Senate Welfare Plan Weakened to Gain Support

WASHINGTON — Setting the stage for a clash with the House over the future of the nation’s welfare system, the Senate weakened several tough provisions of its welfare reform legislation Thursday to appease moderate Republicans and Democratic lawmakers whose votes are needed for passage.

Working late into the night, lawmakers persuaded Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) to accept $3 billion--four times the original amount--to pay for the care of children of welfare recipients forced to take jobs. But they put off final action on the package until next week.

“The linchpin of a successful welfare reform package with any hopes of moving people from welfare to work has to include child care,” said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.). He noted that 10 million of the 14 million people receiving Aid to Families With Dependent Children are children.

The added child-care money, which would be spread over five years, was one of several changes that Dole accepted that water down elements of the Senate plan favored by conservatives.

“The bill has moved substantially to the left,” Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.) told reporters Thursday evening. “The problem with conservatives in the Senate is that, when we get down to tough decisions, we’re always pulled to the left” by Republican moderates.

*

Senate Democratic and Republican leaders also agreed to a provision that would create a $1-billion contingency fund that states could tap if their welfare costs grew during recessions.

Dodd said that the changes make the legislation more likely to win Democratic support when it comes up for a final vote, which Dole scheduled for Tuesday.

Democratic lawmakers said that the amended legislation probably would be supported by President Clinton. But they said that, since it must first be reconciled with legislation approved by the House in March, it is far too early to predict that Clinton will sign it.

By watering down some of the tough provisions favored by conservatives, the Senate could be setting up a difficult conference with the House when legislators from the two chambers meet to reconcile the differing versions of the legislation.

The biggest battle is likely to be over money. The Senate modifications would diminish the estimated savings under its bill, which already fall far short of the $62 billion that the House measure is projected to save over five years. Before the changes, the Senate bill was estimated to save $43 billion over five years.

Despite the differences, both versions still would shift control over the nation’s welfare system from the federal government to the states and end the 60-year federal guarantee of cash assistance to each eligible poor family in the nation.

Both measures would freeze federal spending on welfare at 1994 levels and for the first time would limit lifetime eligibility to federal cash assistance to five years and require recipients to work after two years. States could opt to make those restrictions even tougher.

During debate on amendments to the Senate GOP plan late Thursday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) failed in two attempts to win support for softening provisions of the measure that would deny benefits for legal immigrants, which she argued would cost California billions of dollars.

In addition to limiting benefits to legal immigrants, like the House plan, the Senate measure also for the first time would distinguish between naturalized citizens and native born Americans when determining eligibility for welfare.

Feinstein pleaded with the Senate not to create “two classes of citizens” but her amendment failed on a vote of 61 to 37.

Earlier in the day, however, she won unanimous approval for an amendment that would make parents of fathers who are not yet adults responsible for child support when their children receive federal assistance.

“It takes two to tango,” Feinstein said. “This is an amendment that says parents have a responsibility to see to it that, if their minor son fathers a child, he does not walk away from responsibilities.”

*

The Senate also approved a federal version of California’s Proposition 187 that makes illegal immigrants ineligible for most federal benefits, except a few specified programs, including school meals, emergency medical assistance and immunizations.

Senate progress on welfare reform has stalled repeatedly in recent months, largely because of disagreements among Republicans. Senators from poorer, high-growth states have demanded a change in the formula used for distributing the block-grant funds and conservative senators, including Gramm, have fought for provisions intended to curb out-of-wedlock births.

When the measure finally came to the floor in August, Dole abruptly decided to postpone debate for a month because he could not forge a compromise among Republicans on critical issues. Pressure from within party ranks has continued to force the Kansas Republican to modify his package throughout the current floor debate, which started Sept. 6.

Moderate Republicans have had an especially strong voice. With the help of Democrats, they won passage of a provision requiring states to spend at least 80% of the amounts that they now contribute to welfare programs over each of the next five years. They also headed off efforts to include some of the tougher provisions in the House welfare legislation.

The Senate voted Wednesday to kill an amendment that would have forbidden states to increase welfare checks when recipients had more babies.

It also turned down an amendment that would have denied cash assistance to unwed teen-age mothers. Both are elements of the House bill.

Earlier Thursday, Senate conservatives won a victory, voting, 63 to 37, to retain a provision giving states a bonus for reducing their ratios of out-of-wedlock births. Currently, 30% of the babies born in America are born to single mothers.

“If we strip this provision from the bill, we will have to go back and explain to our constituents why we did not do one significant thing” about reducing birth rates among single mothers, said Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.).

Sen. Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.) argued, however, that the measure is intrusive and, by tracking births to unmarried mothers, would amount to an invasion of privacy. He suggested that there are other ways to fight out-of-wedlock births, “including sex education in the schools.”

Dole said he did not see the pitfalls of the provision. “Everybody’s gotten up here and railed about illegitimacy,” Dole said. “Why not reward a state . . . if [it] can devise a plan to reduce the illegitimacy rate?”

Presidential politics was a lively sideshow to the deliberations, with Gramm, who trails front-runner Dole in GOP presidential polls, using every opportunity to speak in favor of punitive measures aimed at dissuading single women from having babies.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

New Approaches to Welfare

How the final House plan compares to the Senate plan on key provisions of overhauling the nation’s welfare system:

Block grants:

Currently: The federal government finances and regulates an array of assistance programs operated by the states. The primary cash assistance program is Aid to Families with Dependent Children, which dispenses money to qualifying parents regardless of age or employment status. The government currently spends about $17 billion annually on AFDC.

House: Most programs would be consolidated into two block grants. One would cover cash assistance and job training, with federal funding limited to $15.4 billion annually. The other would cover child care, with funding set at $2.1 billion.

Senate: Existing programs would be consolidated into a single block grant. Funding would be set at $16.8 billion annually.

Entitlement status:

Currently: Federal and state governments are obligated to provide specified levels of AFDC benefits at levels set by the states to all qualifying applicants, regardless of cost to taxpayers. Government spending fluctuates with changing economic and employment conditions.

House: Federally guaranteed benefits would disappear under block grants. States would be given discretion to determine benefit levels and eligibility criteria, including the ability to reduce assistance if money runs short.

Senate: Same as House.

Work requirements:

Currently: There are no federal work requirements for single parents on welfare. The Family Support Act of 1988 mandates that an increasing percentage of the welfare caseload must be involved in education or training programs. Some states have adopted work requirements under waivers from the federal government.

House: Able-bodied recipients would be required to find work after receiving two years of benefits. States would be required to move 40% of welfare caseload into jobs by 2002.

Senate: Able-bodied recipients would be required to find work as soon as the state determines they are “work ready” or within two years, whichever is shorter. States would be required to move 50% of caseload into jobs by 2002.

Lifetime benefits:

Currently: Washington imposes no limit on lifetime benefits.

House: Cash benefits would be limited to a combined total of five years. States would be allowed to impose a shorter time frame.

Senate: Same as House.

Non-citizens:

Currently: Non-citizens who are in the country legally are eligible for federal benefits, although the income of their American sponsors is counted in determining eligibility for major benefits.

House: Most non-citizens would lose their eligibility for AFDC, Food Stamps, Medicaid and supplemental security income. States would have the option to deny benefits under other programs.

Senate: Most new immigrants would be ineligible for means-tested benefits. States could impose additional restrictions for cash assistance and food stamps. SSI would be denied to current resident immigrants as well as future ones.

Family cap:

Currently: AFDC recipients generally qualify for bigger cash payments as the number of dependents increases.

House: States would be allowed to deny additional benefits to recipients who have more babies.

Senate: Same as House.

Teen-age parents:

Currently: AFDC provides cash benefits to single teen parents.

House: Federal cash benefits would be denied to teen-agers who have children out of wedlock.

Senate: Unwed teen-agers would be required to live at home or in a supervised setting to receive benefits.

Child support:

Currently: There is no nationwide system for collecting child support

House: A nationwide network would be created to enforce child support payments. States would be required to revoke driver’s licenses and professional licenses of non-paying parents.

Senate: Similar to House.

Drugs and Alcohol:

Currently: Drug addicts and alcoholics can qualify for cash assistance under SSI.

House: Addiction and alcoholism would no longer qualify as disabilities in determining SSI eligibility.

Senate: Same as House.