[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 22, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2965-S2969]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SIMON (for himself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. D'Amato, 
        Mr. Packwood, and Mr. Hatfield):
  S. 457. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to update 
references in the classification of children for purposes of U.S. 
immigration laws; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


           legislation to facilitate international adoptions

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
help individuals trying to adopt a child from a foreign country.
  The adoption landscape has changed dramatically in this country over 
the past 25 years. While international adoptions continue to be a small 
part of total U.S. adoptions--about 15 percent--thousands of Americans 
pursue them every year.
  Our law regarding international adoption is in a state of some 
confusion. U.S. law requires that a child be certified as an orphan in 
order to be eligible for adoption by an American and for an immigrant 
visa to the United States. This can be accomplished in one of two ways: 
proof that both parents are dead or; irrevocable release by a sole 
parent for adoption and emigration. Under U.S. law, a sole parent is 
the mother of an illegitimate child. Many countries, however, have 
stopped using the term illegitimate, as have many States in this 
country. Children born in such countries to parents who are not married 
are now considered legitimate but born out of wedlock. Technology, 
these children are no longer eligible for adoption and emigration to 
the United States, even if the child's father has abandoned him or her.
  [[Page S2966]] Despite this quirk in our international adoption law, 
the INS until recently allowed the adoption and emigration of children 
who were legitimate but born out of wedlock under their native 
countries' laws. Last fall, however, the INS issued a new 
interpretation of the law that required written notice of abandonment 
from both biological parents. U.S. Consular offices in host countries 
began disapproving visa applications for children who do not fit the 
statutory sole parent of an illegitimate child definition, even when it 
was clear that the biological father had abandoned a child. Around the 
world, adoptions by U.S. families ground to a halt.
  There is a simple and easy fix to this problem and this legislation 
will do just that. My bill would change the current use of legitimate 
and illegitimate in the section of the INS Act that defines ``child'' 
for immigration purposes to born out of wedlock. With this relatively 
simple change, we can ensure that hundreds of Americans will be able to 
proceed with international adoptions that are legitimate and meet the 
legal definitions of both a host country and of the U.S. Both INS and 
the State Department strongly support this bill.
  I request that this legislation be printed in full in the 
Congressional Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF CHILD.

        Section 101(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``legitimate child'' 
     and inserting ``child born in wedlock''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``an illegitimate 
     child'' and inserting ``a child born out of wedlock''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``an illegitimate child'' 
     and inserting ``a child born out of wedlock''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 458. A bill to protect the opening of the 1995 season for the 
hunting of migratory birds, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


     legislation protecting the opening of the 1995 hunting season

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise on the floor of the Senate to 
introduce a bill which protects the opening of the 1995 season for the 
hunting of migratory birds. This is a hugely important issue in my 
State of Minnesota and I believe in some other States as well.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter that I sent to 
Chairman Roth, as well as the ranking minority member of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator John Glenn, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record , as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, February 21, 1995.
     Hon. William V. Roth, Jr.,
     Chairman.
     Hon. John Glenn,
     Ranking Minority Member, Governmental Affairs Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Roth and Ranking Member Glenn: I am writing 
     to you regarding the regulatory moratorium bill, S. 219, to 
     ask for your assistance in eliminating what I believe would 
     be a harmful effect of this legislation.
       As you are aware, S. 219 would impose a moratorium on 
     governmental rulemaking retroactive to last November. While I 
     do agree that some federal rules may be needlessly intrusive, 
     I want to bring to your attention the extreme impact this 
     blanket moratorium would have on my state's hunting 
     enthusiasts.
       Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, the hunting 
     season is closed unless the responsible federal agency opens 
     it by regulation. Each year the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
     Service completes a long, complex rulemaking that opens the 
     waterfowl hunting season and specifies the limits of the 
     hunt. Under S. 219, the USFWS would be delayed in proceeding 
     with this rulemaking and in opening the season in Minnesota 
     this fall.
       As Minnesota is home to some of America's best waterfowl 
     hunting, I must oppose any legislative measure that would 
     limit or eliminate the annual migratory bird hunting season. 
     As introduced, S. 219 would have the effect of delaying the 
     1995 migratory bird hunting season for at least a month; such 
     a delay would be tantamount to cancellation of at least part 
     of the season (the ``local shoot,'' when the vast majority of 
     Minnesotans do their hunting), since Minnesota's colder 
     climate means that the birds would likely have already 
     migrated south.
       The result would be unacceptable to Minnesotans. In 
     Minnesota, the waterfowl hunting season is eagerly awaited by 
     hundreds of thousands of hunting enthusiasts, in addition to 
     being responsible for millions of dollars of economic 
     activity. Therefore, I request that when the Governmental 
     Affairs Committee considers this legislation, it attach an 
     amendment to exempt from the moratorium any rulemaking 
     necessary and appropriate to allow the annual migratory bird 
     hunting season to go forward as usual.
           Sincerely,
                                                Paul D. Wellstone,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me read the relevant portions of this letter:

       I am writing to you regarding the regulatory moratorium 
     bill S. 219, to ask for your assistance in eliminating what I 
     believe would be a harmful effect of this legislation.
       As you are aware, S. 219 would impose a moratorium on 
     governmental rulemaking retroactive to last November. While I 
     do agree that some Federal rules may be needlessly intrusive, 
     I want to bring to your attention the extreme impact this 
     blanket moratorium would have on my State's hunting 
     enthusiasts.
       Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918--

  I need to be clear about this, Mr. President--

     the hunting season is closed unless the responsible Federal 
     agency opens it by regulation. Each year the U.S. Fish and 
     Wildlife Service completes a long, complex rulemaking that 
     opens the waterfowl hunting season and specifies the limits 
     of the hunt. Under S. 219, the USFWS would be delayed in 
     proceeding with this rulemaking and in opening the season in 
     Minnesota this fall.
       As Minnesota is home to some of America's best waterfowl 
     hunting, I would oppose any legislative measure that would 
     limit or eliminate the annual migratory bird hunting season. 
     As introduced, S. 219 would have the effect of delaying the 
     1995 migratory bird hunting season for at least a month; such 
     a delay would be tantamount to cancellation of at least part 
     of the season (the ``local shoot,'' when the vast majority of 
     Minnesotans do their hunting), since Minnesota's colder 
     climate means the birds would likely have already migrated 
     south.

  Now, Mr. President, let me be crystal clear about it. This bill that 
I introduce today makes it clear that this moratorium on rules would 
include an exemption for hunting season rules. I am not talking about 
an exception for agency administration rules. I am simply saying that 
the Fish and Wildlife Service has made it crystal clear that they have 
to do the rule making for us to have our hunting season.
  Best case scenario, it would be delayed too long a period of time for 
the early, local shoot, and worst-case scenario, we would not have the 
season.
  The bill I introduce is very clear:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
     notwithstanding a law that imposes a moratorium on the 
     issuance of regulations, or any other law (except a law that 
     specifically refers to this Act), that is in effect or comes 
     into effect on or after the date of enactment of the Act, the 
     Secretary of Interior may issue such regulations as are 
     appropriate under section 3 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 
     to establish the framework for and to open the migratory 
     hunting season for 1995.

  Mr. President, some Senators have said there is no problem. But we 
are lawmakers. And we have to be crystal clear in our language. 
Sometimes haste makes waste. As I look at S. 219 right now, there is 
absolutely no provision whatever in this piece of legislation which 
makes it clear that Fish and Wildlife Service will be able to go 
forward with the rulemaking so we will have this hunting season.
  Mr. President, there are at least 100,000 active duck hunt 
participants each year in Minnesota--100,000. And as many as 170,000 in 
a good year. And the DNR officials estimate that waterfowl hunting 
directly contributes between $35 to $40 million each year to the 
Minnesota economy. Tim Bermicker, section chief of the Minnesota 
Department of Natural Resources, summed up this issue better than I 
ever could: ``Duck hunting is more than just an annual event. It is the 
cherished way of life in Minnesota, part of the fabric of the State.''
  I just say, Mr. President, I fully expect for there to be a debate on 
this bill. But with some Senators haste makes waste and some may have 
moved forward too quickly on this blanket moratorium and did not take 
this into account with their current legislation. I am fully prepared 
to be a part of this debate.
   [[Page S2967]] I see no reason why my bill cannot be accepted as an 
amendment at the markup of this piece of legislation in committee, and 
there is absolutely on my part as a Senator from Minnesota a commitment 
to make sure that we get the language to make it clear that the 
rulemaking goes forward so we have this hunt, so that we have our duck 
hunting season.
  Now, other Senators have said there is nothing to worry about. There 
will not be anything to worry about when we get our language included 
and make the exemption clear. There will not be anything to worry about 
when we do our work as legislators. But I will not accept word of mouth 
assurances, or arguments that all this is scare tactics.
  What I know is what I read in the legislation. I am a legislator. I 
understand legislation. And I know right now we do not have the 
necessary language that will enable the agency to go forward with this 
hunting season or the necessary language to make sure that Minnesotans 
will be able to fully participate.
  This bill I introduced today is extremely important, and it is my 
fervent hope that the language in this bill will find its way into what 
happens on the House side and what also happens in the U.S. Senate. 
This is no small issue, and it is a perfect example of what happens 
when we are not careful in the legislative work that we do.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 459. A bill to provide surveillance, research, and services aimed 
at prevention of birth defects, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                      birth defects prevention act

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, birth defects are the leading cause of 
infant death in this country, and a national research and prevention 
strategy is desperately needed. The infant mortality rate in the United 
States is higher than in most other industrialized nations and higher 
than some Third World countries. One out of every five infant deaths 
results from a birth defect. Birth defects cause more infant deaths in 
this country than any other single factor. In Missouri, birth defects 
account for 21 percent of total infant deaths.
  Today, I am introducing the Birth Defects Prevention Act. This bill 
lays out a national strategy to prevent birth defects. Congressman 
Solomon Ortiz is simultaneously introducing this bill in the other 
body.
  In 1991, I introduced the Families in Need Act, S. 1380, to address 
many important health, nutrition, and housing needs of families in 
crises. In that bill, I proposed efforts that would lead to a 
coordinated effort to reduce the incidence of birth defects. 
Simultaneously, I worked in the Appropriations Committee to obtain 
funding for this effort at the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention. This funding is the basis for CDCP's efforts in this area 
today. This bill is a continuation of efforts in this area.
  More than 100,000 children are born each year with a serious birth 
defect. Many more children have serious disorders from a birth defect 
that are discovered later in life. Birth defects are the leading cause 
of disability in infants who survive their first birthday. Infants of 
all races, economic classes, and in every State are at risk. This is a 
serious public health problem.
  More children die before their first birthday because of birth 
defects than from any other cause. More infant deaths result from birth 
defects than from prematurity and low birth weight. In 10 States, over 
25 percent of infant deaths were caused by birth defects. Birth defects 
are also a leading cause of childhood disability that leads to a 
lifelong suffering. This is a serious problem that has a terrible 
impact on the well-being of many children in our Nation.
  It may surprise you to learn that the United States has no 
coordinated strategy for reducing the incidence of birth defects. It is 
shocking how few resources are devoted to preventing this devastating 
problem. That must change.
  A tragic situation in the State of Texas a few years ago exemplifies 
how the lack of a coordinated birth defects prevention strategy can 
affect a community. The result was a delayed response to an outbreak of 
birth defects and the needless cost of innocent lives. In the incident 
in Texas, health professionals observed that six infants were born with 
anencephaly over a 6-week period. Anencephaly is a fatal birth defect 
in which the infant is born without a brain.
  The Texas Department of Health conducted a thorough study after this 
information was reported. This study revealed that, since 1989, at 
least 30 infants in south Texas had been born without any or with very 
little brain tissue. However, like many States, Texas does not have a 
birth defects surveillance program. As a result, the severity of the 
problem was not recognized until the incidence of anencephaly was so 
high that it was difficult to miss. It is only because so many infants 
were born without any brain tissue that this terrible catastrophe was 
discovered.
  This tragic story from south Texas underlines the need for a 
coordinated national effort to research the causes of birth defects and 
develop prevention strategies. Infants are being born today somewhere 
in America with serious birth defects that could have been prevented. 
Without a coordinated surveillance system, we may not discover these 
defects and discover how to prevent them.
  Many birth defects are preventable. Tragically, many opportunities at 
prevention are missed because few States have prevention strategies.
  One example of a serious, yet preventable, birth defect is fetal 
alcohol syndrome or FAS. Pregnant mothers cause FAS when alcoholic 
beverages are consumed. Fetal alcohol syndrome is a leading cause of 
mental retardation. It affects an estimated 8,000 newborns each year 
plus, 36,000 who suffer a related set of birth defects. It is 
completely preventable.
  Neural tube defects are one of the top three causes of birth defects 
that result in the death of the infant. Neural tube defects are severe 
defects of the brain and spinal cord. They include spina bifida and 
anencephaly. This birth defect is also preventable. The majority of 
neural tube defects could be prevented through the consumption of a 
simple folic acid vitamin supplement by pregnant women and women of 
childbearing age.
  The Birth Defects Prevention Act lays out a strategy to prevent 
children from being born with defects and to find possible cures for 
those already afflicted with certain defects.
  Under this bill a national birth defects surveillance and prevention 
research system would be established. Regional birth defects research 
programs would be established as centers of excellence to provide the 
comprehensive surveillance data and epidemiological research needed to 
study clusters of birth defects, identify their causes, and develop and 
evaluate prevention efforts. Such centers also would provide training 
and education to health professionals. The surveillance and monitoring 
of birth defects would be carried out using vital records, hospital 
records, and other data while protecting privacy.
  This bill would develop and implement birth defects prevention and 
intervention programs. When the cause of a birth defect is known, we 
must have a prevention strategy. This bill would authorize prevention 
demonstration programs to develop new strategies to reduce the 
incidence of birth defects. This bill would also provide funding and 
technical assistance to State health departments to implement programs 
of proven effectiveness and safety in prevention of birth defects.
  And finally, this bill would broaden public and professional 
awareness of birth defects and prevention opportunities. To do this, a 
clearinghouse at the Centers for Disease Control would be established 
for the collection, storage, and interpretation of data generated from 
State birth defects surveillance programs and regional birth defects 
centers. This bill would also enhance public information and education 
programs for the prevention of birth defects, such as programs using 
folic acid vitamin supplementation to prevent spina bifida and alcohol 
avoidance strategies to prevent fetal alcohol syndrome.
  Without a strategy to discover the causes of birth defects and 
prevent them, the terrible tragedy of birth defects will continue. Too 
few resources are devoted to reducing birth defects which are the 
leading cause of infant 
[[Page S2968]] morality. We cannot reach the national goal of reducing 
infant morality to 7 death per 1,000 live
 births by the year 2000 without a national birth defects prevention 
strategy.

  The March of Dimes has done such important and tireless work toward 
the prevention of birth defects. This country and its children 
certainly owe the March of Dimes a heartfelt thank you. In particular, 
Kay Johnson and Vivian Gabore of the March of Dimes staff deserve a 
special thank you for their seemingly never-ending efforts to get the 
Birth Defects Prevention Act passed. It is their research, study, and 
work that has resulted in this bill, and I am exceedingly grateful to 
them.
  In addition to the March of Dimes, this bill also has the endorsement 
of 18 organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the 
American Public Health Association, the Epilepsy Foundation, the 
National Easter Seal Society, the Spina Bifida Association, and many 
others.
  I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    The Birth Defects Prevention Act


                                purpose

       To prevent birth defects by developing and implementing new 
     prevention strategies, targeting research into the causes of 
     birth defects, monitoring the incidence of clusters of birth 
     defects, and increasing the collection of national data on 
     birth defects.


                                the need

       More children die from birth defects in the first year of 
     life in the U.S. than from any other cause including 
     prematurity and low birth weight. Birth defects are also a 
     leading cause of childhood disability. Each year, over 
     100,000 children are born with serious defects, and many more 
     are found later in life to have disorders. Medical care and 
     special education made necessary by birth defects cost 
     billions of dollars each year.
       Recent research shows that a significant proportion of 
     common birth defects are preventable, although the causes of 
     most birth defects remain unknown. Few states have prevention 
     strategies and many opportunities are being missed. Despite 
     the fact that birth defects are the leading cause of infant 
     mortality, research and prevention has not received priority 
     attention.


establish a national birth defects surveillance and prevention research 
                                 system

       A. Establish regional birth defects research programs as 
     ``centers of excellence'' to provide the comprehensive 
     surveillance data and epidemiologic research needed to study 
     clusters of birth defects, identify their causes, and develop 
     and evaluate prevention efforts. Such centers also would 
     provide training and education to health professionals.
       B. Improve the surveillance and monitoring of birth defects 
     using vital records, hospital records and other data.


    develop and implement birth defects prevention and intervention 
                                programs

       A. Authorize demonstration projects for the prevention of 
     birth defects to develop new strategies to reduce the 
     incidence of birth defects.
       B. Providing funding and technical assistance to state 
     health departments to implement programs of proven 
     effectiveness and safety in prevention of birth defects.


    broaden public and professional awareness of birth defects and 
                        prevention opportunities

       A. Establish a clearinghouse at the Centers for Disease 
     Control for the collection, storage, and interpretation of 
     data generated from state birth defects surveillance programs 
     and regional birth defects centers.
       B. Establish an Advisory Committee for Birth Defects 
     Prevention to gather the views and recommendations of 
     experts.
       C. Enhance public information and education programs for 
     the prevention of birth defects, such as programs using folic 
     acid vitamin supplementation to prevent spina bifida and 
     alcohol avoidance strategies to prevent Fetal Alcohol 
     Syndrome (FAS).
                                 ______

      By Mr. FORD:
  S. 460. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to ensure 
equity in the extent to which businesses located near Interstate and 
Federal-aid primary highways may erect outdoor advertising signs, 
displays, and devices, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


                     highway advertising equity act

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today I am introducing Senate Bill 460, 
entitled Highway Advertising Equity Act, to amend section 131 of title 
23, United States Code. Enacted on August 28, 1958, 23 U.S.C. 131, 
Control of Outdoor Advertising, was designed to protect public 
investment, promote safety and recreational value, and preserve natural 
beauty along the interstate system. Therefore, the statute reflects a 
socioeconomic and demographic environment of 36 years ago.
  Roadways that were once rural, narrow, and sparsely populated are now 
multilane highways bordered with burgeoning businesses and linking the 
Nation in a well-traveled web. This growth in commercial and industrial 
use areas has increased the need to inform the motoring public of 
available services, food, lodging, and attractions of special interest.
  Current law allows only on-premises advertising by business owners 
whose property is adjacent to the interstate system. Restricting 
advertising to owners of businesses adjacent to the interstate system 
to advertise on-premise services discriminates against property owners 
in the same commercial area who wish to advertise off-premise services 
near the interstate system.
  Commercial and industrial areas have expanded beyond the properties 
which were once only found adjacent to interstate systems. However, the 
need for businesses, no matter where they are located, to advertise 
along the interstate system is imperative to their success.
  Senate bill 460 is offered to bring the law up to date with the needs 
of our growing business communities. I think it is fitting that we 
address this issue in today's environment where the Federal Government 
has said it intends to give more power back to the localities and stop 
placing mandates on middle class Americans who spend everyday honestly 
trying to make a decent living for their family.
                                 ______

      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 462. A bill to provide for the temporary suspension of the 
reformulated gasoline rules under the Clean Air Act; to the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works.


                   reformulated gasoline requirements

  Mr. FEINGOLD.
   Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to temporarily 
suspend enforcement of the reformulated gas requirements as mandated by 
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. I do so, Mr. President, as a 
supporter of the Clean Air Act, the reformulated fuels program, and of 
the Environmental Protection Agency. However, the situation over the 
past few weeks in Milwaukee, since the introduction of reformulated 
fuel on January 1, 1995, has caused me great concern. In introducing 
this measure, I am joined today by two of my colleagues in the other 
body, Representative Kleczka and Representative Barrett, who have 
introduced similar legislation.

  The EPA Regional Office in Chicago has received at least a thousand 
calls from individuals in Milwaukee who are experiencing problems using 
reformulated fuels. During the first week of February, 1995 phone calls 
to my Milwaukee office were coming in at rates of 5-8 per hour, and 
several hundred constituents have contacted me to share their 
experiences. Among the concerns that these individuals express, and of 
primary concern to me, is that this gasoline is making them ill. 
Additionally, Mr. President, citizens of Milwaukee want to know what 
the EPA knows about how the gasoline will perform both in their cars 
and in two stroke-engines such as snow blowers and snowmobiles, when 
the price, which is currently running between 10 and 15 cents more than 
regular gas will come down, and how to identify the various blends of 
gasoline at the pump. I wrote to Administrator Browner on February 10, 
1995 expressing these concerns and have not yet received a response.
  While price and performance are significant problems that need to be 
examined, the health of the citizens of Milwaukee, Mr. President, 
simply cannot wait. Administrator Browner, in a meeting with the 
Wisconsin delegation last Friday, February 17, 1995, announced that the 
Agency would not make a final decision on suspending the fuels until 
after they went to Wisconsin. The Agency believes, Mr. President, that 
Wisconsin's problems could best be addressed by switching fuels among 
different reformulated blends.
  In response to the calls and inquiries from the Wisconsin delegation 
and Governor Thompson, and in line with the EPA's announced position, 
the Agency did hold a public meeting in 
[[Page S2969]] Milwaukee this past Monday, February 20, 1995 on 
reformulated gasoline. The Milwaukee Sentinel reported that more than 
400 people showed up for the meeting, overflowing the room. The Agency 
has pledged to say in Wisconsin as long as it takes to address my 
constituents' concerns.
  It seems, Mr. President, that these concerns are significant and that 
the Agency should suspend its enforcement of the rule until it 
completes its on the ground assessment, particularly while people's 
health is potentially at risk. Gasoline blended
 with three different oxygenates is being sold in Milwaukee, some 
containing MTBE derived from methane, some containing ETBE derived from 
ethanol and natural gas, and some containing ethanol. The EPA knows 
from more than $2 million in health studies, Mr. President, that one of 
the oxygenates, MTBE, has the potential to produce both cancer and 
other health effects--and the jury is still out on the ethanol blends. 
The current data that the Agency has on Milwaukee's overall air quality 
and on specific situations my constituents face every day such as 
refueling, riding inside their cars, and having their vehicles sit in 
enclosed garages, is too limited for a quantitive estimate of 
population exposure to the host of oxygenates used in the six county 
area. At best, the data have been used to estimate a broad range of 
potential exposures. However, Mr. President, we are no longer in a 
potential exposure situation--people are putting this stuff into their 
tanks.

  While I understand that actual epidemiological experiences in 
Milwaukee may be difficult for EPA to interpret, I cannot as a 
responsible policymaker rule out the fact that Milwaukee's topography 
and temperature results in exposures in my State that are different 
than the other parts of the country. I also understand, Mr. President, 
that Milwaukee is not alone in experiencing problems with reformulated 
fuels. Several of the nine other cities required to use the fuels are 
facing similar concerns.
  I believe that these requirements should be suspended until the 
health concerns can be fully investigated. I ask unanimous consent that 
the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 462

     SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF REFORMULATED GASOLINE RULES.

       Upon the enactment of this Act, the Environmental 
     Protection Agency rules under section 211(k) of the Clean Air 
     shall be suspended. Such suspension shall remain in effect 
     until such time as the Administrator--
       (1) demonstrates, after notice and opportunity for hearing, 
     that reformulated gasoline manufactured and distributed in 
     accordance with such rules does not cause adverse health 
     effects; or
       (2) revises such rules to eliminate any such adverse health 
     effects, and

     submits a report to the appropriate committees of Congress 
     setting forth the steps taken under paragraph (1) or (2).
     

                          ____________________