Senate Approves Welfare Reform

The Senate gave broad approval Tuesday to welfare reform legislation after making changes expected to improve chances that President Clinton will sign it into law.

Responding to pressure from the White House as well as Democrats and moderate Republicans, the Senate adopted amendments at the top of the president’s wish list. One would retain the federal guarantee of food stamps for all those now eligible and another would maintain current criteria for determining eligibility for Medicaid health insurance.

But the Senate refused to change a provision that would deny most federal benefits to most legal immigrants who have not become citizens.

The legislation was approved, 74 to 24, with 23 Democrats and one Republican--Sen. Lauch Faircloth of North Carolina--voting against passage.

“This reverses 30 years of welfare policy,” said Sen. William V. Roth Jr. (R-Del.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which drafted much of the bill. “It replaces the hopelessness of the current system . . . with the hope that comes from self-reliance.”

Clinton, who vetoed Republican welfare reform legislation last year, applauded the Senate revisions Tuesday. Even so, there was significant opposition from the chamber’s 46 Democrats, only half of whom voted to approve the measure.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) voted against the bill, complaining that “too many kids will still be punished,” despite the changes.

California’s two senators--Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer--also voted against the bill, arguing that it would force the state to shoulder a much heavier burden because it has a large population of legal immigrants whose federal benefits would be cut.

The measure would end the 60-year federal guarantee of cash benefits for all eligibile American families, and give states broad authority to design their own programs for moving recipients from welfare to work.

Under the plan, recipients would be required to enter the work force within two years and benefits would be limited to five years in a lifetime. It would save about $60 billion over six years, mostly by barring legal immigrants from most benefits and cutting the food stamps program.

Democrats who voted for the package argued that it makes significant changes in a federal program that Democrats and Republicans agree has failed both poor families and taxpayers.

“I believe it goes a long way to reforming much that is wrong with the welfare system,” said Sen. J. James Exon (D-Neb.). “We cannot lose this opportunity to break welfare’s bitter cycle of dependency.”

Members of the House, which passed a similar but tougher welfare measure two weeks ago, will meet with senators over the next several days to try to resolve differences in the two versions. Votes on a compromise version are expected next week.

In vetoing welfare legislation last year, Clinton argued that it was too harsh on the children of welfare recipients and on disabled children.

But Clinton, who vowed during the 1992 campaign to “end welfare as we know it,” said after the vote: “I’m optimistic we can make it even better in the conference.”

Clinton’s main rival for the presidency, Republican Bob Dole, predicted that even after the conference committee, Clinton will face a bill that is less generous than the one approved by the Senate.

The president “is going to get a tougher bill,” Dole said in Kansas. In a prepared statement, he added: “You have one last chance, Mr. President--keep your promise and sign this bill.”

The amendments adopted by the Senate, however, represented significant movement in Clinton’s direction.

By a vote of 53 to 45, the Senate eliminated a provision that would have given state governments the option to take over their food stamp programs. Clinton and many Democrats feared that the proposal would hurt the poor at times when their need is greatest.

Although the rejected provision would have required the federal government to continue to fund the program with lump-sum grants, the size of the grants would not have changed--even in times of severe economic downturns or natural disasters that could have left some states unable to meet surging demands for food assistance.

“Our national food assistance program developed from a decision by Congress that no child, no person, in our wealthy country with its abundant food supply should go hungry,” Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), the author of the amendment said. “The block grant approach would have destroyed the food assistance program.”

The battle over that issue remains alive, however, because the food stamp provision is part of the House version of the bill.

By a vote of 97 to 2, senators embraced an amendment to continue broad health care coverage for poor families by maintaining current eligibility criteria for Medicaid--the joint federal state health care program for poor families.

The Senate also struck down a “family cap” provision that would have forbidden states from increasing welfare checks for recipients who have additional children. But that provision remains part of the House bill.

The president wants states to have the option of imposing a family cap, as is the case now under the Senate bill.

The Senate rejected, 52 to 46, an amendment introduced by California’s two senators that would have modified provisions in the bill denying most federal benefits to most legal immigrants who are not naturalized citizens. The amendment would have retained benefits for those who currently receive them but would not have granted benefits to future immigrants.

Feinstein predicted that Los Angeles County would suffer more than any county in the country because many thousands of legal immigrants would lose benefits that they rely on--forcing state and local governments to deal with the fallout.

In Los Angeles, county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky introduced a motion to the board urging Clinton to veto the measure if the final version eliminates welfare and health care benefits for legal immigrants. “This is going to wreak havoc for the people of this county,” he said. A vote was scheduled for Thursday.

Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke said she told Clinton of the county’s concerns that it may have to absorb more than $300 million a year in increased general relief and health care costs if federal benefits for legal immigrants are eliminated. She said the president was “very aware of our problem” and expressed concern about it.

However, Board Chairman Mike Antonovich objected to seeking a veto of the welfare package and added that the taxpayers of Los Angeles County should not be responsible for providing welfare and health benefits if Congress votes to eliminate them. Antonovich argued that sponsors of legal immigrants ought to be financially responsible for those they bring to this country.

But Republicans in the Senate defended their effort to deny benefits to most legal immigrants, including cash assistance for families, food stamps, Medicaid and supplemental security income--cash support for the elderly blind and disabled.

“The taxpayers of this country are picking up the tab and being the retirement home for the rest of the world,” Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said.

In an unexpected development during the debate, the Senate voted, 74 to 25, to approve an amendment that would make individuals convicted of drug offenses--including misdemeanors--ineligible for all means-tested federal benefits, from food stamps to student loans.

California’s Gov. Pete Wilson said the bill does “not meet the test of reality” because it “would greatly limit the ability of California to fully and effectively implement comprehensive welfare reforms.” He urged the conference committee to “stand up for state innovation, personal responsibility and accountability.”

“If we’re serious about our drug laws, we ought not to give people welfare benefits who are violating the nation’s drug laws,” said Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), who offered the amendment.

Times staff writer Jeffrey Rabin contributed to this story from Los Angeles.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Under the New Plan

The fundamental change in the Republican plan eliminates the entitlement status of cash welfare programs, meaning qualified recipients would no longer receive an absolute guarantee that benefits will be available. It replaces Aid to Families with Dependent Children and other programs with block grants to the states. A comparison of the Republican welfare reform plan moving through Congress and current law in California:

TIME LIMITS

GOP PLAN: For most recipients, cash benefits limited to two consecutive years unless they enter the work force; five years lifetime.

CURRENT CALIFORNIA LAW: None

****

WORK REQUIREMENTS

GOP PLAN: Able-bodied adults must begin working within two years. Single parents with young children must work 20 hours per week; two-parent familes 35 hours.

CURRENT CALIFORNIA LAW: After 22 months, recipients must join some form of welfare-to-work program. Parents with children under 3 exempt.

****

CASH ASSISTANCE

GOP PLAN: Determined by states.

CURRENT CALIFORNIA LAW: For a single parent with two children, $594 per month under Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

****

FAMILY CAP

GOP PLAN: States required to deny additional cash benefits to families that have more children while on welfare, unless states pass laws waiving the prohibition.

CURRENT CALIFORNIA LAW: Limits not implemented because of a disagreement with Washington over conditions.

****

IMMIGRANTS

GOP PLAN: Legal immigrants would become ineligible for federal welfare benefits.

CURRENT CALIFORNIA LAW: Legal immigrants eligible.

****

OTHERS

GOP PLAN: States allowed to deny cash benefits to unwed parents under the age of 18. Retains entitlement status for food stamps but reduces federal spending by $23 billion over six years

Researched by D’JAMILA SALEM-FITZGERALD / Los Angeles Times