday night, the House Democratic leadership agreed to allow debate on three amendments offering varying amounts of spending cuts to pay for the quake assistance.

Deficit hawks pushed for $9.7 billion in cuts. A Democratic maneuver offered a relatively mild $2.5 billion. A third proposal called for $7.5 billion.

This gave McKeon an unwanted array of possibilities.

While perhaps philosophically inclined toward the deeper cuts, McKeon feared they would create turmoil in the Senate and conference committee, possibly delaying the aid.

Yet he felt committed to his fiscally conservative principles.

By early Thursday afternoon, McKeon had decided to vote for all three amendments.

“I’ve taken a position that I will vote for the cuts,” McKeon said then. “But I’m going to watch how the votes go. One will determine the other.”

In other words, he hoped that he could vote for the two larger spending cuts, but that they would lose. What he really wanted to pass was the $2.5-billion package that stood the best chance of landing on President Clinton’s desk late next week.

In the end, McKeon wound up voting against the two more ambitious packages of spending cuts--joining only three other California Republicans to do so.

“As I listened to the debate I didn’t feel good about them,” McKeon said.

Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley) joined McKeon and four other Republicans in voting against the largest of the spending cut amendments. The dean of the Republican delegation, Rep. Carlos J. Moorhead of Glendale, voted for both the larger amendments.

Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City), who spent the day lobbying members to vote for the $2.5-billion plan, had praise for McKeon. “He was tremendous.”

Another Democrat said, “He could have been a jerk about it, but he wasn’t.”