House barrels toward fight over placing conditions on California fire aid
The House is barreling toward a contentious debate over disaster relief for California as many — but not all — Republicans call for conditions to be placed on the assistance, an idea Democrats are soundly rejecting.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Monday threw his support behind placing stipulations on aid designed to help California recover from historically devastating wildfires, while accusing local officials of water resource and forest mismanagement. He re-upped that position Tuesday, and many Republicans — including some in the Golden State — are echoing that sentiment.
“There will have to be conditions,” Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), who represents the San Joaquin Valley in Central and Northern California, told The Hill. “We can’t allow the policies that have created the conditions for such a disaster to continue. There’s an old saying, 'You can’t fill a broken bucket by pouring more water in it.' At some point you’ve got to fix the bucket.”
Democrats, however, are shooting down that prospect, contending the conversation about California’s policies should be separate from any discussion about assistance for those in need.
“We can have a lengthy debate and discussion and use the committee process to have discussions about the steps that California has taken to protect itself. But at the end of the day, ultimately this will mean disaster assistance, and that needs to be free from partisan conditions,” House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar, the highest-ranking California Democrat on Capitol Hill, said Tuesday.
The emerging discussion comes as wildfires are still raging through California and as winds that could worsen conditions are expected to pick up in the coming days. Some lawmakers say the wildfires are on track to be the most damaging and expensive natural disaster in U.S. history.
Republicans haven’t come to a public agreement on what conditions should be included in the aid package: At least one is calling for policy changes on the local level, some want the legislation to be paid for, and others have floated tying a debt limit increase to the assistance.
“We got to get a pound of flesh for any dollar that’s spent on California, in my opinion,” said Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.
Asked by The Hill on Tuesday what stipulations he is considering, Johnson responded “I’m not going to project what that might be,” before taking aim at state officials, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D).
“If Gavin Newsom and local leaders made decisions that made this disaster exponentially worse, which it appears there were, should there be some consequence to that? Should there be some sort of safeguard on the funding?” Johnson said. “We’re going to be looking at policies, and we’re going to be looking at culpability, and I think that’s going to be a very important thing, not just for Congress, but for the American people.”
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), a 22-year veteran of the House who represents San Diego, sounded a similar note, saying “nobody’s made any ideas on conditions, but we are looking at everything related to this incredible, disastrous and damaging fire.”
“We want to have the ounce of prevention included in the power to cure,” he added. “Because just paying for the aftereffects of the fire, or part of them, isn’t enough when you look and say, 'What will California change? Or the federal government change?'”
Some lawmakers, however, are suggesting ideas.
McClintock, the Republican from California, said he wants to see “policy reforms to assure that the land-management practices that minimize these fires will be put back in place,” while members of the Freedom Caucus — including its chair, Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) — are demanding that the aid be offset.
“If we do any more disaster aid, it should be paid for, and it should be paid for in full, and there should definitely be conditions put on California,” he said.
Then there is the discussion about attaching a debt ceiling increase to the California disaster relief rather than the sprawling GOP-led reconciliation package, an idea that was floated over the weekend as House Republicans met with President-elect Trump. Such a move — which Johnson confirmed is in the mix — would dare California Democrats to vote against the disaster aid because of their opposition to the borrowing limit play.
While many Republicans — including some from California — have backed the idea of placing conditions on disaster aid, the proposal does not have unanimous GOP support. Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.), for example, raised concerns with conditions on disaster relief during a House GOP leadership meeting Monday, a source told The Hill.
Valadao, who represents parts of the Central Valley, said that while he is not a firm supporter of many California policies, he recognizes some of the issues at play occur on federal land and that Congress could rectify some of the causes, the source said.
He also said lawmakers must be cognizant of the fact that the wildfires have significantly impacted the lives of Californians.
Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.) told The Hill “I think there should be safeguards to make sure the money gets to the victims,” adding, “I am not going to be happy about anything that interferes with that.” He did not, however, use the word “conditions” when pressed on Johnson’s comments.
“My word is safeguards. We need to have safeguards to make sure that the funds get to the people who need it,” he added.
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), meanwhile, said he was “unsure” about whether conditions should be placed on aid, citing the need to help Californians in need while also taking note of the criticism toward local policies.
“California’s got to change its policies. They’re worried about fish and not people,” Bacon said. “You can’t put fish in front of people’s lives and property.”
The comments were an apparent reference to Trump’s recent claim that Newsom failed to sign a so-called “water restoration declaration,” which the governor’s office has said does not exist.
In his first administration, Trump issued a proposal that sought to redirect water from Northern California’s Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to the agriculture-rich Central Valley. California officials ultimately filed suit against the federal government, disputing the order on the grounds that more pumping would harm fish protected by the Endangered Species Act.
While the debate over disaster aid is already heating up, Congress is not expected to have to address the matter for some time, because the fires are still ablaze, estimates will have to be conducted once they are put out, and then an official request for aid will be made. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has also said it “has enough funding” to support various recovery efforts, including those in California.
Democrats, nonetheless, are hammering away at Republicans for the mere suggestion that conditions should be tacked on to disaster aid, accusing them of playing politics amid a devastating disaster.
“It is outrageous for Speaker Johnson to try to tie conditions onto this disaster relief or to tie disaster aid to unrelated concepts like the debt ceiling,” said Rep. Ted Lieu (Calif.), the vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus. “We should not be leveraging the pain and suffering of our fellow Americans to try to force through policy changes.”
Johnson, for his part, is denying any political motivations.
“We're going to look at this very honestly,” Johnson said Tuesday. “And it's not political. We have to do the right thing for the people at a time when our fiscal house needs to be paid back in order.”