> ## House Endorses Stricter Work Rules for Poor

> By ROBERT PEAR

> WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 — The House passed a bill today to impose stricter work requirements on poor people who receive cash assistance from the federal government. It also endorsed President Bush's plan for fundamental changes in the landmark 1996 welfare law, widely regarded as one of the most successful experiments in social policy of the last 25 years.

> The House vote, 230 to 192, generally followed party lines: 11 Democrats voted for the bill, and 2 Republicans voted against it.

> The bill goes now to the Senate, where Republican leaders said it would have a high priority. Senators of both parties said they would try to provide more money for child care.

> Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who heads the Finance Committee, said he intended to write a bipartisan welfare bill.

> "Since the Senate is narrowly divided," Mr. Grassley said, "we can't act as quickly and decisively as the House, but I hope the committee will approve a bipartisan bill in the next few months that the full Senate will then approve."

> Senators promised to pay close attention to the concerns of governors, who say the work requirements would impose costly new mandates on states. Currently, states are struggling with the worst fiscal problems since World War II.

> House members had little opportunity to hear from state officials or other experts on the bill. The measure was introduced just nine days ago, and the House acted on it without any hearings on it this session.

> The bill passed today is similar to one that died in the Senate last year after being approved by the House. Since then, Democrats said, the fiscal condition of the states has deteriorated, and some have cut back welfare and child care programs.

> Republicans said the House bill was a logical extension of the 1996 law, which ended a 60-year-old federal guarantee of cash assistance for the nation's poorest children and gave each state a lump sum of money, with vast discretion to run its own welfare program. Since passage of the welfare bill, the number of people on welfare plunged to 5 million in September 2002 from 12.2 million in 1996, a decline of 59 percent.

> Still, the House leadership felt the 1996 bill did not go far enough.

> "Even now, after the extraordinary success of the 1996 reforms, the vast majority of welfare recipients still do not go to work every day like the rest of the country," said Representative Tom DeLay, the Texas Republican who is majority leader. Democrats, Mr. DeLay said, would leave the poor "mired in perpetual dependency," with nothing but welfare to cling to.

> But Representative Pete Stark, Democrat of California, said: "In 1964, Lyndon Johnson declared a war against poverty. Today, my Republican colleagues and the president have declared a war against the poor."

> Republicans counter that the welfare reforms they have championed have benefited low-income people.

> "Nearly three million children have been lifted out of poverty since 1996," said Representative Bill Thomas, Republican of California and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

> Another California Republican, Representative Wally Herger, said, "Black child poverty is at a record low, and the welfare rolls have continued to decline over the last two years even though we are in a recession and unemployment rates have risen."

> Before the final vote today, the House rejected two Democratic alternatives, by votes of 300 to 124 and 225 to 197.

> Democrats argued that House Republican leaders short-circuited the legislative process by rushing the welfare bill to the floor.

> Representative Jim McDermott, Democrat of Washington, said: "This legislation is just rubber-stamping George Bush's proposals. Tom DeLay leads the politburo, and he keeps sending things up here."

> Republicans said that House committees held more than 20 hearings on welfare in the last two years, and that they saw an urgent need for swift action. Major provisions of the 1996 law expired on Oct. 1, 2002, and have been extended temporarily by stopgap spending bills.

> But Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York, noted that there were more than 50 new House members who had no opportunity to study or vote on welfare legislation in the last Congress.

> Mr. McDermott said the Republicans were demanding stricter work requirements because they wanted to "squeeze poor people." But Representative Nancy L. Johnson, Republican of Connecticut, said, "Welfare reform has been most successful in states with the most stringent work requirements."

> Under the bill passed today, the government would provide up to $300 million a year for programs to promote healthy, stable marriages. The money could be used for premarital education and counseling.

> Mr. Stark said this was a waste of money, "inspired by the Republicans' blind allegiance to holy rollers of the Christian right."

> Republicans favor state flexibility in other programs, including Medicaid, Head Start and food stamps. But Democrats said the welfare bill was highly prescriptive.

> Gov. Gary Locke of Washington, chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, said he agreed the 1996 law had been a success but that the House bill "severely restricts state flexibility and attempts to impose a one-size-fits-all approach."

> Another Democratic governor, Gray Davis of California, said states should be able to expand the definition of work to include vocational education. Also, Mr. Davis said, states should be allowed to use federal money to provide welfare benefits to legal immigrants who have not become citizens.

> Under one section of the bill, states would have to end aid to a family, including the children, if a parent failed to meet work requirements for two consecutive months. The bill exempts New York, whose Constitution requires the state to provide for "the aid, care and support of the needy." But the exemption lasts only a year. After that, the state could face financial penalties if it did not comply.

> Under the bill, states would get a block grant of $16.5 billion a year, the same as under current law. But more welfare recipients in each state would have to engage in work activities for more hours each week.

> By 2008, at least 70 percent of a state's adult welfare recipients would have to be engaged in work or job preparation activities, up from 50 percent required under current law. In addition, welfare recipients would have to participate in supervised activities for 40 hours a week, including at least 24 hours of actual work. The comparable figures under current law are 30 hours and 20 hours.
> President Bush wanted to continue child care spending at the current level, $4.8 billion a year, for a total of $24 billion over five years. House Republicans added $2 billion. Democrats wanted to add $11 billion.
> Republicans denied that their bill would impose a straitjacket. Indeed, they said, it encourages states to conduct demonstration projects. Federal officials could waive almost any federal law or regulation on welfare, food stamps, public housing, job training, child care and other programs for low-income people.
> The bill also allows states to use up to 50 percent of their welfare money for child care and other social services. Such transfers are limited to 30 percent under current law.

> Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois, helped push the 1996 law through Congress as an aide to President Bill Clinton. But today Mr. Emanuel said: "I cannot vote for the Republican bill because it's punitive in nature. You've got to put more money into health care, child care and transportation to help people move from welfare to work."

> Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company