mr. speaker , of all the things to come on the floor of the house of representatives and claim with a straight face that we should have a debate about , claiming that what is in the bill with regards to the mtbe is an unfunded mandate , is one of the biggest whoppers i can imagine , with all due respect . 
i want to read some of the language of the bill , and i have to put my reading classes on to do it . 
we specifically authorize in the bill additional funding , $ 50 million , to avoid the creation of unfunded mandates . 
it is in the bill , a specific allocation of $ 50 million to avoid the creation of unfunded mandates . 
the leaking underground storage trust fund has a balance right now of $ 2 billion . 
the bill before us dedicates some of that balance specifically to go out and inspect existing underground storage tanks , to enforce if those inspections find that there is a leak , and to fund improvements in the operation of these underground storage tank programs . 
it is in the bill . 
that is not an unfunded mandate . 
if anything , it is a specific allocation in the bill to enforce the program that we have , to put additional funds into it and to make sure that we prevent the problem . 
that is funded . 
that is not unfunded . 
now , the real debate is not whether it is an unfunded mandate or not . 
the real debate is what we should do about mtbe ; and as my good friend , the gentleman from texas ( mr. sessions ) xz4003670 , has already pointed out , we can have a legitimate policy debate about that . 
the bill allows states that want to ban mtbe to do it . 
that is not mandating the states . 
that is telling the states , you want to use mtbe in your gasoline supply to get cleaner air , fine . 
you do not want to use it , that is fine , too . 
the bill also has a provision in it that over the course of the next , i think , 10 years , depending on some scientific studies and various things , there could be a point in time that we have a federal ban on mtbe . 
it may not , it may , but it could happen . 
people forget in the 1991 clean air amendments we required an oxygen amendment to make the gasoline burn cleaner in nonattainment areas . 
there were two ways to do that at the time : use ethanol or use mtbe . 
there was not a mandate to use mtbe , but there was a requirement in nonattainment areas you had to do something in terms of putting more oxygen in the gasoline to make it burn cleaner . 
most of the market went to mtbe . 
we then found out , and we knew before the fact actually , that if the gasoline that had mtbe leaked out into the environment that the mtbe would disassociate a little bit quicker because it was more missable , and it would get into the water supply , or water table , and it causes an odor . 
so there have been a number of lawsuits . 
the gentlewoman mentioned two of them , in lake tahoe , one in california , where there have been out-of-court settlements for several millions of dollars because of that odor . 
that did not establish that mtbe is a defective product . 
this bill does have a safe harbor , not just for mtbe but also for ethanol , that by definition of the product , the chemical composition , that it is not defective ; but if you use it negligently , you can be sued upon it . 
if the right warnings are not with it , you can be sued . 
there are all kinds of reasons . 
you can sue and win , as has been shown ; but that does not mean that it in and of itself is defective . 
interestingly enough , in one of the cases the gentlewoman from california quoted , the amount of the settlement was less than the legal fees that the law firm representing the community in california claimed . 
so that community is now suing their law firm , saying you ripped us off , you are asking for more money to settle the suit than we got to clean the water up . 
