Making America Work : WHERE WELFARE REFORM STANDS

When the House and Senate finally come to terms on overhauling the federal welfare system, they’re almost certain to do two things: cancel the guarantee of cash grants to poor women and their children, and give the states much more control. The difficulty, of course, is in the details. Below, the points of agreement and contention:

* Both the House plan and the leading Senate contender would:

-- Place time limits on cash benefits: five years of aid in a lifetime.

-- Require parents to work for benefits after two years. (A first.)

-- Cap federal spending for Aid to Families with Dependent Children at 1994 levels. Currently, benefits expand/contract depending on how many people qualify. (Between 1970 and 1993, the number of families on AFDC grew from 2 million to nearly 5 million. Costs for administration and benefits rose from $2.6 billion [$10.8 billion adusted for inflation] to $13.8 billion in 1993.)

-- Greatly reduce cash available for disabled children under the Supplemental Security Income program.

-- Significantly cut benefits for legal immigrants. Most legal immigrants and people who qualify for SSI benefits because of drug and alcohol addictions would lose the support.

-- Toughen child-support enforcement.

-- Tighten the food stamps program.

* Unique to the House bill are provisions that would:

-- Forbid the use of federal funds for AFDC cash benefits for unmarried mothers under 18 and their children, mothers who won’t help locate the fathers of their children, legal immigrants who are not yet citizens.

-- Bar states from increasing benefit levels for families that have additional children.

-- Require states to dock checks if paternity can’t be determined.

These provisions are primarily aimed at discouraging out-of-wedlock births; Democrats, including President Clinton, oppose them as cruel to children. But the main Senate plan, drafted by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Bob Packwood (R-Ore.) with guidance from Republican governors, would let states adopt such rules for their own welfare caseloads.

* Also in dispute are House proposals to:

-- Lump federal foster care, adoption and child-welfare programs into one block-grant to the states. Senate opponents argue this would remove protections for abused and neglected children.

-- Change the school meals program from a federal program to a state-run program funded through a federal block grant.

* Where the White House stands:

-- Threatens to veto House measure.

--Criticizes Senate version because states are not required to continue contributing to welfare programs at current levels, though it has pointedly not threatened to veto the the Packwood package.

-- Endorses a plan by Senate Democrats that would retain the federal cash benefits for all eligible families, but cut eligibility to five years.