Providing for Consideration of H.R. 6, Energy Policy Act of 2005 - 2
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6, ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - April 20, 2005)
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 219 and ask for its immediate consideration.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) bringing this issue up. In fact, the issue about the MTBE liability safe harbor is part of the bill. We believe that we are responsibly dealing with a problem that exists, has existed for quite some time.
Years ago the EPA made a very clear decision about not only MTBE, they understood some of the effects of MTBE, they understood some of the problems of MTBE, but they also understood MTBE cleans the air. It does a very effective job of making sure that the smog which we had seen in our cities, in our airways all across the United States was a huge problem and one that needed to be dealt with not only from a health perspective, but also from a perspective of the ability that we have of what we were creating as a result of emissions.
So the EPA made a decision to ensure that MTBE would be a product that would be available in gasoline, and in many instances and in many States there was a provision that required companies to put MTBE in as additives in gasoline.
We are aware that there are problems. We are aware that not because of MTBE but just as a result of storage tanks, underground storage tanks that do leak, that MTBE has been a part of that that has leaked into our underground water sources.
Parties that are responsible for those tanks have paid almost 95 percent of the underground storage tank cleanup according to the EPA. And we recognize that there are many other sites where this is still a problem, where cleanup is needed, where cleanup would be involved.
Today what we are asking is part of this wonderful energy bill. We are asking to make sure that we will limit the liability, a safe harbor for those people who have been a part of this so that we can clean up these storage tanks and we can move on.
There is more than $850 million in what is called a LUST Fund that has been set aside in this bill that will help communities to clean up, to work with those people who own those storage tanks, to clean up the groundwater, to clean up the contaminants and to clean up the problem.
But the fact of the matter is that MTBE by itself is simply not necessarily a problem. And under the Federal Rules of Evidence and under the many statutes that are being claimed in lawsuits, they are calling this a defective product. MTBE is not a defective product. We knew from the EPA and we understood what MTBE was, the problems that were associated with it; and the EPA has never labeled it as a carcinogenic. It is still being utilized today because it does a great job of cleaning up smog.
So what we are attempting to do in this bill is to make sure that we move forward with the problem, provide money, but let us move on with this country in going straight to the cleanup.
We support, I support what is in the energy bill. I appreciate all of my colleagues voting in support of this, not only the MTBE provision, but also the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we have already heard the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce tell us how this trust fund, the LUST Trust Fund, has $2 billion that has been set aside, that is waiting for this issue, for cleanup of MTBE. We heard very clearly that some almost $1 billion more will be added to the bill to make sure that we address this issue.
MTBE is not a defective product. MTBE does a very good job at what it is supposed to do, and that is clean the air.
Today and tomorrow this House will be considering the energy bill. I think it is time for us to move forward. I urge each of my colleagues to vote "yes," that we will continue the debate on the rule today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov