[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 23, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H5628-H5636]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  FEDERAL PRICE GOUGING PREVENTION ACT

  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 1252) to protect consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and 
other fuels, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1252

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Price Gouging 
     Prevention Act''.

     SEC. 2. UNCONSCIONABLE PRICING OF GASOLINE AND OTHER 
                   PETROLEUM DISTILLATES DURING EMERGENCIES.

       (a) Unconscionable Pricing.--
       (1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person to 
     sell, at wholesale or at retail in an area and during a 
     period of an energy emergency, gasoline or any other 
     petroleum distillate covered by a proclamation issued under 
     paragraph (2) at a price that--
       (A) is unconscionably excessive; and
       (B) indicates the seller is taking unfair advantage of the 
     circumstances related to an energy emergency to increase 
     prices unreasonably.
       (2) Energy emergency proclamation.--
       (A) In general.--The President may issue an energy 
     emergency proclamation for any area within the jurisdiction 
     of the United States, during which the prohibition in 
     paragraph (1) shall apply. The proclamation shall state the 
     geographic area covered, the gasoline or other petroleum 
     distillate covered, and the time period that such 
     proclamation shall be in effect.
       (B) Duration.--The proclamation--
       (i) may not apply for a period of more than 30 consecutive 
     days, but may be renewed for such consecutive periods, each 
     not to exceed 30 days, as the President determines 
     appropriate; and
       (ii) may include a period of time not to exceed 1 week 
     preceding a reasonably foreseeable emergency.
       (3) Factors considered.--In determining whether a person 
     has violated paragraph (1), there shall be taken into 
     account, among other factors--
       (A) whether the amount charged by such person for the 
     applicable gasoline or other petroleum distillate at a 
     particular location in an area covered by a proclamation 
     issued under paragraph (2) during the period such 
     proclamation is in effect--
       (i) grossly exceeds the average price at which the 
     applicable gasoline or other petroleum distillate was offered 
     for sale by that person during the 30 days prior to such 
     proclamation;
       (ii) grossly exceeds the price at which the same or similar 
     gasoline or other petroleum distillate was readily obtainable 
     in the same area from other competing sellers during the same 
     period;
       (iii) reasonably reflected additional costs, not within the 
     control of that person, that were paid, incurred, or 
     reasonably anticipated by that person, or reflected 
     additional risks taken by that person to produce, distribute, 
     obtain, or sell such product under the circumstances; and
       (iv) was substantially attributable to local, regional, 
     national, or international market conditions; and
       (B) whether the quantity of gasoline or other petroleum 
     distillate the person produced, distributed, or sold in an 
     area covered by a proclamation issued under paragraph (2) 
     during a 30-day period following the issuance of such 
     proclamation increased over the quantity that that person 
     produced, distributed, or sold during the 30 days prior to 
     such proclamation, taking into account usual seasonal demand 
     variations.
       (b) False Pricing Information.--It shall be unlawful for 
     any person to report to a Federal agency information related 
     to the wholesale price of gasoline or other petroleum 
     distillates with actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied 
     on the basis of objective circumstances that such information 
     is false or misleading.
       (c) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       (1) the term ``wholesale'', with respect to sales of 
     gasoline or other petroleum distillates, means either 
     truckload or smaller sales of gasoline or petroleum 
     distillates where title transfers at a product terminal or a 
     refinery, and dealer tank wagon sales of gasoline or 
     petroleum distillates priced on a delivered basis to retail 
     outlets; and
       (2) the term ``retail'', with respect to sales of gasoline 
     or other petroleum distillates, includes all sales to end 
     users such as motorists as well as all direct sales to other 
     end users such as agriculture, industry, residential, and 
     commercial consumers.
       (d) Construction.--As described in this section, a sale of 
     gasoline or other petroleum distillate does not include a 
     transaction on a futures market.

     SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

       (a) Enforcement by FTC.--A violation of section 2 shall be 
     treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or 
     deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 
     18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 
     57a(a)(1)(B)). The Federal Trade Commission shall enforce 
     this Act in the same

[[Page H5629]]

     manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction as 
     though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal 
     Trade Commission Act were incorporated into and made a part 
     of this Act. In enforcing section 2(a) of this Act, the 
     Commission shall give priority to enforcement actions 
     concerning companies with total United States wholesale or 
     retail sales of gasoline and other petroleum distillates in 
     excess of $500,000,000 per year.
       (b) Civil Penalties.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding the penalties set forth 
     under the Federal Trade Commission Act, any person who 
     violates this Act with actual knowledge or knowledge fairly 
     implied on the basis of objective circumstances shall be 
     subject to the following penalties:
       (A) Price gouging; unjust profits.--Any person who violates 
     section 2(a) shall be subject to--
       (i) a fine of not more than 3 times the amount of profits 
     gained by such person through such violation; or
       (ii) a fine of not more than $3,000,000.
       (B) False information.--Any person who violates section 
     2(b) shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than 
     $1,000,000.
       (2) Method.--The penalties provided by paragraph (1) shall 
     be obtained in the same manner as civil penalties obtained 
     under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 
     U.S.C. 45).
       (3) Multiple offenses; mitigating factors.--In assessing 
     the penalty provided by subsection (a)--
       (A) each day of a continuing violation shall be considered 
     a separate violation; and
       (B) the court shall take into consideration, among other 
     factors, the seriousness of the violation and the efforts of 
     the person committing the violation to remedy the harm caused 
     by the violation in a timely manner.

     SEC. 4. CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

       (a) In General.--In addition to any penalty applicable 
     under section 3, any person who violates section 2 shall be 
     fined under title 18, United States Code--
       (1) if a corporation, not to exceed $150,000,000; and
       (2) if an individual not to exceed $2,000,000, or 
     imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.
       (b) Enforcement.--The criminal penalty provided by 
     subsection (a) may be imposed only pursuant to a criminal 
     action brought by the Attorney General or other officer of 
     the Department of Justice.

     SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT AT RETAIL LEVEL BY STATE ATTORNEYS 
                   GENERAL.

       (a) In General.--A State, as parens patriae, may bring a 
     civil action on behalf of its residents in an appropriate 
     district court of the United States to enforce the provisions 
     of section 2(a) of this Act, or to impose the civil penalties 
     authorized by section 3(b)(1)(B), whenever the attorney 
     general of the State has reason to believe that the interests 
     of the residents of the State have been or are being 
     threatened or adversely affected by a violation of this Act 
     or a regulation under this Act, involving a retail sale.
       (b) Notice.--The State shall serve written notice to the 
     Federal Trade Commission of any civil action under subsection 
     (a) prior to initiating such civil action. The notice shall 
     include a copy of the complaint to be filed to initiate such 
     civil action, except that if it is not feasible for the State 
     to provide such prior notice, the State shall provide such 
     notice immediately upon instituting such civil action.
       (c) Authority To Intervene.--Upon receiving the notice 
     required by subsection (b), the Federal Trade Commission may 
     intervene in such civil action and upon intervening--
       (1) be heard on all matters arising in such civil action; 
     and
       (2) file petitions for appeal of a decision in such civil 
     action.
       (d) Construction.--For purposes of bringing any civil 
     action under subsection (a), nothing in this section shall 
     prevent the attorney general of a State from exercising the 
     powers conferred on the attorney general by the laws of such 
     State to conduct investigations or to administer oaths or 
     affirmations or to compel the attendance of witnesses or the 
     production of documentary and other evidence.
       (e) Venue; Service of Process.--In a civil action brought 
     under subsection (a)--
       (1) the venue shall be a judicial district in which--
       (A) the defendant operates;
       (B) the defendant was authorized to do business; or
       (C) the defendant in the civil action is found;
       (2) process may be served without regard to the territorial 
     limits of the district or of the State in which the civil 
     action is instituted; and
       (3) a person who participated with the defendant in an 
     alleged violation that is being litigated in the civil action 
     may be joined in the civil action without regard to the 
     residence of the person.
       (f) Limitation on State Action While Federal Action Is 
     Pending.--If the Federal Trade Commission has instituted a 
     civil action or an administrative action for violation of 
     this Act, no State attorney general, or official or agency of 
     a State, may bring an action under this subsection during the 
     pendency of that action against any defendant named in the 
     complaint of the Federal Trade Commission or the other agency 
     for any violation of this Act alleged in the complaint.
       (g) Enforcement of State Law.--Nothing contained in this 
     section shall prohibit an authorized State official from 
     proceeding in State court to enforce a civil or criminal 
     statute of such State.

     SEC. 6. LOW INCOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE.

       Amounts collected in fines and penalties under section 3 of 
     this Act shall be deposited in a separate fund in the 
     treasury to be known as the Consumer Relief Trust Fund. To 
     the extent provided for in advance in appropriations Acts, 
     the fund shall be used to provide assistance under the Low 
     Income Home Energy Assistance Program administered by the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services.

     SEC. 7. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.

       (a) Other Authority of Federal Trade Commission.--Nothing 
     in this Act shall be construed to limit or affect in any way 
     the Federal Trade Commission's authority to bring enforcement 
     actions or take any other measure under the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) or any other provision 
     of law.
       (b) State Law.--Nothing in this Act preempts any State law.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rush) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, gasoline prices are now at record highs. The average 
price of gas is $3.19 nationwide, with my home State of Illinois having 
higher prices than any other at $3.46 a gallon. Now, rising gas prices 
are one thing, and I fully recognize the reality of global oil markets, 
the current state of our refinery capacity, and the basic laws of 
supply and demand. But the gouging of American consumers is another 
matter entirely, and the bill on the floor, H.R. 1252, the Federal 
Price Gouging Protection Act, ensures that American consumers are 
protected from companies that will prey on them during emergencies when 
they are most vulnerable.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for a fine 
piece of legislation that is both thoughtful and careful in its scope. 
On the one hand, the bill is tough and decisive. It gives the Federal 
Trade Commission the tools to crack down on and punish those companies 
that would price-gouge American consumers by unscrupulously taking 
advantage of unique energy shortages and unconscionably raising the 
price of gasoline on the American consumer.
  On the other hand, the bill explicitly takes into account the 
totality of market forces, both domestic and international. H.R. 1252 
preserves the ability of companies to mitigate against legitimate risks 
and raise prices as necessary. Simply put, the bill is carefully 
written such that if a company is found liable of price gouging under 
this act, then they are in fact price gouging. It is very difficult to 
argue that we are overreaching or too vague in this bill.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer 
Protection, I fully support Mr. Stupak's bill and its expeditious 
treatment on the suspension calendar. It is important for the American 
people to know we are on the ball, and that this ball is moving quickly 
to address their concerns. I urge Members of the House to pass the 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the time 
of the gentleman from Texas.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PENCE. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).
  Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday in my hometown of Appleton, 
Wisconsin, the price for a gallon of gas hit

[[Page H5630]]

$3.45. Since President Bush assumed office, the price for gas has 
nearly doubled. Higher prices for gas punish all Americans, punish 
small businesses, students, senior citizens, farmers, and even our 
local, State and Federal Governments as well.
  Everybody is asking, why? Why did the price at the pump go up even 
when the cost per barrel went down? The most likely answer is price 
gouging somewhere along the supply line, from the oil company to the 
refinery to the speculators in the options markets who buy and hold the 
oil for only a nanosecond.
  People everywhere want answers, and here is what we can do. Today the 
House will consider the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act. And along 
with Congressman Stupak and Congressman Rush and others, we will put a 
cop back on the block. What we need is effective and active oversight, 
not hide-and-seek politics.
  Let's take this step together in the right direction. This bill 
defines what price gouging is. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 
1252.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
for our side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. 
Let's make no mistake about this. The last-minute changes don't improve 
this legislation. The revisions are simply fig-leaf changes to provide 
cover for oil patch Democratic Members who are being strong-armed into 
voting for this bill.
  No matter how much you dress this up, this bill is still about price 
controls. We tried price controls in the 1970s, and they didn't work. 
It resulted in mass rationing, long lines at the pump, and consumer 
outrage. History is quite clear on this.
  George Mason University economist Walter Williams has said: 
``Politicians of both parties have rushed in to exploit public 
ignorance and emotion. But there's an important downside to these 
political attacks on producers.
  ``What about the next disaster? How much sense does it make for 
producers to make the extra effort to provide goods and services if 
they know they risk prosecution for charging what might be seen as 
`unconscionable prices'?''
  Mr. Williams is right.
  The American public deserves better. Congress has the responsibility 
to pass a balanced, comprehensive energy program that uses innovative 
technology to explore and expand our domestic energy supply, to move us 
towards energy independence. The last thing we need to do is to turn 
back the clock to the failed energy policies of the 1970s. For those 
reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support passage of the Price 
Gouging Prevention Act, and I commend Congressman Stupak for his 
leadership on this issue.
  In eastern Connecticut, where I come from, the price of gas has 
reached its highest level in history, $3.26 today, up 31 cents from a 
month ago, and more than $1 since February.
  The Government Accountability Office reported on Tuesday that the 
increasing gasoline prices have cost consumers an extra $20 billion 
this year, and we are only in May. That is a tax on consumers. It is a 
tax on small businesses. It has a ripple effect all throughout our 
economy.
  And this is not just about driving over Memorial Day weekend. This is 
about whether or not energy prices are going to cripple the ability of 
this economy to grow and thrive and prosper.
  It is time to put accountability into the system. The Stupak bill is 
not price controls, it is a system to make sure that the price is a 
fair one and is justifiable according to market conditions. Those are 
the tools that we are giving to the Federal Trade Commission.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to that. We are 
dealing with a world energy market, a world energy market. This bill 
basically doesn't seem to understand that prices are set on world 
markets. Clearly what we need to do is understand that aspect of this 
to craft a meaningful energy policy.
  That is why investment in technology to come up with a broad range of 
alternative energy sources is the appropriate way to approach this. We 
don't want to go back to the price controls of the 1970s.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, setting new records in the United States is 
generally associated with achievements and innovation.
  Unfortunately, this week our Nation hit a new record that most 
consumers are not celebrating. Gasoline prices were reported to reach 
nationwide averages of $3.20 or higher.
  It is not hard to understand these prices if you look at the 
Republican-controlled Congress' Energy Policy Act of 2005, which 
provided billions of dollars to the oil and gas companies while 
spending only pennies on renewable efforts for fuel that would allow us 
to get ourselves off the dependency on foreign oil.
  As Americans, we do not have a history of shying away from a 
challenge, and there is no reason to step down from the challenge that 
is ahead of us because of these Republicans. I think we can do better, 
and our history as Americans show that we will do better if we have the 
right leadership.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Federal Price Gouging Protection 
Act because it fulfills America's promise to do what Americans can do 
if they put their mind to it, and that is to do better and get off this 
dependency on foreign oil.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, if the other side has no more Members 
available to speak on this legislation, are they not then required 
under House rules to yield back the balance of their time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois will close.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, what I asked was if the other side has no 
more speakers available, can they continue to reserve time, or do they 
have to yield back the balance of their time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois may continue to 
reserve his time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim 
the balance of time on our side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. May I inquire as to how much time I have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 18 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Illinois has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. May I further inquire if I am the last speaker? 
Is Mr. Rush prepared to close?
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, we have additional speakers.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first say that it is appropriate that the House 
bring this type of legislation in this Congress before the body because 
gasoline prices are high, and the American public is concerned about 
those high prices, so it is not inappropriate to consider legislation 
of this type. We did it twice in the last Congress, passed an anti-
price-gouging bill, once as part of a larger energy package and once as 
a stand-alone piece of legislation. So there is nothing inappropriate 
about bringing this before the body.
  Having said that, I think it is fair to say that it is inappropriate, 
at least in my opinion, to bring it before the body in the way it has 
been brought. The bill

[[Page H5631]]

that is actually before us, I don't know how many Members of the 
majority saw this bill as it is currently configured, but nobody in the 
minority saw it until approximately 2:45 p.m. yesterday afternoon.
  When I left the Capitol at approximately 6:15, it had still not been 
noticed that it was going to be on the suspension calendar this 
morning. It may have been noticed and I just didn't get that notice, 
but I was told it was up at 10 a.m. this morning, and now it's 10:45. 
So those of us in the minority have a certain sense of concern that 
we've not been contacted. We've not been asked for our input.

                              {time}  1045

  We've not been allowed to negotiate, participate in any shape, form 
or fashion. All we've been allowed to do is come onto the floor, in my 
case at 10:45, and speak on the bill, and at some point in time, I 
assume there will be a vote on it.
  I did study the bill last evening. I have lots of concerns about this 
bill. I don't know what ``unconscionably excessive'' means. It's not 
defined in statute. As far as I can tell, it's not been defined in any 
case law. Apparently, it's going to be determined on a case-by-case 
basis.
  I also asked my staff to check around, see if there had been price-
gouging lawsuits brought in the various States. Over half of the States 
of our great Union have price-gouging statutes on the books. We're 
aware of one State, in the State of Kentucky, the Kentucky Attorney 
General has either filed a suit or prepared to file a lawsuit in 
Kentucky. There may be others, but that's the only one that I know of.
  There's certainly no systemic outbreak of price-gouging lawsuits 
being filed around the country, and if we really had pandemic price 
gouging going on, I think the States that have price-gouging statutes 
would be using their State statues. They're not doing that.
  Why is that? Well, again, I'm not a trained economist, but it seems 
to me that what we have is a case of the chickens coming home to roost. 
We have not done much, if any, on the supply side for our oil situation 
in this country in the last 30 years; haven't built a refinery, brand 
new, from scratch, in almost 35 years. We've put almost every place 
that has any potential for new oil development off-limits. Can't drill 
up in ANWR, Alaska; can't drill off the coast of California; can't 
drill off the coast of Florida; can't drill off the coast of South 
Carolina, North Carolina; can't drill off a lot of portions of the 
eastern Gulf of Mexico.
  And funny things happen. As we've kind of sat on our supply haunches 
and not done anything, demand worldwide and domestically has gone up, 
and as demand goes up, if you don't have some ability to increase the 
supply, sooner or later that price is going to go up.
  Now, I wasn't here to hear Mr. Stupak's opening statement, and he may 
not have said this, but he said yesterday in the oversight hearing the 
price of crude oil has dipped slightly. He doesn't understand why the 
price of gasoline has gone up. And all you have to do is look at the 
housing market in northern Virginia to get the answer to that.
  I had supper last evening with my son who is working at the 
Department of Energy. They are living in a home that's probably 35 
years old. I don't know what that home cost brand new when it was 
built, but a good guess would be $30-, $40,000. That price at the time 
was based on the cost of construction, the cost of the land, fair 
profit for the builder and real estate agent. So you could say the cost 
of that property was $30- or $40,000. Well, the people that own the 
home have just sold it. It wouldn't be appropriate to tell the exact 
selling price. My son is renting it, but it's over $700,000.
  Now, is that price gouging? No. It's what the market demand for 
housing in northern Virginia is. It's not related to the cost of the 
property, it's related to the demand for housing in northern Virginia. 
So those folks have made a nice profit.
  Well, the same thing in the oil industry. Demand for oil is going up 
in China, demand for oil is going up in Europe, demand for oil is going 
up in Asia, demand for oil is going up in the United States, and if you 
don't have more of it, price is going to go up. Is that price gouging? 
No. It is what the market requires to balance limited supply with 
increasing demand.
  The price of gasoline in the United States 3 years ago doubled. 
Demand actually increased 1 percent. Now, eventually, last time prices 
got to about $3 a gallon demand did dip slightly, supply increased a 
little bit, price went back down. Right before the last election, the 
price in Texas for gasoline got down to about $1.90 a gallon. Since my 
friends on the other side have won the election and taken over, the 
price has gone back up to what we see today. Is it their fault? It is 
not their fault right now. It's not Bobby Rush's fault, it's not Bart 
Stupak's fault, it's not John Dingell's fault. It's not Ed Markey's 
fault over there in the corner. Although I'm tempted to blame Mr. 
Markey, but it wouldn't be fair.
  Demand has gone up and supply has not gone up and the price has gone 
up, and it's going to keep going up until we do something, both on the 
demand side and the supply side.
  So, is this the worst bill that's ever been on the floor of the House 
of Representatives? No, it's not. Is it the best bill that's ever been 
on the floor? No, it's not. You know, I think it is a flawed bill. The 
definitions are not there. The mitigating factors are not there.
  We would be well-served, since it's on the Suspension Calendar, to 
defeat it, get 140, 150 votes, then go back to committee, have some 
hearings, try to develop a little bipartisanship, bring a different 
bill to the floor, and probably pass with an overwhelming margin.
  So I'm going to vote against this bill, and I'm going to ask that all 
my colleagues take a serious look at it, vote against it, so we can 
figure out the right thing to do. And the next time we bring an energy 
package, don't just bring something that's symbolic to the floor. Let's 
bring a bill that helps build new refineries. Let's bring a bill that 
actually increases the supply. Yes, let's bring a bill that might do 
something to limit demand. I think the time has come to look at some of 
those bills seriously.
  Let's bring a package that actually might do something, other than 
rhetorical, to bring gasoline prices in the United States back down to 
levels that we think are more appropriate.
  I don't like to pay 3 dollars or more for gas anymore than our 
constituents do, but this legislation won't do a single thing to keep 
market prices down or address the reasons gas prices are rising. What 
it will do is threaten legitimate businesses with huge fines and hard-
working people with long jail terms. Furthermore, the bill could quite 
possibly lead to price controls and 1970s-style gas lines. I oppose the 
legislation before us today for substantive reasons, as well as based 
on the process--or lack of process--that has brought this bill to the 
Floor.
  First, Mr. Speaker, I want the American public to understand how the 
legislative process has broken down in this case. In light of your 
unprecedented intent to remove the minority's right to a motion to 
recommit, it should not surprise anyone in this chamber that the bill 
before us has bypassed the Committee of jurisdiction--The Energy and 
Commerce Committee--to come straight to the House Floor. The Committee 
did not hold a legislative hearing. The Committee did not hold a mark 
up. The only opportunity my Committee Members had to seek input from 
the Federal regulators with expertise on legislation was yesterday 
afternoon during an oversight hearing--a hearing in which the 
Democratic majority did not even have a witness testify who represents 
the independent gas stations. It's really too bad their voice was not 
heard, because the little Mom-and-Pop gas store owner who sells 60 
percent of the gas in the U.S. could go to jail for up to 10 years 
under this bill if they price their gas wrong.
  On top of my concern for the absence of certain witnesses at our 
oversight hearing, a new version of this bill was circulated only 
yesterday afternoon. That's right: we have had less than 24 hours to 
review the changes, but we are supposed to vote on it. Mr. Speaker, I 
thought things were going to be fair in this Congress, but I seem to 
have been mistaken.
  The Administration has issued a Statement of Administration Policy 
Against this bill. It indicates that it will lead to gas shortages and 
do nothing to help consumers.
  On the substance of this legislation, I have serious concerns that 
this won't have the intended effect. The Federal Trade Commission is 
the expert on competition policy and has conducted several studies and 
investigations of the oil and gas markets markets. In its most recent 
investigation, the FTC studied each

[[Page H5632]]

segment of the industry after Hurricane Katrina. Guess what they found? 
No evidence of price manipulation at the refining level. To the 
contrary, they found a competitive market. Transportation sector? No 
evidence of manipulation. Inventory levels? Again, no evidence of 
manipulation. Gasoline futures? You guessed it, Mr. Speaker, no 
evidence of manipulation.

  What the FTC found was a competitive market that responded to the 
Katrina crisis by changing their priorities and shipping products to 
the areas that needed it. The FTC has studied the issue repeatedly, and 
has not found any evidence of price increases that were not a result of 
a change in market conditions or other factors that may affect the 
price.
  It may surprise Members that the FTC is opposed to a Federal price 
gouging law. Why? Because they're concerned that it could do more harm 
to consumers than good. The Secretary of the Department of Energy 
opposes it, as well as the National Association of Convenience Stores, 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Society of Independent Gas Marketers 
of America, the American Petroleum Institute, and just about every 
economist who knows that price controls harm consumers when they cause 
shortages. What is better, higher-priced gas, or no gas at all?
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with the sponsor of this bill that people who 
take unfair advantage of others should be punished. But we already have 
laws on the books to address those issues at the Federal and state 
level. Now we are going to add a Federal standard to the patchwork of 
state laws for gouging--a term which has no legal or economic meaning. 
I believe it is unnecessary and fear it will return us to the 1970s gas 
shortages. No retailer will want to supply the market at a higher price 
and risk being fined millions and going to jail for years. And what 
wholesaler will risk $150 million in fines and possible jail time if 
they raise their price more than a competitor?
  Mr. Speaker, I know many here would like to go home to their 
constituents over Memorial Day recess with a gas price gouging bill 
rather than address substantive Federal Energy Policy that might 
actually address the factors causing gasoline prices to rise. 
Republicans were able to pass many energy-related bills when we were in 
the Majority, though Democrats in the House and Senate voted against 
almost every piece of legislation that would have increased our 
domestic energy supply.
  I can understand a visitor to California might suspect they are being 
gouged at the pump when they fill up in San Francisco for upwards of $4 
a gallon, but that is just a result of the Federal, State and Local 
taxes and other state fuel requirements. If something is broken, Mr. 
Speaker, it is not the free market. This Congress must act to increase 
domestic supply of gasoline, not enact feel-good legislation that is 
ill-conceived and ineffective.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my friend from Texas that he 
should take a closer look at the bill. The bill explicitly takes into 
account market conditions, both domestic and international. The bill 
has two pages of mitigating factors. If the costs go up, and they are 
going up, this bill allows companies to capture the costs.
  And I would have to just conclude, Mr. Speaker, that my friend from 
Texas needs to take a closer look at this bill because his arguments 
are just not true.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. I thank Mr. Rush for yielding me time. I'd like to 
respond to the gentleman from Texas and some of the claims he made.
  First of all, Democrats have only been in the majority for 4 months, 
and we are looking for ways to end this pain that motorists are feeling 
every day when they fill up their car at the gas pump, and that is, to 
bring forth the price-gouging legislation you see before us.
  Now, Mr. Barton says we should not pass this for this reason or that 
reason. These are just excuses. He complains about the process. With 
all due respect, we learned the process from Mr. Barton.
  Last year, they brought forth a gas price bill, was introduced on 
Tuesday, May 2, 2006. Wednesday, May 3, 2006, we voted on it. We never 
saw it. This bill has been around for over a year. So let's stop the 
excuses. American people don't want arguments about what process. They 
want relief at the pump, and that's what we're doing.
  Lookit, today Members of the House have a very simple choice. Vote to 
stand up with consumers, your constituents, who are paying record 
gasoline prices, nationwide average, record prices, or vote to protect 
big oil companies' enormous profits.
  My bill, H.R. 1252, which has over 120 bipartisan cosponsors, would 
give the Federal Trade Commission the explicit authority to investigate 
and punish those who artificially inflate the price of energy. The bill 
would provide a clear, enforceable definition of price gouging; focus 
enforcement on the worst offenders, especially companies that sell more 
than a half billion dollars a year of gasoline. We strengthen 
penalties, both criminal and civil, with up to triple damage for those 
who would price-gouge us; and direct the penalties collected to go into 
the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
  Congress must pass without any more excuses this legislation. Today's 
legislation is truly a first step in addressing the outrageous prices 
we're seeing at the gas pump.
  We'll be working to protect consumers from high natural gas prices. 
We've introduced the Prevent Unfair Manipulation of Prices legislation 
to improve the oversight of energy trading in this country, and I hope 
we can move this legislation later this year.
  Last year, the House of Representatives actually voted on a weaker 
bill, on May 3 as I indicated, brought forth by Republicans on price 
gouging. We passed that bill under suspension, like we are today, 389-
34. The Senate didn't do anything with it.
  I'm proud to announce that since the Democrats are in charge, the 
Senate bill, very similar to my bill, has already made it out of 
committee, and we expect a vote on it next month. So we can actually 
bring relief to consumers now that the Democrats are in charge.
  Today, every Member has a choice. Side with big oil or side with the 
consumers who are being ripped off at the gas pump.
  I'd like to thank Speaker Pelosi for her work and leadership in 
bringing this legislation to the floor, also Chairman Dingell of the 
full Energy and Commerce Committee, and his staff for their help in 
putting forth a very fine piece of legislation that is much broader in 
scope than what we voted on last year, has stronger penalties and will 
truly give the American people relief at the pump.
  Before Members leave for the Memorial Day recess, vote to provide 
your constituents with some relief at the gas pump. Vote for H.R. 1252.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have on this 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 9 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), a member of the committee.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I 
rise in opposition to this legislation, but I compliment my colleague, 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak). He has, in fact, worked 
diligently on this issue, and I join him in my concern about prices 
that are charged to the American people. Indeed, he just indicated he 
would very much like to see relief at the pump, and so would I. I 
happen to drive a Ford F-250, which does not get good gas mileage, and 
I, along with others, would like to see relief at the pump. I certainly 
commend all those who are cosponsors of this legislation as having good 
intentions.
  My concern, however, is that it will not achieve that result. The 
reality is we do have very high gas prices, and we have prices that 
have gone up dramatically in just the recent few months. We all want to 
know the answer for that, and I've spent some time trying to look at 
it.
  Unfortunately, I don't see evidence that there is price gouging and 
that high gas prices are a result of price gouging. What I see is that 
they are the result of policies of this government, and it seems to me 
that we ought to be looking at the policies of this government.
  For example, we as a Nation, this Congress, have imposed a tariff on 
imported ethanol. We could bring in ethanol produced in other countries 
at a dramatically lower price than the ethanol we're producing in this 
country today, but instead, we tax that ethanol and make it even higher 
priced. Last year, when the prices went up, I voted

[[Page H5633]]

against price-gouging legislation, but I dropped my own bill to suspend 
that tariff so that we could take advantage of lower-priced ethanol. 
Unfortunately, the Congress didn't move in that direction.
  Two years ago, I went to the commodities market in New York, and they 
told me the problem with gasoline prices is refineries. We do have a 
lack of refineries in this country, and I've dropped legislation to 
encourage the construction of more refineries. I think there is concern 
that the refinery industry is holding the capacity of those refineries 
right at the edge so the prices can be the highest possible.
  But one of the issues you hear is that part of the reason gasoline 
prices are so high right now is because of the conversion from winter 
gas to summer gas. That conversion is compelled by government 
regulations which drive up the cost and by government regulations which 
spell out precisely how it must be done and that they must draw down 
supplies.
  It seems to me, before we start tampering with the free market, which 
has served us so well, and before we start passing very wide ranging 
legislation of this type, we have to make a decision. Do we want the 
government to regulate prices? Do we want a huge new bureaucracy in 
there looking at a poor mom-and-pop gas station to see if they raise 
prices? Or do we want to look at the policies of this government which 
have held down supply and which have not met demand?
  It seems to me this is simple and straightforward. I understand the 
urge to do it, but the problem is, if we empower a massive new 
government bureaucracy, we will not get relief at the pump which Mr. 
Stupak wants and which I'd like to see. We will indeed just create a 
large bureaucracy.

                              {time}  1100

  In my home State of Arizona, we have tried this. We have had attorney 
general after attorney general, even in my tenure, when I was in the 
attorney general's office, we investigated price gouging and could not 
find evidence of it. Let's look at the market forces that are causing 
these high prices. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from Illinois, and for his 
leadership on this bill, and the gentleman from Michigan. The bill 
before us today would give the Federal Trade Commission the authority 
to investigate and punish wholesale or retail sale of gasoline or other 
petroleum distillates at prices that are unconscionably excessive or 
take unfair advantage of consumers during any presidentially declared 
national or regional energy emergency.
  Now, we hear from the Republicans, don't interfere in the free 
market. Don't touch the free market. Don't have the Federal Government 
getting in on the side of the consumers. It's just a matter of supply 
and demand. That's what the Republicans are arguing. Don't interfere 
with the free market, even if it goes up to $3.20 a gallon for 
gasoline, $3.80 a gallon for gasoline, $4 a gallon for gasoline. Don't 
let the Federal Government help out the consumer.
  You know what? The Republicans are right. It is a matter of supply 
and demand. Consumers are forced to supply whatever money the oil 
companies demand from the consumers. The oil companies have the 
consumer over a barrel, a barrel of oil that the oil companies control 
and that they price. They price it wherever they want to put it.
  They tip the consumer upside down, the oil companies do, and they 
shake money out of the pockets of consumers at the pump. The Christians 
had a better chance against the lions than the consumer has against the 
oil companies at the pumps in the United States today.
  All we are saying is let's give the Federal Government a sword to get 
into the battle in the arena on behalf of the consumers in America. And 
the Republicans are saying, we don't want to arm the Federal Trade 
Commission so they can help the consumers so that they are not tipped 
upside down. It is clear that high gas prices are hitting families 
hard, but they are also causing our economy to stall and to sputter 
like a jalopy.
  The bill before us today addresses one potential cause of high 
prices: price gouging by the oil companies. It sends a signal to oil 
companies that there will now be a regulator out there that has been 
empowered to take action when unconscionably high prices are being 
charged.
  The free market, I don't think so. I think that when we look at this 
oil market, we understand that the consumer is at the whim of the oil 
companies.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of 
the committee, Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, I do rise today in opposition to this legislation, 
because I certainly feel that it is going to increase the cost of 
gasoline to the American people. H.R. 1252 does purport to crack down 
on price gouging and marketplace manipulation by integrated large oil 
companies. Yet that is not what this legislation is going to do.
  We had a hearing in committee about it yesterday, and I wish, indeed, 
that we were going to have the bill before us for a markup. What I find 
in this piece of legislation is that it will put a target on the back 
of every small business owner who runs and operates a neighborhood 
convenience store, a filling station or a truck stop. As I said in our 
hearing yesterday, there are so many of these that are the local 
gathering spot. These are not people that are going to gouge their 
neighbors.
  You know, I know it is tempting to react to constituents' frustration 
with high gas prices. We are all frustrated with that. But the way to 
do it is not passing a hastily drafted price-control legislation. We 
should be focused on the real problem and work for real results on this 
issue. That is what our constituents want.
  H.R. 1252 is not going to give us the real results. What we are going 
to see is a turn-back to energy policy, back to the Jimmy Carter era. 
It is a clumsy attempt, I think, to punish bad actors who take 
advantage of the public. But the bill adopts some vague language, 
employs some heavy-handed criminal penalties, some unenforceable civil 
penalties that no small business owner could afford.
  I do think it's a little bit of legislative overkill, and some people 
would call it unconscionably excessive. They are entitled to that 
point. It was my hope that Congress would go through regular order, 
would address some of the issues pertaining to this Nation's energy 
policy, and look for some real solutions to the root problem.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. In response to the last speaker, this bill does not 
target mom-and-pop grocery stores. You have to sell half a billion 
dollars of gasoline products.
  Secondly, the record high prices of oil that we are seeing was not 
under Jimmy Carter. It was under Ronald Reagan in 1981.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Congressman 
Murphy of Pennsylvania, a member of the committee.
  Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman.
  One of the things that's important to keep in mind is why are 
gasoline prices what they are, and it is not the retailer. When we look 
at what has happened to prices over all, let's keep in mind that we 
have become more and more dependent upon other nations. When we look at 
what's contributed to costs, look at this: Crude oil costs are 56 
percent of the price; taxes are 18 percent of the price; refining 
nearly 17 percent of the price; distribution and marketing, nearly 9 
percent of the price.
  What has happened with regard to crude oil prices, they have doubled 
since 2004, they have tripled since 2001, and they have gone up over 
600 percent since the 1980s.
  But what has happened, as the cost of a barrel of oil has gone from 
$11 a barrel to over $70 a barrel, is Congress has continually stood in 
the way of trying to come up with more sources. We have abundant 
supplies. We have the Atlantic coast, the gulf coast, the Pacific 
coast, the western States and Alaska. Whenever those come up for a 
vote, Congress shuts it down. Over 90 percent

[[Page H5634]]

of Federal lands are off-limits to exploring for the vast supplies of 
oil we have there.
  We have shut off some of our other sources, and some are still trying 
to do that with regard to using coal as another energy source. We have 
not funded fully the things we need to do for hydrogen fuel cell. We 
have not gone far enough with conservation, with our automobiles, with 
reducing homeowner uses.
  So between these issues of exploration, conservation, 
diversification, we have not taken the steps we need to do to truly 
reduce energy costs. It concerns me greatly that we are moving forward 
to blaming the retailer when we ought to be looking to blame ourselves. 
After all, if we have supplies of oil in the gulf coast, which we set 
off-limits to ourselves, and, yet, we let Cuba explore for them, 
something is terribly wrong.
  I hope that what this Congress does is work more towards energy 
independence and recognize that it's changing the way we explore for 
oil and making sure that we do much more for diversification of our 
sources and conserving our huge energy waste in this country. That is 
what is going to lower the prices of gasoline.
  Until we make this commitment as a Nation, and until we make this 
commitment as a Congress, we will not see these prices go down.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois has 7\3/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Klein).
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. I thank the gentleman for the time and thank 
you for the opportunity to speak to this very important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, the rising cost of gasoline is causing huge problems for 
families throughout south Florida, which I represent, and certainly 
throughout the whole country. In south Florida a gallon of gasoline is 
well over $3.25 and rising. In fact, there is gas even at $3.59 per 
gallon in my local area.
  What is the excuse this time? Is it disruptions of oil in the Middle 
East? Not that I am aware of. I haven't heard. Hurricane damage to 
refineries? No, again. How about the summer driving season? Seems to me 
this is May. So, again, no excuses, no excuses, but we just hear more 
and more excuses from oil companies that it's the drivers, it's this or 
that.
  Yes, there are a lot of answers here, but let's focus on where the 
market manipulation is going on.
  In my area, tourism drives the economy. When gas prices go up, the 
first thing families do is they stay within their budget and cut back 
on their vacations, vacations that many times are planned to Florida. 
When gas prices go up, families and businesses feel it, and it 
negatively impacts every part of our economy.
  That's why I am here today to show my strong support for the Federal 
Price Gouging Prevention Act. This bill, authored by my friend Mr. 
Stupak and others, would give the Federal Trade Commission the 
authority to crack down on the people who price gouge. This bill is an 
excellent step in the short term because it protects consumers and 
gives the government the teeth it needs to go after market 
manipulators.
  In the long term, we are only going to solve this problem by moving 
towards energy independence. American families can no longer afford to 
rely exclusively on oil for their energy needs. We all know that 
investing in alternative fuel sources is vital to our national security 
and to our economy.
  Being energy-independent is a goal that many of us have been talking 
about and working on for many years. That goal has never been more 
important than it is right now. But today is the time we need to make 
changes that will reduce gas prices for American consumers now, and in 
the future let's work towards energy independence.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the 
committee, Congressman Burgess of Texas.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I have grave concerns about the bill before us today, 
specifically the lack of clarity in defining ``unconscionable.'' I 
believe this term to be ambiguous, and, in fact, could lead to severe 
supply shortages in times of national emergency.
  Under this proposal, a gasoline station owner could receive civil and 
criminal penalties totaling $5 million and 10 years in prison for 
charging ``unconscionable'' prices. Yet there is no clear definition 
for what is unconscionable.
  To add insult to injury, if a station owner were to charge less than 
the market price, he could also be subject to charges of undercutting 
the market. Were I a gasoline station owner in a time of crisis, I 
likely would shut down my pumps and sell Snickers bars and Coca-Colas 
and try to make money that way.
  I am not defending those who would charge unfairly. I firmly believe, 
and, in fact, in my home State of Texas, we have a strong antigouging 
price statute already on the books. If it is determined that illegal 
pricing has occurred, the individuals should be prosecuted to the 
fullest extent of the law.
  But let's be sure we do not create a climate which causes business 
owners to stop selling gasoline at a time in crisis when we so clearly 
will need those resources.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had a hearing on gas price 
gouging, and the Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission actually 
came and testified. On page 12 of his testimony, footnote number 24, I 
would like to quote the following: The statute mandating post-Katrina 
price investigation effectively defined price gouging as an average 
price of gasoline available for sale to the public that exceeded its 
average price in the area for the month before the event, unless the 
increase was substantially attributable to additional costs in 
connection with production, transportation, delivery and sale of 
gasoline in that area, or to national or international markets.
  When questioned yesterday, Commissioner Kovacic said, We've used it. 
We have the definition.
  My legislation makes it clear to take these factors into 
consideration when you determine whether price gouging is going on: How 
much did it cost delivered at transportation? What was the bill of sale 
from the supplier. These are factors in the legislation.
  The FTC clearly understands it. Members of the House should be able 
to understand it. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1252.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have two speakers. I think we 
have 2 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. One minute remaining. Then we have one speaker 
left.
  I yield the balance of the time on the minority side to the 
distinguished minority whip, who is a member of the committee, on 
leave, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his hard work 
on these issues, and I also appreciate my colleagues from the 
committee. But I am here to say to my friends that, as we look at this 
bill, I don't know what this bill does because the bill is so unclear. 
It didn't go through our committee. Like the other legislation we 
passed in this Congress, it is not likely to become law. I believe we 
have put around 21 bills on the President's desk so far this year, a 
dozen of them to name post offices. And the reason for that is all of 
the bills we passed in the House don't create a result, they don't 
create law.
  Let me just refer to one thing. It says you can't sell fuel in an 
emergency situation at a price that is, (a), ``unconscionably 
excessive.'' Of course you shouldn't do that. We shouldn't allow that. 
But we should define what that means.
  One of the supporters of the bill has told me, well, every court will 
decide what that means. I have got to tell you, the mom-and-pop grocery 
and gasoline station owner can't wonder what every court is going to 
decide.
  This bill is unclear. It needs work. It puts an undue hardship on 
people that are trying to make a living running a

[[Page H5635]]

service station, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the opponents of this bill, my friends on the other side 
of the aisle, are asking for this Congress to wait until a more perfect 
time, a more perfect time to help the American consumer out.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my friends on the other side of the 
aisle that the American people are suffering right now, and they are 
demanding this Congress to take action right now.
  There can never be a more perfect time for this Congress to take 
action. Now is the time to take action. Now is the time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to just inform my colleagues that scare 
tactics will not work this time. If they will look at this bill, they 
will see that scare tactics are nowhere in this bill. This bill is a 
scalpel, it is not a meat axe. This bill carefully speaks to the issues 
that the American people face. This bill is carefully crafted to take 
into account market conditions, explicitly listing those mitigating 
factors that will spur the FTC into action.
  Any company that gouges should be sought out, should be identified, 
should be brought before justice, should be brought before the American 
people in the form of the Federal Trade Commission. A company will be 
found guilty of price gouging under this bill only, and I repeat, only 
if they engage in unconscionable pricing. We do not suspend free 
markets nor do we suspend the laws of supply and demand.
  Mr. Speaker, again, the American consumers need us to act, they want 
us to act, they demand that we do act. Now is the time. Now is the time 
for us to act. I ask Members of this Congress to vote in favor of this 
bill.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1252 is intended to stop and punish 
unscrupulous gasoline price gougers. The bill empowers the Federal 
Trade Commission to go after gougers at all levels of the gasoline 
distribution chain and to impose stiff penalties on violators. It also 
provides authority for the States to go after retail price gougers 
under Federal law.
  The bill is not, however, intended to prohibit all increases in 
price--only those increases that grossly exceed the supplier's earlier 
prices and competitors' prices and that do not reflect reasonable 
responses to an emergency situation.
  This bill would not prohibit a seller from raising prices to 
compensate for extra risks, such as staying open while a hurricane is 
bearing down, traveling outside an affected area to secure additional 
supplies and transport them to people in need, or postponing regular 
maintenance to increase output during an emergency. These are all 
efforts that ameliorate a dire situation and the bill is not intended 
to discourage them.
  Finally, the bill would permit suppliers to reasonably factor in 
other local, regional, national, and international market developments 
in the quickly-changing and uncertain market conditions characteristic 
of energy emergency situations.
  In sum, Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to prohibit grossly 
excessive, pernicious, and predatory increases in the price of gasoline 
during emergencies--but not to prevent or discourage fair and 
reasonable responses to unusual market conditions.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 1252, I rise in 
support of the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act, and urge its 
passage by the House.
  Gasoline prices are now at record highs. In my home state of 
Michigan, the average price of regular gas is $3.47 a gallon--a full 66 
cents a gallon higher than it was at this time last year. According to 
the General Accounting Office, the rise in gasoline prices this year 
has drained consumers of an extra $20 billion. The six largest oil 
companies announced $30 billion in profits over the first three months 
of 2007 alone. This is on top of the $125 billion in profits they 
racked up last year.
  The other side says that we should do nothing. They say that it's a 
world market for oil, and therefore something we cannot control. How 
then do they explain that the cost of gasoline has been rising even in 
the face of falling world oil prices? We must face the fact that there 
is something wrong in the distribution chain, especially during times 
of energy emergencies such as when Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf 
Coast. As a first step in attacking the problem, we need to give the 
Federal Trade Commission the explicit authority to investigate and 
punish those who artificially inflate the price of gasoline.
  The oil companies oppose this bill. The White House also has 
indicated that the President may veto the bill. With all due resect, we 
work for our constituents, not the oil companies and not the White 
House. I urge the House to stand with consumers and vote for this 
needed legislation.
  Mr. HARE Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R 1252, the 
Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act. I am proud to be an original 
cosponsor of this important piece of legislation.
  Oil prices are continuing to skyrocket, increasing the burden on 
American families, small businesses, and individuals who rely on their 
vehicles for their livelihood. Every day I hear from troubled 
constituents who are paying over $3.00 per gallon at the pump. 
Constituents like Richard Benefiel, a small business owner who called 
me yesterday out of desperation explaining he would have to shut down 
his shipping operation in less than 30 days unless relief was provided. 
On the other hand, Exxon-Mobil raked in $9.3 billion between January 
and March--its best first quarter in history. This is unacceptable.
  The bill before us today is a much needed step toward addressing 
market manipulation by Big Oil and the egregious impact it has on the 
American consumer. The Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act provides 
the Federal Trade Commission with new authority to investigate and 
prosecute energy companies who engage in predatory pricing, market 
manipulation, and other unfair practices, with an emphasis on those who 
profit most, thereby providing immediate and much needed relief to 
consumers.
  Yet, this is only the first step in bringing down energy costs. Last 
year, our Nation hit its highest dependence on foreign oil, importing 
771,000 barrels daily from Saudi Arabia and other Organization of 
Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC. This served as a wake-up call for 
the United States to begin taking measures to decrease our dependence 
on foreign oil. I refuse to continue to allow OPEC, which accounts for 
65 percent of internationally traded oil, to continue to dictate our 
Nation's gas prices. Antitrust laws must be put into action and greedy 
oil exporters need to be held accountable.
  I am pleased that we voted yesterday to pass H.R. 2264, which 
authorizes the Justice Department to take legal action against OPEC 
state-controlled entities who conspire to limit supply or fix the price 
of oil.
  I also believe that building a diverse energy portfolio which focuses 
on renewable, homegrown energy sources like ethanol, biodiesel, as well 
as wind, solar, hydro-power and clean-coal technologies is a critical 
step toward energy independence, which will bring down prices, and 
clean up our environment.
  The Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act is a critical first step in 
addressing skyrocketing energy costs and I urge all my colleagues to 
support the bill.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to price 
gouging.
  The good news for Florida consumers is that the state of Florida 
already has the ability to protect consumers from price gouging.
  Florida law finds that gouging has occurred when a commodity's price 
represents a ``gross disparity'' from the average price of that 
commodity during the 30 days immediately prior to the declared 
emergency. This applies unless the increase is attributable to 
additional costs incurred by the seller or to national or international 
market trends. In fact, Florida law enforcement fully investigated over 
58 cases of alleged gouging after Tropical Storm Rita.
  Violators of Florida's anti-gouging law are subject to civil 
penalties of $1,000 per violation. In 2005, the State of Florida 
enacted criminal penalties for those who engage in price gouging.
  In addition to the protections that Florida consumers already have in 
place through State law enforcement, the Federal Trade Commission has 
the authority to investigate and bring charges against those that 
engage in price gouging.
  In a significant departure from previous legislation addressing this 
issue, Floridians who are gouged would not receive a rebate. Instead, 
H.R. 1252 would direct any fines collected from gougers to a program 
that largely benefits the Northeast and the Midwest. Previous 
legislation on this matter directed that any fines collected from price 
gouging be returned to the State where the gouging occurred so that the 
consumers could be reimbursed. H.R. 1252, however, directs that all of 
these funds instead be placed in the Low Income Home Energy Assistance, 
LIHEAP, fund. Unfortunately for the residents of Florida, this is a 
fund that they get little benefit from. The primary beneficiaries 
LIHEAP grants are those living in the Northeast and Midwest. While New 
York and Florida have populations that are nearly equal, New York 
received 10 times the amount of LIHEAP money that Florida received 
($247 million for New York vs. $26 million for Florida). Other large 
beneficiaries include: New York, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
Ohio, Wisconsin, and Illinois. In fact, on a per capita basis, no state 
does worse than Florida when it comes to

[[Page H5636]]

LIHEAP. The bottom line is that if Florida consumers get gouged, those 
living in the Northeast and the Midwest get the rebate.
  This bill is more about show than about substance. Even the 
comprehensive investigation by the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, in 
the aftermath of hurricane's Katrina and Rita found no gouging or anti-
trust violations.
  The real driver of price for gas is the growing global demand for 
energy. The rapid growth in the worldwide demand for crude oil is being 
driven primarily by economic growth in China, India and the United 
States.
  Ironically, during a Congressional hearing on this bill, the 
proponents of the bill offered some bizarre testimony. When asked if 
the oil companies were engaging in collusion--which is already 
illegal--a proponent of the bill offered that what was being engaged in 
is ``conscious parallelism.'' He then offered that you cannot prove 
``conscious parallelism'' in court, so this bill does virtually nothing 
to address that. Another advocate for the price-gouging bill testified 
before the committee that ``drilling [for oil] will do nothing to lower 
the price of oil.'' I am concerned that these individuals are so 
dedicated to an ideology that they defy common sense.
  The most important thing we can do to lower the price of gas for 
American consumers and to ensure our energy independence is to expand 
domestic energy production, expand refining capacity in the U.S. by 
reducing excessive burdens, encouraging more nuclear power, fostering 
the development of renewable energy, and encouraging conservation. 
Unfortunately, it took us 12 years to end the Democrat filibuster that 
kept America from developing more oil and gas off the Outer Continental 
Shelf, OCS. Last year we were successful in opening a small portion of 
the OCS to oil and gas recovery, and I hope that we can build on that 
success. Also, last year we secured passage of legislation that allows 
for greater production of oil and gas from Federal lands. 
Unfortunately, Democrat leaders have introduced legislation and are 
holding hearings to close off those sources of domestic energy 
production. We streamlined regulations for nuclear power plants, yet 
Democrats are considering injecting new regulations into the process. I 
was also pleased that we were able to secure passage of renewable 
energy tax credits. I have cosponsored legislation to extend these tax 
cuts for renewable energy and conservation so they are not allowed to 
expire.
  The Democrats expression of ``outrage'' over gas prices is a bit 
ironic given that they are the ones who have consistently proposed 
higher gas taxes, higher energy taxes like the proposed BTU tax, and 
who are presently moving forward with ``cap and trade'' global warming 
legislation along the lines of what has been adopted in Europe. As the 
Washington Post pointed out last month, this cap and trade system has 
led German consumers to pay 25 percent more for electricity than they 
did two years ago, while German utilities are making record profits. 
This higher cost for electricity has made it difficult for some 
European countries to compete with cheaper foreign imports, resulting 
in European workers losing their jobs.
  The rhetoric simply does not match the policies being advocated by 
the Democrat majority.
  Mr. SPACE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1252, the 
Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act.
  My district is currently experiencing some of the highest gas prices 
in its history. In several towns in my district, my constituents are 
paying prices as high as $3.49 per gallon to fill their tanks.
  The price of gas is a crippling figure for the people of Southeastern 
Ohio who depend on their cars and trucks for transportation. Working 
families frequently commute long distances to reach their places of 
employment. For these families, the rise in gas prices is essentially 
an undeserved pay cut.
  The farmers in my district also face the challenge of fueling their 
equipment on which they depend to make their modest profits.
  I fear most for the fate of my district's retired and elderly 
populations. Most of these individuals are on a fixed income that 
already limits their ability to pay for the prescription drugs and 
medical visits they need. The rising price of gas places them only 
further into a bind and forces them to make decisions that no American 
should ever face.
  I co-sponsored H.R. 1252 because I believe it is time for Congress to 
intervene on behalf of working Americans. This common-sense legislation 
simply ensures that oil companies play by the rules and offer consumers 
a fair price for gas, not one that takes advantage of circumstances.
  I am a firm believer in the power of the marketplace to deliver the 
best possible services to American consumers. Free markets drive our 
economy and make it the most powerful in the world. However, when 
companies don't play by the rules, they must be punished because it is 
the consumer that ultimately suffers.
  I believe that passage of this legislation offers important 
protections to the people of my district in their daily battle with the 
price of gas. I encourage my colleagues to lend their support as well.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1252, the Federal 
Price Gouging Prevention Act.
  I am a proud cosponsor of this bill, which makes it illegal for any 
company to sell gasoline at excessive prices or to take advantage of 
market conditions by increasing prices during an energy crisis. It 
allows the Federal Trade Commission and the States' Attorneys General 
to bring lawsuits against corporations that charge excessive prices for 
gasoline. The bill also permits investigations of companies suspected 
of price gouging and requires honest and accurate reporting of pricing 
practices.
  In the first month of the 110th Congress, the House took away $14 
billion in taxpayer subsidies from the oil companies. This money will 
be reinvested in alternative, renewable energy sources.
  Yesterday the House passed a bill by a bipartisan 345-72 vote, a bill 
that authorizes the Justice Department to take legal action against 
OPEC state-controlled entities and governments that conspire to limit 
the supply or fix the price of oil.
  Hawaii's consumers pay some of the highest gasoline prices in the 
Nation. In 1998, the State of Hawaii filed a lawsuit against the major 
oil companies operating in our state. The lawsuit revealed that 22 
percent of an oil company's nationwide dealer profits came from Hawaii, 
a state that represented only 3 percent of the market. Clearly, 
Hawaii's consumers were contributing an excessive share of the 
company's profits in relation to market share.
  Since President Bush took office, gas prices have more than doubled, 
and previous Congresses have failed to protect consumers from price 
increases. For the first time in years, Congress has begun exercising 
its oversight responsibilities. This is important given that the six 
largest oil companies made $30 billion in profits for the first quarter 
of 2007, on top of the $125 billion in record profits for 2006.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, which aims to reduce the 
burden of high energy costs on American families and businesses, build 
on efforts to increase energy efficiency, lessen our dependence on 
foreign oil, and cut greenhouse gas emissions in the longer term.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 1252, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________