The White House plans to create an entity within the federal government charged with protecting states' rights, a balm for state officials who complain that the Bush administration has not met its promise to return power to state governments.

Within a month, aides say, President Bush will issue an executive order designed to shift power from the federal government to the states. The order, building on a Reagan administration policy, will create a federal watchdog charged with determining whether any federal law or regulation deals with an issue better handled by states. It will essentially revoke a Clinton administration policy that gave the federal government more leeway to overrule states.

The action has been sought by state officials and by conservative opponents of a large federal government. They argue that the federal government shouldn't involve itself in areas outside of those enumerated in the Constitution, such as national defense and interstate commerce. Opponents of this "devolution" of federal power to the states believe shifting power to states would weaken civil rights and the government safety net. Though the Reagan and Clinton versions of the policy were largely symbolic expressions of philosophy, Bush's order, if enforced, could cover virtually every action the government considers. Health, education, environment and other policy matters would be questioned to see whether 
states could better handle them.

Bush's order, those familiar with it say, will restore the wording of the Reagan administration order on "federalism" -- the balance between federal and state authority -- but will add provisions that will create a standing body charged with monitoring the federal government's devolution of power. "The executive order is designed to systematically give it some teeth," a senior Bush aide said. "People do executive orders, but if it doesn't really stand up in some systematic way you don't have the success you ought to have had."

The standing body responsible for fielding and reviewing states' concerns may include officials in the Office of Management and Budget and from other agencies, say those who have worked with the White House on the order. When issuing regulations or considering legislation, the administration will have a "series of checkpoints" and "more of a functional approach" to consulting with state authorities, said Duane Pardee, director of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of conservative state lawmakers that has consulted with the White House. Pardee called the plan "a very good" approach.

The imminent issuing of the order may placate proponents -- Republican and Democratic -- of state authority, many of whom have been disappointed by early Bush actions. Among their grievances: new federal testing requirements for states, an effort to override state anti-discrimination laws and state laws allowing patients to sue HMOs, and a Bush plan to seize land for national energy transmission lines. In addition, the National Governors Association (NGA) calculated that the repeal of the estate tax would cause states to lose from $50 million to $100 million in revenue over 10 years."The view expressed or unexpressed by many governors is President Bush has been a disappointment to governors and those who look to states to solve problems," said Maryland Gov. Parris Glendening (D), who just completed a term as chairman of the NGA and will become head of the Democratic Governors' Association.

Glendening said Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton attended NGA meetings religiously, so Bush's absence from last month's NGA meeting raised eyebrows, particularly because Bush was a governor. "The administration clearly forgot its roots," Glendening said.A softer version of Glendening's critical view is voiced even by some Republican supporters of limited government. "Things have not been revolutionary," said Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, noting that he has been displeased with Bush education policy and "a number of other areas." But Leavitt doesn't blame Bush, whom he calls a "through and through federalist," arguing that Bush is "bucking against quite a counterbalance. "At the libertarian Cato Institute, former Reagan official Roger Pilon said the Bush administration is "yet to articulate any serious interest" in federalism. "Not only that, some of its actions run directly counter to federalism."

While giving Bush high marks for the tax cut and his federalist judicial appointments, Pilon objects to the education legislation pending in Congress. "It enhances the role of the federal government in education with national testing standards and the provision of more tax dollars," he said. Pilon said he also objects to apparent Bush plans to use federal law to overrule state initiatives allowing medical marijuana. Asa Hutchinson, the new head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, said on "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer" last week that smoking marijuana "is still a violation of federal law."

The Bush administration started out in an unexpectedly awkward position: Asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule Florida's Supreme Court, thereby handing the presidential election to Bush. Soon after his inauguration, Bush commissioned a task force to draft a new federalism order. Clinton won the enmity of state and local officials in 1998 when he issued a federalism order, replacing a Reagan version, that listed nine conditions under which federal rules could trump states. Clinton reissued the order in 1999 after state officials' protests, but those advocating states' rights believe Bush's order will go beyond even Reagan's version, an idea Leavitt called "a very inviting thought."

Paul C. Light, a government specialist at the Brookings Institution, is skeptical that the Bush initiative will succeed. "Every president comes in promising the states he will never make them do something against their will," he said. "It doesn't sound to me like this is a great shake-up."Indeed, states complain that both Republicans and Democrats, once they get to Washington, tend to support federal power. Even after Republicans won control of Congress in 1994, for example, states complained that the GOP was interfering with their authority in the areas of criminal law, securities law and telecommunications.

Bush often talks about the virtue of local control. "I'm going to make respect for federalism a priority in this administration," he told governors earlier this year. "The framers of the Constitution did not believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful federal government. They believed that our freedom is best preserved when power is dispersed."

But outside of the federalism task force, states' representatives have been disappointed. The shrinking federal surplus may make matters worse. "We're quite concerned about several of the big initiatives," said Carl Tubbesing, Washington director of the National Conference of State Legislatures. "We're very concerned we're about to enter another era of unfunded mandates. The feds are about to run out of money and to do things they'll pass costs onto the states."

The NCSL is particularly bothered about new costs and requirements in Bush's education plan, which requires states to test students to receive federal funds. Tubbesing also complains that the administration has not acted to ease the costs for special education imposed on the states. On the topic of energy transmission, part of Bush's national energy policy, Tubbesing said state legislators have been galled by "the feds telling them where to sight their lines." Another issue of contention is the federal prohibition on Internet taxation, which deprives states of a revenue source. A moratorium on certain Internet taxes is due to expire, but state officials fear Bush won't allow them to collect the taxes.

Some Democrats charge that Bush's federalism is selective: On hot-potato issues such as election reform, he is inclined to give power to the states, but when state power conflicts with his own goals, such as limiting lawsuits, he leans against states.

At one point, South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges (D) threatened to go to court and set up roadblocks to prevent the federal government from shipping plutonium to his state from Colorado. The federal government has agreed to delay shipments.

But the administration's federalism position affects Republicans too. Bush's brother Jeb Bush, the Florida governor, protested an administration proposal for oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

© 2001 The Washington Post Company