mr. chairman , i guess this is a postponed vote on mtbe .  it is an issue we have been dealing with , at least in the committee on energy and commerce , for a number of years .  mtbe was mandated , maybe not specifically in the clean air act of 1990 , but reformulated gas was .  and for an area like i have in houston , we have been using mtbe as a reformulated gas in our gas to clean up our air because it replaced the lead that we used to have because lead was polluting .  and now we find out that mtbe does not smell or taste good and that is right .  but whatever we have in our gas tanks is not something else we want to smell or taste , either .  we may not be able to taste the benzene and everything else .  but epa informed congress in 1990 that a reformulated oxygenate requirement would be met almost exclusively by mtbe , and congressional statements at the time reflect that knowledge .  nowadays you can use ethanol , which comes a long way , or mtbe .  it is true mtbe existed before the clean air act of 1990 .  in fact , it was first approved by the epa in 1979 to comply with another federal gasoline mandate , in reducing lead .  epa followed the legislative history of the clean air act and its scientific analysis and repeatedly reaffirmed approval for mtbe .  the reason this bill has this provision in here is because we mandated reformulated gas in certain areas , including the district i represent .  we have not had trouble with mtbe in groundwater or surface water pollution , at least in the houston area .  i know some parts of the country have .  the oxygenate requirement has done a great deal to clean up our smoggy urban air ; and to this day the epa will talk about the success of it , particularly in the houston area .  mtbe is on the way out and being cleaned up around the country , regardless of the amount of litigation .  tank owners , insurance and state funds are doing the real work , 96 percent of all cleanups according to the epa .  a case in point , the city of santa monica is suing its former law firm over the $ 66 million legal bill for its trouble in suing over mtbe .  i guess the concern i have is that mbte , if it is a defective product , we mandated it .  and let me quote from some of the remarks earlier in the clean air act .  we had members who are still sitting members of congress who were bragging about , we mandated the oil companies to be able to do stuff , for cleaning up our air ; and yet nowadays , 10 years later , 15 years later , we are going to say , no , they are responsible , even though we told them to do it , and it has been successful .  my concern about the loss of mbte , we can not trade clean air for clean water ; we have to have both .  and there is a way we can have both , but not by taking away the ability to have mbte , which is probably the most in use because it is the most efficient in reformulated gasoline .  but , again , congress made a decision to deal with ethanol more than mbte , and that will happen .  this bill allows for fixing the best by using the leaking underground storage tank fund , and that will go a long way to help us .  