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 eligible 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.

In Orange County, about 114,000 people, 70% of them children, receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and about 150,000 people receive food stamps. At least half of them are legal immigrants, said Angelo Doti, director of financial assistance for Orange County’s Social Services Agency.

Doti said he fears the financial consequences for the county if the bill passes.

“Whatever they do, we do not want to bear the fiscal burden of large numbers of people being cut off [federal] assistance,” he said. 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 Senate also struck down a “family cap” provision that would have forbidden states to increase welfare for recipients who have additional children. But that provision remains in 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.

Orange County’s Doti said another concern is whether the reforms would mean more work for an already overloaded social service system.

For example, he said, caseworkers might be asked to help welfare recipients find jobs or affordable day care.

“Currently, what we do is we give somebody a check and they have the right to self-determination. What the new legislation looks like is that they want for us to go beyond eligibility determination to become gatekeepers and case managers,” Doti said.

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.

“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.”

Times staff writers Thao Hua and Jeffrey Rabin contributed to this story.

* PRESSURE ON PRESIDENT: The battle on welfare reform shows Clinton’s resiliency. A12

* REFORMS OUTLINED: State official says new program emphasizes return to work. B1