[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6841-6847]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              FEDERAL ENERGY PRICE PROTECTION ACT OF 2006

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 5253) to prohibit price gouging in the sale of 
gasoline, diesel fuel, crude oil, and home heating oil, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 5253

       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 Energy Price 
     Protection Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. GASOLINE PRICE GOUGING PROHIBITED.

       (a) Unlawful Conduct.--
       (1) Unfair and deceptive act or practice.--It shall be an 
     unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of section 5 
     of the Federal Trade Commission Act for any person to sell 
     crude oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, home heating oil, or any 
     biofuel at a price that constitutes price gouging as defined 
     by rule pursuant to subsection (b).
       (2) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``biofuel'' means any fuel containing any organic matter that 
     is available on a renewable or recurring basis, including 
     agricultural crops and trees, wood and wood wastes and 
     residues, plants (including aquatic plants), grasses, 
     residues, fibers, and animal wastes, municipal wastes, and 
     other waste materials.
       (b) Price Gouging.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Federal Trade Commission shall 
     promulgate, in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United 
     States Code, any rules necessary for the enforcement of this 
     section.
       (2) Contents.--Such rules--
       (A) shall define ``price gouging'', ``retail sale'', and 
     ``wholesale sale'' for purposes of this Act; and
       (B) shall be consistent with the requirements for declaring 
     unfair acts or practices in section 5(n) of the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(n)).
       (c) Enforcement.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (d), a 
     violation of subsection (a) 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 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.
       (2) Exclusive enforcement.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, no person, State, or political subdivision 
     of a State, other than the Federal Trade Commission or the 
     Attorney General of the United States to the extent provided 
     for in section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act or the 
     attorney general of a State as provided by subsection (d), 
     shall have any authority to enforce this Act or any rule 
     prescribed pursuant to this Act.
       (d) Enforcement by State Attorneys General.--
       (1) Civil action.--In any case in which the attorney 
     general of a State has reason to believe that an interest of 
     the residents of that State has been or is threatened or 
     adversely affected by any person who violates subsection (a), 
     the attorney general, as parens patriae, may bring a civil 
     action on behalf of the residents of the State in a district 
     court of the United States of appropriate jurisdiction--
       (A) to enjoin further violation of such section by the 
     defendant;
       (B) to compel compliance with such section; or
       (C) to impose a civil penalty under subsection (e).
       (2) Intervention by the ftc.--
       (A) Notice and intervention.--The State shall provide prior 
     written notice of any action under paragraph (1) to the 
     Federal Trade Commission and provide the Commission with a 
     copy of its complaint, except in any case in which such prior 
     notice is not feasible, in which case the State shall serve 
     such notice immediately upon instituting such action. The 
     Commission shall have the right--
       (i) to intervene in the action;
       (ii) upon so intervening, to be heard on all matters 
     arising therein; and
       (iii) to file petitions for appeal.
       (B) Limitation on state action while federal action is 
     pending.--If the Commission has instituted a civil action for 
     violation of this Act, no attorney general 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 Commission for any violation of this Act alleged in the 
     complaint.
       (3) Construction with respect to powers conferred by state 
     law.--For purposes of bringing any civil action under 
     paragraph (1), nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
     prevent an attorney general of a State from exercising the 
     powers conferred on the attorney general by the laws of that 
     State.
       (e) Civil Penalty.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any civil penalty that 
     otherwise applies to a violation of a rule referred to in 
     subsection (c)(1), any person who violates subsection (a) 
     shall be liable for a civil penalty under this subsection.
       (2) Amount.--The amount of a civil penalty under this 
     subsection shall be an amount equal to--
       (A) in the case of a wholesale sale in violation of 
     subsection (a), the sum of--
       (i) 3 times the difference between--

       (I) the total amount charged in the wholesale sale; and
       (II) the total amount that would be charged in such a 
     wholesale sale made at the wholesale fair market price; plus

       (ii) an amount not to exceed $3,000,000 per day of a 
     continuing violation; or
       (B) in the case of a retail sale in violation of subsection 
     (a), 3 times the difference between--
       (i) the total amount charged in the sale; and
       (ii) the total amount that would be charged in such a sale 
     at the fair market price for such a sale.
       (3) Deposit.--Of the amount of any civil penalty imposed 
     under this section with respect to any sale in violation of 
     subsection (a) to a person that resides in a State, the 
     portion of such amount that is determined under subparagraph 
     (A)(i) or (B) (or both) of paragraph (2) shall be deposited 
     into--
       (A) any account or fund established under the laws of the 
     State and used for paying compensation to consumers for 
     violations of State consumer protection laws; or
       (B) in the case of a State for which no such account or 
     fund is establish by State law, into the general fund of the 
     State treasury.
       (f) Criminal Penalty.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to any other penalty that 
     applies, a violation of subsection (a) is punishable--
       (A) in the case of a wholesale sale in violation of 
     subsection (a), by a fine of not more than $150,000,000, 
     imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both; or
       (B) in the case of a retail sale in violation of subsection 
     (a), by a fine of not more than $2,000,000, imprisonment for 
     not more than 2 years, or both.
       (2) Enforcement.--The criminal penalty provided by 
     paragraph (1) may be imposed only pursuant to a criminal 
     action brought by the Attorney General or other officer of 
     the Department of Justice, or any attorney specially 
     appointed by the Attorney General, in accordance with section 
     515 of title 28, United States Code.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on this legislation, and to insert extraneous material on 
the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.

[[Page 6842]]


  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans are again seeing spikes at the gas pumps, with 
prices reaching over $3 a gallon all over the country. This morning, I 
went by the 7-Eleven at Second and Glebe Road in Arlington, Virginia, 
and there were no prices posted on the sign outside the station. I 
thought, oh, maybe they are giving gasoline away. No, they did not have 
any gasoline to sell at any price.
  We need to do something, not only to bring these prices down, but we 
need to do something to make sure that there is adequate gasoline 
supply available at every service station in the country that serves 
the American driving public.
  $3 a gallon gasoline may mean nothing to some people, but it sure 
means a lot to most of us and everything to the poorest of our society 
that really have to have gasoline to get back and forth to work and it 
is a big part of their budget.
  Soaring gasoline prices drain the budgets of the working families who 
rely on cars to get their kids to school and themselves to work. If the 
spike in gasoline prices are due to anything other than market 
conditions, consumers have a right to count on us, the government, for 
protection from these rip-offs.
  H.R. 5253, sponsored by Congressman Wilson of New Mexico, the bill 
that we are considering right now, prohibits price gouging in the sale 
of gasoline, diesel fuel, crude oil, and home heating oil.
  While price fixing, collusion and other anti-competitive practices 
are currently illegal, there is no Federal statutory prohibition on the 
books against price gouging. Nobody has really defined at the Federal 
level exactly what it is yet.
  It is true that we all think we know what price gouging is when we 
see it, but that is not the sort of definition that a prosecutor can 
take to a judge or a jury. We are not here today saying something is 
just awful and somebody ought to stop it. We are here to put the 
gougers out of business, if there are gougers, and behind bars.
  Last October, the House passed anti-price gouging provisions in the 
Gas Act. Like the provision in that act, the Gas Act, the legislation 
before us today provides an explicit Federal prohibition on gasoline 
price gouging, treating it as an unfair trade practice under the 
Federal Trade Commission Act.
  It would also provide for additional enforcement in that it gives the 
United States Attorney General, the Federal Trade Commission, the 
States attorney generals, the authority to enforce against price 
gouging at any time, not just in times of a major disaster. It provides 
for greater civil penalties and even criminal penalties in some cases 
for the most serious offenses.
  The legislation would ensure that the definition of price gouging 
promulgated by the FTC rule-making does not cover spikes in gas prices 
that are caused by market conditions.
  Committee hearings have demonstrated that when artificial regulations 
supplant normal supply and demand as the primary means of pricing a 
commodity, the result is market distortion and shortages. Ask those of 
us who were lining up for gas in the mid- and late 1970s.
  We are also not here today in pursuit of consequences, unintended or 
otherwise, that makes it tough for people to get to work and to school. 
Price spikes are a scourge, but dry pumps are a catastrophe. As I 
mentioned this morning, at Second and Glebe Road in Arlington, 
Virginia, there was no gas at any price at the 7-Eleven.
  I know the difference, and I will strenuously oppose any policies 
that choke off the flow of gasoline to drivers. We want to have 
effective enforcement against scams without interfering with the 
efficient functioning of the market.
  In my opinion, H.R. 5253 does that. I would urge my colleagues to 
support this important piece of consumer protection legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering legislation that 
would give the Federal Trade Commission the authority to investigate 
and prosecute price gouging in gasoline. This bill, H.R. 5253, was 
introduced just yesterday.
  For 8 months, Democrats have been calling for the Republican 
leadership to allow a vote on my price gouging legislation, the Federal 
Response to Energy Emergencies, the FREE Act.
  129 Democrats have signed a discharge petition to request that my 
price gouging legislation be brought to the floor for a vote. They say 
imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Well, after 8 months of 
Democrats demanding that the Republican leadership bring legislation to 
the floor to protect the American consumers from price gouging, the 
Republicans have finally proposed their own bill.
  While I am pleased that we have finally convinced the Republicans to 
bring legislation on price gouging to the floor, it is the American 
people who should be the winners today.
  This legislation is long overdue. In the past 8 months the 
Republicans have failed to act to address price gouging, gas prices 
have exceeded $3 a gallon. Crude oil prices have broken records. 
Americans have endured significant financial hardships, and oil 
companies have reaped record profits.
  Let us be clear. Republicans claim to have passed a price gouging 
bill last October. However, that legislation was so toothless that it 
is being ignored by the Republicans in the other body.
  During that debate, I offered the FREE Act amendment as a substitute. 
All but two Republicans voted against my legislation. While I am 
pleased that the Republican leadership has finally brought a gas bill 
to the floor, I will say that this new bill was immediately put on the 
suspension calendar without any hearings, without any meaningful 
debate.
  Several of my colleagues may not appreciate the differences between 
the bill before us today and the Democratic legislation, the FREE Act. 
Although these differences should not delay price gouging legislation 
any longer than it already has been, it is my hope that the Republicans 
will be willing to address these issues of true price gouging as this 
piece of legislation moves forward.
  Our bill, the FREE Act, would specifically set out guidelines for the 
FTC to use to define price gouging, including provisions that make 
unconscionable pricing, providing false pricing information, and market 
manipulation illegal, all of which is lacking in the bill before us 
today.
  The FREE Act also contains a provision that would promote price 
transparency, providing consumers with the information to know that oil 
and gas prices are fair and reasonable, again a standard lacking in the 
legislation before us today.
  The FREE Act would also apply to natural gas and propane. Neither 
natural gas nor propane are even mentioned in the bill before us today.
  Had the Republican bill, H.R. 5253, the bill before us today, been 
considered even by any committee in this Congress, or even just allowed 
to be amended on the floor here today, we could make changes that would 
make this a better bill.
  Nonetheless, Congress has a responsibility to pass a price gouging 
bill. I am pleased the Republicans have stopped stonewalling. Democrats 
will continue to put pressure on the Republican leadership until a 
real, true price gouging bill is enacted, to ensure that it contains 
the strongest provisions to protect the American consumer.
  It has taken 8 months for Democrats to finally shame the Republican 
leadership into passing price gouging legislation. If the Republicans 
are serious about helping American people, several of my Democratic 
colleagues have proposals to help ease the pain at the pump. It is my 
hope that it will not take 8 months for the Republicans to consider 
these proposals as we continue to work on the issue of high gas prices.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentlewoman from Albuquerque, New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) manage the 
remainder of the majority time on the bill.

[[Page 6843]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  My colleague from Michigan talks about the need to move quickly, and 
the truth is, I introduced a price-gouging bill in September of last 
year in the wake of Katrina. It was a bipartisan bill with the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) as the lead cosponsor.
  In October, we passed price-gouging legislation combined with the 
refinery bill in what is called the Gas Act, and it is true my 
colleague from Michigan did propose an alternative which I opposed 
because I felt as though the definitions in his bill were unclear and 
would invite litigation rather than solutions.
  We are trying to move forward with a piece of legislation that will 
give real authority to the Federal Trade Commission that they do not 
currently have now. Twenty-three States have laws on price gouging. So 
we have got about close to half the States in the Nation have some form 
of law in price gouging, all with various provisions, definitions and 
so forth, but the Federal Trade Commission that is empowered at the 
Federal level with being the agency responsible for looking at 
consumers and consumer protection only has authority to look at 
gasoline and oil with respect to collusion. If there is collusion 
between two companies on setting the price of gasoline, then they have 
the authority to investigate, but they have no authority to investigate 
when it comes to unreasonable and unfair trade practices. This 
legislation we are offering today would give them that new authority at 
the Federal level.
  I think this is a good piece of legislation, and I would ask my 
colleagues to support it.
  H.R. 5253 would prohibit price gouging at any time. It is not limited 
to emergencies or in the wake of natural disasters. I will be very 
honest; the thing that caused me to introduce price-gouging legislation 
last September was what we all saw in the wake of Katrina: opportunists 
taking advantage of a terrible situation and a natural disaster to pump 
up the price of gasoline for people who were trying to flee for their 
lives. That is not right, and it is what spurred me to introduce the 
price-gouging legislation.
  The modification in the bill that is before us today is that the 
price-gouging authority for the Federal Trade Commission would not 
require a disasters trigger, but they could look at unfair trade 
practices at any time, not limited to emergencies. It also covers 
gasoline, diesel, crude oil, home heating oil and biofuels. So it goes 
across a wide variety of full types.
  It also sets pretty stiff criminal and civil penalties for price 
gouging and allows these investigations by the Federal Trade Commission 
as well as by the States.
  Under these provisions, the Federal Trade Commission would consider 
public comment in defining exactly what wholesale pricing is, what 
retail pricing is, and it gives them some regulatory authority to come 
up with definitions. The truth is, we have got 23 State laws. Some of 
those laws are very, very different, and I think it makes some sense to 
allow the States and those involved to come up with a national 
definition that will work best for consumers in the marketplace.
  The legislation we are offering today would not, however, preempt 
those State laws. So the States would still be able to use their State 
laws to address problems with price gouging in their own jurisdictions. 
This would give additional authority to the Federal Trade Commission 
and to States that choose to use the Federal law to investigate price 
gouging in their own States.
  It seems to me that this is one thing that we have to do. We have 
done it first in a larger bill, as a piece of a larger bill last 
October, but I think the approach we are trying to take here in the 
House of Representatives is to say we want America to be more energy 
independent, and that is going to take a long-term, balanced approach 
that deals with supply, demand and protecting consumers.
  This is one piece of that puzzle. We will be dealing with other 
pieces of that puzzle as we move along, everything from coal-to-oil 
gasification, encouraging more hydrogen-powered cars, encouraging more 
E85, using ethanol in our gas tanks, so both conservation and 
increasing domestic supply so that America becomes more energy 
independent.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Higgins) who has been a real advocate on lowering some of 
these special tax privileges for the big oil and gas companies.
  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Michigan 
(Mr. Stupak), who has been a real leader on this issue, and all of the 
members of the Democratic Caucus who have weighed in aggressively and 
substantially on this issue.
  The fact of the matter is the President last week has suggested that 
the State attorneys general be more aggressive about enforcing anti-
price-fixing or gas-gouging laws. The States and the people of America 
are looking for the Federal Government to provide leadership on this 
issue.
  The fact of the matter is that high gas prices are a result of an 
energy policy that is disastrous. It does not do anything to promote 
alternative energy fuel sources. It does nothing to promote 
conservation, and it gives huge, huge incentives to the oil companies 
to continue to manipulate prices to the American citizens.
  This anti-price-gouging legislation is important, but it is late. We 
have to learn not to react to a crisis but to influence conditions to 
avert a crisis. The American people are looking for leadership. This is 
one step, albeit a small step, toward achieving that, but we have to 
promote more aggressively, more effectively, policies that are 
substantial toward dealing with the fundamental problems here.
  In the other House, there was a suggestion of a $100 tax rebate to 
folks in this country, which would have required $10 billion of 
additional borrowing, and basically subsidizing consumption, which does 
nothing to address the fundamental issues.
  So I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure, and I 
want to particularly thank the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
especially Mrs. Wilson, for the leadership she has provided on this 
important issue, and for the helpful suggestions and work by Mr. Castle 
and Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut and Mr. Kirk and their staffs. They 
helped put all this package together under the leadership of Mrs. 
Wilson.
  This bill is far stronger than the price-gouging language the House 
considered last fall and could offer Americans true protection if price 
gouging is occurring. The bill will allow new suits under Federal law 
against retail and wholesale price gouging, and those suits can be 
brought by either the Federal Government or a State attorney general.
  The penalties in the bill are significant, as they should be, and the 
bill allows criminal as well as civil penalties.
  Finally, the bill would distribute the money from suits back to those 
who were harmed through State victim compensation funds.
  So I think we have taken into consideration every criticism that was 
leveled last fall, and it has been addressed forthrightly. American 
consumers are demanding protection from price gouging. The President 
has echoed that call, and now Congress is heeding it. I urge adoption 
of the bill.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), an advocate of consumers before she got to 
Congress, and she continues in that present capacity today as a strong 
advocate for consumers.

[[Page 6844]]


  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Michigan for his great leadership to try and help consumers to bring 
the price of gasoline down.
  Mr. Speaker, gasoline prices have doubled since the Bush 
administration took office. On Sunday, Secretary Bodman declared there 
was an energy crisis in this country, and the Republicans are 
scrambling to play catch- up.
  Since last September, Speaker Hastert has blocked action on 
Congressman Stupak's bill, which would impose tough criminal penalties 
on oil and gas companies that engage in price gouging. Congressional 
Republicans have consistently voted down efforts to give the FTC new 
authority to prosecute companies that price gouge. Instead, Republicans 
passed an energy bill which the Energy Information Administration said 
would raise gasoline prices, and it has.
  Last Tuesday, President Bush called on his administration to 
investigate possible price gouging, even though the FTC was completing 
a report on price gouging that Congress requested last year. Then, on 
Friday, the President said, ``I have no evidence that there's any rip-
off taking place.'' Think back to the investigation.
  Is it any wonder, Mr. President, that Americans are skeptical that 
you are serious about investigating your Big Oil buddies? On Friday you 
said, ``It's the role of the FTC to assure me that my inclinations and 
instincts are right.''
  Was that an order for a rubber stamp, Mr. President? No wonder the 
American people are a bit skeptical, Mr. President, that your oil-
dominated administration will work to protect them or, once again, to 
protect the oil and gas companies, but we need to begin with a serious 
investigation of those oil companies. I hope that you are really 
serious.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for 
recognizing me. I also thank her for her leadership in sponsoring this 
very important piece of legislation, and it would be a bright day in 
America and in this Congress if we could spend a minute or two working 
on issues that will increase supplies, assure honesty in the energy 
world in a difficult period of time and do so with a focus on policy 
and good sound legislation, rather than trying to make political 
points, speech after speech after speech.
  What we have here before us today is a good piece of legislation, and 
it does four critical things. First, it directs the Federal Trade 
Commission to define price gouging, to define what wholesale sales are 
and what retail sales are and to come up with rules that will implement 
those definitions.
  It also provides for strong civil enforcement by the Federal Trade 
Commission and the State attorneys general for criminal enforcement.
  It provides strong civil penalties. Those penalties would be three 
times the ill-gotten gains for the retailer, plus an amount not to 
exceed $3 million per day for continuing violations.
  It also provides for strong criminal penalties, and these penalties 
are $150 million and/or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, and on 
the retail side, $2 million and imprisonment not more than 2 years.
  These are real penalties, and this will, with the proper rulemaking 
process, lead to a deterrent that will result, in my opinion, in energy 
prices reflecting true costs.
  It is important to emphasize that this legislation does not upset 
State laws. It is enforceable by State attorneys general and, as I said 
a minute ago, does provide vigorous civil and criminal penalties.
  There is no excuse for price gouging in energy, and with the passage 
of this legislation, that will be more fully assured.
  I want to thank my friend from New Mexico for her leadership in this 
area. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis) who is a member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee and has been advocating to try to get energy prices under 
control from refinery to gasoline.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for years, many Members of this 
Congress have pushed for exactly this type of measure to be adopted 
today that would give the Federal Trade Commission, the FTC, the 
authority it needs to investigate price gouging.
  We are living in a time in my home State of Florida and every State 
with record profits and record prices, and I think the only people in 
the United States of America who think there is nothing wrong with 
these prices are the executives of these oil companies.
  The only good thing that has come out of the price that we are all 
having to pay at the pump, it has finally forced this Congress to take 
a necessary first step. I commend Congresswoman Wilson. This bill is 
meaningful. It is a good first step in setting significant fines and 
penalties if, in fact, there is truly an investigation and enforcement 
or even the threat of enforcement. This bill will give the FTC the 
authority to define what price gouging is and then to take action.

                              {time}  1145

  The strong arm of the Federal Government is necessary to act. This is 
too much power in the hands of a few companies for a single State to 
act against.
  As Congresswoman Schakowsky pointed out, the unfortunate gratuitous 
remarks by the President that he does not think there is price gouging 
undermines our actions today. I do not know what it feels like to him 
and others, but it sure feels like price gouging to me when I fill up 
my car, and I think I can say that on behalf of the Floridians that I 
represent.
  So this is only a first step. If this administration is not truly 
serious about investigating and letting these companies know there is a 
meaningful risk of enforcement and fines and penalties, this Congress 
should take further action, and we should not wait until prices go up 
further and profits go up further.
  I would also say now is the time for the leadership in this Congress 
to bring up the CAFE standards as well. There are other steps we can be 
taking to raise fuel efficiency standards and to reduce interdependency 
on other countries. So I salute Congresswoman Wilson on this bill, but 
this has to be the first step of many in this Congress if we are truly 
serious as Democrats and Republicans at cracking down on price gouging.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his 
kind remarks. I would yield 3 minutes to the Subcommittee on Consumer 
Protection Chair from the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as I think most of us know after listening 
to this debate, the fuel prices around this country have been rising. 
Beginning with the summer driving season, I think particularly in 
Florida where we have so many tourists, we are concerned about it, and 
of course we know that during the time of growing economies, and China 
and India are consuming more and more of the world's available 
petroleum supplies, that puts us competitive here in the United States.
  To make matters worse, nuclear ambitions in Iran, the fourth largest 
producer of oil, intentions in Nigeria, the 12th, have created what 
would be perceived to be a perfect storm, which is a precipitous rise 
in gasoline and other fuel prices.
  Our problem back home now is how to manage those global issues so 
that they will have as little impact at home on the average working 
American who just wants to take his family on that planned vacation to 
Florida, let us hope, under a tight budget or maintain his delivery 
business without taking out additional loans just to fill up his car. I 
am happy that my colleague, Mrs. Wilson, is taking up this bill, H.R. 
5253, the Federal Energy Price Protection Act of 2006. I commend her 
leadership for this.
  I believe this bill deals directly and aggressively with the need to 
stabilize the price of fuel in an uncertain world

[[Page 6845]]

market and ensure that greed and opportunism does not worsen those 
challenges by gouging the consumer at the pump. This bill for the first 
time allows the Federal Trade Commission, which I have jurisdiction 
over as chairman of the Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection 
Subcommittee, at any time, my colleagues, to prosecute price gouging. 
This bill takes aim at those in the wholesale and retail markets for 
gasoline, diesel fuel, crude oil, home heating oil and biofuels who 
prey on their consumers for their own unjust enrichment.
  The FTC is directed to define what price gouging actually is. We have 
had them in a hearing, and they have described it, but it is not a 
precise definition. Let us get a precise definition. And a very 
important point: This legal recourse and its enforcement provisions 
against gouging are always available, not just in times of natural or 
energy emergencies like we had in Katrina.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill's hammer is triggered by consumer rip-offs, 
not just bureaucratic proclamations. In addition, State Attorney 
Generals will be empowered to bring cases under the Federal law, and 
those cases can lead to extremely strong civil and criminal penalties 
and to multi-millions of dollars, and the possibility of a visit to the 
nearest correctional facility.
  This is a very aggressive piece of legislation targeted at a problem 
that weakens this country not only in dollars but what it does to the 
everyday life of an American, vacations missed, budgets broken and 
businesses stretched thin.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 5253 and once and for 
all make it clear that we in Congress are serious about solving our 
energy challenges at home so that we can be more successful in solving 
them abroad. This bill will serve us and our children well.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich), who is always down here every day advocating for the 
American people.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, this bill is called the Federal Energy 
Price Protection Act of 2006 because the bill will protect today's 
excessive gasoline prices from government intervention. This bill will 
prevent our government from actually doing anything to reduce the price 
of gasoline.
  To reduce the price of gasoline, one must understand the underlying 
causes of excessive costs. Consider the fact that it costs only $20 a 
barrel to extract oil out of the ground today, but oil companies are 
making $72 a barrel. At the same time, the crude oil reserves already 
pumped out and in storage are at all-time highs. Therefore, crude is 
not constrained, and the excessive price for a barrel of oil is not 
based on a free market. The crude oil price is being manipulated with 
much speculation that recent increase in the oils futures market had 
played a significant role. The recent increase in profits in the 
refinery business correlate with the industry effort to shut down to 
independent refineries to constrict supply. These two factors account 
for 99 percent of the excessive profits.
  Now, the FTC has approved the oil companies' monopolies, and they set 
the stage for the increased prices. This same FTC is going to define 
price gouging, as if they don't know what it already is? I suspect, 
under the FTC, the excessive profits are unlikely to be illegal unless 
the FTC can show manipulations occurred. Since manipulation is well 
disguised by the industry, the FTC will be easily able to brush aside 
excessive profits as nothing more than a market signal. Any definition 
drafted by the current FTC will also likely establish that the price of 
crude oil set by the world market and therefore any profits relative to 
that price are not price gouging. This bill will enable the Federal 
Government to cut off aggressive State actions by intervening and then 
settling with minimum penalties.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people want something done now. We need a 
windfall profits tax, 100 percent on windfall profits. That will give 
the oil companies a signal that they won't forget.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I reserve our time, and I 
believe I also have the right to close.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 8 minutes.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests for time, so let me 
say a few words, and then will yield back.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are quite fed up with the price 
gouging that is going on at the gasoline pump. They know gouging when 
they see it, and they are being gouged. The Federal Government has the 
responsibility to protect consumers from price gouging.
  Congress needs to pass legislation to allow the Federal Trade 
Commission to prosecute price gouging. While the bill before us is not 
perfect, I am pleased that the Republicans have finally realized that 
price gouging is a serious issue and it is an issue that needs to be 
addressed. Our constituents are looking to Congress for relief. It is 
our duty to approve legislation that would provide relief to protect 
Americans from the increased financial hardship from gasoline price 
gouging rates that is currently taking place.
  Mr. Speaker, just as Republicans have finally joined with us 
Democrats in addressing price gouging, I challenge the Republicans, I 
challenge the chairman of our Energy and Commerce Committee to take up 
other proposals we have, Mr. Markey's proposal, a member of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee, to reduce the royalties. Oil companies get to 
drill on Federal lands; they do not have to pay any royalties. With 
record profits, they should be paying increased royalties to the 
American people. Or Mr. Higgins who spoke earlier today about his piece 
of legislation that takes away the tax break from the oil companies 
that have record profits last year of $113 billion, or in its first 
quarter of this year, it is approximately $20 billion, in the first 
quarter, in the first 90 days, $20 billion in profits. Why do they need 
tax breaks? Even the President said, as we were debating the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005 last year, that when oil is over $40 a barrel, there 
is no need for tax breaks. But yet we continue to give tax breaks to 
the oil companies. So there are other proposals. Or even the proposal I 
have before this committee that Mr. Kucinich spoke of, the Pump Act, to 
prevent unfair manipulating of prices. We know that if this Congress 
were to act, we could immediately bring down the price of a barrel of 
oil by $20 if we take the speculation, the fear and greed out of the 
oil futures market.
  Mr. Speaker, of the billions of dollars of oil that is traded in 
futures market, 75 percent is not regulated. A mere 25 percent is 
regulated by NYMEX, New York Mercantile Exchange. The other 75 percent 
is unregulated. Therefore, they use fear; they use speculation to drive 
up that price.
  So we have legislation that would actually reduce that, and let all 
those who trade in the futures market when we deal with oil to bring 
their transactions, to bring some transparency and bring it before the 
Commodities Futures Trading Commission to reduce that price of oil by 
$20 per barrel.
  Mr. Speaker, as a Member of this House, I would urge my colleagues to 
vote ``yes'' on this legislation. It is an initial start. We can 
improve on it. And as this process goes through, even though we were 
denied hearings, even an opportunity to amend this legislation; in 
fact, most Members have never seen it before. It was only introduced 
yesterday. We would hope that as this bill moves through the entire 
legislative process, that the other body would at least include all 
energy products, like natural gas which is not included in this bill, 
propane which is not included in this bill. What about the market 
manipulation, predatory pricing, regional price differences, all the 
things that we know happen in this country but yet we do not address in 
this bill? Like I said, it is an initial good start. We are glad to see 
the Republican leadership finally acknowledge there is price gouging, 
but rest assured, the Democrats will continue to come up with bold new 
ideas on how to get our hands on this energy crisis we are dealing with 
and the skyrocketing

[[Page 6846]]

high gasoline prices. The American people are fed up. They have a right 
to be. This is a good first start. I urge my colleagues to vote for 
this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from 
Michigan for his support of this legislation. I introduced a bipartisan 
bill in September of 2005 about the same time that my colleague from 
Michigan did. Our approaches are different in some respects, but this 
legislation we are voting on today, a slightly different version of 
which was included in the October 2005 Gas Act that the House has 
already passed, is a good bill. It is a solid piece of legislation and 
deserves the support of the House.
  I also recognize that this is only one piece of the puzzle. We want 
to give the Federal Trade Commission the authority to investigate 
possible price gouging. But that is not going to solve all of our 
energy problems. This focuses on one piece of the problem. The bill 
that we will consider next on the floor of the House will also look at 
another piece of the problem, and we are going to try to pass some 
further legislation that deals with tax codes, that increases domestic 
supply, that invests in alternative sources, things like E-85.
  Since we passed the Energy Act in August and the chairman of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee came out to New Mexico to sign that 
landmark piece of legislation, there are 29 new ethanol plants that 
have requested permits so that we can use corn to fuel our vehicles 
rather than having to import oil from other countries.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill includes strong penalties, in fact stronger 
than the ones that my colleague from Michigan has in his bill. I think 
maybe if we would have worked together, we could have come up with a 
good bill that both of our names were on. It gives us good clear 
definitions and says, we have got 23 States that have price-gouging 
laws, we need to get a clear Federal definition of price gouging, and 
the Federal Trade Commission will give that to us.
  It also deals with every month of the year. The bill that we 
introduced in September, and my colleague from Michigan's bill as well, 
only deals with emergencies, when a disaster is declared. I think there 
is justification for saying the Federal Trade Commission should have 
authority to look at unfair trade practices, whatever time they may be.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. STUPAK. The gentlewoman is wrong on our legislation. My 
legislation, the FREE Act, applies to everything. It was your 
legislation that only dealt with national emergencies.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. If I am incorrect on that, I apologize, 
Mr. Stupak. It was my understanding that your bill would require a 
trigger.
  Mr. STUPAK. If we had hearings and witnesses, we could bring out the 
differences between the bills, but since we have been denied it, I have 
to use this tactic to get the record straight on the floor.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I thank my colleague from Michigan.
  This is a piece of legislation that all of us have been working on 
for over 8 months now, and I look forward to working with him as we 
move forward.
  Also, this piece of legislation does not overwrite State law. In 
other words, those 23 States that do have some form of price-gouging 
legislation, that law stays in effect so that States can use the 
Federal law, the Federal Trade Commission can use the Federal law, or 
States can use their own law so that we don't preempt State law.
  I think this is a good piece of legislation, a piece of legislation 
that will help to address the problems that every American is feeling 
at the pump and help to make America more energy independent. I ask my 
colleagues for their support, and I urge adoption of H.R. 5253.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for H.R. 5253 because 
I think it is a good bill and a timely bill. What took so long? Last 
September, Representative Bart Stupak, Representative Stephanie 
Herseth, and I drafted H.R. 3936, the Free Act, which would impose 
severe penalties on oil companies, gas stations, and anyone who would 
collude to raise the price of gas.
  But for eight months the Republican leadership of this House has sat 
on this legislation and not allowed it to move forward. Only now, after 
gas prices have risen to new heights, do the Republicans bring up this 
bill and call it their own.
  I urge support on H.R. 5253, but the American people deserve better 
leadership in this body.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this exchange of letters 
be included in the Record during today's debate on H.R. 5253.

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                      Washington, DC, May 3, 2006.
     Hon. Joe Barton,
     Chairman Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Barton: In recognition of the desire to 
     expedite consideration of H.R. 5253, a bill to prohibit price 
     gouging in the sale of gasoline, diesel fuel, crude oil, and 
     home heating oil, the Committee on the Judiciary hereby 
     waives consideration of the bill. There are a number of 
     provisions contained in H.R. 5253 that implicate the Rule X 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. Specifically, 
     the bill contains increases in criminal penalties under title 
     18 of the United States Code, which implicate the Judiciary 
     Committee's jurisdiction under Rule X(I)(l)(7) (``criminal 
     law enforcement'').
       The Committee takes this action with the understanding that 
     by forgoing consideration of H.R. 5253, the Committee on the 
     Judiciary does not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter 
     contained in this or similar legislation. The Committee also 
     reserves the right to seek appointment to any House-Senate 
     conference on this legislation and requests your support if 
     such a request is made. Finally, I would appreciate your 
     including this letter in the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of H.R. 5253 on the House floor. Thank your 
     attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                      F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____
                                  
         U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and 
           Commerce,
                                      Washington, DC, May 3, 2006.
     Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: Thank you for your letter 
     concerning H.R. 5253, a bill to prohibit price gouging in the 
     sale of gasoline, diesel fuel, crude oil, and home heating 
     oil.
       I appreciate your willingness not to seek a referral on 
     H.R. 5253. I agree that your decision to forego action on the 
     bill will not prejudice the Committee on the Judiciary with 
     respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or future 
     legislation. Further, I recognize your right to request 
     conferees on those provisions within the Committee on the 
     Judiciary's jurisdiction should they be the subject of a 
     House-Senate conference on this or similar legislation.
       I will include our exchange of letters in the Congressional 
     Record during consideration of the bill on the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Joe Barton,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this legislation gives the FTC 
explicit authority to define and prosecute price gouging by gasoline 
retailers and wholesale distributors.
  Given the amount of anger that Americans are feeling at the gasoline 
pumps, we should have enacted similar legislation in law long ago.
  There are certainly some price gougers out there, especially in 
situations with tight supplies during emergencies, but the American 
people should know that this legislation will not bring relief at the 
pump this year.
  First, the FTC will take six months to define price gouging before 
they can enforce the new law.
  Second, when the price of oil is $75 like it is this week, the price 
of gasoline is going to be high, without any price gouging by anybody.
  The price of oil used to be controlled by OPEC, but most energy 
experts believe that stable OPEC nations are producing at near full 
capacity.
  The two major reasons why prices are going up is because of high 
global demand, particularly the booming economies of China and India, 
and instability in producing nations.
  Iraq's oil production has never recovered to pre-war levels due to 
the insurgency, and many believe that Iran's oil production could soon 
be reduced due to our tensions with that nation.

[[Page 6847]]

  In addition to being a large oil producer, Iran sits on the Straits 
of Hormuz between the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean.
  If conflict were to occur in that global oil shipping choke point, 
the price of oil will increase even further.
  Unfortunately instability in oil producing countries is not limited 
to the Middle East. Nigeria, Angola, and other areas of Africa are 
experiencing civil wars which are limiting oil exports.
  Our Administration has been engaged in a war of words with the 
President of Venezuela, which is one of our major oil suppliers.
  Bolivia just sent the army in to occupy its oil and gas fields, some 
of which had been jointly explored with Spanish and U.S. oil companies 
under contracts approved by previous governments.
  With all of these developments in oil producing nations and the 
surging global economy, the price of oil has gone up dramatically and 
the price of gasoline tracks the price of oil.
  If a gas station or a gasoline distributor wants to use the 
background of a rising market price to engage in price-gouging, they 
should be stopped and punished.
  The legislation by my friend Bart Stupak may be superior to this 
legislation in some ways, and if the House was under Democratic control 
we would have a more democratic process.
  But this is a decent piece of legislation that gives the FTC 
authority to investigate price gouging, so for that reason alone we 
should approve it.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle for awakening at long last to the need to pass strong 
anti-price gouging legislation to protect America's energy consumers.
  It would have been far better if the House majority had come to this 
realization last fall, when Representative Stupak offered a stronger 
version of the bill we are now debating. Instead, the Republicans voted 
down the Stupak bill on three separate occasions in Committee and on 
the House floor. Apparently, the Majority has now seen the light, as 
this new bill borrows heavily from H.R. 3936, anti-gouging legislation 
sponsored by Rep. Stupak.
  Better late than never, I suppose. But in the meantime, seven 
critical months have elapsed during which all manner of shenanigans may 
have occurred in the energy markets. Fortunately for consumers, a mild 
winter sheltered them from the full effects of high prices during the 
winter heating season, but last month gasoline prices shot up. As we 
approach the summer driving season, there is no relief in sight.
  In a perfect world, I would support Representative Stupak's bill over 
the legislation now under consideration. In fact, since last December 
House Republicans could have signed the discharge petition pending on 
the Stupak bill and passed it on the suspension calendar. That would 
have empowered the Federal Trade Commission to go after price gougers--
or better yet--the enactment of anti-gouging authority might have 
deterred gasoline price gougers from taking advantage of U.S. 
consumers.
  Nonetheless, the bill before us today is much improved from the 
version the Majority offered in the fall. The American energy consumer 
is hurting and action is needed. I will, with some misgivings, support 
the bill before the House.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the tremendous 
impact that the cost of gasoline is having on my West Virginia 
constituents and on working families across the country. Rural 
communities that make up a large portion of my congressional district 
are especially hard hit by rising fuel costs because of the distance 
many people must travel to work and school and the limited public 
transportation options.
  In addition to high prices, gas stations in some areas have run out 
of fuel all together. It is vital that we take every possible step to 
ensure that the gasoline market is priced fairly and it is important 
that we take steps to increase the supply of gasoline available to the 
market.
  This week in my district I highlighted a 5-point plan to reduce the 
price of fuel. These steps include:
  1. Take tough action against price gougers.
  2. Waive boutique fuel requirements so that supply can be easily 
transferred between regions of the country.
  3. Temporarily waive the 2.5 percent and 54 cent per gallon tax on 
ethanol so that imported ethanol can help make up the difference with 
the recent phase-out of MTBE in our gasoline supply.
  4. Make use of coal--West Virginia's natural resource--as part of our 
fuel supply. Coal liquefaction technology has been available for many 
years and our government has invested in research that would allow for 
fuel to be produced now. Our nation has a 250-year supply of coal that 
already provides over half of our nation's electricity. Coal is an 
answer to the gasoline problem as well.
  5. Allow for responsible drilling in ANWR and the Outer Continental 
Shelf to increase our domestic supply of crude oil.
  I am pleased that the House took action today on two elements of this 
important plan. I strongly support H.R. 5253, passed by the House today 
that will punish price gougers with tough fines or jail time. 
Provisions of the bill will allow for enforcement by either the Federal 
Trade Commission or state Attorney Generals to provide the maximum 
possible protection for consumers. We must investigate and punish 
instances of gouging wherever they occur on the energy supply chain.
  I am extremely disappointed that the House did not take action today 
on H.R. 5254 to improve the permitting and approval process for new 
refineries. Our nation has not built a new refinery since 1976 and it 
is clear that the regulatory process is a major reason why. This 
improved permitting process would also have applied to coal 
liquefaction facilities--another step that should be taken to increase 
our fuel supply. Once again opponents of increased fuel supplies and 
lower prices blocked action on common sense energy solutions.
  Passage of price gouging legislation is a positive first step. I urge 
my colleagues to support further legislation to increase supply by 
allowing new domestic exploration and waiving tariffs and boutique 
fuels.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5253.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. 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.

                          ____________________