so long as the state program continues to demonstrate that it is achieving equal or better reductions in overall emissions of VOCs and air toxics. The U.S. EPA has recognized that the California program is more stringent, and has stated as much in several past federal register notices. This can be accomplished without sacrificing or "backsliding" on any public health or environmental benefits that California now enjoys; indeed, the broad support of air quality and water districts around the state are testament to this fact, and I believe that our witnesses from the California EPA and the Association of California Water Agencies can address this in greater detail. More specifically, H.R. 11 has been carefully drafted to build exclusively on California's unique and preexisting ability under the existing Clean Air Act to operate its own fuels program. This is so for good reason, as California has historically had unique air pollution challenges which require innovation and creativity to address. Recognizing this, Congress singled it out for special status in Section 211(c)(4)(b) of the Clean Air Act, which reads "Any state for which application of section 209(a) has at any time been waived under section 209(b) may at any time prescribe and enforce, for the purpose of motor vehicle emission control, a control or prohibition respecting any-fuel or fuel additive." Under Section 209(b)(1) a waiver may only be provided to "any State which has adopted standards... for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicles engines prior to March 30, 1966, if the State determines that the State standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards." California is the only state which has met this criteria; as a result H.R. 11 as it is written applies exclusively to California under the Clean Air Act, and is not applicable to any other

states.

I also want to reiterate to my colleagues that I continue to be sensitive to concerns which have been expressed about the potential for this legislation to "open up the Clean Air Act" or somehow serve as a "vehicle" for other amendments which might be harmful to the Act. Let me again clarify that this is neither the intent nor effect of H.R. 11-it is tailored to be applicable to California only, and to meet its specific needs by building on its unique status under the existing Act. This Committee has on several occasions in recent years demonstrated its ability to shepherd through the legislative process other bipartisan "rifle-shot" amendments to the Clean Air Act, without "opening it up" in a harmful manner, and I have great confidence in the ability of Chairman Bilirakis and Chairman Bliley to manage the process accordingly to do so again. I appreciate their concern for the integrity of the public health and high standards of air quality, and look forward to working with them and our stakeholders to create a favorable environment for the passage of this bill.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, ever since I first introduced this legislation, I have tried to be as plain as I can about my intent with H.R. 11, and my door has been open continuously to all interested parties. I believe that the broad support which it now enjoys, including new expressions of support from previously skeptical or opposed stakeholders, serves to reinforce the level of awareness and education that has gone into this process since I first introduced this legislation in 1996. I greatly appreciate the amount of time and energy which the Subcommittee and my colleagues have devoted to this important clean air issue, and their willingness to learn about and support a common-sense response to it.

We are reaching, if we have not already, a "critical mass" for H.R. 11-the need for this bill has never been greater, or more evident to Members of both the House and Senate. What is boils down to is simple fact-California has different (and more difficult) air quality needs than the rest of the nation. The Clean Air Act already reflects this. California has used this unique authority under the Act to develop an advanced, cleaner-burning fuel which outpaces the federal standard—the proverbial "better mousetrap". H.R. 11 will maximize the State's ability under the Act to achieve and improve upon its more stringent air quality standards and respond appropriately to other public health concerns which may arise. This is the essence of the justification for and rationale behind this bill, and is what all our participants should be focused on today; I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.

Mr. Chairman, I have several letters of support for H.R. 11 which I would like to be added to the record, including letters from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Manufacturers Association, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, the Metropolitan Water District, and the California Business Alliance, to name just a few. I also have other supporting material which I would ask to be included in the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Pallone.

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe Congress should legislate a California-only bill. California's Governor has already signed an executive order waiving the State's oxygenate requirement and banning MTBE, and therefore I introduced a bill just last evening that would address reformulated gasoline nationally.

My bill, which is H.R. 1705, would waive the 2 percent oxygenate requirement for the entire country essentially in the same manner as Senator Feinstein's bill and I want to commend the senator for moving toward a national initiative.

The bill I have introduced phases out MTBE in 3 years, as is the case in California, as long as an adequate supply of gasoline remains available and Clean Air Act requirements continue to be met.

My bill would not preclude or prohibit the use of ethanol. It would also require the National Academy of Sciences to conduct the study of all other oxygenates and their combustion byproducts to determine their health and environmental effects.

The bill I have introduced is supported by groups such as Oxybusters, which originated in New Jersey and now exists nationwide. I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that testimony from this group be submitted as part of the formal record. Mr. BILIRAKIS. Without objection.

[The information referred to follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF OXY-BUSTERS OF NEW JERSEY

Oxy-Busters of New Jersey supports Congressman Frank Pallone's bill to ban oxygenated fuel throughout the nation. The accomplishment of this feat would be the culmination of six years of tireless efforts to rid our country of these dangerous and useless fuel additives.

When oxygenated fuel was introduced in New Jersey in November 1992, hundreds of unsuspecting victims experienced severe health problems that included pounding headaches, sinus problems and breathing difficulties. I, too, suffered from severe headaches, which prompted my formation of Oxy-Busters, a grassroots organization dedicated to the elimination of oxygenated gasoline.

Our efforts to rid New Jersey of oxygenated fuel were stymied by the insensitivity of the state Department of Environmental Protection, which continued to assert that oxygenated fuel was cleaning the air. It was only recently that a University of California study proved what Oxy-Busters had asserted all along that oxygenated fuel has little, if any, effect on cleaning the air. Even when Oxy-Busters presented 15,000 signed petitions to Gov. Whitman calling for a ban on oxygenated fuel, our state government continued to do nothing to protect its citizens' health. Gov. Whitman claims she has been supportive of our movement, yet her token efforts pale in comparison to those of more progressive governors who have managed to ban some forms of oxygenated fuel from their states.

Maine, North Caroline, Montana, Alaska and California have successfully fought against oxygenated fuel and have helped ensure the well-being of their states' citizens. With the assistance of Frank Pallone, the entire nation can be free from all oxygenates and all citizens will be able to breathe the air outside their homes again. We applaud Congressman Pallone's national leadership on this issue.

Just as our air has been polluted by oxygenated fuel, so, too, has our water supply. Oxygenated fuel has been discovered in ground water in numerous places throughout the country, and because some oxygenates are suspected carcinogens, this water contamination should be a cause for great alarm.

In New Jersey alone, Oxy-Busters has documented more than 800 cases of people suffering ill health effects from oxygenated fuel. Keep in mind that most of these people had never experienced any type of chemical sensitivity prior to the introduction of oxygenated fuel. We shudder to think of how many people throughout the United States are also suffering but are unaware of what is making them ill, or think they have nobody to turn to.

Now, thanks to Congressman Pallone, they do.

BARRY GROSSMAN

Founder, Oxy-Busters of New Jersey

PREPARED STATEMENT OF OXY-BUSTERS OF NEW JERSEY, SOUTHERN DIVISION

Oxybusters of New Jersey is a grass roots organization that opposes the use of oxygenates in gasoline. We are part of a national movement that began in 1993 after thousands of people became ill from exposure to oxygenated fuel. Our group opposes the use of oxygenates for the following three reasons:

1) Health Effects oxygenates create harmful combustion byproducts when used in gasoline. These include formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, tertiary butyl alcohol, formic acid, isobutylene and nitrogen oxides. These toxic chemicals can cause severe respiratory irritation. We believe the dramatic increase in asthma in recent years is linked to these byproducts. The federal EPA has only recently begun to study these chemicals.

2) Air Quality Effects-the purpose of oxygenates was supposed to be to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Oxygenates are unnecessary for either purpose, and in some respects, counterproductive. All cars built since the mid-1980's have oxygen sensors, which control the oxygen mixture. In these cars, oxygenates have no impact on CO-but they do result in increased nitrogen oxides emissions, which create smog. Generally speaking, CO is not the major problem of vehicle emissions that it was in the 1980's, because of the oxygen sensors.

While oxygenates have replaced some VOCs in gasoline, refiners have acknowledged they can maintain these reductions without using oxygenates. Extensive studies done by the Auto and Oil industries, and also by the University of California, all concluded that oxygenates do not make gasoline burn cleaner.

3) Water Contamination-MTBE has contaminated water supplies throughout the country. Because it is ether-based, it is highly soluble in water, unlike other components of gasoline. It also biodegrades very slowly, and is extremely costly to cleanup. For these reasons, our group believes that the oxygen requirement for reformulated gasoline should be eliminated. In addition, all ether-based additives should be banned on a national level. We very much appreciate the interest Congressman Frank Pallone has taken in these issues. We would support any federal legislation that would accomplish these goals.

BARRY DORFMAN Director of Special Projects

Mr. PALLONE. There are other groups such as the California chapter of the Sierra Club which support the policy concepts of this bill. The American Lung Association also has expressed support at least for lifting the oxygen caps nationally.

I introduced this legislation because other parts of the country deserve to breathe clean air and experience the same health benefits as California. In my State of New Jersey and elsewhere asI was going to say Senator Franks; better be careful, Bob-as Representative Franks and others will reiterate, groundwater problems and health problems from MTBE, which is used as an additive for reformulated gasoline, are cropping up.

For example, the New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection issued a 1998 report which indicated that approximately 400 private wells were contaminated with MTBE beyond the New Jersey safe drinking level of 70 parts per billion. And yet my home State is not considering banning MTBE and that is why we need national legislation.

Let me just mention also the oxygenate requirement currently in law. Research efforts conducted separately by the University of California, Dr. Peter Joseph of the University of Pennsylvania, the American Petroleum Institute and others, indicate that the oxygenate requirement not only does not improve air quality, it actually increases nitrogen oxides which is a precurser to smog and can in

crease exhaust emissions of formaldehyde and other toxic compounds.

The Sierra Club is on record opposing an oxygenate requirement and in arguing that such a mandate would increase the potential for smog and air toxins, and the research has now proven that added oxygenates reduces carbon monoxide. I have also been told some companies, which are represented here today, have marketready alternative fuels that can meet clean air standards without using oxygenates. So it appears the oxygenate requirement doesn't necessarily reduce emissions and may cause harmful consequences as well.

Last, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to mention with regard to MTBE and the compounds used to meet the RFG oxygenate requirement, MTBE is highly soluble in water, biodegrades slowly and is costly to clean up. Like some of the witnesses here today, I do not believe we should wait for more groundwater contamination and more people to get sick before we take nationwide action. And the costs of removing MTBE upfront are far less than cleaning up contaminated groundwater supplies and paying for health expenses related to MTBE exposure.

DOE estimates that removing MTBE in conjunction with lifting the oxygenate requirement would cost only a few pennies per gallon of gasoline. Since the EPA is already issuing regulations to remove sulfur from gasoline, which would already serve to reduce environmental impacts, the cost would probably be even lower than these estimates.

Mr. Chairman, I am basically writing a letter to each of our witnesses, asking that comments on my bill be included in the record, and, ask unanimous consent that the record be kept open for this purpose, with your permission.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Bryant, for an opening statement.

Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to express my gratitude to you and to Mr. Brown for holding this hearing today on legislation introduced by my colleague from California, Mr. Bilbray. Although this legislation specifically relates to the situation in California, several issues we will examine here this morning should concern us all. We are all affected or potentially affected by the Clean Air Act and the amendments of 1990. There isn't a congressional district in this country that isn't affected by the cost and supply of gasoline, and we are certainly all impacted by air and water quality.

Not being an expert in environmental policy, I am looking forward to hearing and learning from the testimony of our witnesses today. I also want to thank all of you for taking the time to be with us and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mrs. Capps, for an opening statement.

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing on H.R. 11. I welcome our witnesses today. I especially want to welcome my own Senator and good friend, Dianne Feinstein, and my California colleague, Ellen Tauscher, who have both been leaders on this issue along with Mr. Bilbray to help sponsor this legislation.

I am very proud to be an original co-sponsor of this bill and pleased that an almost unanimous agreement exists among the California colleagues in the House to support this important legislation.

H.R. 11 will provide my home State the flexibility it needs to keep our air clean without adversely affecting our drinking water supply. California leads the Nation in air pollution control programs. We already have the Nation's strongest cleaner burning gasoline standards, which are stronger than the Federal clean air standards. California has adopted a performance-based program that allows gasoline refiners to use innovative fuel formulas to meet clean air requirements without mandating potentially harmful additives such as MTBE.

We all share the same goal here, to develop the cleanest burning fuel to reduce air pollution. However, clean air must not come at the expense of clean drinking water. With recent studies showing the harmful effects of MTBE to California's groundwater, it was no surprise that our new Governor ordered the elimination of that additive to California's gasoline within the next 3 years. A recent Federal survey indicates that 69 percent of California's population relies on groundwater for their source of drinking water. Furthermore, the U.S. EPA has indicated that MTBE is an animal carcinogen and has a human carcinogenic hazard potential. The bottom line is that MTBE is not needed, and dangerous.

California can meet Federal clean air standards by using their own State clean gas regulations. It simply does not make sense to continue using a chemical additive that is unnecessary, pollutes California's drinking water supply and threatens the public health.

H.R. 11 will allow California the flexibility it needs to ensure clean air and clean water. I hope we can bring this bill to a vote soon. Thank you.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. Dr. Ganske.

Mr. GANSKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. There is ample evidence that oxygenates help fuel burn cleaner. We want clean air so we have oxygenates. We don't want contaminated water, so get rid of MTBE. But I am not in favor of exempting California from all oxygenates simply because there is an alternative called ethanol. I look forward to testimony by Eric Vaughn from the Renewable Fuels Association. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for convening today's hearing on an issue of great importance to California and to our Nation and I am looking forward to getting the testimony. I know you are all looking forward to giving us the testimony from our witnesses that are sitting at the table and are going to follow them.

I particularly want to welcome Mayor O'Connor from Santa Monica in my own district for being here, and my own State U.S. Senator, Dianne Feinstein.

This bill would allow California's reformulated gasoline to substitute for Federal reformulated gasoline. The most significant impact of this change would be to exempt California from the congressionally mandated Federal oxygenate requirement.