Volume 141, No. 33 covering the 1st Session of the 104th Congress (1995 - 1996) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Senate section on pages S2965-S2969 on Feb. 22, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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).
____________________
Alerts Sign-up