When this legislation was first introduced, its goal was to eliminate overlapping requirements between Federal and State law, now the center of a raging MTBE controversy in California and in other parts of the country.

I would like to mention briefly the major problem associated with MTBE use and leaking underground fuel tanks of California. Nowhere has this created more of a crisis than in my own district of Santa Monica. MTBE has been detected at high levels in two of Santa Monica's drinking well water fields, the Arcadia and the Charnock well fields. The water from these wells smells and tastes like turpentine. Even if we were sure it was safe to drink, and we are not sure of that, the taste and odor problems render it undrinkable. Both of these drinking water wells have been closed down, forcing Santa Monica to secure alternative water supplies at a considerable loss of self-sufficiency.

The U.S. EPA has initiated a Federal enforcement action to clean up the most significant of these well fields, but cleanup is proving more complicated, costly, and time-consuming than expected.

I am concerned that Santa Monica's experience may become a reality in other areas. Preliminary studies, for example, indicate that MTBE is already showing up in groundwater supplies in the northeastern States. We would do well to gather what lessons we can from Santa Monica's experience to help address other areas where MTBE may be an emerging problem.

As one of the few members of the California delegation who has yet to co-sponsor H.R. 11, I am interested in assuring that as we move forward, we do everything we can to fix California's problem and realize that this is a growing national problem. We have to ensure that other States can prevent harm.

It is important to note that neither the Clean Air Act nor the California fuels program requires that any specific fuel additive be used to satisfy oxygenate requirements. Instead it was the oil companies' choice to use MTBE to satisfy Clean Air Act requirements.

MTBE currently accounts for 76 percent of oxygenate used in the United States. Although the oil companies are the ones financially responsible. And they recognize that responsibility, we need to prevent contamination rather than try to clean it up after it has occurred. So I want to ensure that we prevent the widespread adoption of other fuel additives which may pose unsuspected risks to the public health or environment and put us in a similar situation 5 or 10 years from now.

It is also essential, of course, that this subcommittee and our committee consider steps that directly deal with problems of leaking fuel tanks. It appears that previous legislation has not adequately addressed this serious issue. In addition as we mark up legislation, we need to make sure that any changes don't result in more emissions of toxic air pollutants and we need to also take into account potential impacts on global warming.

Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, it would be easy to say let's deal with California alone, but this is a growing national problem and we have to look at the full consequences of this issue and any changes we make and how it is going to affect the whole country. I want to thank you again for holding today's hearing. I look forward to working with you and my colleagues on a bipartisan bill

that protects our environment and adequately addresses the serious problems posed by MTBE.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Green?

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on H.R. 11. The Clean Air Act regulations on reformulated gasoline are clearly becoming not only in California but also in other States a point of contention. Because I was not here when the Clean Air Act Amendments were passed in 1990, I was not involved in the decision prescribed how to formulate reformulated gasoline. To be honest, I understand the need and reasoning behind mandating RFG performance levels, but I can't imagine why we would find the need to mandate the formula with which refineries meet these standards. Maybe someone who was around back then can explain that point during the hearing.

Nevertheless, the Federal Government established the oxygenate standard as a major component of the Clean Air Act RFG standards. Whether you agree or disagree with that decision, the fact remains it was made, and companies in Texas have stepped up to meet the Nation's needs.

While H.R. 11 does not go as far as Governor Davis' executive order to remove MTBE from RFG in California, nor does it go as far as some Federal bills that have been introduced into the House and Senate that would prohibit the use of MTBE in gasoline for the entire country, I do believe it starts us down a road that could simply not be ready for the traffic.

Before we abandon the use of MTBE in reformulated gas, we need to make sure we have a viable alternative as safe as MTBE is, as effective in reducing volatile organic compounds, does not have other negative effects on the environment, is affordable and is accessible throughout the country. And I find that I agree with partial parts of all my colleagues' statements before me.

Let me first address the public health issue. While it is well known and documented MTBE causes odor and taste problems in drinking water, it is not known at what levels the contamination becomes hazardous. Unfortunately the public health effects of the alternative of MTBE ethanol is also not known. We should not rush to use another oxygenating compound before we know more about it. Let's not make the same mistake again.

Likewise, there is still very little known about non-oxygenated gasoline. What we do know is that the product has more aromatics which will significantly increase the level of toxic emissions into the air.

Finally, on the issue of affordability and accessibility, the simple fact is that ethanol, because it is so difficult to transport and more expensive to produce, cannot currently be counted on to meet the Nation's needs if MTBE was banned.

Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying we all want to protect the quality of our drinking water, and Texas water is a scarce resource and we do all we can to protect it. However, the most direct approach in protecting water is to make sure our underground storage tanks are sound and to be careful when handling gasoline. The fact is many storage tanks do not meet Federal safety guidelines, so replacing MTBE with another type of gasoline will only mean

different substances will leak into that ground. Some flexibility may be needed in the fuel oxygenate standard; however, no resulting policy should undermine air quality or reduce the accessibility of fuel for any Americans. We need to be cautious and thorough before we proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you.

Ms. Eshoo.

Ms. ESHOO. Yes, good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this important hearing. First I would like to welcome our very, very distinguished senior Senator of the State of California. She has distinguished herself in everything that she has done in public service, so we are very proud to have you here; and a special welcome to my Bay Area colleague, Ellen Tauscher.

Mr. Chairman, there is a saying that as California goes, so goes the Nation. And I think an awful lot of that is built into this bill which I am very proud to be a co-sponsor of. We know that we have a problem with MTBE. We know that there are health risks. We know that there is contamination of over 10,000 groundwater sites in California. California is not asking to be let out the back door on the Federal Clean Air Act. We are asking for flexibility; that we meet the Federal requirements, but that we do it in a different

way.

I think that we have established a clear case of the problems with MTBE, and I think that the solution we put forward would not only be good for California but also would be a model for other States in addressing similar problems. It wouldn't mandate that other States do that, but it would simply set up California as a major case in the country, and California is always a major case since we are the largest State in the Nation.

So I am proud to co-sponsor the bill. I think it is sensible. I think that it asks for the right kind of flexibility, but it does not let California out from under the stringent standards which I have always supported relative to the Federal Clean Air Act.

Last, Mr. Chairman, I would like to request unanimous consent that a statement from the Santa Clara Valley Water district be entered into the record.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Without objection.

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you and I yield back.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. I think that completes our opening statements. Ms. DeGette was here but I am not sure she will be returning right off. Apparently not.

I, too, want to add my welcome to the first panel and particularly to our colleagues and to Ms. O'Connor for having come so very far to testify here today.

As per usual, your written statement, those of you who have provided one, is a part of the record. I will set the clock at 5 minutes for each of you and hope that you could stay within that time. If not, as long as you are on a particular point, in the middle of a sentence, you can continue. We will kick off with the Honorable Senator Feinstein.

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I am really delighted to be here. I will put my written statement in the record.

What is clear is the committee knows a lot about this. I am really heartened to see this. I would, just like to talk with you informally this morning. I want to begin by thanking Congressman Bilbray for his longstanding work in this effort. I have introduced his bill in the Senate, as well as three others which I will talk about in a moment.

I also know that Representative Henry Waxman with his real expertise on health and environmental issues is playing a vital role in this, and I want to particularly thank Representatives Lois Capps and Anna Eshoo for their expertise. A good deal of what Mr. Pallone has said I strongly agree with. I am really very concerned about this because there are a number of Catch-22s on the way to working out a solution.

Congressman Bilbray is right. We really do need to work on a bipartisan basis and it is unacceptable to clean our air by polluting our groundwater. And let there be no doubt, MTBE is a serious pollutant.

But it is not only in California. I think clearly you will see the extent in California. This map shows the sites of leaking underground fuel tanks and leaking public wells in California. You see the Los Angeles area. You see the San Francisco Bay area. You see the Central Valley area. It's a big problem.

It is also a problem developing in other States as well, in at least 19 other States. The U.S. EPA survey in 1998 found MTBE in 251 of 422 public wells in 19 States. The U.S. Geological Survey and a 12-State survey of New England mid-Atlantic States said that using MTBE in gasoline results in a four- to sixfold increase in its presence in water.

MTBE to date has been detected in water in States such as Maine, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Texas, Kansas, New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Alabama, Colorado, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Delaware, and Arizona. There is no question it is carcinogenic in animals. Now that has not been proved for humans, but there is strong scientific belief that when it happens in animals, everybody should be alerted.

The Catch-22 is that there are those, including the EPA and environmentalists, who don't want to see the Clean Air Act opened up. There are those that don't want a California-only solution. We hear some of that on this committee. It exists in the Senate. I have worked with the Chairman of the Environment Committee, Senator Chafee, who has made clear that he doesn't want only a California solution.

The other Catch-22, frankly, is the ethanol lobby, the Renewable Fuels Association. I have the pleasure of meeting with them this afternoon and I hope we can clean the air which is clouded, I think, by several misimpressions. They view any action as the camel's nose under the tent with respect to ethanol and they want to ratchet up the ethanol requirement in gasoline to 5 percent. Consequently, we have all of these conflicting things going on. At the

same time, we have MTBE which spreads dramatically in groundwater.

I first was brought into this when I was visited by the mayor of Santa Monica who spelled out with charts and graphs, and had her attorneys there, about the pollution of 50 percent of the groundwater of Santa Monica. Since that time and beginning this week, south Lake Tahoe's drinking water is being rationed. Tosco has moved very rapidly to pull MTBE out of the water that goes to Lake Tahoe, but there isn't enough clean water. Consequently, they are rationing water. In Santa Clara County it has infiltrated their groundwater; 52 out of 58 water districts, counties, have said, please help. I would like to put their resolutions and their statement in the record.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Without objection.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Chevron has indicated very clearly to me— and their representative is here today to answer any questions, Mr. Hopkins-that they can clearly, if they have flexibility, make gasoline that conforms with the California performance model, which is the strongest model anywhere in America for the cleanest gasoline anywhere in America without MTBE. They would have to use ethanol certain times of the year in the southern California market.

I think what I am pleading for is to provide flexibility in whatever you do and allow us to work on a bipartisan basis. I will be very pleased to sit down with the Renewable Fuels Association. For some reason, they feel I am attacking them. I am not trying to attack them. I am just trying to find a way to be able to provide flexibility in the law.

If it is a California waiver, that is just part of the problem. There has to be, I sincerely believe, a national solution to this because it is going to percolate through groundwater of other States and other States are going to be resentful if it is a California-only solution. So I think one of the keys is flexibility. I think allowing a situation whereby the EPA can grant a waiver to States who can show that they can meet the clean air guidelines without MTBE or without an oxygenate, that that should be allowable. I think it is a mistake for Federal policy to have a rigid percentage of anything if that anything isn't necessary to meet the Federal guidelines.

So I am happy to really work in the Senate with the House, work with Republicans and Democrats, and see if we can't break through some of these Catch-22s and come up with a piece of legislation that really serves the purpose.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dianne Feinstein follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Thank you for the opportunity to share with you my concerns about the contamination of drinking water by the gasoline additive, MTBE.

My goal is narrow and simple: get MTBE out of California's water. MTBE smells like turpentine and tastes like paint thinner. Relatively low levels can simply make drinking water undrinkable.

MTBE is a contaminant that is "frequent" and "widespread," impacting at least 10,000 sites in California, according to a June 1998 Lawrence Livermore study.

I have with me here today a map of my state showing the extent of contamination all across California. The San Francisco Examiner on December 14, 1998 called it "a ticking timebomb."