Welfare Reform Nears OK as Child Care Is Bolstered : Legislation: Dole appeases moderate Senate Republicans and Democrats. He adds more money for recipients who are forced to work.

WASHINGTON — The Senate neared final approval of sweeping welfare reform legislation late Thursday after moderate Republicans and Democrats apparently persuaded Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) to add more money for child care for welfare recipients who are forced to work.

The revision was one of several modifications intended to appease enough Republicans and Democrats to win passage of the legislation. A vote was expected late Thursday or early today.

“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.

That shift, however, moves the bill farther away from the welfare bill approved earlier this year in the House--setting up a potentially difficult round of talks between House and Senate negotiators who will be asked eventually to reconcile the two versions.

Under the new child-care provision, the Senate would add $3 billion over five years for child care and provide a $1-billion contingency fund that states could tap if their welfare costs increased during recessions.

The Senate also agreed to an amendment sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that would make parents of fathers who are not yet adults responsible for child support when the mother is receiving federal assistance.

In broad terms, the GOP-sponsored legislation would freeze federal spending on welfare at 1994 levels. The strict federal regulations governing spending under the current system would be eliminated and states instead would be given lump-sum block grants to be used to give the poor income and job training and placement.

For the first time, cash assistance would be limited to five years in a lifetime and recipients would be required to work after two years. States could opt to make those restrictions even tougher.

The reforms are estimated to save $43 billion over five years, much less than the $62 billion in savings anticipated under the welfare reform package passed by the House in March.

Senate progress on welfare reform has stalled in recent months, largely because of disagreements among Republicans. For example, senators from poorer, high-growth states demanded a change in the formula used for distributing the block-grant funds and conservative senators, including Gramm, fought to include federal requirements aimed at decreasing 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 proved especially powerful. Cooperating with Democrats, they inserted into the legislation a provision requiring states to spend at least 80% of the amount they now contribute to welfare programs over 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 have more babies. It also turned down an amendment that would have denied cash assistance to unwed teen-age mothers. Both provisions are in the House bill.

Earlier Thursday, the Senate gave conservatives 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 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.

(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.