Too Close to Call: State/Federal Relations.

• Author: Norton, Stephen

If Congress finds a way to work together, what will it mean for the states?

Call this the year of the anti-mandate. With a nation divided down the middle, bipartisanship has become the mantra of Washington politicians of all stripes. But in practical terms, bipartisanship is a recipe for caution.

Therefore, state and local officials can be fairly certain there will be no sweeping changes in their relationship with the federal government--but perhaps a series of modest steps. Even (or if) after the public and members of Congress move on from the campaign and the court fights, no one can be sure what the next president and Congress will do on issues from Internet commerce to school class size to welfare reform and now, election procedures.

Once the dust settles from the excruciatingly close and bitter election fight, the biggest question in American politics will be whether the new president can govern. Pundits and insiders say the answer, just like the election, is too close to call. As a standoff was developing on how to share power in a Senate split 50-50, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, insisted, "In a positive way, it is a way for both parties to be invested." Asked if the Democrats' role in the next Congress would be mostly obstructionist, with an eye on wresting control from Republicans in two years, he said, "We are not going into this with that as our expectation," but quickly added that it would be their right and duty to block legislation with which they disagreed.

A similar pitch comes from congressional Republicans. When the House GOP steering committee met in the basement of the Capitol in early December, there was near unanimity for reaching across the aisle among the few dozen contenders for committee chairmanships who paraded before the panel. Assuming that Bush would prevail, California Representative William Thomas, who was seeking the gavel at the powerful Ways and Means Committee, explained bipartisanship is possible in a closely divided legislative branch so long as there is not a president of the opposing party "coercing" votes like he said Clinton did.

And Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson predicted, "There are good feelings for any new president--a honeymoon period. I think President Bush's will be a little shorter and probably not that intense, but it will still be there." And he cautioned, "No substantive legislation will pass on a partisan basis." As a way to avoid gridlock, he proposed a one-year moratorium on the usual ritual of beginning the next campaign the day after the inauguration. "I am hoping we can work together for at least a year," he said.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR STATES?

If Congress does find a way to work together, what will it mean for the states? On the issue of federalism, the election of 2000 is likely to serve to make a cautious president out of a cautious candidate. Texas Governor George W. Bush disappointed disciples of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's revolution of 1994 by not pledging to dismantle dozens of federal departments and agencies and to turn over to states scores of federal activities.

"There is nothing in the cards like 1982 or 1994," said Michael Greve, who specializes in the study of federalism issues at the American Enterprise Institute. "It is part of the phenomenon that the conservatives are finished."

Indeed, many politicians think Ronald Reagan's New Federalism and Newt Gingrich's "devolution" have gone as far as they can go.

"States already have a pretty active role in a lot of areas," observed Delaware Representative Michael Castle, the only U.S. congressman who has been a governor. He dismissed would-be pledges to give vast new amounts of power to the states as "more rhetoric than reality." California Representative Thomas said Bush is "implicitly a federalist," but he and other Republicans were hard-pressed to find examples of Bush's desire to shift either power to or place new burdens on states. In fact, retiring Florida Senator Connie...