Joe Barton: “there are so many ways to oppose this particular amendment that I am at a little bit of a loss as to which way to start…”

“there are so many ways to oppose this particular amendment that I am at a little bit of a loss as to which way to start in opposition, but I think I will start first on the procedural opposition. This is basically the same vote and the same amendment that the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) had a vote on yesterday on a point of order before consideration of the rule. That was defeated overwhelmingly, in the neighborhood of 231-188 or something like that. To give her credit, she has come back and she and her allies have found a way to use the rules to come up and get a second bite of the apple. But my first line of opposition is that if you voted against it yesterday, you ought to vote against it today. Secondly, I want to talk about the concept that is embodied in the Capps amendment, that somehow this is an unfunded mandate. What she is seeking to strike is a provision in the underlying bill which was in the bill last year that says you cannot de facto go in and in an existing lawsuit state that MTBE, because it is MTBE, or also ethanol, is defective because of its chemical composition. You have to prove that it is defective, not just say that, because it is what it is. It is similar to saying this piece of wood that this table is made of is defective because it is wood. That is a very limited safe harbor provision. The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) would strike that.…”