PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 27, 1995
Directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, upon certification by appropriate State health officials that bona fide health concerns have been raised with respect to the use of reformulated gasoline as required by rules issued by the Administrator under the Clean Air Act, to suspend such 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 certify that reformulated gasoline used to achieve the objectives of such Act is not causing human health problems. Requires the Secretary and the Administrator to: (1) investigate health complaints associated with use of reformulated gasoline; (2) report the results of such investigation to the Congress; and (3) include in such report recommendations for alternative formulations that will meet with requirements of the Clean Air Act without causing the reported health problems.
People & committees
Sen. Kohl, Herb [D-WI] · D–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3222)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.477 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.477 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.477 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.477 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.