Gene Green

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I say to the gentleman, ``I am supporting the line-item veto just like you because in Louisiana you have that authority just like we do in Texas. Although I also recognize to transfer this authority from the legislative to the executive branch, which is what we are doing, it is because of the budget that we are doing that. But I am almost sure in having read some of the Louisiana papers over the years and your current governor, oftentimes, the line-item veto is used not only to balance the budget but also to get the attention of those of us who serve in the legislative body and I am sure Governor Edwards just like Governor Briscoe and Governor Clements and White and all the rest of them in Texas have used it over the years to get the attention of us, that is a possibility.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I speak today in support of the Line-Item Veto Act, and I support the premise behind the call for the line-item veto, that the Congress has included many questionable items in appropriations over the years, and steps need to be taken to remedy the problem. Today the notion that Congress can control itself is doubted by the public, and that is why this is a popular idea. In the public's mind Congress defines itself with the little things we do as well as the big things we do. It is my sense that the line-item veto may help put an end to the funding of some of the outdated, unneeded programs or projects that we put into appropriations bills. This will not end, and it is not the panacea. The line-item veto does not end Congress' responsibility for self-restraint. As my colleagues noted in our committee hearings, Presidents, recent Presidents particularly, are not known for submitting balanced budgets, and we should not expect this or any other President to save us from ourselves. We should consider another point, that maybe we are overselling the benefits of this bill. The item-veto could cut millions of dollars and help Congress set better priorities on programs, for example, by eliminating nondefense items in the defense budget, but public support of this measure stems in large part from the size of the deficit. Many are under the impression the item-veto will have a noticeable fiscal impact. But what effect will it really have on the deficit? The item-veto has been used, as we heard earlier, by 43 Governors. And I served 20 years as a legislator and with many Governors, and they enjoyed that authority, and I had the honor and privilege of having projects and bills vetoed by both Democrat and Republican Governors in Texas. The item-veto most often is used to get the attention of those of us in the legislature and not necessarily as a budget-reducing item. I would hope it would be used for that, not only by our President if this passes, but also by Governors. I support the measure because I believe it is progress. However, the line-item veto will not control nondiscretionary spending, the big- ticket items like health care costs or interest on the national debt. I believe that the point needs to be made clear to the public, let us not oversell the benefits of the line-item veto, but we still need to pass it.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, sometimes this aisle gets to be a wall instead of a way we can cross. I am glad the gentleman spoke today and talked about this. We could set up other programs just like this if we wanted to, but this bill needs to be as pure as we can have it. I agree, though, that we might need to look at an amendment later to make it a majority of the House instead of two-thirds, because I do not know if you could get two-thirds of the House to override a Presidential line-item veto. We might look at a majority on a later amendment.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and I have served many years together in the state house, and I am glad to see we agree today on this issue.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, obviously, I disagree with the germaneness because it is talking about the line-item veto and setting up a different program. Now, if we want to set up a different sacred cow, so to speak, or protect a different program than we are going to protect from the line-item veto, I think it is germane to the bill. There may be a question about the amendment, but then we could run with a separate amendment. But to save the time of Congress you may want to consider it just as an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the effects of interest rate increases take time to show up in the economy. It was only 2 months ago that the Fed increased rates three-quarters of 1 percent and only 5 months since it raised rates by a half percent. The Fed raised interest rates another half percent yesterday. It was the seventh increase since the beginning of 1994. The economy grew well in the fourth quarter of last year, but we are beginning to see signs of a slowdown. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Reserve looks at the big picture, the nationwide, the worldwide picture, but ignores the little picture, our districts and our cities. Home builders will build fewer houses, realtors will sell fewer houses, car dealers will sell fewer new and used cars, and our constituents will be able to buy fewer of those cars. This latest increase adds another economic burden to the people in my district in Houston as well as it does across the country. It means higher borrowing costs for consumers, higher costs for capital for small business and medium-sized businesses, and as the realtors have said, it puts the price of a down payment on a home out of the reach of many Americans. It's time we started looking at the little picture.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker. I rise again tonight to discuss some of the effects of the Personal Responsibility Act on the nutrition programs, specifically the senior citizens nutrition programs. Yesterday, during a hearing on the Personal Responsibility Act in the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, of which I am a member, there were six witnesses, five representing local community groups, and all were against title V of the bill which deals with all our Federal nutrition programs. Title V repeals every Federal nutrition program and then block-grants the funds after severe cuts. Under this repeal of our nutrition programs, the State of Texas would lose over $1 billion in 1996 alone. One member of the committee questioned the constitutional basis for providing nutrition and actually said it is not a Federal responsibility, and he quoted the Constitution. Well, we all may need to reread our Constitution because where I see it in the Preamble, it says to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare, and that is included in nutrition. If the Republicans are holding the defense budget sacred and even increasing it because it is protected under the Constitution, at the very minimum nutrition programs should also be protected from these draconian budget cuts. After November 8 of last year, many people called for Congress to become result-oriented. The PRA, or the Personal Responsibility Act, will result in 800 seniors going hungry every day in the city of Houston. I hope and I pray that the PRA, the Personal Responsibility Act, was not designed to deny senior citizens their Meals on Wheels but that will surely be the result. Let me repeat. If the PRA is passed in its current form, there will be over 800 hungry seniors in or around the district that I represent in Houston, TX. Not only will seniors go hungry, but on page 74 of the PRA, it requires seniors under the age of 63 and not disabled to work for their food. The Older Americans Act allows any senior over 60 years of age and their spouse, regardless of age, to receive one meal a day. Would this Personal Responsibility Act repeal that law? I believe so. What we will see, and I will show this sign, is that we will have seniors saying I will work for food, and that sign will be traded in every day with an affidavit from that senior to the State swearing that they will work at least 32 hours a week for that one hot meal. This is ludicrous. I would hope that the committees, and I serve on one of the committees, will have better judgment than to pass this bill, particularly title V. Stalin may have done this to the Soviet seniors, but not us. This would mean at least 35 people would be barred from a hot meal at the Magnolia Multi-Purpose Center in Houston, Texas. And simply on the work requirement alone. So between 60 and 63, they have 35 people who today enjoy a hot meal that would have to either carry this sign or turn it in with an affidavit saying they will work. Should there be budget responsibilities? Of course, yes. Should there be administrative reduction? Yes. Should there be lonely, hungry seniors in the breadbasket of the world? No. We must take a look at this title V in the Personal Responsibility Act contained in this Contract With America to see that it is a contract on our seniors to remove the nutrition programs.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Maybe next week we can continue this dialog.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I agree this is why we are here and to talk about the issues. I had not had an opportunity to read the Personal Responsibility Act or deal with it until we had the hearings yesterday. We had 6 witnesses, 5 of them called by the majority side and 1 of them called by the minority side. Of those 5, and that is what I said, that of those 6 witnesses, 5 of them asked that that be Act that deals with senior citizens nutrition. They also asked for the school lunch program and breakfast program to be changed because the witnesses even called by the majority side said that that is wrong that we are cutting off food to children and some of the programs that have been developed over both Democrat and Republican administrations. But we used the testimony from the hearing yesterday and I called some senior citizens sites in my district and said, okay, just one provision of it that says that if you are under the age of 63, how many people are served in the Magnolia Multi-Purpose Center in Houston that are under the age of 63 and not disabled. They told us, they said that this is the number we serve. They actually serve 35 people who are not classified as disabled and under the age of 63. The gentleman can look at the bill itself. It states if you are under 63, not disabled, you have to agree to work, or sign an affidavit to say you are working.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities held a hearing on the Contract With America, which deals with our nutrition programs. And a representative of the American School Food Service Association testified that if the Personal Responsibility Act were enacted as currently written, 40,000 out of the 93,000 school districts in the United States would stop serving school meals. That is breakfast and lunches for early--for children who get to school earlier. This, as we recall, was a bill that passed in 1946, in recognizing that children needed to have a lunch program and a breakfast program to make them ready for school. During World War II we found a lot of our children were not up to the nutrition standards that we needed. So that is why 1946, this program started. The reasoning behind the dramatic elimination of those school meals programs is cost. And yet we are literally cutting off our nose to spite our face. During this hearing today, ``the local perspective,'' five of the six witnesses presented were community nutrition providers. A recent study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that this bill, if we pass it, would cost the state of Texas $15.1 billion in 1996 alone, representing a 30-percent cut in funding. Of all the States in the Nation, the State of Texas would be the one that would be cut the most. And the reason is, and I have an objective summary of that report that shows that that 1.1 billion would be cut because the State of Texas utilizes more food stamps than most other States. And yet in California, that would benefit to the tune of about $600 million under this proposal, $650 million to be exact, would benefit because they have a higher payment. They actually have less food stamp participation and yet they pay $593 per month on the average in food stamp households in AFDC, whereas in the State of Texas we only pay $174. So we are actually hurting the poorest of the poor by taking away that billion dollars from the poor in the State of Texas. The formula punishes those States which depend on food stamps the most. This not only covers nutrition sites in our schools, the breakfast program, and the lunch program. But it covers the senior program Meals on Wheels. In Harris County, we received $1.5 million in 1994. This roughly represented over a million hot meals for seniors. If we pass this bill, the cuts by the Personal Responsibility Act would mean 300,000 a year or 800 meals a day in Harris County alone would not be served. Lowering the number of Meals on Wheels could add to the health cost of these seniors. By taking away the meals from the seniors, we would push them to more likely seek assistance in elderly care centers and thereby possibly even raising our hospital costs so more seniors would be taking advantage of Medicare. These senior citizen centers provide more than just a hot meal at lunch. They provide also companionship. I have as many as 35 in my own district that I visit, when we can get home on Fridays and Mondays, although this first hundred days we have not had much opportunity to do that, but staff who visit these centers make sure. In our district office we offer Social Security assistance and Medicare assistance and other assistance. But those seniors who go to those centers oftentimes have no one at home and that is the only hot meal that day. Yet if we pass this proposal in the Contract With America or Contract on American, then we are going to cut these senior citizens from these hot meals, not just in Harris County or the State of Texas but throughout the country. Another proposal that would be cut would be the Women, Infants and Children. Again using my frame of reference, in Houston and Harris County, the city of Houston is the one that actually funds it or provides it with the funding from the Federal Government. This amount of funding would represent in Harris County, Texas $13 million cut to the local grocers in Houston who benefit from the Women, Infants and Children Program. The WIC Program, as we call it, is not an entitlement program. The program participants not only have financial needs but also nutritional needs. This helps with early childhood development. Those children, before they become eligible for public school, we can make sure of the nutrition that they need in their early years until they do get to public school. Health costs could increase for these children from Medicaid and also provide it for our hospital districts, for example, our public hospital systems. In a 1969 White House Conference on Food, Nutrition and Health, President Nixon said of the Federal responsibility for nutrition programs, ``a child ill-fed is dull in curiosity, lower in stamina and distracted from learning.'' We do not need to make these cuts in our programs.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to serve on the committee this year with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the chairman, and our ranking member, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins]. Mr. Chairman, let me tell the Members why it took so long to be on the floor. I know it was not our Chairman's responsibility, because he was given his marching orders to send this bill out. The reason we had to spend 2 weeks on this bill was because we did not get to have a public hearing in committee. Members have heard that for this whole 2 weeks, any time any of the Members from the minority side were up here. Maybe we are learning that if we are going to take this kind of time on the floor, maybe it would be better if our committees actually spent time in hearing from interested citizens and people who are impacted by it. Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote for the bill because I do not think the bill is that bad in its form. I just think because we took 2 weeks, though, the American people and each Member of this House needed to know what we were doing. We did. We know that this bill will require us to have some type of cost estimates, and we will have to have a separate vote on a point of order if it is raised on over $100 million. That is not so terrible. What we need to recognize, though, is what may come afterwards, because again, we are a Nation not of 50 individual States, and territories, in addition, we are one United States. We need to recognize that, that there are rules that all of us, whether we live in Texas, whether we live in New York or Hawaii, that we have to live under. Mr. Chairman, we were deliberative on this. That is why we had so many amendments on this. We wanted to make sure people understood that the Clean Water Act, with all its problems, and the Clean Air Act, and I want to amend it, too, and do some things with it, with all its problems, it was still a compromise bill that was passed in 1990 and signed by President Bush. Now it has caused problems we need to deal with, but it was still passed with bipartisan support because it was addressing a problem of clean air or clean water. Mr. Chairman, it has raised costs for our constituents, but like I said in the earlier debate, when I go to New York and visit the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], I would like to make sure that the water I turn on, I can drink, coming from Houston. I would like to make sure our Houston water is good enough for him to drink. That is why, Mr. Chairman, the reason we took so long on this, and because we did, is because of the partisanshipness, not of the issue but because of the procedure. I hope we have learned our lesson, that we need to spend the time in the committee and take that kind of time so we do not have to take 2 weeks or 435 Members. That is why we have committees. Again I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], because he is a fair chairman, our ranking member is fair, but I think all our committees in the House can learn from the problem we experienced in this bill.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank the sponsor of the amendment for bringing this issue up. Mr. Chairman, let me just relate as quickly as I could the experience of Texas on the unfunded mandates issue with the Clean Air Act. We also support clean air, but there are options we can get to that, I think the Moran amendment points that out, that we have the option, both the State agencies, but also the EPA here in Washington has some options that they would pick the least burdensome, or, as we call it, the most user-friendly, to get to that point on clean air. Mr. Chairman, I think with the controversy going on not only in Texas but in Illinois and lots of other States, I think this adds to this bill. I am glad that my colleague and also the chairman is accepting the amendment.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, later in this session the House will consider the Personal Responsibility Act. Is it not time for the Speaker and all of us to take some personal responsibility for our own actions? When the flap came up over what the Speaker's mother said to Connie Chung concerning the First Lady of our Nation, he turned the issue to Connie Chung and not what was said. When the issue came up on the $4.5 million book deal that was negotiated, the debate in the House was censored last week. And then over the weekend, our Speaker lashed out at the First Lady again and at a former Speaker. He repeated the charge that made him famous when he called former Speaker Jim Wright a crook. Never mind the fact that the former Speaker's book deal was worth $12,000 versus our current Speaker's $4.5 million deal. Even our most successful writer in this country does not command $4.5 million of up- front money. Or the fact that it was simply unprofessional, undignified, and impugned the character of a former Speaker when he is retired and gone and cannot defend himself. Much has been written about our Speaker's book deal, particularly the meeting with Mr. Murdoch and political apparatus, GOPAC, The Progress and Freedom Foundation, et cetera. The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call has written in the Speaker's eloquent words from 1988 about another book deal, an outside counsel on ethics should be brought in for a ``complete and thorough'' investigation. We have a saying in Texas, what goes around comes around. I ask today as Representative Gingrich did in 1988 that the outside counsel investigate these ethical matters and clear up these questions once and for all, because just like the Energizer bunny, this issue will keep on going and going and going until we put it to rest. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record: An Outside Counsel Much has been made in the last week of Members' speech. Consider this choice of words: ``The rules normally applied by the Ethics Committee to an investigation of a typical Member are insufficient in an investigation of the Speaker of the House, a position which is third in line of succession to the Presidency and the second most powerful elected position in America. Clearly, this investigation has to meet a higher standard of public accountability and integrity.'' So wrote Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga) in a July 28, 1988, press release calling for an outside counsel in the House ethics probe of then-Speaker Jim Wright (D-Texas). Now, the shoe is on the other foot, and Democrats are clamoring for (in Gingrich's nearly decade-old words) a ``complete and thorough'' investigation of a variety of allegations against the new Speaker. Unfortunately but predictably, the situation has grown ugly. And, as witnesses on the House floor for two days last week, it is now creating a spectacle before the American public. Which is perhaps the best reason for an outside counsel. But there are others. The charges against Gingrich range from conflicts of interest and use of office for personal gain in connection with his Harper-Collins book deal to improper use of funds from his tax-exempt outside groups. Ironically, the book deal, which has drawn the most attention both from the media and Democrats, raises the less serious ethical questions. The facts: Gingrich agreed to and then canceled a $4.5 million advance for two books to be published by HarperCollins, the company owned by Rupert Murdock, who is currently lobbying to alter laws restricting foreign ownership of broadcast properties such as his Fox TV network. Despite urging from fellow Republicans to abandon the book deal, Gingrich holds onto it. Even though he's rejected the advance, he still could make millions from the book--partly depending upon how heavily HarperCollins promotes it, a decision ultimately in Murdoch's hands. More serious are the allegations of the funding of Gingrich's college course, ``Renewing American Civilization,'' and the extensive connections between Gingrich's political action committee, GOPAC; his Congressional office; and his outside educational arm, the Progress & Freedom Foundation. It is these charges that are the subject of the ethics case now pending against him. The Speaker's elaborate political dynasty appears to be constructed in a manner in which he can conduct political activities while skirting contribution limits and disclosure laws. The entire structure must be probed. We do not fully agree with what Gingrich said in 1988; an investigation of the Speaker should not be held to any higher standard than one of any other Member. Whether a Speaker should be held to a higher standard of conduct is a separate question. At the very least, he should set that standard, and as Gingrich himself said so eloquently in 1988, an outside counsel would offer the most ``complete and thorough'' investigation.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, my concern is that we are throwing up more roadblocks to respond and not listing them, and we may just have a difference of opinion on this, but I think when we require the NRC to go through it or the Department Energy or even on the floor of this Congress to have a separate point- of-order vote against something, one Member can require it, and we are run by majority, as the gentleman well knows. But we could still slow up the responsiveness to a nuclear incident or nuclear accident.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] for yielding. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to some of the concerns that were raised by the other side of the aisle. One, and I understand that they say that the NRC is not included, but it is. The point of order on this floor still applies to the NRC or to the Department of Energy. Also if we are going to regulate nuclear energy and the disparity to my colleague from Colorado is that we have local agencies, local units of governments, the city of Austin. Some of them wish they did not own portions of nuclear power plants now, but they do. And how are they going to be treated when the managing partner is a private investor- owned utility that would have to be paying part of a mandate if it is not included? That is the problem with the bill. I think the bill in the definition section even though it does pull out independent agency, the point of order still lies here on the floor and that is the concern. It could slow up responsiveness by this Congress to a nuclear disaster, whether it be Chernobyl or Three Mile Island or whether it be something in the future that we on this floor may not know tonight. It affects not only this amendment, but it affects airport security mentioned in earlier testimony. It mentioned even the Clean Air Act, because even though we all may have questions about the Clean Air Act, particularly those of us in Texas about the emissions, we still know that we have an ability to deal with that through the EPA, as some of us did last week from the State of Texas. But a point of order still applies on this no matter what this bill says on the floor. Again, expanded even more, even though NRC may be an independent agency, and it is under the definitions, but the Department of Energy also has input into and has regulations on disposal of nuclear waste, and they are. Granted, I want them all to come under the provisions of the bill. Most of the time they do. In fact, I do not know of a case where they have not consulted with local units of government that are impacted, and that is great, and that is why I support generally the bill. there are some exceptions that need to be made, and we are talking about nuclear waste, nuclear power, because again we have not only a national track record but an international track record to know that when we need to respond, we do not need to throw any other roadblocks in the way.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]. Mr. Chairman, in the last minute or so that I have, he made a great point. The Department of Energy plays a role in regulating nuclear waste disposal and it needs to be considered as important even though it is not an independent agency that may or may not be exempted under this bill. But again since we had no public hearings, we do not know whether it is or not. I ask for a positive vote on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record: No Easy Answers: Issues Around Unfunded Mandates Not So Simple Unfunded mandates--the term has become one of those overly used but often misunderstood catch phrases. The new Republican majority in Congress has made eliminating unfunded mandates part of their battle cry. It can even be found in the House Republicans' Contract with America. Both houses are considering bills to make more difficult enacting legislation imposing costs of more than $50 million on states and municipalities. If you have trouble understanding what it's all about, picture a teen-ager complaining about his parents' ordering him to run errands for them without providing the money for his car's gasoline. While the concept is that simple, the issue is not so simple. For years, local and state government officials across the country have complained that Washington is too quick to tell them what to do but that it hardly ever provides them the money to help them comply. The Clean Air Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act--all were imposed on state and local governments by Washington. While some have come with federal grants, much of the billions it has cost states and cities to implement them has to be raised locally. Is that fair? It depends. Going back to the analogy of the teen-ager and his car, clearly it is wrong for his parents to force him to use his money for gas to run their errands. But what if they are simply ordering him to repair his transmission so that it won't leak on their driveway? It is the kid's car and his problem, but it is damaging the family's property. Should the parents have to pay for the repair just because they ordered him to get it fixed? Suddenly it's not so simple, is it? Now apply this to the government level. What if, as has happened repeatedly across the country, a city refuses to repair its sewage system to prevent the pollution of a local waterway? When the federal government finally steps in and says, ``Look, you have to quit endangering people's lives with your raw sewage,'' should the federal government be required to pay for the sewage-treatment plant repair? Obviously not. The Republicans--and many Democrats who are going along with them--want us to believe that most mandates from the federal government are unreasonable orders issued simply because the feds love to meddle in our lives. While there is no denying that Congress and the federal bureaucracy do have a tendency to overregulate, that is not always the case. The point that needs to be remembered is that many of the regulations were adopted in response to lack of action by local and state officials to protect people's lives or rights. A second point that bears remembering is that regardless of whether the money comes from Washington or Austin or Houston, it originates in our pocketbooks. The only difference is that we lose a lot of it when we send it to Washington first because it goes through so many bureaucratic layers. Finally, we should recognize that the point of the war on unfunded mandates is not to get Uncle Sam to pay for mandates, but to keep it from making mandates in the first place. It's part of an intense anti-regulation campaign. The unfunded mandates solution being considered by Congress is like the balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution and other quick-fix ideas in that it helps lawmakers avoid hard decisions on specific issues. While seeking to ease the burden on cities and states is a good idea, there is nothing keeping Congress from doing that right now. Congressional proponents of the unfunded mandates measure have the votes to pass it, but it deserves careful scrutiny before it becomes law.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. In brief, let me say Republicans and many Democrats are going along with this effort, and want us to believe most mandates of Federal Government are not reasonable simply because the Feds love to meddle in our lives. While there is no denying that Congress and Federal bureaucracy do have a tendency to overregulate, that is not always the case. The point needs to be remembered that many of the regulations were adopted in response to lack of action by local or State officials to protect people's lives and rights. If we do not do this on nuclear power, what can we do with waste disposal?