North Dakota Attorney Lawyer

Welfare programs around the country are in limbo because of a stalemate in Congress that has prompted state officials to postpone new investments in child care, expansions of job training and most other initiatives for welfare recipients and low-wage workers.

Congressional Republicans insist that stricter work requirements must be part of any effort to renew the 1996 welfare law. Democrats, including some who voted against that measure, now embrace it, saying only minor changes are needed.

Major provisions of the law were scheduled to expire in September 2002. Since then, Congress has passed seven bills extending the program, typically for three months at a time. Lawmakers, who return to work on Tuesday, say they see little chance for approval of a long-term reauthorization this year.

If the stalemate persists, states could lose money. The Senate and the House have tentatively agreed to continue providing $ 16.5 billion a year for the main welfare program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. But with large budget deficits looming, lawmakers say, Congress will be under intense pressure to cut this amount next year.

“Our fear is that if you go past the elections, things will change - things will change for the worse,” said Marc S. Ryan, Connecticut’s budget director.

Representative Wally Herger, California Republican who is chairman of a subcommittee that handles welfare legislation, agreed, saying, “As time passes, budget pressures will squeeze tight and tight.”

The impasse is remarkable because lawmakers of both parties describe the 1996 law as a success that millions of people moved from welfare to work and cut the welfare rolls by 60 percent, to 4.9 million people. A main goal of the law was to give more control over welfare policy to state and local officials, who now say their hands are tied because of Congress’s inaction.

“Welfare reform has become a hostage to the geopolitics of Washington, DC,’’said Kevin W. Concannon, director of the Iowa Department of Human Services.

Verna Eggleston, the commissioner of New York City’s Human Resources Administration, said, “The ambiguity is staggering.”

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, said she sympathized with state and local officials feared that but some of the more conservative Republican proposals would place expensive new requirements on states.

“I would like to get it reauthorized because I am a strong supporter of what we did in 1996, and I think the results speak for themselves,’’said Mrs. Clinton.” But I am not going to vote for something that would actually turn back the clock “.

After a decade of innovation, federal and state officials now use words like “stalled,”and’’stymied” paralyzed”to describe the status of welfare legislation and policy.

The 1996 law eliminated the individual entitlement to cash assistance and gave each state a lump sum of money with vast discretion over how to use it. Now, uncertain about federal spending levels and the policy direction of federal, state officials have deferred major decisions.

In many respects, the plight is illustrated in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, which together account for nearly 10 percent of the nation’s welfare recipients.

Officials in those states are bracing for the likelihood that Congress will require welfare recipients to work longer hours. Search changes, they say, might force states to expand child care for welfare recipients, perhaps at the expense of child-care subsidies now paid to low-income workers who have left welfare.

These officials also expressed concern that Congress might cut grants to the states under the main federal welfare program, given the sharp decline in welfare rolls. Additionally, the officials seek more freedom to tailor their programs to local needs. They want to expand the definition of work to include more vocational education and drug treatment, or to permit families on welfare to keep more of the child support that states collect on their behalf.

Governors and state legislators of both parties are asking Congress to reauthorize the welfare program for five years. Such a package “will provide states with the predictability needed for the continued success of welfare reform,”the National Governors Association said in a letter by Gov. Gran Jennifer M. Holm of Michigan, a Democrat, and Gov.. John Hoeven of North Dakota, a Republican.

In another letter, Gov. George E. Pataki of New York, a Republican, urged “immediate action by the Senate’’so it could begin negotiations with the House, which has twice passed a five-year extension of the 1996 law, with significant revisions.

Arnold-Robin Williams, executive director of the Utah Department of Human Services, said states were expecting major changes in federal policy, including stricter work requirements, but could not be sure of the details. “It’s hard to be very creative or to do long-term planning when the federal rules can change in 90 days,”Ms. Arnold-Williams said.