[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 36 (Monday, February 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3221-S3223]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. STEVENS:
  S. 475. A bill to authorize a certificate of documentation for the 
vessel Lady Hawk, to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
               documentation for the vessel ``lady hawk''

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to provide 
a certificate of documentation for the vessel Lady Hawk, U.S. Official 
No. 961095.
  The Lady Hawk is owned by Ms. Joan Dunn of Seldovia, AK.
  The vessel was built in Little Falls, MN in 1989.
  The first owners of the vessel--a married couple--were thought to be 
U.S. citizens, and a certificate of documentation for the Lady Hawk was 
issued in June 1990.
  In November 1990, Ms. Joan Dunn purchased the Lady Hawk from the 
original owners, with the intent to eventually use it as a charter 
fishing vessel.
  On November 11, 1993, Ms. Dunn received a notice from the Coast Guard 
that one of the married couple who originally owned the vessel was in 
fact a Canadian citizen, and that the certificate of documentation for 
the Lady Hawk was therefore invalid.
  The Coast Guard determined that Ms. Dunn was a bona fide purchaser in 
good faith, and informed her that it was pursuing penalty action 
against the former owner, but that the certificate of documentation for 
the Lady Hawk was nevertheless invalid.
  The bill I am introducing today would grant a Jones Act waiver to Ms. 
Dunn for the vessel Lady Hawk.
  Ms. Dunn, through no fault of her own, cannot use this vessel for 
fishing charters or other coastwise trade without this waiver.
                                 ______

      By Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Helms, 
        Mr. Ashcroft, and Mrs. Hutchinson):
  S. 476. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to eliminate 
the national maximum speed limit, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                national maximum speed limit repeal act

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National 
Maximum Speed Limit Repeal Act of 1995 on behalf of myself and Mr. 
Campbell. This legislation will return to the States the authority to 
establish their own speed limits.
  The national maximum speed limit allows the Federal Government to 
penalize States which do not comply with posting and enforcement of 
speed regulations. The penalties are potentially as high as 10 percent 
of a State's National Highway System and surface transportation funds. 
It is also important to note that these highway revenues are generated 
entirely by the States.
  The 55 mph speed limit law, which was amended to allow for a 65 mph 
limit on interstates and similar highways, in one of 19 provisions of 
Federal law which threatens States with the loss of their badly needed 
highway funds. Repealing the national maximum speed limit will help to 
eliminate these unnecessary and unfair Federal penalties.
  This bill will further empower States with the responsibility to make 
their own decisions with regard to speed limits. Such authority should 
not be imposed by the bureaucracy in Washington, DC, but instead should 
be regulated by the individual States who understand their own 
transportation needs and who know what restrictions are best-suited for 
their citizens. Following my statement, I request that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  Thank you, Mr. President. We urge all Members to cosponsor this 
important measure.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed, in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 476

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

     SECTION 1. REPEAL OF NATIONAL MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT.

       (a) In General.--Section 154 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The analysis for chapter 1 of the title is amended by 
     striking the item relating to section 154.
       [[Page S3222]] (2) Section 141 of the title is amended--
       (A) by striking subsection (a);
       (B) by designating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as 
     subsections (a), (b), and (c), respectively; and
       (C) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``subsection (b)'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``subsection (a)''.
       (3) Section 123(c)(3) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 
     1978 (Public Law 95-599; 23 U.S.C. 141 note) is amended by 
     striking ``section 141(b)'' and inserting ``section 141(a)''.
       (4) Section 153(i)(2) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Motor vehicle.--The term `motor vehicle' means any 
     vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured 
     primarily for use on public highways, except any vehicle 
     operated exclusively on a rail or rails.''.
       (5) Section 1029 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 23 U.S.C. 154 
     note) is amended--
       (A) by striking subsection (d); and
       (B) by redesignating subsections (e), (f), and (g) as 
     subsections (d), (e), and (f), respectively.
       (6) Section 157(d) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``154(f) or''.
       (7) Section 410(i)(3) of the title is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(3) Motor vehicle.--The term `motor vehicle' means any 
     vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured 
     primarily for use on public highways, except any vehicle 
     operated exclusively on a rail or rails.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 477. A bill to provide for the temporary suspension of the 
reformulated gasoline requirements under the Clean Air Act in States 
where bona fide health concerns have been raised until those concerns 
are appropriately addressed; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.


       TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF REFORMULATED GASOLINE REQUIREMENTS

 Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, on January 1 of this year, the reformulated 
gasoline requirements under the Clean Air Act came into effect in 
southeastern Wisconsin, as well as other areas around the Nation. The 
purpose of the reformulated gasoline requirement is to facilitate the 
use of cleaner-burning fuels in the areas of the country that are 
experiencing the most severe air pollution problems.
  In general, I have supported the use of reformulated gasoline as 
being one of the most cost-effective ways to address air pollution from 
mobile sources, such as automobiles. However earlier this month, 
citizens of southeastern Wisconsin began to experience difficulties 
with the new fuels. Problems have ranged from health concerns to 
mechanical problems to reductions in fuel efficiency.
  Most alarming to me are the health complaints that I have heard 
associated with the fumes from the reformulated gas, including nausea, 
itchy and burning eyes, shortness of breath, dizziness, and skin 
rashes.
  I believe that the citizens of Wisconsin strongly support the overall 
goal of the Clean Air Act, which is to protect human health through 
improved air quality. But when people are becoming sick as a result of 
these requirements, it only makes sense to temporarily suspend the 
program in question, until the health concerns are adequately 
addressed.
  On February 10 of this year, I called on EPA Administrator Carol 
Browner to suspend the reformulated gasoline program in Wisconsin until 
April 1, 1995, in order to allow citizens to purchase conventional 
gasoline while the health concerns associated with the reformulated 
fuels are being investigated. The Governor of Wisconsin had made the 
same request earlier that day.
  On February 24, I finally received the response to the request that I 
had made. In short, I found the response to be very inadequate. EPA did 
not agree to provide the temporary suspension that we had request, but 
instead offered to work with the oil industry to make an unspecified 
alternative fuel available on a limited basis.
  Because the EPA response to the matter does not address my concerns, 
I am offering legislation to require the suspension of reformulated 
gasoline requirements when bona fide health concerns are raised by a 
State where the requirements have been imposed.
  The bill addresses the specific problem faced by Wisconsin, without 
affecting the reformulated gasoline program as implemented in other 
regions of the Nation. The bill also establishes a process whereby a 
task force of Federal health and environmental officials work with the 
affected State to investigate the specific health concerns, and report 
back to Congress about their findings. The task force would also make 
recommendations to Congress and the State about other fuel formulations 
that could be used in the State, without causing the health problems 
that led to the suspension. Once the concerns are addressed, the 
reformulated gasoline program would be reinstated.
  Mr. President, it is not my intent to hinder the implementation of 
the Clean Air Act. But as I said when I supported passage of the Clean 
Air Act, my bottom line concern is the health of the citizens of 
Wisconsin. If people are getting sick, I believe that it is my 
responsibility to see that the health questions are addressing 
adequately. While I had hoped that such effort would have been handled 
administratively by EPA, the lack of action of the part of EPA has left 
no alternative but legislative action.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be included in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 477

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

     SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF REFORMULATED GASOLINE RULES.

       Notwithstanding any other law, upon the certification by 
     appropriate health officials of a State that bona fide health 
     concerns have been raised with respect to the use of 
     reformulated gasoline as required by rules issued by the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
     achieve the objectives of 211(k) of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7545(k)), the Administrator shall suspend 
     implementation of those rules in the State until the later 
     of--
       (1) April 1, 1995; or
       (2) the date on which the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services and the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, in conjunction with appropriate public 
     health officials of the State, certify that the reformulated 
     gasoline used to achieve the objectives of that section is 
     not causing human health problems.

     SEC. 2. STUDY OF HEALTH EFFECTS OF REFORMULATED GASOLINE.

       The Secretary of Health and Human Services and the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in 
     conjunction with appropriate public health officials of a 
     State that has requested a suspension of rules under section 
     1, shall--
       (1) investigate health complaints associated with use of 
     reformulated gasoline in the State;
       (2) report to Congress by April 1, 1995, on the result of 
     the investigation; and
       (3) include in the report recommendations for alternative 
     formulations that will meet with requirements of section 
     211(k) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(k)) without 
     causing the health problems reported in the State.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BREAUX (for himself and Mr. Chafee):
  S. 478. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
the taxable sale or use, without penalty, of dyed diesel fuel with 
respect to recreational boaters; to the Committee on Finance.


 correction of the implementation of the recreational boat diesel fuel 
                                  tax

 Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation to 
clarify the implementation of a law that we adopted in 1993. One of the 
provisions included in the 1993 Budget Reconciliation Act removed the 
exemption from payment of the diesel fuel tax that recreational boaters 
previously had.
  At the same time, the 1993 Budget Act modified the collection point 
for all of the fuel taxes and imposed fuel dying requirements. The 
combination of these two changes have made the implementation of the 
fuel tax a disaster creating a situation where many recreational 
boaters cannot find any fuel to pay tax on.
  Under the 1993 changes, fuel that is subject to taxation is clear and 
fuel that is exempt from taxation is dyed. The problem for boaters 
arises because most marinas have only one fuel tank, however, they 
provide fuel to both commercial and recreational boats. Commercial boat 
fuel is exempt from any tax and therefore commercial boat operators 
seek to purchase dyed fuel. Recreational fuel is taxable and 
recreational boaters want to purchase clear fuel. For those marina 
operators with only one fuel tank, they must decide if they will offer 
clear, taxable fuel for the recreational boaters or 
[[Page S3223]] offer dyed tax-exempt fuel for the commercial boaters. 
Most marina operators in my State of Louisiana, find that their primary 
customer base is made up of commercial boaters and they are choosing to 
sell the dyed fuels. Thus, recreational boaters have no place to 
purchase the clear fuel.
  Mr. President, this is a clear case of unintended consequences. The 
boaters are willing to pay the tax, they simply cannot find the place 
to buy the fuel and pay the tax. My bill is very simple. It modifies 
the collection process for diesel boating fuel. It allows marina 
operators to purchase dyed, exempt fuel and then collect the tax 
directly from recreational boaters and remit the tax to the Government 
directly.
  Mr. President, I believe that this is a very simple solution to this 
very difficult problem. I urge the Senate to act on this important 
issue as soon as possible.


                          ____________________