State Spectrum; No. 3; Federal/State Relationship

<v Nigel Reed>Today on state spectrum, we'll be talking about the relationship of Maryland state <v Nigel Reed>government to the federal government. <v Nigel Reed>Our student guests here in the studio today are from Anne Arundel County. <v Nigel Reed>And we'll be talking with them in a few minutes. <v Nigel Reed>The founders of our country wanted to create a strong national government and at the same <v Nigel Reed>time preserve the governments of the 13 original states. <v Nigel Reed>They first tried a confederation of states, which they called a firm league of <v Nigel Reed>friendship. It was a committee style arrangement and it didn't work very well. <v Nigel Reed>The Articles of Confederation were the basis of this government. <v Nigel Reed>Under the Articles of Confederation, there was a Congress, but it had very limited <v Nigel Reed>powers. There was no executive branch to carry out the laws and <v Nigel Reed>no national court system to resolve disagreements. <v Nigel Reed>Well, it soon became very clear that under a confederation, the national government <v Nigel Reed>wasn't strong enough. <v Nigel Reed>The solution to the problem was a federal system of government. <v Nigel Reed>Federalism is a system in which power is divided between different levels of government <v Nigel Reed>in the United States. Our federal system divides power between the central or national

<v Nigel Reed>government and the governments of the states. <v Nigel Reed>So federalism is a dual system of government. <v Nigel Reed>Two levels, each with its own authority. <v Nigel Reed>But which powers belong to the national government in which to the states? <v Nigel Reed>The United States Constitution answers that question. <v Nigel Reed>It establishes the powers of the states and of the national government. <v Nigel Reed>We can think of those powers as playing cards. <v Nigel Reed>The power to issue money to provide public <v Nigel Reed>schools. <v Nigel Reed>To declare war. <v Nigel Reed>To raise money through taxes. <v Nigel Reed>And others. The federal constitution acted as a sort of dealer <v Nigel Reed>with the states here and the national government here. <v Nigel Reed>The purpose of federalism was to give state governments the power to act on matters close <v Nigel Reed>to home. For example, Maryland may have different needs <v Nigel Reed>or may want to do things differently than some other states.

<v Nigel Reed>Federalism makes it possible for the states to act separately by dealing <v Nigel Reed>them certain powers. <v Nigel Reed>These powers are called reserved powers because the <v Nigel Reed>Constitution reserves them for the state. <v Nigel Reed>Among other things, states have the power to provide for education. <v Nigel Reed>Regulate businesses and trade within each state establish <v Nigel Reed>local governments. <v Nigel Reed>License certain professional workers. <v Nigel Reed>And determine the qualifications of voters. <v Nigel Reed>Federalism also provides for broad actions on behalf of the entire country <v Nigel Reed>by dealing powers to the national government. <v Nigel Reed>These powers are called delegated powers. <v Nigel Reed>Because they were delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. <v Nigel Reed>The national government has powers to regulate

<v Nigel Reed>trade between states and with foreign countries. <v Nigel Reed>Issue money. <v Nigel Reed>Establish post offices. <v Nigel Reed>Declare war. <v Nigel Reed>Make peace and treaties or agreements with foreign countries. <v Nigel Reed>The states can do none of these. <v Nigel Reed>Even so, federalism is also a system of shared powers. <v Nigel Reed>Neither the national government nor the states have all the power. <v Nigel Reed>Each has some power that it alone can exercise. <v Nigel Reed>But other powers overlap. <v Nigel Reed>These powers are called shared or concurrent. <v Nigel Reed>The Constitution allows both to collect taxes. <v Nigel Reed>Borrow money. <v Nigel Reed>Establish courts. <v Nigel Reed>Enforce laws and punish criminals. <v Nigel Reed>And provide for the health and welfare of citizens. <v Nigel Reed>The relationship of the states to the national government has been one of conflict as

<v Nigel Reed>well as cooperation. For instance, one contributing factor of the civil war <v Nigel Reed>was the conflict over the right of states to withdraw entirely from the union. <v Nigel Reed>In the past 50 years, many laws have been passed which extended the power of the national <v Nigel Reed>government. One example is the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which was enacted <v Nigel Reed>in 1913. It gave Congress the power to create a national <v Nigel Reed>income tax. <v Nigel Reed>In the 1930s, new federal programs were undertaken to regulate business, <v Nigel Reed>labor and industry. <v Nigel Reed>To develop land and manage natural resources and provide <v Nigel Reed>for citizens welfare. <v Nigel Reed>In 1974, Congress made the control of speed limits on highways a responsibility <v Nigel Reed>of the federal government when it passed a national speed limit act. <v Nigel Reed>Some of the states are still unhappy about that. <v Nigel Reed>The state federal relationship is complicated.

<v Nigel Reed>Unlike a card game, the participants are partners, not rivals. <v Nigel Reed>The relationship requires cooperation between governments. <v Nigel Reed>The costs of some government services, such as education and transportation, are shared. <v Nigel Reed>Some problems cross state lines and call upon the cooperation of several states and the <v Nigel Reed>national government. Cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay is one example. <v Nigel Reed>Eric King has that story. <v Captain Pete Sweitzer>Nobody can find any amount of seafood any- anywhere, and <v Captain Pete Sweitzer>it's on a steady decline and if nothing's done. <v Captain Pete Sweitzer>And if and if the water isn't cleaned up in the bay. <v Captain Pete Sweitzer>I predict the seafood industry in this state will completely disappear. <v Eric King>Pete Sweitzer has been a waterman on the Chesapeake Bay for almost 40 years. <v Eric King>When he first started working on the water, Pete says the bay was bountiful. <v Captain Pete Sweitzer>When you harvest the sea food those days it was a no problem <v Captain Pete Sweitzer>to find seafood, the problem back in those days was finding a market to sell it. <v Captain Pete Sweitzer>It was that much seafood in this bay. And today it's the complete opposite.

<v Eric King>What's happened to the Chesapeake Bay is a complicated story, but the meaning <v Eric King>is clear. Many of the people in industries living on or near the bay have <v Eric King>polluted its waters and killed off much of its vegetation and seafood. <v Eric King>However, efforts are now being made to clean up the bay. <v Eric King>But it's a complicated process because many different governments are involved. <v Eric King>The bay lies mostly in Maryland and Virginia, but its most important tributary, <v Eric King>the Susquehanna River, flows primarily through Pennsylvania. <v Eric King>All of those states are responsible for making sure that the bay's waters are clean and <v Eric King>productive because many residents use the bay as a source of recreation and income. <v Eric King>But the bay is also a national resource which supplies the country with some of the <v Eric King>largest batches of seafood. <v Eric King>And it's a major waterway for national and international trade. <v Eric King>Because of this, the federal government is also responsible for making sure that the bay <v Eric King>remains productive and accessible as a major port. <v Charles Mathias, Jr.>So you have here many states involved

<v Charles Mathias, Jr.>and the federal government, which clearly has an interest, but <v Charles Mathias, Jr.>which doesn't have a compelling responsibility and immediate <v Charles Mathias, Jr.>responsibility to act. <v Eric King>But Maryland Senator Charles Mathias got the federal government involved in saving the <v Eric King>bay by leading the effort to convince Congress to conduct a seven year, 28 <v Eric King>million dollar study of the bay. <v Charles Mathias, Jr.>And it was a major decision for the federal government <v Charles Mathias, Jr.>to enter this new area of activity and to begin to study the problems of the bay. <v Virginia K. Tippie>Certainly, the fishermen and the watermen were wise to <v Virginia K. Tippie>the situation long before any of these scientists, really. <v Virginia K. Tippie>But the fact of the matter is, we've all seen these changes. <v Virginia K. Tippie>But this EPA Chesapeake Bay program study documented the changes. <v Eric King>Virginia Tippee headed the Bay study, which was conducted by the federal Environmental <v Eric King>Protection Agency. The study was an important first step toward making people <v Eric King>realize that the bay was in trouble.

<v Eric King>And the research couldn't have been done without the resources of the EPA or the money <v Eric King>from the federal government. Besides sponsoring the study, the federal government had <v Eric King>another important role to play. <v Charles Mathias, Jr.>There had to be someone who could bring Maryland and Virginia and <v Charles Mathias, Jr.>Pennsylvania and West Virginia to a single <v Charles Mathias, Jr.>table where the problems of the bay could be viewed <v Charles Mathias, Jr.>as a unit, not as the Maryland part of the bay and the Virginia <v Charles Mathias, Jr.>part of the bay. But as a total bay problem. <v Eric King>And the federal government did just that in December of 1983. <v Eric King>That's when representatives from the states and the federal government got together for <v Eric King>the Chesapeake Bay conference and discussed how to save the bay. <v Virginia K. Tippie>They agreed, first of all, that the cleanup of the bay should be a state federal <v Virginia K. Tippie>partnership, that we should work together to clean the bay up. <v Virginia K. Tippie>It's not one single state's responsibility, nor is it the federal government's <v Virginia K. Tippie>responsibility. It was all of our responsibility.

<v Eric King>But Senator Mathias says at first the states didn't want the federal government involved. <v Charles Mathias, Jr.>In the first place, the state governments are reluctant <v Charles Mathias, Jr.>to have the federal government interfering in any way. <v Charles Mathias, Jr.>This is an area not only state control <v Charles Mathias, Jr.>and interest, but an area in which the states are very jealous <v Charles Mathias, Jr.>of their of their prerogatives. They've been jealous of each other. <v Eric King>But state officials realize that if they were going to save the bay, they couldn't do it <v Eric King>alone. They needed each other and the help of the federal government. <v Eric King>Dr. Torrey Brown heads Maryland's Department of Natural Resources. <v Eric King>He says the federal state partnership to save the Bay is working. <v Dr. Torrey C. Brown>We have been successful in getting many commitments from <v Dr. Torrey C. Brown>three states as the result of a federal study. <v Dr. Torrey C. Brown>And with those state commitments, federal government came back and also supplied <v Dr. Torrey C. Brown>some of their resources. So when we work together, things do proceed

<v Dr. Torrey C. Brown>much faster than when you fight with each other. <v Eric King>Thanks to the efforts of Governor Hughes and other state officials, Maryland has an <v Eric King>impressive commitment to clean up the bay. <v Eric King>The state is paying to modernize sewage treatment plants and industries that dump waste <v Eric King>into the bay waters and will help set up land management programs for farmers <v Eric King>and communities to prevent deadly materials from running into the bay. <v Eric King>The federal government will help pick up the price tag for the bay cleanup and has an <v Eric King>office that will coordinate efforts between state and federal levels. <v Captain Pete Sweitzer>Hopefully, with the help with the state and the federal government now putting <v Captain Pete Sweitzer>money into the cleanup of the bay, that we can reverse this trend <v Captain Pete Sweitzer>and build a seafood industry back up again. <v Nigel Reed>The statement was made in the program that every Marylander has a stake in the Chesapeake <v Nigel Reed>Bay. Does everybody agree with that necessarily? <v speaker 1>I definitely think so, I mean, Maryland is so centered

<v speaker 1>around the Chesapeake Bay. Even the parts that don't directly come up with the bay <v speaker 1>are directly tied into it through commerce and the economy of the region and <v speaker 1>everything. So I think the entire state is tied in with the bay. <v speaker 2>There's some in western Maryland that might say no, ours is more centered around the coal <v speaker 2>industry, or whatever, you know. I mean, just you go out on any winter day <v speaker 2>and you'll see just lines and lines of tankers. <v speaker 2>No back miles behind the bay bridge waiting it to get into well Robert and fill up with <v speaker 2>coal. So then if that wasn't there to help them out then I really think they'd <v speaker 2>feel the effects. <v speaker 3>Not necessarily. I mean, up in the western corner of Maryland, you've got people that are <v speaker 3>almost into Pennsylvania. They're almost completely separate from the state up in that <v speaker 3>little corner. And the Chesapeake Bay is not necessarily going to affect them in any way. <v speaker 2>You know, one of the big industries, whether in Pennsylvania or not, I think we have to <v speaker 2>really concern ourselves with just one state. But even the people live out there in <v speaker 2>Pennsylvania. I mean, I'm sure that they're directly affected by the bay in the same way <v speaker 2>the people in Maryland.

<v speaker 3>So you. But do you think that we should go on spending the amount of money that we are in <v speaker 3>the bay? <v speaker 1>Well, it's it's a trickle down theory. Eventually, it's going to reach everybody. <v speaker 3>I know but that money, I mean, the money could also be spent doing other things that <v speaker 3>aren't being concentrated on. Sure, the bay is has a big effect on most <v speaker 3>of the people. But there's a lot of other things up in western Maryland, other parts of <v speaker 3>the of Maryland where they could be using the money for other <v speaker 3>things other than the bay more effectively. <v speaker 1>Yes, but. <v speaker 2>You could. That would be a justified argument if in no way that the that the <v speaker 2>improvements of the bay were going to affect them. But they are going to affect them. <v speaker 1>The bay-. <v speaker 3>There's other things that there's other things that are affecting them a lot more than <v speaker 3>the bay. I mean, there-. <v speaker 1>The bay is the center of the state, though, and things tend to move out. <v speaker 3>No it's not necessarily. <v speaker 1>Commerce and things come in and out of Maryland through the bay. <v speaker 4>The bay is a local issue. It's just one part of Maryland. <v speaker 4>The Chesapeake Bay isn't located in one county. <v speaker 4>It's over 4000 like miles of shoreline. <v speaker 4>It's a it's a large thing. And many counties are involved with it. <v speaker 4>And the counties that are involved with it could afford in cooperation with each

<v speaker 4>other to sponsor the cleanup of the bay. <v speaker 5>It's awful lot of money you need to clean up the bay. <v speaker 5>I mean, a lot it can't just come from a couple counties. <v speaker 3>Well then get the federal government involved like it has been lately. <v Nigel Reed>All right. Well, once the federal government does get involved in what you may perceive <v Nigel Reed>to be a local problem, who's then to say how the money <v Nigel Reed>that the federal government allocates to the local problem be spent? <v speaker 1>Well, when you say, well, if they allocate to the local problem and the locality, <v speaker 1>it should decide how to spend money, I feel. <v speaker 3>But, you know, it's it's the federal it's the federal government's money. <v speaker 3>I mean, shouldn't- they should have a large say in what's going to happen with that <v speaker 3>money. [Speaker 1: Well-] Because it's, I mean, if they're giving if they're do-, if <v speaker 3>they're giving all this money to a project, they should be able to say, well, this is <v speaker 3>what I want done in that project. This is what we should accomplish. <v speaker 3>These are the goals that we should set and accomplish. <v speaker 2>Yea, but then again, their ideas on how they want to spend their money are based on <v speaker 2>standards that are nationwide. <v speaker 3>But it's a nationwide problem. <v speaker 1>But it doesn't affect everybody like it affects Maryland.

<v Nigel Reed>?inaudible? you were gonna say? <v speaker 6>I was gonna say the federal government, they should say what they do because look at the <v speaker 6>watermen. They never they knew the water was being polluted the whole time and never did <v speaker 6>anything. The state didn't do anything. The federal government had to come in and give <v speaker 6>the money to the state. <v speaker 5>Yea but it also took the federal government what was it? <v speaker 5>Twenty eight million dollars just to figure out there's a problem that the watermen knew <v speaker 5>for years. I mean, so long. <v Nigel Reed>I mean, you mentioned a study. And I think that may raise an interesting question here. <v Nigel Reed>We talked about a seven year study. It cost twenty eight million dollars to to <v Nigel Reed>have done. <v Nigel Reed>In the end, we received an allocation. <v Nigel Reed>The federal government gave us an allocation of ten million dollars to deal <v Nigel Reed>with the problem. Twenty eight million dollars on the study. <v Nigel Reed>Ten million dollars to fix the problem. <v Nigel Reed>Any problem with that? <v speaker 3>Well, that's partly-. <v speaker 2>Well, you can consider. You can look at it in a different way and say that it was all to <v speaker 2>fix the problem. And say it was a 38- 38 million dollar fix that it took 20 to just <v speaker 2>20 to find up to pinpoint the problem. <v speaker 2>And the other 10 was to fix it.

<v speaker 3>Well, that's partly the state's fault that they spent that so much money was spent just <v speaker 3>in discovering what the problem was. And if we had one, because they became I guess <v speaker 3>they're so detached from their watermen that the watermen had known for quite a while, <v speaker 3>as you said, that we had a problem. <v speaker 3>And the state the state wasn't connecting into that. <v speaker 1>That's I think that's the problem with giving, letting the federal government decide <v speaker 1>where the money goes. They put 28 million dollars into a study. <v speaker 1>I mean, if it was given, I think it was given it to the state, the state would put the <v speaker 1>money right into the cleanup. <v speaker 6>But why didn't the state think about doing something from the beginning? <v speaker 2>No they did- had to find the same things out to the federal government, then the things <v speaker 2>that the federal government were finding out were, you know, actual chemical problems <v speaker 2>with it and everything, the state would have had to do the exact same thing. <v speaker 4>If you look at it from a different perspective, it cost twenty eight million dollars to <v speaker 4>identify the problem. But then there's the ten million dollars that the federal <v speaker 4>government is sponsoring. But since it is a state, it's the state's problem. <v speaker 4>It's a local issue. Then the state should sponsor more of it. <v speaker 4>So that would go along that it is a local issue. <v Nigel Reed>You know, in this case, with the bay, the states asked for federal involvement.

<v Nigel Reed>Suppose the federal government at some time sits back and say, in the future will <v Nigel Reed>we'll have the problem reoccur occur again. And the federal government sits back and sees <v Nigel Reed>this happening. Is it now right for the federal government <v Nigel Reed>to step in without being asked to head off the problem for the future if they see one <v Nigel Reed>coming again? <v speaker 7>I feel it should be then because they're sort of destroying <v speaker 7>something that they put all this money into. <v speaker 7>The federal government. And, you know, it's a national landmark. <v speaker 2>I think the federal government should come in and say, Maryland, you have to do it again.