Lawmakers Blister Clinton Welfare Plan : Congress: Moderates are especially derisive, stunning the White House. Usually faithful House Democrats call the initiative simplistic.

President Clinton’s welfare reform initiative is coming under unexpectedly broad attack on Capitol Hill--particularly from moderates in both parties whose support is critical to its fate.

At hearings on the plan before a House subcommittee this week, usually faithful Democrats were accusing the Administration of pandering to public sentiment with simplistic political slogans rather than devising a system that would help the people who need it.

Administration officials seemed stunned by the reaction, which appeared to forecast a difficult trip though Congress for an initiative that the Administration has characterized as one of its most popular with the public and a sure bet with Congress.

One of the Administration’s harshest critics is Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Sacramento), who generally is regarded as a team player on important White House initiatives. During a hearing this week before the Ways and Means human resources subcommittee that began Tuesday, Matsui has pounced on element after element of the proposal, accusing Administration officials testifying about the President’s plan of forgetting their own research and drafting policy based on public opinion polls.

In the style of a tough prosecutor, Matsui forced a co-chairman of the Administration’s welfare reform team, Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services David Ellwood, to admit more than once that there had been no studies on the impact of cutting off cash welfare after two years, a central tenet of the President’s proposal.

“Can you discuss this in a way that I’ll be confident that these people will not be screwed?” an obviously angry Matsui asked.

Several members of the Administration’s team, including Ellwood, were clearly “shaken” by the intensity of the “Matsui tour de force ,” according to one official who requested anonymity.

The Administration had contended that its plan would receive support from both sides of the aisle, but Republicans joined in the attack.

One Republican lawmaker assailed a provision that would cut off all money to welfare recipients who had taken subsidized jobs but did not show up for work. “What about the children?” asked Rep. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.).

Another Republican questioned whether authors of the proposal had considered the clear constitutional problems raised by their decision to apply the two-year time limit only to the youngest welfare recipients. To contain the cost of the President’s reform package, the time limit provision and most other elements would be phased in by applying it only to those born in 1971 or later.

“We have to write a reform that will work in reality and not in theory,” declared Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.), another influential liberal on the subcommittee. “Reform here is critical, and we have to make sure we do it right.”

Bruce Reed, one of three senior officials who guided Administration welfare planning, defended his view that there is broad political consensus around the President’s plan.

“There have been all kinds of points of common agreement,” said Reed, who did not appear at the hearings. But in an interview, he cited only a Republican congressman’s mention of a similarity between the subsidized work programs outlined in the Administration’s measure and a major Republican bill.

During four days of hearings this week starting Tuesday, members of the House lauded aspects of at least nine competing welfare reform plans. “There are a lot of people who are just going to use this as a political football,” said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles).

Others said it reflected the array of opinions about what ails the Aid to Families With Dependent Children program, the cash assistance program for poor families, and what should replace it.

Administration officials have consistently claimed that they can count on the support of a large number of Republicans in Congress. But Republicans made it clear in the hearings that they want legislation that costs less, does more to deter teen-age pregnancy and forces a greater percentage of welfare recipients to work.

“I think a consensus will be reached,” said one Republican legislative aide. “But it is not around the Administration’s bill.”

What the Administration did not predict, analysts suggested, was that no matter how conservative its bill, Republicans would not be satisfied.

“The President’s bill would have been viewed as extreme two years ago but, because of the ways the terrain keeps shifting, it can now be denounced as modest and tepid,” said Mark Greenberg, senior attorney for the liberal Center for Law in Social Policy.

When the President unveiled his legislation earlier this summer, the conventional wisdom was that Congress would not take up the issue in earnest until next year. But since then, the new Ways and Means chairman, Rep. Sam H. Gibbons (D-Fla.), has said that he wants to deliver a bill before members face voters in November.

“I think we can do it,” Gibbons said at a news conference this week.

But Matsui said there are major drawbacks to proceeding now. “We could do significant damage” by tackling welfare reform during an election year--when some in Congress might see political advantage in bashing welfare recipients, he said.