Welfare Reform Waivers Anger Republicans

In the days before President Clinton signs sweeping welfare reform legislation, his administration has granted several states permission to waive some of the tough new requirements in the law--a move that Republicans charge is intended to undermine it.

In the two weeks since the measure won congressional approval, the Department of Health and Human Services has granted the waivers, including one to California--although the state does not plan to undercut the tough new federal rules. Other states had been granted waivers to federal requirements by the administration before the welfare legislation was passed by Congress.

While Republicans were ardent supporters of the earlier waivers, they now are criticizing Clinton for continuing to approve state requests now that Congress has passed federal reforms that the president has endorsed and plans to sign into law today.

Their reasoning: The earlier waivers contained provisions that were tougher than existing federal law but the changes approved by Congress earlier this month are even tougher in an effort to break the cycle of welfare dependency.

Granting waivers now, the Republicans argue, effectively allows states to avoid the tough new federal standards.

In a harshly worded letter to the president, the chief congressional architect of the legislation accused the administration of actively working to “undermine the spirit and the letter” of the bill. The letter, from Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr. (R-Fla.), criticized the administration specifically for granting waivers to the District of Columbia, Hawaii and Minnesota.

Hawaii’s and the District of Columbia’s waivers relax a new welfare eligibility cap that will limit an individual to five years of cash assistance in a lifetime. Under Minnesota’s waiver, individuals with long commutes to jobs and recipients who are “under duress” will not have to search for work and take jobs, as the new law will require.

“We must work together and not dilute the time limits and the work requirements,” Shaw said in the letter dated today but made available to The Times on Wednesday.

But administration officials defended approval of the waivers.

Shaw specifically added language to the legislation that would allow the administration to continue to grant waivers until the president signs the bill, according to HHS spokeswoman Melissa Skolfield. He also included a provision that allows states with waivers to continue to follow their own welfare rules until their waivers expire in the next three to 10 years.

Shaw put the clauses “in the bill because Republican governors asked him for it,” Skolfield said. “It’s simply giving states a little more flexibility.” The states that received last-minute waivers have governors from both parties.

Unlike the other recent waivers, the one granted to California was for a narrow provision that is consistent with the new federal law. It allows the state to freeze welfare payments when families on welfare have additional children.

Republicans are particularly concerned about waivers from the five-year time limit and from the definition of what counts as work.

The new federal legislation, while requiring states to limit benefits to five years in a recipient’s lifetime, allows them to exempt up to 20% of their caseload from the rule.

Officials in states granted waivers with more lenient time limits defended their policies.

“As long as individuals are making every effort to become employed, but by no fault of their own they cannot find jobs, we think they should still qualify for assistance,” said Patricia Murekami, the director of family and adult services administration of the Hawaii Department of Human Services.

Murekami said she was relieved that Washington had approved her state’s waiver. It means that welfare recipients in her state would not face “five years and then boom.”

Kathy Patterson, a councilwoman in the District of Columbia, argued that the district’s welfare population is especially dependent on the aid and that low-wage jobs are scarce.

“When poverty is more intractable, it takes longer for people to get off welfare,” Patterson said.

Republican sponsors of the legislation, however, said a strict time limit is necessary to prod people to change their behavior and become self-sufficient.

The new legislation requires states to put 50% of their welfare recipients in jobs by 2002. But Republicans argue that waivers granted by the Health and Human Services Department might allow many states to say that they had met the requirement without having people in real jobs.

Most states consider education programs, job training, drug rehabilitation and other activities as work, while the new legislation does not.