Efforts to restore aid to legal immigrants cut in 1996 have polarized members of Congress despite political benefits

Republicans are sending an update of welfare law to the House floor that promises a modest increase in federal child care funding, a small olive branch to Democrats opposed to increasing poor parents' work hours without such additional help.

Senate Democrats, at the same time, are moving toward common ground with the House COP by signaling their support for some increased work requirements.

But as the 107th Congress continues to debate altering the six-year-old welfare statute (PL 104-193) -- the core of which expires Sept. 30 -- the issue of restoring welfare benefits for legal immigrants remains the greatest source of polarization between the majorities on the two sides of the Capitol.

The pressure to revive those benefits comes from state officials, influential senators and Hispanic voters, a bloc that is being intensely courted for the midterm election. But it has not been enough to budge House conservatives. They say the current law discourages welfare dependency among immigrants and ensures that new arrivals' spo

The 1996 law replaced a guaranteed welfare check with new work requirements. It also ended most legal immigrants' access to welfare benefits, at least until they have been in the United States for five years. The aid includes food stamps, cash assistance and subsidized medical care. Illegal immigrants have never qualified, except in emergencies; refugees generally get assistance. Supporters at the time said the move would save the government billions of dollars; opponents said it stripped benefits from 900,000 people.

The issue of immigration has taken on a new cast, focusing on ways to tighten the borders after the Sept. 11 attacks by foreign-born terrorists. This election year however, backers of immigrants have a stronger voice as they reach double-digit percentages of the population in states such as California, Florida, Texas and New York. Linda Chavez-Thompson, vice president of the AFL-CIO, is blunt about the consequences of a welfare rewrite without any immigrant aid.

In the Senate, Breaux has rallied five other Finance members, including Republicans Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, behind an outline for legislation that they describe as a middle ground between Bush and most congressional Democrats.

Some common words found in the essay are:
House COP, Rican Coalition, Poor Families, Workforce Committee, House Republicans, Tommy Thompson, Democrats Bush, D-Fla Finance, DEBATE Efforts, Clinton York, legal immigrants, child care, benefits legal, naturalized citizens, benefits legal immigrants, native born, child care funding, care funding, education workforce, welfare benefits, means committee, food stamps, education workforce committee, 1993 native born, means committee approved,
Approximate Word count = 1909
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page double spaced)