mr. chairman , i thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me this time . 
mr. chairman , i rise to support the capps amendment . 
and it really is a mystery to me why we are even where we are right now . 
i think that , collectively , the house of representatives should remember that this very provision took down the entire energy bill in the last congress . 
that is how important this provision is . 
now we have this debate about whether polluters should pay . 
i do not care what district anyone represents in this country . 
no constituent is going to stand up and say , put the tax burden on us and allow the industry to get away with it . 
that is what this amendment is about . 
that is why we should all vote for the capps amendment . 
the base bill contains a provision that creates a safe harbor . 
what does that mean ? 
it lets the industry off the hook . 
it relieves the industry of any obligation to pay even a portion of the estimated $ 29 billion of cost of cleaning up drinking water that has been contaminated by this product . 
we know the product has contaminated groundwater . 
now we are sending the bill to local governments . 
the national association of counties , the national league of cities , attorneys general from across the united states have weighed in . 
this is not just simply a matter of who pays . 
it is also a matter of public health . 
i agree with my colleague , the gentleman from new hampshire ( mr. bass ) xz4000190 . 
of course it is a matter of public health . 
why do we need a task force to try and figure this out ? 
let us make the bill right . 
let us not stand on the wrong leg and try and defend something that is indefensible . 
this is an unfunded mandate . 
the cbo has weighed in and said that . 
the congress has responded to unfunded mandates by having rule xviii in the house rules . 
so i ask my colleagues on a bipartisan basis , let us do the right thing . 
let us pass the capps amendment . 
mr. chairman , the base bill contains a provision that creates a `` safe harbor '' preventing defective product claims against the producers of gasoline that contains mtbe . 
what this `` safe harbor '' does is relieve industry of any obligation to pay even a portion of the estimated $ 29 billion cost of cleaning up drinking water that 's been contaminated by its product . 
instead , the burden of mtbe clean up will fall entirely on states and localities . 
it 's an unfunded mandate and a tax on the american people . 
in california , successful lawsuits have led to substantial settlements with oil companies , and these settlements have enabled some communities to begin cleaning up their drinking water supplies . 
now , because communities are winning these suits , industry wants congress to let it off the hook . 
but this is n't simply a matter of who pays ; it 's also a matter of public health . 
mtbe is a potential carcinogen . 
it 's been detected in groundwater in all 50 states . 
when mtbe is in drinking water , we need to clean it up . 
in response to the public health threat , 42 states have established action levels , cleanup levels , or drinking water standards for mtbe ; 19 states have imposed full or partial bans on mtbe in gasoline . 
in justifying the `` safe harbor , '' some will claim that congress established a mandate to use mtbe when it passed the clean air act 's 2 percent oxygenate requirement in the early 1990s . 
that 's not true . 
first , the industry did n't have to use mtbe to meet the oxygenate requirement ; it had alternatives such as ethanol and other petroleum-based products . 
second , the industry lobbied congress to ensure that mtbe could be used to meet the oxygenate requirement . 
third , at the time congress was debating the oxygenate requirement , some producers already knew mtbe was likely to seep into groundwater at faster rates and persist at greater levels than other gasoline components . 
in fact , in the south lake tahoe lawsuit , arco admitted that it withheld information about groundwater contamination from congress . 
mr. chairman , we 're not talking about clean hands here . 
there 's a reason the refiners and the mtbe producers are losing in court ; there 's a reason they 're settling claims . 
they 're responsible for the mess . 
why are we creating a safe harbor for them ? 
nobody outside of the industry thinks this provision is a good idea . 
in 2003 , 14 attorneys general , including the attorneys general of california , new york , colorado , connecticut , illinois , maryland , massachusetts , minnesota , new hampshire , new mexico , rhode island , vermont , washington , and wisconsin wrote in opposition to providing a safe harbor for mtbe . 
in april of this year , the u.s. conference of mayors , the national league of cities , the national association of counties , the association of california water agencies and other sent letters voicing their opposition . 
this is a bad provision and we should strip it from the bill . 
vote for this amendment . 
