Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6184) to provide for a program for circulating quarter dollar coins that are emblematic of a national park or other national site in each State, the District of Columbia, and each territory of the United States, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent all that Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and insert any extraneous material as they so wish.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6184, America's Beautiful National Parks Quarter Dollar Coin Act, introduced by my good friend and colleague from Delaware, Congressman Castle.

I have had the great pleasure to work with Mr. Castle on several coin bills of this nature in the past, the very successful State quarters and most recently the Presidential dollars. I am proud to be the Democratic lead sponsor of this bill, and I am happy to report that it has strong bipartisan support, as shown by the fact that it passed out of the Financial Services Committee on a unanimous vote in support.

I want to thank Congressman Castle for all of his hard work on this legislation, as well as Chairman Frank for his support, and the support of the staff of the Financial Services Committee and our individual staffs for their hard work on this bill. Of course, all of us love our national parks, and especially those of our home State, which will be honored on each of these coins.

Beginning in 2010, new quarters will bear a design representing a national park or site in each State and the District of Columbia at the rate of 5 new designs a year. The sites will be selected at the beginning of the process by the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the States, and the coins will be minted in the order in which the sites selected were established as national sites, which I think is a very clever touch.

As a former teacher and educator, I am always excited about the new designs on everyday coins because they encourage more Americans of all ages to pay attention to the coins in your pockets and learn a few facts about what is depicted. I can say of the very successful State quarter program, it became a very popular teaching tool. Many teachers devised lesson plans around the quarters, and many of my constituents collected these coins. My own daughter had a book with each of the quarters in it; and many people would ask me, when is the next quarter coming out? And because it was so successful, the 50 State quarter program raised $6.2 billion over the past 10 years of its life span which is just ending this year. And we can hope that we will have similar results from this series of coins.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation. It is an education tool. It also will generate needed revenues for our Treasury.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my dear friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle who has attacked the Speaker of this House really unfairly and with false statements.

The point is and the reality is that we have two oil men in the White House and their policies are the ones that have benefited Big Oil and hurt the American consumer. Now under the leadership of the Democratic Speaker and the New Direction Congress, we have been passing solutions for the first time to help American consumers and to help this country move into the 21st century with policies that are important for conserving energy, renewable energy, efficient technologies, and reducing energy prices for the long run.

No, I will not yield. I have my time; you had yours.

First of all what, the New Direction Congress passed was the first new vehicle fuel-efficiency standards in 32 years. We also passed an historic commitment to affordable American-grown biofuels. If the other side of the aisle was interested in moving us into the 21st century and conserving energy, why in the world didn't they pass new vehicle fuel- efficiency standards? We passed it. This Congress passed it. The Democrats passed it, and are forcing the car builders and others to move in with fuel-efficient standards.

We also took action to lower gas prices by suspending oil purchasing for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. These are very important initiatives.

Now the gentleman on the other side of the aisle, my very good friend, talked about the need to build new refineries. Well, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP and Shell have publicly stated that they have no plans to build new refineries; instead, they prefer to expand existing facilities. These are their statements. Shell and BP all testified that they were unaware of any environmental regulations preventing them from building new refineries or expanding old ones. They can do that now.

Internal memos from oil companies make it very clear that oil companies decided that they needed to reduce refinery capacity to drive up their profits. And the New Direction Congress is

continuing to bring real relief to those feeling the pinch of the high gas and diesel prices, and ensuring the needs of families and businesses are put before the interests of Big Oil companies.

Now my dear friend on the other side of the aisle talks about drilling, drilling, drilling, drilling, as if we could drill ourselves out of the challenges we face.

The fact is that there are over 68 million acres on shore and offshore in the United States of America that are currently leased by oil companies and they are open to drilling and actually under a lease to do so but are not developed. Now we are talking about leases on 68 million acres of land that is owned by the American people. Now what Chairman Rahall says is use it or lose it, and I think he is absolutely correct. I support his bill, to say that you either drill on those 68 million acres or you give up your lease and let someone else drill there. That's what the Democrats are saying. We are not going to hand out more leases to the oil companies on public land that is owned by the public and is the land and the reserves of this country. We are saying to them if you have a lease, you use that lease. You drill. You're not going to get another one. And if you're not going to drill, then let's put it out for competitive bid and let someone else come forward and drill on that land.

The fact is that 80 percent of the oil available on the Outer Continental Shelf is in regions that are already open to leasing, but the oil companies haven't decided if it is worth their time to drill there. The fact is that drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge wouldn't yield any oil for 10 years, and then would only save the customer, the consumer, 1.8 cents per gallon in 2025. The fact is that America uses a quarter of the world's oil consumption every day, but only 1.6 percent of the world's supply, so there is simply no way to drill ourselves to a solution.

I repeat, while my colleagues were running this body, where were their solutions? I didn't see any. I didn't see them raising the mile per gallon of gas, I didn't see them conserving. I didn't see them investing in biofuels or moving forward with innovative energy solutions, as this new Democratic leadership has been doing. They have just held onto the failed policies of the past which have gotten us to where we are. As I repeat, we have two oil men in the White House that have been behind these policies.

So I would say that the Democratic leadership has done a great deal to help the American consumer. They are facing many challenges. Their wages are stagnant. The price of gasoline is now over $4 a gallon. The price of milk is over $4 a gallon. So they are facing really inflation and many, many challenges.

The Democratic leadership has come forward with a stimulus package to help the American taxpayer, the American citizen. We have come forward with a fuel-efficiency standard. We have come forward with many hearings today on the possible manipulation of oil in the futures market so that we can curb those abuses if they are documented. We are for drilling on the 68 million acres that are currently under contract and should be drilled on.

So this Congress, I congratulate the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats and the relevant committees. We have passed legislation, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act. We have passed the Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act. We have passed the Energy Price Gouging Prevention Act which will provide consumer relief by giving the Federal Trade Commission the authority to investigate and punish those who artificially inflate energy prices. President Bush has threatened a veto of this very commonsense consumer protection measure.

So I say with all due respect to my wonderful colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle, where were your ideas when you could pass them? Where are your ideas now? The ones that we are passing that helps the consumer and moves this country into the 21st century, and that makes a profitable use of land that is owned by the American people instead of giving more, and in many cases in a no-bid process to oil companies who are just sitting on it and not doing anything to help the American consumer.

So I would say you brought it up, so I am just responding to some of your allegations.

I feel this is such an important issue that I would like to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the great State of New York, Congressman Serrano, on H.R. 6184, and I thank him for his leadership on this important bill.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank the gentleman for his statement. He has been a strong advocate for the Territories. He raises and highlights an important point that the Territories are included, and I appreciate his recognizing the many contributions from the citizens of Puerto Rico and other Territories to our great country.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time and urge my colleagues to support this creative bill that is before us. I hope that it passes unanimously and moves to the Senate with swift passage.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I do object. We have a system. We have gone through it, and I feel we should move to a vote.

If the gentleman feels so strongly about it, he has worked so hard on this bill, it's a successful bill, and we hope to have another successful bill, so I will allow the gentleman to reclaim his time.

I would inquire how much time remains on both sides, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for reciprocity. If he is reclaiming his time, then I would like to reclaim my time.

I do ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

The gentlewoman has no further speakers, but I wonder if the gentleman on the other side of the aisle yields back his time.

Just to respond to my dear friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle, I'm very appreciative that you're supportive of the bill before us, but I want to point out that there is nothing in this bill that would in any way prevent drilling. In fact, they can drill now on 68 million acres of land on which they have a lease.

And we did have a vote, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not support the vote that would compel the oil industry to start drilling or lose permits on this 68 million acres of undeveloped Federal oil reserves which they are currently warehousing and keeping domestic supply lower and prices higher. I believe that's a very balanced premarket approach. Use it or lose it. Let someone else drill there.

And industry is only using a fraction of its leases now. And refining is not an issue. Refineries are running below capacity.

But we have enacted in law, past laws, that are laws now, the Energy Independence and Security Act. This historic Act would increase vehicle fuel efficiency to 35 miles per gallon, and this is the first congressional increase in more than three decades. And this would be very helpful.

And I'd like to place into the Record an entire list of laws that have been enacted by this Democratic leadership, laws that are coming up to be considered, including cracking down on price gouging, and legislation that the House has passed and we're waiting for the Senate to act on: the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act, the Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act, the Energy Price Gouging Prevention Act. These are all important concrete steps, not rhetoric, but concrete steps to help consumers.

New Direction Legislation

Enacted into Law

Energy Independence and Security Act in 2007--Historic

energy legislation with provisions to combat oil market

manipulation, increase vehicle fuel efficiency to 35 miles

per gallon in 2020--the first Congressional increase in more

than three decades--and promote the use of American biofuels.

Signed into law, December 19, 2007.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer

Protection Act--Temporarily suspends the filling of the SPR,

starting June 30th, to put more oil on the market to help

drive down gasoline prices. Signed into law, May 19, 2008.

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008--The new Farm

Bill makes an historic commitment to more affordable American

biofuels and increases Commodity Futures Trading Commission

(CFTC) oversight authority to detect and prevent manipulation

of energy prices. President Bush vetoed this bill, but the

Congress overrode that veto.

Recent and Upcoming Legislation

Reducing Transit Fares (H.R. 6052)--Gives grants to mass

transit authorities to lower fares for commuters pinched at

the pump and expand transit services.

Cracking Down on Price Gouging (H.R. 6346)--Gives

enforcement authority to the Federal Trade Commission to

investigate and punish those who artificially inflate fuel

prices.

``Use It Or Lose It'' for Oil Companies Holding Permits and

Not Drilling--Compels the oil industry to start drilling or

lose permits on the 68 million acres of undeveloped federal

oil reserves which they are currently warehousing, keeping

domestic supply lower and prices higher.

Further Close the ``Enron Loophole'' for Petroleum

Markets--Takes steps to curb excessive speculation in the

energy futures markets, which experts have noted is driving

up the price of a barrel of oil.

Legislation that the house has passed

Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act--Extends and expands

tax incentives for renewable energy (including incentives for

plug-in vehicles), retains and creates hundreds of thousands

of green jobs, spurs American innovation and business

investment, and cuts taxes for millions of Americans. The

President has threatened a veto.

The Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act--Combats record gas

prices by authorizing lawsuits against oil cartel members for

price fixing, and creating an Antitrust Task Force to crack

down on anticompetitive behavior or market manipulation.

President Bush has threatened a veto.

Energy Price Gouging Prevention Act--This bill will provide

consumer relief by giving the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

the authority to investigate and punish those who

artificially inflate energy prices. President Bush has

threatened a veto.

I'd like to remind my dear colleagues on the other side of the aisle that when President Bush came to office he had a $5 trillion projected surplus. We now

have a series of records that have been given to us by the Republican leadership, only they are the wrong kinds of records.

We have record debt that is galloping towards $9 trillion. Each and every American owes over $30,000 to this debt. We have the largest trade deficit in the history of this country, over $900 billion, and we have the largest deficit in the history of this country. We have lost more jobs in the first half of this year than have been lost since the Great Depression, and if we continue at this rate, we will lose over 1 million jobs in this year.

Now, that is the record of the Republican leadership. But what is before us is a very important bill, one that I support, one that I urge my colleagues to support. And I urge my colleagues to support consideration of H.R. 6184, and I hope that we will have a bipartisan commitment to passing this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to

revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1433 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 6899, the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act. The resolution provides 3 hours of debate on the bill, controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, American families and businesses from every city, town and village across our districts are struggling with the skyrocketing gas prices and ever-increasing energy costs, which have obviously gone over into the cost of food and every other commodity that we use. The American people are calling out for relief, which is why we have this comprehensive energy package before us today.

In considering this legislation, we must ask ourselves: How did our great Nation get into this terrible place concerning energy in the first place? Eight years ago, two oilmen took the reins of America's energy policy, and they never looked back. They held secret, closed door meetings with Big Oil and energy companies at a tremendous cost to the American people. And the Republican Congress supported them every step of the way. To this day, we do not know about the secret meetings that the Vice President held.

Just this past summer, the American people struggled through an excessive speculation crisis when oil prices jumped over $150 a barrel. Of course, when the Democrats threatened to rein in speculators, they pulled over $39 billion out of the futures market. We must address speculation before we leave this session. Because now, the oil prices are hovering over $90 a barrel, and we cannot let that go uncared for.

Just last week, we saw the havoc that the Bush-Cheney energy policies have wreaked when the Interior Department's Inspector General reported that administration employees at the Minerals Management Service, who were supposed to be regulating oil royalties, were literally accepting improper gifts and engaging in unethical conduct, such as having sex at parties, using drugs with persons, employees of the oil companies. They were literally, Mr. Speaker, in bed with each other.

My colleagues across the aisle say they want to change the energy policy, but their record certainly proves differently. The very same Republicans voted ``no'' to the first new vehicle efficiency standards in 32 years that would have saved $1,000 in fuel costs per car per year. They said ``no'' to recouping the royalties that the oil companies failed to pay to taxpayers. They said ``no'' to curbing excessive speculation in the energy futures markets, and ``no'' to requiring the oil companies to drill on the 68 million acres of Federal land that they already control nationwide, and the list goes on and on.

Mr. Speaker, if the other party has its way in energy, we will have more of the same Bush-Cheney energy policy written by and for the oil companies. They would help Big Oil to get more public land owned by every American, more American oil, more taxpayer dollars, and continuing record profits while American families and businesses get stuck paying record prices at the pump and heating prices.

Mr. Speaker, today this comprehensive bill presents the administration and its allies in Congress with a clear choice on energy. Either side with the American taxpayer, side with the people who sent you here to vote and vote for this, or side with the Big Oil companies who have had the largest profits in the history of mankind and certainly do not need more tax breaks from the American public.

Now, there are significant differences between the Bush administration's policy that got us into this mess and the plan before us today. This package is an energy package for a 21st century policy that will help Americans to reclaim a clean energy future.

And the choice is very clear, as I said before, which side are you on? The bill addresses America's energy crisis in both the short term and the long term.

By releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we will immediately lower prices at the pump for American families struggling with high gas costs. And we will replace the oil at the reserve as the gas prices stabilize.

Meanwhile, by investing billions of dollars over the long term in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and mass transportation, we will harness innovation and create good-paying American jobs while strengthening our energy security.

By expanding the access to offshore oil reserves and encouraging responsible drilling, the bill promotes more exploration and will lead to increased domestic energy production.

By promoting energy efficiency and conservation in buildings, through upgraded building codes and incentives for energy-efficient construction, the bill would lead to reduced energy use and lower utility prices.

In light of the Inspector General report from the Interior Department showing that the Minerals Management Service employees were accepting gifts from the oil companies and engaging in unethical conduct, this bill would subject the MMS employees to a higher ethical standard and make it a Federal offense for oil companies to provide them with gifts of any kind.

At the same time, by providing more funding for home heating assistance, we ensure that seniors and other vulnerable populations do not have to choose between food and heating oil.

Under this bill, we would enact our first national renewable electricity standard. The power companies would be required to generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020, reducing the air pollution from power plants and helping address the threat of global warming.

As Americans use more public transportation in the face of high gas prices, this bill will help the transit agencies deal with the added costs of increased ridership by providing $1.7 billion in grants.

And at the same time, with the record-breaking oil company profits, it requires the oil companies to pay their fair share by repealing the tax subsidies they do not need and by requiring that the Federal Government collect the oil royalties due to the American people. That's one of the reasons why reform at the committee is so important.

This comprehensive energy legislation is the result of a serious compromise on the part of this Congress to bring down prices now and to invest in a clean renewable future. It will provide America with the American-owned energy policy that this administration has failed to deliver in the last 8 years.

Mr. Speaker, there are precious few moments in each of our lives where we have a chance to do something that profoundly affects not only our own lives but the lives of future generations.

Today, we do have a choice. Do we want to continue on the same dangerous energy policies of the past or do we want to invest in a clean energy future that will help to ease consumer costs in the short term while putting the Nation on a path to a clean energy future that will create a stronger and safer America?

Our energy choices will not only affect Americans who are suffering at the pump but profoundly affect the future of life on this planet.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford more of the same when it comes to this administration's energy policy.

We are all proud Americans, but it is time we start acting like Americans once again. Our great Nation is known around the world for dreaming big and for reaching those dreams. When President Kennedy set a goal to put a man on the Moon in 10 years, America got to work and did it. It is time to set big goals and work diligently to achieve them, and that's exactly what this bill does.

I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make history by supporting this comprehensive bill that sets the country back on track to a clean energy future and finally begins to break our dangerous addiction to oil which we have been promising to break for at least the last 30 years. The world deserves nothing less.

[From the Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, July 30, 2008]

The GOP Energy Plan: None of the Above

Republicans may talk a good game, but their actions speak

louder than words. Republicans have voted against the

critical solutions that must be part of a comprehensive

New Direction for Energy Independence. They voted against

renewable energy and conservation, responsible domestic oil

production, short-term measures to bring down prices now and

punish those who are manipulating the oil market, and new

requirements that oil companies pay their fair share.

Instead of working on behalf of American families and

businesses, the House Republicans ``all of the above'' energy

plan simply rehashes failed ideas on domestic drilling or

proposes ideas that Republicans have repeatedly blocked in

the past. Their all-out legislative battle in recent years to

protect the record profits of oil companies earning record

profits has earned them the moniker ``Grand Oil Party.''

Americans paying $4 a gallon thanks to an energy policy

literally written by the oil industry cannot afford this the

GOP's ``none of the above'' energy plan.

The Republican leadership's ``none of the above'' record:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use it, or Price Renewable NOPEC price Public Energy

Free our oil Drill act lose it gouging energy fixing transit security -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Boehner, Republican Leader......... NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Roy Blunt, Republican Whip.............. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ............ Adam Putnam, Conference Chairman........ NO NO NO NO NO ............ NO ............ Thaddeus McCotter, Policy Committee NO NO NO ............ NO ............ ............ NO Chairman............................... Kay Granger, Conference Vice-Chair...... NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO John Carter, Conference Secretary....... NO NO NO NO ............ NO NO NO Tom Cole, Chairman, National Republican NO NO NO NO NO NO ............ NO Congressional Committee................ Eric Cantor, Chief Deputy Whip.......... NO NO NO NO NO ............ NO NO David Dreier, Rules Committee Ranking NO NO NO NO NO ............ NO ............ Republican.............................

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Welch.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida, a member of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Castor.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, the Chair of the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Miller.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Mr. Green.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), a member of the Committees on Natural Resources and Energy and Commerce.

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have one further speaker, and then I will close.

May I inquire if my colleague has more speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon, a member of the Committees on Natural Resources and Transportation, Mr. DeFazio.

Let me give the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, this whole debate boils down to one issue today: whose side are you on? Which side are you on, the side of the persons who sent you here, your constituents and the businesses that you represent, or are you on the side of the oil companies? I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1433 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

Strike all after the resolved clause and add the following:

That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the

House shall, without intervention of any point of order,

consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6899) to advance the

national security interests of the United States by reducing

its dependency on oil through renewable and clean,

alternative fuel technologies while building a bridge to the

future through expanded access to Federal oil and natural gas

resources, revising the relationship between the oil and gas

industry and the consumers who own those resources and

deserve a fair return from the development of publicly owned

oil and gas, ending tax subsidies for large oil and gas

companies, and facilitating energy efficiencies in the

building, housing, and transportation sectors, and for other

purposes. All points of order against consideration of the

bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of

rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of

order against provisions of the bill are waived. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final

passage without intervening motion except: (1) three hours of

debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural

Resources; (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute

consisting of the text of H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act,

as introduced, if offered by Representative Boehner of Ohio

or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention

of any point of order or demand for division of the question,

shall be considered as read, and shall be separately

debatable for 3 hours equally divided and controlled by the

proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit

with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6346. I know it is very similar to a bill that my friend introduced a year ago, and I think we even had a vote on the House floor a year ago on the bill, but there are some changes. Let me give the process argument against it, and then I will give the policy argument against it.

The process argument against it is a bill that is introduced on one day, is voted out of the House Floor the next day. That certainly shows a speedy government, but it doesn't show due process under the normal rules of the House of Representatives.

It would be good to have a legislative hearing on the bill and to have either a subcommittee and/or, and preferably or, a full committee markup. We have a number of bills right now that have been introduced on oil speculation in the futures markets. My friend, Mr. Stupak of Michigan, has introduced a bill, I have introduced a bill. He and I and the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Dingell, are on a bill together on that issue. We had an excellent oversight hearing yesterday that Chairman Stupak chaired. We have got a commitment from Chairman Dingell that we are going to have a legislative hearing and go through regular order on the oil speculation bill. So we will have an oil speculation bill on the floor hopefully within the month that will have gone through the process, that will be bipartisan. This bill doesn't meet that test. It was introduced in its current form yesterday and we are voting on it on the floor today.

Now, as to the substance of the bill. Let me read into the record some information on prices. These are national average gasoline prices in the United States of America.

In 2006, the average retail price was $2.56 a gallon. This is the national retail price for self-serve unleaded gasoline. The average retail margin was 14 cents, and the average credit card fee was a little over 6 cents. Last year in 2007, the average retail price had gone up to $2.79. The average retail margin was still 14 cents, and the average credit card fee had gone up to 7 cents.

So far, for data that we have this year for calendar year 2008, the average retail price has jumped to $3.37. Now we know as a side note that as of today the average national retail price is a little over $4, I believe $4.07. The average retail margin has gone down to 12 cents, so we have lost 2 cents in retail margin, and the average credit card fee has gone up 8.4 cents.

So based on, such as there is, the definition of price gouging in this bill, which if you go over to page 3 of the bill, they don't directly have a definition of price gouging, but in the factors considered on page 3 of the bill it does speak about a price that grossly exceeds--we don't know what grossly means--grossly exceeds the average price at which the applicable gasoline or other petroleum distillate offered for sale during the 30 days prior to a proclamation, which is a presidential emergency proclamation, or grossly exceeds the price at which the same or similar gasoline or petroleum distillate was readily obtainable in the same period.

So to the extent we have a definition of price gouging in this bill, it is based on an average price 30 days prior or an average price in the same period.

Based on that kind of implicit definition, we don't have price gouging, as far as I can tell, going on in the United States of America today. We do have high prices. There is no question that an average national price of $4.08 a gallon for self-service unleaded is a price that we should not be having to pay right now. But the reason we have that price is not because of price gouging at retail. If the average national price is a little over $4, and that is the average, in some parts of the country I am told out in California it is up over $4.20. In my State in Texas, I did not see but I was told that in Dallas near Love Field they were having a gas price war and you could get a gallon for $3.62, which is a price that is certainly preferable to $4 or $4.50. But according to the statistics that I have, we don't have price gouging going on in the United States of America.

The second point. I am not aware of any pending State action on price gouging. And almost every State in the Union has State law that gives the State Attorney General the ability to go after price gougers within the boundaries of that State. Now, my friend from Michigan may have information about some price gouging efforts that are going on at the State level, but I don't have that information. That would indicate that we don't--again, we have high gasoline prices and high diesel prices and high fuel oil prices and high aviation fuel prices, but it is not because of retail or wholesale price gouging.

The second issue with the bill, it requires the declaration of a Presidential energy emergency. I am going to read that title or that paragraph:

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, the gasoline or other petroleum distillate covered, and the time period that such proclamation shall be in effect.

The bill doesn't give any definition as to why the President should declare an energy emergency, but it does say that, in order for the bill to go into effect, the President has to declare that emergency. It has the term in the bill unconscionable pricing, but again does not define it. It just says unconscionably excessive, or the seller is taking unfair advantage. It doesn't define that.

So here we have a bill that has not been through any kind of a process, no hearings. My good friend from Michigan did introduce a similar bill last year, and so it is obviously something that perhaps at the Federal level--and I say perhaps. I am not saying it should be, but I will admit that it could be addressed. We passed a price gouging bill in the last Congress in this body. It went to the other body, it went to the Senate, and was not passed over there.

So I can't say categorically that I am opposed to any price gouging legislation. But I do think, on process grounds, it ought to go through the committee system. And I think on policy grounds, this bill is undefined, it doesn't state the reasons the President should declare a national emergency, it doesn't define what unconscionably excessive is. It appears to base when you would bring a finding based on an average price that was it in a region 30 days before the current period or a price in the region in the current period that is grossly excessive. And, again, it doesn't define grossly excessive.

So Mr. Speaker, I know there is a lot of pressure on the Congress doing something. I would state we would be better served to look at the underlying fundamentals, and the underlying fundamental is pretty straightforward:

Oil is a fungible commodity. It can be produced anywhere in the world; and once it is produced, it can be shipped and refined anywhere in the world. We are currently consuming worldwide about 85 million barrels of petroleum products, and we have the capacity to produce about 86 million barrels. So we have about a 1 million barrel per day surplus production capacity. That is less than 1 percent.

Any time you get the oil markets less than 3 percent capacity in terms of surplus over the demand, you are going to have what is called a very tight market, and the prices are going to tend to spike because there is enough uncertainty in the market that people will bid up, not necessarily in the United States, but in China and India and the developing countries where demand is high and increasing, they will bid these high prices to get that marginal barrel of oil.

What we need to do in this Congress on this floor is bring to the floor bills that address the fundamental supply situation. The United States of America is a treasure house of energy resources. We have 2 trillion barrels of shale oil reserves. We have a 300-year supply of coal that we can convert to liquids. We have hundreds of billions of barrels potentially of oil reserves that are off-limits in the Outer Continental Shelf and in the State of Alaska and on the Federal lands and the lower 48 that we have put off-limits from drilling.

Only 6 percent of the Federal lands in the United States have been made available for leasing under current law. We need to unlock our treasure house. We need to at least start the process of letting there be an opportunity to increase American made energy for America's families. And if we do that, we won't need to depend on false remedies like price gouging legislation. We can bring to the floor bills that increase our supply. And as our supply increases, the price we have to pay will go down, will change domestically and in the world the fundamental supply/demand equation. That is why we have high prices. We are not meeting the demand for energy in the United States from American-made energy, but we could do a lot better.

So I have great respect for my friend from Michigan. I understand it is difficult to focus on the long term in the mid-term strategy. But bringing bills like this to the floor, they may be politically satisfying, but they do not do anything to address the underlying problems. So I would hope that we would vote against this legislation, and then work together on substantive issues that will address the supply and demand inequality.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like my good friend, Mr. Markey, to stay at the microphone and let's have a little colloquy, if he is willing.

I recognize myself for 1 minute just to make an observation.

I don't know, Mr. Speaker, that this is a totally true story, so that's why I needed Mr. Markey's input. But I am told when he was a young man, he sold ice cream cones and Popsicles outside of Fenway Park. I am also told that he bought or purchased those ice cream cones and Popsicles at a very low price, and he tended to mark the price to market in a somewhat monopolistic fashion. And so depending on how hot the day was and how heated the Red Sox nation was, he was known to price those Popsicles in a way that maximized his profit.

Now my question, if he is willing to answer it, would he consider what he did selling Popsicles and ice cream cones outside of Fenway Park as a young lad, would he consider that unconscionably excessive price gouging, or would he consider that simply being a capitalistic entrepreneur?

I continue to yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am happy to yield to my friend to give us an explanation of his pricing scheme selling ice cream cones at Fenway Park.

Reclaiming my time, it seems to me that given the circumlocutory answer that I got from my friend from Massachusetts, that he did tend to price somewhat above the market, and he seems to at the time take glee in it.

The statute of limitations under the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has expired.

Mr. Speaker, if it is still my time, I want to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time because I only have one more speaker who is not on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Well, Mr. Speaker, let me just simply say in closing that with regards to the last speaker's comment about the futures market, I tend to agree there may be something that we need to look at. That's why I'm on a bill with Mr. Stupak and Mr. Dingell to look at the futures market. But on page 3 of this bill, there is a line that specifically excludes the futures market from the jurisdiction of the bill that's before us.

We have a Federal price gouging bill on the floor right now that deals with retail and wholesale price gouging when there is absolutely no evidence of States' attorneys general conducting prosecutions of price gouging anywhere in this country. And as I pointed out in my opening statement, the average retail price for gasoline is up while retail margins are down, refineries margins are down.

Retail prices are up because the wholesale price of crude oil is up over $130 a barrel. We're not doing anything in this bill to address that fundamental supply problem. We are a treasure house of energy resources here in the United States. We could produce more American energy for America's families and factories.

You know, a price gouging bill when you don't have any real evidence of price gouging and where the States that think there's price gouging going on in their States have legislation to deal with that seems to me to be superfluous and symbolic.

So I would ask for a ``no'' vote on this legislation, and let's work together on issues that would fundamentally address the supply and balance and bring prices down.

With that, I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from New York, the Chair of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, for many months the liberal leaders that control this House have blocked, dodged, and refused to allow a vote on legislation to produce more American-made energy.

Democrat leaders have been absolute in their opposition to lifting the ban on drilling offshore, and they have repeatedly and adamantly refused any action on such legislation to help lower gas prices that are hurting people at the pump.

And yet today, Mr. Speaker, after these many months and years of stamping their feet and yelling ``no,'' are we now to believe that these same liberal Democrats, standing before us today with a salesman smile on their face, are we to believe them that they are now declaring that this is a pro-drilling bill?

Mr. Speaker, the American people are not fools. They won't be taken in by this sham of a bill that will actually lock down Americans' ocean oil reserves.

There are two phrases that come to mind, Mr. Speaker, about this bill. The first is ``grasping at straws,'' which is defined as trying to find reasons to be hopeful about a bad situation. The second phrase is ``fig leaf,'' which means something you use to try to hide an embarrassing fact or problem. Mr. Speaker, with this bill, Democrats are grasping at straw fig leaves.

There's an election coming up, and Democrats are desperately in search of political cover, political cover for their long record of opposing drilling and producing more American-made energy.

This straw fig leaf bill was written in secret. There were no public hearings on this bill. The first copy of it was made public at 9:45 p.m. last night, barely 12 hours ago, and it's 290 pages long.

The Democrat-controlled Rules Committee blocked every single Member of this House from being able to offer their ideas for improving this bill. No amendments were allowed to the bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, Democrats are simply playing a political game. Everybody knows this bill will never pass Congress and become law, but don't take my word for it. Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana said this bill is ``dead on arrival in the Senate.'' And when you examine the details of this bill, it certainly deserves to be dead, Mr. Speaker.

It permanently locks up vast amounts of America's oil and gas reserves, including more than 10 billion, with a B, 10 billion barrels of oil on Alaska's remote North Slope. It leaves 88 percent of America's offshore energy resources locked up. It increases taxes by billions of dollars, taxes which will land squarely on the shoulders of American consumers. And it permanently bans drilling within 50 miles of American shores.

Now, Mr. Speaker, why is this fact important? It's important because, according to the Interior Department, of the nearly 10 billion, again B, barrels of oil believed to be offshore in California, only 5 percent is beyond the 50-mile barrier.

Mr. Speaker, what this simply means is that this bill permanently bans drilling on 95 percent of the oil believed to be off the coast of California.

As if a permanent ban on drilling in the first 50 miles offshore were not enough, drilling between 50 and 100 miles out would also be effectively banned. By refusing to allow States to share in revenue generated by offshore drilling, this bill guarantees that drilling offshore will never be permitted by the States.

Right now, States along the Gulf of Mexico are paid a share of the oil produced in those waters. Under this bill, royalty sharing won't be allowed. As a result, States would have no incentive to allow any drilling whatsoever. In fact, I would submit they would have a disincentive. Why would a State allow someone to come into their back yard and pay them no share of the profits that would be made by the offshore drilling? It is the equivalent of the government opening a Starbuck's or a McDonald's franchise in your garage or family home but paying you nothing,

even to alleviate the cost of dealing with the impacts of that business.

And consider this, Mr. Speaker, if this is truly a drilling bill, why is there no outcry from the radical environmental special interests? Mr. Speaker, it's because they know that drilling will never happen under this plan. Those who are opposed to drilling can vote for this bill secure in the knowledge that drilling will never actually happen under this sham bill.

Mr. Speaker, my district in central Washington is the home of Grand Coulee Dam and vast amounts of hydropower. It is the home of the only nuclear plant in the Pacific Northwest. It is home to the vast majority of wind farms in Washington State. And it is home to the Pacific Northwest National Lab, a leader in renewable energy research.

Those who call central Washington home believe in an all-of-the-above plan that lowers energy prices. That means promoting alternative energy sources like wind and solar power, recognizing a need for more nuclear power, protecting our valuable hydropower dams, and also allowing drilling offshore in Alaska and on other Federal lands. But this bill, Mr. Speaker, does not address those issues.

The Democrat plan just means billions of dollars in higher taxes, more government mandates that will increase costs for everyone, and a permanent ban on most of our offshore resources.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the American people deserve a vote on legislation that truly expands alternative energy sources and lifts the ban on offshore drilling and in Alaska. They deserve a vote on H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act, but the liberal leaders of this Congress have blocked a fair yes-or-no vote on this bill for months. They blocked a fair yes-or-no vote, Mr. Speaker, because I believe they know if it were on the floor, it would likely pass.

Mr. Speaker, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi control the Democrat Party here in this Congress. They oppose drilling. They have fought and blocked it for years. Every time drilling has come up they've said ``no, no, no.'' And this bill is just more of the same because it says no drilling in Alaska, no to truly lifting the offshore drilling ban, no to opening up oil shale in the western United States, no to hydropower as a renewable energy source, no to non-carbon emitting nuclear power, no to building new refineries here in America, and no to clean coal and coal-to-liquid technology. The only thing that the Democrat bill says yes to are tax increases, permanent bans on drilling, and continued high prices.

Mr. Speaker, before I conclude my opening remarks, I want to shine the light on an area of this bill that has not gotten much attention, partly because no one had a copy to read this bill before 9:45 last night.

Of serious concern are the costly new mandates included in the national Renewable Energy Standard that this bill creates. The most likely and certain result of this is to increase the power bills of almost every American family and business that it affects. That's right, Mr. Speaker, the Democrat bill isn't going to lower gas prices, but it will increase power bills.

The most egregious of it all is that this new mandate is slanted and biased by saying solar and wind power are renewable under the standard, but that hydropower isn't. This discrimination against hydropower is absolutely ridiculous. Hydropower is the most abundant source of renewable energy in our country. Hydropower is renewable, clean, non- emitting, non-polluting, and a reliable energy source.

Mr. Speaker, those are the facts.

And consider this; if capturing the sun shining and the wind blowing is renewable energy, then so is water running downhill, which is precisely what hydro is all about. But believe it or not, it is not renewable by definition under this bill.

Mr. Speaker, when Democrats--who just days ago were proudly declaring their career-long opposition to oil drilling--are suddenly preaching the merits of this self-proclaimed drilling bill, you know, it's really hard not to laugh, except for the fact that families, workers, farmers, schools and small businesses are struggling under the high cost of gasoline, and really this Democrat Congress is doing nothing to help.

Instead of real solutions to real problems of high gas and energy prices that Americans are facing, this Democrat Congress has chosen to look after themselves in writing this bill. What do I mean by that? This bill will do nothing, nothing but give Democrats a talking point and a 30-second television commercial where they can smile and claim that they are supporting drilling for American oil.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this unfair rule and this sham bill.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the Republican whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Lewis of California.

(Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Barton of Texas.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Upton.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, a Member of this body who has been absolutely steadfast on the proposition of expanding our energy supply, Mr. Peterson.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire if my friend, the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, has any other speakers?

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner of Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Speaker, I have two additional individuals, and then I am prepared to yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, a Member who served here previously and who was very active on this issue, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my plea to those Democrats who proclaim their support for more drilling and making America more energy independent, I urge you to vote ``no'' against this sham bill by voting ``no'' on the previous question. By defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to make in order H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, once again I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question because that means we will have a vote on both their bill and our bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6346) to protect consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and other fuels, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today the U.S. House of Representatives has an opportunity to vote on my legislation, the Federal Gas Price Gouging Prevention Act, H.R. 6346. Every Member of the House will face a simple choice: Vote to stand up for consumers, your constituents, who are paying outrageous gas prices at the pump, or vote to allow oil companies to go on setting them unchecked.

As of last night, the national average for a gallon of gasoline, regular gasoline, was $4.07. With rising prices, it makes sense that we vote on this legislation before the House leaves for the 4th of July holiday and millions of Americans fill their gas tanks and hit the road. Or even as we look forward to this winter, with home heating oil at $3.98 per gallon, it will be impossible for people to heat their homes this winter.

The high cost of energy produces more opportunities for multiple opportunities to have price gouging and price manipulation. Unfortunately, with these high prices, fewer families will be traveling this year, and that takes an especially hard toll on districts like mine that rely on tourism.

As I travel my vast northern Michigan congressional district, I have heard from everyone from clergy to farmers to seniors who are outraged by prices at the pump. They are shocked to learn that there is no Federal law against gas price gouging. Just as speculators are driving up prices on the global energy markets, unscrupulous wholesalers, retailers and refiners operate without the Federal oversight to ensure prices are fair and justified.

Twenty-nine States and the District of Columbia have put their own price gouging laws into place, but there is no uniform standard as to price gouging. Absent Federal action, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm is pushing State legislation that would give the Michigan Attorney General full authority to investigate price fixing and gas gouging at Michigan's gas pumps.

In Michigan, in fact, in my district, we have seen recent evidence of price gouging. An energy company of Kansas City, Missouri, opted to settle a class action suit brought under the Michigan's Consumer Protection Act in May over charges that they charged at least $1 above the State average over energy this year. I am pleased a deal was reached that will provide Michigan consumers with recourse, but I have a hard time believing this is an isolated case. If price gouging is occurring in my district, I have to believe it is not happening in other parts of the country and we need a uniform law to prevent it and enforce penalties on those who violate it.

Because there is no Federal law against price gouging, the Federal Trade Commission has never prosecuted a case of gas price gouging. Let me give you an example.

After Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Trade Commission at the request of Congress examined gas prices and found 23 percent of the refineries looked at, 9 percent of the wholesalers looked at and 25 percent of the retailers that were reviewed had increased prices that ``were not substantially attributed to increased costs'' and ``could not be attributed to national market trends.''

In other words, they were price gouging after Hurricane Katrina. Yet, the FTC was still powerless to act because there is no law against gas price gouging. I hope my colleagues in the other body will take action and join the House in passing this bill and work toward giving Federal agencies the tools to provide effective oversight of energy companies. There is no reason for my colleagues on either side the aisle to vote against my legislation.

Today, every House Member has a choice: Side with big oil companies who are making obscene profits, or side with the American consumer.

A vote against my bill is a vote against consumers and a vote for Big Oil. I am pleased to be joined by other Members and colleagues who are here to work very hard on this issue with me.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to Mr. Markey of Massachusetts, if I may just respond a little bit to my good friend, Mr. Barton.

I agree with him, we need to have a short-term and long-term strategy. And as the former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, my friend Mr. Barton knows that this is my third bill we have had on price gouging. And the reason why we have it is short term, like in Midland in 2005 where gas went up 75 cents in one day, that is price gouging. Or in Escanaba, you wake up and it is 30 cents in one night. What happened in that one night? Or if you take a look at it, the

reason why we need a Federal law, because as we see in the bill it is wholesale. So when refineries increase their prices 255 percent from September 2005 to September 2006, for a State like mine to enforce a price gouging legislation we need a Federal law to help them out.

And the Presidential emergency the gentleman brought up; we need that because, as you know, before Hurricane Katrina gas went up over $5 a gallon before the hurricane even struck. Therefore, you need a President who can step forward and say that is excessive, that is not necessary in this region, we will keep gas prices at a reasonable price.

As far as the millions of acres and the drilling that should be done, and I know the Republican Party has been advocating we should drill more and drill more and drill more, but I would remind the gentleman that for the last 6 years, when the Republican Party controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, you never sought to open up those areas now, because there is about 48 million acres of oil leases unused. I hope later this week we will have a chance to vote on a piece of legislation called Use It Or Lose It. It is unfair for oil companies to tie up our areas and refuse to drill in it when they have leases on it. So if you don't use that lease, let's give it up to someone who will drill, who will bring the oil to the surface, and therefore we can help to address our energy needs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from northern New York (Mr. Hall) who has been a real advocate and a fighter for lower energy costs since he came to Congress 18 months ago.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), a freshman Member who has been a great advocate for increased energy, not only supply but lower prices here in this country, for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) who sits on the Ways and Means Committee and knows the ins and outs of the oil industry.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have the right to close on this side. So I would ask for their last speaker, and we will close on this side.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me just once again reiterate today every Member of the House has a choice. He can side with the big oil companies and the record profits, or you can side with the American consumer. A vote against my bill is a vote against consumers and a vote for Big Oil.

I am pleased so many of my Democratic Members came and joined me. This legislation is necessary. As I said, this is the third time I have had legislation on price gouging. As I pointed out earlier, this winter we experienced price gouging for energy needs, it was a dollar more than the rest of the region in Michigan and the area was being charged. The attorney general in Michigan, because we don't have a price gouging law, had nowhere to go.

Here's the bill that the Michigan legislature--House bill 6249--just introduced 2 weeks ago, tried new price gouging because we see it going on and on and on; and it's going to continue as we see these record prices and further chances to manipulate the market and to charge excessive prices to support these excessive profits of the oil companies.

Underneath the Democratic House, and I feel I have to say this, we have done a number of things in the last 18 months: Renewable Energy and Jobs Creation Act, which extends tax incentives for renewable energy. We had the Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act, which combats record gas prices. We have the energy price gouging bill we're doing today. We put forth the first new vehicle fuel efficiency standards in 32 years. We have a commitment to affordable American-grown biofuels which are keeping gas prices down. They are lower now than what they would have been if we did not pass this legislation. Action for lower gas prices by suspending oil purchases for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Later, hopefully the next month or two, we will see the bill on speculation that Mr. Barton has mentioned. That is a piece of legislation we're looking at for excessive speculation which is driving up record profits for the price of oil.

But in this Democratic-led Congress, we will continue to invest in clean American renewable energy. We will boost energy technologies. We will help Americans struggling with the high energy prices. We will reward conservation. We will promote efficient vehicles, we will reduce mass transit fares and build infrastructure. We will further close the Enron loophole and speculators in dark petroleum markets which is driving up prices. We will encourage safe domestic drilling by forcing Big Oil to use it or lose it on Federal drilling permits.

I am perplexed that there's 68 million acres that we are not even drilling on because the oil companies have them tied up in leases. And what we are saying is if you're not going to drill to help the American people, then give up your lease. Let's give it to oil companies that at least drill. Democrats aren't against drilling. Let's at least go in these leases, which have been approved, environmentally sound, let's drill, let's bring that energy to the surface. If you're not going to use it, then we're going to pass legislation to say you lose it.

And last but not least, Democrats are leading the way to transition America to a more affordable energy future. But right now, as we go fill up this 4th of July weekend as we travel our parades in our districts and enjoy the summer months, can't we at least make sure that the price we're paying at the pump is based on a reasonable basis, reasonable factor, reasonable cost for taking that oil out of the ground, for shipping it, for refining it, for distributing it and putting it in your gas pump? We should not have to worry about being gouged tomorrow. We should not wake up on July 3 and find that gas went up 40 cents overnight for no reason other than someone needs a few more pennies to pay for their 4th of July. I don't want to pay for the big oil companies' 4th of July. I want the American people to enjoy this 4th of July and to know when they fill up at the pump, it's based on a fair, reasonable price.

Let's finally pass, after some 3 years of arguments on this floor, a Federal price gouging legislation that the other body will take up and we can present to the President. Let's have a reasonable basis for our pricing, and let's try to give the American people some relief from these high excessive energy prices we are experiencing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.