Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, September 20, 1995 TAG: 9509200064
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Knight-Ridder/Tribune
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
Instead, the bill would slash spending from welfare programs and send a fixed amount of money to states to try what many lawmakers say the federal government has failed to do - help these families become self-sufficient.
The 87-12 vote would change the rules for a welfare system that serves 14 million people - two-thirds of them children.
Republican John Warner and Democrat Charles Robb of Virginia both voted for the change.
Families could no longer receive benefits indefinitely. After two years of receiving benefits, mothers with children at home would have to start working or training for jobs. And legal immigrants who are not yet citizens would be ineligible for most social services.
Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, R-Kan., described the bill as ``writing a new chapter in the history of this great nation.
``We are not only fixing the welfare system, we are revolutionizing it. And in the process, we are closing the book on a six-decade-long system that may have been well-intentioned but failed the taxpayers and the people it was designed to serve.''
Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, one of 11 Democrats who voted against the bill, called it ``welfare fraud.''
``This day will be remembered as the day the Senate broke a noble promise to vulnerable Americans,'' he said. ``The safety net for children will no longer be part of what makes America America.''
The Senate bill and a stricter bill that passed the House in March now go to a conference committee that will try to reconcile differences. Social conservatives plan to press there for more restrictions on who will get benefits.
President Clinton, who vowed during his 1992 campaign ``to end welfare as we know it,'' has indicated he could support the Senate bill if it did not change substantially.
Advocates for children and poor families worry that the shift could leave more children and families hungry, neglected and alienated.
``We are doing wholesale experimentation without any evidence that any of this works,'' said David Liederman, executive director of the Child Welfare League of America, a coalition of 800 groups and agencies that work with troubled children.
``You don't experiment on the backs of poor children,'' he said. ``That's outrageous.''
Some Democrats who voted against the bill complained that it simply shifted federal responsibilities to the states.
``Real welfare reform has to come to grips with the problems of jobs and poverty,'' said Sen. Paul Simon, D-Ill. ``Anything that is called welfare reform but does not include jobs or deal with the problem of poverty is false advertising.''
Momentum behind the legislation was fueled by taxpayer support for reform, the push by some governors for more control over welfare, and the Republican plan to balance the budget and provide a tax cut.
After 14 days of debate shaped by internal fights, partisan wrangling and presidential politics, Senate Republicans stood firm for a major component of the House's ``Contract With America'' campaign document.
Besides Kennedy and Simon, the other Democrats who voted against the bill were: Daniel Akaka, Hawaii; Bill Bradley, New Jersey; Robert Kerrey, Nebraska; Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey; Patrick Leahy, Vermont; Carol Moseley-Braun, Illinois; Daniel P. Moynihan, New York; Paul Sarbanes, Maryland; and Paul Wellstone, Minnesota.
North Carolina Sen. Lauch Faircloth was the only Republican to vote against the bill. He said it did not adequately address illegitimacy, which he calls ``the root cause of welfare.''
Sen. Mark Hatfield, R-Ore., was ill and missed the vote.
Democrats claimed some victory by working with moderate Republicans to add more money for child care, require continued spending of state money on welfare programs and reject a plan that would have denied the average $39 increase to welfare mothers who have additional children.
The compromises in the Senate bill guarantee more debate over money and values as the Senate and House negotiate the differences in their bills.
The House bill turns over control of more federal programs to the states and includes more provisions aimed at curbing out-of-wedlock births, such as denying cash benefits to children born to teen-age mothers.
The House would also end assistance for most social services, including federal disability benefits, to most legal noncitizens already in the country.
Social conservatives, led by Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, have vowed to fight to ensure such provisions are in a final bill. And they are likely to have some sway, because the House bill, with all its restrictions, saves taxpayers more money.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates the House bill would save an estimated $102 billion over seven years. The Senate bill was estimated to save about $70 billion, but compromises have reduced that amount.
by CNB