Floor Statements

Before I get into speculation, because we want to address speculation, but because my friends on your side keep saying it is only an 8-percent increase in oil company profits. I agree, it might be 8 percent from 2006 to 2007, but when you make $118 billion, the most ever of any corporation, to top it the next year is pretty darn hard.

But 8 percent on $118 billion is $123 billion, where 5 years ago they were at $30 billion. They doubled it in 2003 and went to $60 billion. That is a 50 percent increase. Then you go to $82 billion, and I am no math major, but that is about a 25 percent increase. And then from $82 billion to $109 billion, that is a 20 percent or 21 percent increase. And then $118 billion, I guess they had a bad year, they only made $8 billion more than the previous record year. That might be 8 percent.

But look at these numbers, they are staggering. They are absolutely staggering. That is why we think on this side of the aisle you have to have a short-term policy and a long-term policy, and how to lower those excess profits from the $118 billion, or the $36 billion we have seen already in the first quarter of 2008, there is just no way to justify the doubling of prices based on supply and demand. Oil company profits are excessive, and we think speculation is part of the reason.

Cut the investment malarkey argument. This is profits. This is after you deduct your investments. I don't care if it is on geothermal or wind or solar, after you do all of these and pay your executive a

$400 million pension, they still make $123 billion. I'm sorry, but I just can't find any sympathy in my heart with those numbers.

Of all of the corporations in the history of the world, these are the biggest after all of their investments.

What I'm saying is why don't you invest more. What I'm saying in my role as chairman of the Oversight Investigations Subcommittee, and for 3 years holding hearings in this area, let's end the excessive speculation in the market that runs up the basic price of crude that results in these record profits because corporations, not only do they have a responsibility to their shareholders, they also have a responsibility to this country to be a corporate citizen.

Because high energy costs kill our economy. Every aspect of our economy is being strangled while they make record profits and pay obscene pensions to their CEOs.

So I believe one of the ways we can in the short term bring down these prices is take out the excessive speculation.

If you take a look at it, the Government Accountability Office released its report on the ability of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to properly monitor the energy markets, to monitor what they are making here. What they said, the GAO said they found that the volume of trading in energy commodities has skyrocketed, exploded, especially after 2002 when we enacted the Enron loophole.

The GAO also found that while trading has doubled since 2002, notice that's when the profits start doubling, in 2002, the number of staff to actually monitor what is going on in the markets has declined.

If you take a look at this chart here, if you will, this is the evolution of speculation, trading on west Texas intermediate crude, average open interest on NYMEX long and short positions.

Between September 2003 and May 2008, traders holding crude oil contracts jumped from 714 to more than 3 million contracts. That is a 425 percent increase in trading oil futures.

Since 2003, the commodity index speculation has increased 1900 percent. It used to be a $13 billion market, now, today, it's a $260 billion market. By Lehman Brothers estimate, that 1,900 percent increase in commodity index speculation has inflated the price of crude oil by $37. Other experts say it could be even more.

So on June 23, as chairman of Oversight Investigations of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I held my sixth hearing on gas prices over the past 2 years, Fadel Gheit, the managing director and senior oil analyst at Oppenheimer & Company testified, and I quote, he said ``I firmly believe that the current record oil price in excess of $135 per barrel is inflated. I believe, based on supply and demand fundamentals, crude oil should not be above $60 a barrel.

We are at over $136 per barrel today. It should be no more than 60, says Mr. Gheit. In 2002, here is what is happening. Over here on the yellow side, these are the commercial hedgers. These are the airline industries, these are trucking companies, these are the Big Oil users. They want to hedge.

The blue area, pink area or blue area here, purple area, that's the nonhedgers. They have no interest in hedging; they are just in to play the market. Sixty-three percent in 2000 were legitimate hedgers, 22-- about 37 percent--were not. Come fast track April 2008, the legitimate hedgers are down to 30 percent, the swap dealers and the noncommercials, if you will, are 70 percent of the market.

So what's happened? By April 2008 the physical hedgers only controlled 29 percent of the market, those who really do need the supply. What we now know is that approximately 71 percent of the market is taken over by swap dealers and speculators, a considerable majority who have no physical interest in the market. Over the past 8 years, there has been a dramatic shift of physical hedgers continuing to represent a smaller and smaller portion of the market.

NYMEX, we have talked about the that tonight, New York Mercantile Exchange, has granted 117 hedging exemptions since 2006 for the West Texas intermediate crude oil contracts, many of which are for swap dealers without any physical hedging position. This excessive speculation is a significant factor in the price Americans are paying for gasoline, diesel and home heating oil. Even the executives of major oil companies recognize this.

At a May 21, 2008, Senate judiciary hearing, Shell Oil President John Hofmeister agreed that the price of crude oil has been inflated, saying that the proper range for oil prices should be somewhere between $35 and $65 a barrel.

In May of 2008, the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, compared the price of crude oil over the past 30 years, crude oil for the past 30 years, to the price of gold. Gold prices are not dependent upon supply and demand and have been viewed as a highly speculative commodity. The IMF's analysis shows us that crude oil prices track increases in gold prices. The big spike right here, that's the oil embargo.

Look what happened as soon as you had the oil embargo in the late 1970s there, mid 1970s there, gold shot way up. Look at the track, look at the last 5 years of gold how they go hand in hand one over the other. What this really means is that oil has been transformed from an energy source into a financial asset like gold, where much of the buying and selling is driven by speculators instead of producers and consumers. Oil has morphed, has morphed from a commodity into a financial asset traded for its speculative value instead of its energy value.

Even the Saudi oil minister has argued that high oil prices are due to excessive speculation in the market. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich noted on National Public Radio a few weeks ago, the problem is government's failure to curb excessive speculation.

Now, the Commodities Future Trading Commission has the authority to set position limits and to take other action necessary to curb excessive speculation. Unfortunately, they have not done it. There are significant loopholes that exempt trading from these protections against excessive speculation. You have the Enron loophole, you have the Foreign Boards of Trade, no action letters, issued by the Commodities Future Trading Commission.

You have the swaps loophole, you have the bona fide hedging exemption. While the recently passed farm bill that both Democrats and Republicans voted for and overrode President Bush's veto addressed the Enron loophole for electronic trading, only for natural gas, a significant portion of the energy continues to be exempt from any commodities future trade action to curb excessive speculation.

As I said earlier, for 3 years I have looked at excessive speculation in the energy markets. In my latest bill to prevent the unfair manipulation of prices, the PUMP Act, H.R. 6330, would end or take away all these exemptions, to ensure that excessive speculation is not driving these markets beyond the fundamentals of supply and demand.

We would crack down. The PUMP Act is the most comprehensive energy bill, and we would crack down on energy speculation through a bilateral trade, we would address that. We would take the Foreign Boards of Trade, and we would clarify the CFTC's jurisdiction over these Foreign Boards of Trade. The PUMP Act would give the CFTC the authority over the exchanges, if they are using computers here in the United States, or they are trading energy commodities that provide for delivery point in the United States.

The swaps loophole that we talked about over here, that would be closed, you see, 32 percent right now, right now our swap dealers would close that loophole because there is no requirement for position limits. These swaps have grown exponentially, driving up the price of crude. By limiting this exemption, swaps would be subject to position limits to prevent excessive legislation.

Bona fide hedging exemption, those who really need to have supply of oil, we would make sure that they are, we would limit businesses to hedge their legitimate anticipated business needs.

I have trouble with the Harvard University needing a legitimate hedging exemption, which they certainly enjoy right now. What does Harvard University need to hedge on oil? The PUMP Act would also clarify that legitimate anticipated business needs does not mean energy speculators. Strong aggregate position, you have the NYMEX, you have the Intercontinental Exchange and now you have the Dubai exchange coming on. If you are going to have a limit, position, limit the position, it should apply to all three of the, the aggregate of all three, not just one or two.

So if you see, if we would close these loopholes and set strong aggregate position limits, the Commodities Future Trading Commission would be better able to monitor trades to prevent market manipulation and help eliminate unreasonable inflation of energy prices caused by excessive speculation to help out the American people.

If you don't believe excessive speculation is causing a problem, look at today's business news, especially in the New York Times, they are talking about home heating oil. And at our June 23 hearing that we held, Oversight Investigation, we had the home heating oil companies there. On that day home heating oil was $3.98 a gallon.

Three days later, 3 days later I introduced the PUMP Act in the Senate with Senator Cantwell. Home heating oil then jumped to $4.60 a gallon. If you want to lock in, or if you want to hedge, you want to hedge your home heating costs for this winter, it's $5.60 a gallon, a 20 percent increase in about 4 or 5 days. That's excessive speculation gone wild.

Our PUMP Act has 60 cosponsors, bipartisan piece of legislation, endorsed by agriculture, airline, labor, industry groups, trucking industry. So I urge my colleagues in this House, and I have enjoyed this discussion here tonight, to take seriously a look at excessive speculation.

When they testified on June 23 in our committee, I know Mr. Barton was there and some others in this room tonight, Mr. Masters, Professor Greenberger, Fadel Gheit and others all indicated that if we would pass the PUMP Act the way it is right now, the most comprehensive legislation on excessive speculation, we could lower the cost of oil, of a barrel of oil coming into this country, by 50 percent, they said, within the next 30 days.

I believe it might be 30 to 50 percent, but the point being, in the short-term, as we started this discussion, we could do something right now. I would take the excess of speculation, all markets, all commodities, be liquidated, although they will need some speculation.

But when the physical hedgers are 2-1 being outbid by the swap dealers and the noncommercial people, the floor traders that manage money, the nonreportables, then we have a market that has been turned upside down, and we have turned supply and demand into really a financial asset and not really looking at the needs of the American people, or the U.S. economy.

Thank you.

On that point, there is some skepticism on the majority side that somehow we're going to drill our way out of this or that somehow we'll just increase supplies, because if you take a look at it right now, according to government statistics, 82 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf is available for drilling for gas. Seventy-nine percent of the Outer Continental Shelf is available for oil exploration and is leased. The last time was in 2006. We went along with it. We voted to extend in 2006, not even 2 years ago, more of the Outer Continental Shelf for oil and gas exploration.

What happened between 2006 and 2008? Profits kept going up. Costs kept going up. We didn't see a tangible result.

So, when you have 82 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf already available for leasing for natural gas and when you have 79 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf available for oil already available for leasing and as we had just relaxed the standards in 2006 and you do it 2 years later to get the last--what?--18 percent, 21 percent, how is that going to change the costs we're paying at the pump? How is that going to come down? We don't see the investment of these record profits into getting that oil up.

In fact, we're saying use it or lose it. You have record profits. You have more of the Outer Continental Shelf than ever in the Nation's history available for exploration, and you're not doing it. So use it or lose it. So that's why we look at speculation as, maybe, one way to bring it down.

I thank Mr. Barton for his willingness to work with us on speculation legislation. At my June 23rd hearing on excessive speculation in the market, he was actively engaged in that, and he asked a number of good questions. I agree that we might not agree on 100 percent of the PUMP Act, but I think there is enough common ground there, and I've enjoyed the discussions we've had in recent weeks on the PUMP Act. Hopefully, we can do something. I've really enjoyed the discussion here tonight.

I thank Mr. Altmire and others for having this discussion because I think it has been a good discussion. We've had some disagreements, yes, but I think it's all fair in what we're trying to do and in how we view things, and we are looking at the short term, what we need in the short term and in the long term, and I think there is more agreement than disagreement between the two sides.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I was not going to speak here this morning, but I have heard the rhetoric on the floor and it is really sort of disheartening to be a Member of this body and see all the pointing of fingers going on on energy. I sit on the Energy and Commerce Committee and in my role as the chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, we have held six hearings in the last 2 years about what is happening with gas prices, oil supply, and what is happening in our markets, especially with speculators. We continue to work on legislation to do a number of things.

But I think the honest thing we have to tell the American people, any Member of this House, Democrat or Republican, if they had it within their power to lower a price of a gallon of gas, they, we, would do it. We would have done it. We realize the pain that is being felt by the American people.

When I was home doing my Fourth of July parades, people demanded we do something. I finally said to one of them, ``Don't you think if Congress had the magic wand and could lower gas prices tomorrow, we would have done it?'' There are some things that are out of the hands of the U.S. Congress at this point in time.

So what is our strategy to move forward? What can we do immediately? Supply and demand. It is more than just supply and demand. The price has doubled within a year, and there have been no shortages in the supply.

If you take a look, when we were doing these Fourth of July parades, oil was $145 a barrel. Today, Thursday, July 10, USA Today, Moneyline, it is $136.05. Why did it drop $10 in less than 7 days? That's the volatility we see in the market right now. It is a very volatile market. Some of us want to bring stability to the market and lower these prices. Why the $10 drop when nothing has really happened? There is no more supply that came on the market. We do have more speculators. We do have this Democratic Congress holding hearings, like in the Ag Committee, regarding excess speculation in the market. Some of us have been working on that angle since 2006.

We have had legislation, the PUMP Act, to stabilize prices and to lower prices. So if you take a look at the PUMP Act regarding how we get these prices down from $136, it is to close the Enron loophole. The Enron loophole says the Commodity Futures Trading Commission will not deal with energy or energy derivatives. We had turned a blind eye to what happened in the market.

We should close the swaps loopholes. Eighty-five percent of the trades now on energy are going through a swap loophole.

We should enforce the aggregate position. You're only supposed to hold 20,000 contracts for oil on NYMEX. So I hold 20,000 on NYMEX. I hold 20 on Dubai, I hold 20 on the London exchange, the ICE Exchange, as they call it. There are 60,000 contracts. Every contract represents a thousand barrels of oil.

The foreign boards of trade. You set up a foreign board of trade and you give it a name like the London Exchange or ICE Exchange, and guess what, we outsource the enforcement of the trading that is going on in this country for West Texas intermediate crude oil. That's what has happened. We've outsourced our responsibility, and we rely on London and Dubai to enforce laws to make sure that the markets are performing accurately and not these wild swings we see each and every day.

So I don't care if you're Democrat or Republican, if we had a way to lower gas prices, we would do it.

I believe one thing we can do to immediately bring some relief, without drilling all over the world, is close these loopholes, the Enron loophole, the swaps loophole, enforce aggregate positions, close the foreign boards of trades. We can do that. We are having a hearing today, and it will be going again tomorrow, and hopefully next week we can bring forth this legislation. So let's take the speculators out of the market so we bring a stable price and less volatility in the market.

And then let's look at opening more areas for drilling. Democrats are for that. We are for that when we take a look at the long term. And why don't we streamline. In fact, we did. In 2005, the Energy Policy Act, passed under the Republican majority, I was a conferee to that bill, we streamlined so we could bring more refineries online, but no one has done that. We streamlined the process so it is easier.

So all of this finger pointing going on here is not doing the American people or any of us a lot of good.

We have to look at alternative fuels. The first commercial bio-diesel fuel in Michigan is in my district. I am proud of that. Is it enough? No, but it is a start.

So we need a short-term strategy and a long-term strategy. I think the PUMP Act prevents an unfair manipulation of prices, gives a short- term strategy, stabilizes the prices, and gets the volatility and excess speculation out of the market. And then let's look at long-term solutions.

So instead of coming down here and saying one side is going to do this and one side can't do that, that is hogwash. None of us have within our power to lower gas prices today or tomorrow. Let's be honest with the American people. What we can do is get the speculators out of the market, do a reasonable approach, and let's take a look at some long-term solutions.

Mr. Speaker, the price of crude oil has doubled over the past year. Oil is now at $136 a barrel, gasoline is at $4.11 a gallon, diesel prices are at $4.73 a gallon. As a result, citizens and industries across Northern Michigan and our great country are hurting. Airlines are eliminating service to 100 cities, laying off thousands of workers, and projecting up to $13 billion in losses due to jet fuel price increases that cannot be passed on to consumers. Truck drivers are going out of business, and many more are just parking their trucks because they actually end up losing money after paying so much money for diesel. Loggers and farmers face increased costs at all stages of their operations, from planting and harvesting, to transporting their product to market. As a result, high energy prices have caused significant increases in the cost of food.

There is no way to justify the doubling of oil prices based simply on supply and demand. And despite the false promises by the minority party here in Congress, Democrats in Congress are addressing the energy issues. We are looking for more areas to begin immediately drilling for oil, conservation of energy, passing gas price gouging legislation, and ending excessive speculation in the energy futures trading market.

The Government Accountability Office found that the volume of trading in energy commodities has skyrocketed, specifically after the Enron loophole was enacted in 2000. The Government Accountability Office also found that, while trading has doubled since 2002, the number of Commodity Futures Trading Commission staff monitoring these markets has actually declined.

Between September 30, 2003 and May 6, 2008, traders holding crude oil contracts jumped from 714,000 contracts to more than 3 million contracts. This is a 425 percent increase in trading of oil futures in less than 5 years. Since 2003, commodity index speculation has increased 1,900 percent, from an estimated $13 billion to $260 billion. The 1,900 percent increase in commodity index speculation has inflated the price of crude oil by approximately $37 a barrel. Other experts estimate it could be even more.

On June 23, 2008, the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee that I chair held a hearing on the effects speculators have on energy prices. This was the sixth hearing that the Energy and Commerce Committee has held on gas prices over the past 2 years. Fadel Gheit, managing director and senior oil analyst at Oppenheimer & Company, testified that, ``I firmly believe that the current record oil price in excess of $135 per barrel is inflated. I believe, based on supply and demand fundamentals, crude oil prices should not be above $60 a barrel.''

In 2000, physical hedgers, businesses like airlines that need to hedge to ensure a stable price for fuel in future months, accounted for 63 percent of the oil futures market. Speculators accounted for 37 percent. By April of 2008, physical hedgers only controlled 29 percent of the market. What we now know is that approximately 71 percent of this market has been taken over by swap dealers and speculators, a considerable majority of whom have no physical stake in the market. Over the past 8 years, there has been a dramatic shift as physical hedgers continually represent a smaller and smaller portion of the market.

The New York Mercantile Exchange, NYMEX, has granted 117 hedging exemptions since 2006 for West Texas Intermediate crude oil, many of which are for swap dealers without physical hedging positions. This excessive speculation is a significant factor in the price Americans are paying for gasoline, diesel, and home heating oil.

In May 2008, the International Monetary Fund compared crude oil over the past 30 years to the price of gold. Gold prices are not dependent on supply and demand, and have been viewed as a highly speculative commodity. The IMF analysis shows that crude oil prices track increases in gold prices.

What this means is that oil has been transformed from an energy source into a financial asset like gold, where much of the buying and selling is driven by speculators instead of producers and consumers. Oil has morphed from a

commodity into a financial asset, traded for its speculative value instead of its energy value. Even the Saudi oil minister has argued that high oil prices are due to excessive speculation in the markets.

As former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich noted on National Public Radio a few weeks ago, the problem is the government's failure to curb excessive speculation.

There are significant loopholes that exempt energy trading from these protections against excessive speculation: The Enron loophole, the Foreign Boards of Trade No Action letters, the Swaps loophole, and the Bona Fide Hedging Exemption. While the recently passed farm bill addressed the Enron loophole for electronic trading of natural gas, a significant portion of the energy trading continues to be exempt from any Commodity Futures Trading Commission action to curb excessive speculation.

For 3 years, I have looked into excessive speculation in the energy markets. My latest bill, the PUMP bill, H.R. 6330, would end all of these exemptions to ensure that excessive speculation is not driving up these markets beyond the fundamentals of supply and demand.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Sgt. Larry Wiley of Grayling, Michigan. Sgt. Wiley will be retiring from the Michigan State Police on June 28, 2008. As a former Michigan State Trooper, I have a special appreciation for the service of public servants like Sgt. Wiley, and I ask that you, Madam Speaker, and the entire U.S. House of Representatives, join me in paying tribute to his 26 years of service for the Michigan State Police.

Sgt. Wiley is happily married to his wife, Patty. Together, they have raised four wonderful daughters. Law enforcement runs thick in his blood, as his brother, James Wiley, was also a member of the Michigan State Police.

Prior to joining the Michigan State Police, Sgt. Wiley served in the U.S. Air Force from 1975 to 1979. While in the Air Force, Sgt. Wiley worked as a dog handler for the security police. After his service in Texas, Illinois and the Philippines, Sgt. Wiley was honorably discharged and moved to Michigan, where he went to work for the Michigan State Police in 1982.

Since joining the department, he has served at many posts and in many functions in his 26 years, and his dedicated service is truly commendable. He was stationed in Bridgeport and Detroit before being promoted to Sergeant at his post in L'Anse in 1988. After being stationed in Negaunee, Kalkaska and Houghton Lake, Sgt. Wiley served for 10 years with the Strike Team Investigate Narcotics Group in West Branch, helping to combat the flow of illegal drugs in five surrounding counties.

Madam Speaker, the dedicated men and women who dutifully enforce the law to protect their communities rarely receive the praise they deserve. I ask that you and the entire U.S. House of Representatives join with me in congratulating Sgt. Larry Wiley on a job well done and in wishing him well in his retirement.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Robert Beatty of Indian River, Michigan. Mr. Beatty has served as a member of the Indian River Lions Club for 50 years, and I ask that you, Madam Speaker, and the entire U.S. House of Representatives, join me in honoring his 50 years of service to the Indian River community.

Born in Marietta, Ohio, on April 24, 1923, Robert Beatty moved to Indian River in 1946. He and his wife, Edith, will have been married 61 years this October. Together, they have raised three lovely children.

Mr. Beatty's service with the Lions Club, the world's largest service organization, is truly commendable. His first contact with the Lions Club came in 1958 at a poker game with Anthony Schneider, the founding member of the Indian River Lions Club chapter. After discussing the mission of the Lions Club, he was so enthusiastic that he decided to join the next day.

Mr. Beatty quickly rose through the ranks. After only 3 days of membership, he took on the role of treasurer. Since that time, he has held every position within the club except secretary and has been on the board of directors for all 50 years of his membership. With a reputation of being the first to volunteer for every community service project, his leadership in the Lions Club has been instrumental to their service for the Indian River community.

Mr. Beatty's community service extends beyond his activities with the Lions Club. As a former member of the Indian River school board, he worked diligently to improve education within his community. A veteran of the U.S. Army, Mr Beatty is also a lifetime member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, continuing to serve his community and assist his fellow veterans through his membership.

Madam Speaker, as Robert Beatty celebrates his 50 years of faithful service with the Indian River Lions Club, I ask that you and the entire U.S. House of Representatives join with me in thanking Mr. Beatty's for his dedicated service. Indian River is no doubt a better place because of Mr. Beatty's years of involvement in the community.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Much has been said about this legislation, my legislation. I want to thank Chairman Rahall and Mr. Young for their leadership in helping me correct a grave injustice, not just for the Native Americans, but also for the non-Native Americans, my constituents.

I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, H.R. 2176, which is a commonsense fix of a very serious matter. The bill would provide for the settlement of certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community and of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe in Michigan.

I have been working on this problem for over 10 years, and I first introduced legislation in 1999 in an effort to resolve this issue. I became involved in this land claim dispute at the request of the property owners at Charlotte Beach, not of the Native American tribes. Tribal claims to the land have created a cloud on their title, owned by my constituents in Charlotte Beach.

As a result, local assessors have reduced the property values of the Charlotte Beach land owners by 90 percent because of the valid clouded title created by the Indian land claim dispute.

The tribes' claim to the land in question dates back to 1855, when the U.S. Government signed the Treaty of Detroit, deeding the land to the tribes. However, the land was later sold to non-native land speculators without the Native Americans' consent, eventually resulting in an eviction of the tribal members.

In order to finally resolve this land claim dispute, a settlement agreement was reached in 2002 between former Governor John Engler and the tribes. The settlement agreement has been reaffirmed by Michigan's current Governor, Governor Jennifer Granholm.

After years of extensive negotiations between the parties, this bill represents a straightforward solution to this localized problem in my district.

In order to implement this agreement, Congress must approve the negotiated land settlement. Unfortunately, incumbent casino gaming interests are opposed to this commonsense solution, and they have circulated misleading information in an attempt to derail this legislation. So let me take the opportunity to set the record straight on my legislation.

First, this bill has nothing to do with ``off-reservation gaming acquisitions.'' It is a land claim settlement. Off-reservation gaming occurs when a tribe purchases private land and petitions the Secretary of Interior to place the land into trust for gaming purposes. This legislation ratifies a land claim settlement negotiated by the State of Michigan. This was done under the authority granted in IGRA's land claim exception clause.

Second. In regards to the argument against the location of these lands, the selected lands were chosen by Governor John Engler in consultation with local communities, not with the tribes. The sites were selected for economic development. Local support had been expressed through a local referendum and through unanimous resolutions by the cities and counties, and it has an existing gaming market on the Canadian side of the border where U.S. dollars are being spent.

Our legislation follows, rather than sets, congressional precedent for settling land claim disputes. Congress has passed over a dozen settlement acts on which replacement lands are eligible for gaming, including two that specifically state that the land is eligible for gaming, most recently that of the Torres Martinez Tribe of California and that of the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, in 2000.

Our legislation does not violate the wishes of Michigan voters. Opponents have attempted to confuse Members about the wishes of Michigan voters on this issue by citing passage of the 2004 referendum, which seeks to limit the expansion of private gaming in our State. The actual wording of the referendum states, ``A voter approval requirement does not apply to Indian tribal gaming.''

So the actual wording of the referendum states, ``A voter approval requirement does not apply to Indiana tribal gaming.''

By passing H.R. 2176, Congress will bring about a final resolution to this land claim dispute that has been going on for more than 100 years. Without congressional approval, the land exchange cannot be completed, and the residents of Charlotte Beach, my constituents, will continue to face clouded land titles and economic hardships.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ignore the rhetoric from those attempting to protect casinos.

Support this land claim settlement. Support H.R. 2176.

Would the gentleman yield on that point?

On the Federal claim brought forth by Bay Mills, the Sault tribe was not part of that action, and the Federal court said, your cousins--the Chippewas of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe--must be joined. Go back and get joined and come back later. In the meantime, they started negotiations in the State court. The State court said, you have a valid land claim, but we cannot give you economic damages because the 6-year statute of limitations has run. This claim should have been brought 100 years ago.

So that's the injustice we're trying to correct; they could not be given money damages because more than 6 years had lapsed. The statute of limitations had run.

No.

Because they began the negotiation under IGRA, as required under section 20, to begin a negotiation with the Governor, and they had to make a settlement with the Governor, who can do it. So, instead of going back to court, they used the legislature and the Governor's office to work out a settlement to avoid further litigation.

I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.

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.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an employee of the U.S. House of Representatives who has touched the lives of countless people across northern Michigan over the past quarter century. Glenda Gray will retire on June 30 after more than 25 years of dedicated public service to the residents of the 1st Congressional District of Michigan.

Glenda, known as ``Glink'' to her friends, has worked in my Marquette, Michigan, district office since I was sworn into office in 1993. The decision to hire her was an easy one. Having worked for my predecessor, former Congressman Bob Davis, for 10 years, Glenda brought to the job experience and know-how that couldn't be matched.

A lot has changed in the more than 25 years Glenda has served the people of Michigan's 1st Congressional District. As a matter of fact, even the borders and designation of this district have changed. She has seen the transition from business conducted largely on paper and by typewriter, to a system where computers, copy machines, Blackberrys and video conferencing dominate.

Throughout her tenure, Glenda has handled casework on postal and passport issues throughout the expansive 1st District. She has been responsible for casework on Medicare, Social Security, disability and other senior's issues for six of the 31 counties in the district. She has evolved into an expert on Social Security and is proud of the individuals and families she has been able to help through difficult situations over the years.

This list does not do justice to the thousands of phone calls and walk-in visitors Glenda has spoken with about their problems or their views on a particular issue. I have known her to give each individual's concern the time it deserves and treat every person with courtesy and respect.

Since 1997, my district director has been stationed out of my Marquette office, making it the de facto headquarters for my district operations. This has placed increased responsibility on Glenda, who--in addition to continuing to handle casework and assist constituents in Marquette and the surrounding counties--is tasked with the duty of covering the busy office alone when my district director, Tom Baldini, is away.

Evident from her seamless transition from working for a Republican Congressman to a Democrat, Glenda never viewed casework as a political or partisan issue. For her, it has always been about helping the individual. Over time, Glenda has seen other staff members come and go. Throughout, she has been a valuable asset in helping new staff with her sound and kind advice on assisting constituents--even the challenging ones--while maintaining a sense of humor.

Shortly after I took office, we lost one our young staff people, Brian Schlientz, to brain cancer. This was a difficult loss for all of our staff, but especially for Glenda, who had trained Brian and mentored him during my first year in office. Glenda provided untold support to Brian both in the office and throughout his courageous battle.

Glenda can relate to the unique challenges acing my constituents in northern Michigan--and particularly the Upper Peninsula--because it is has long been home for her. She was born and raised in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan in 1943, one of 11 children raised there by her father, Harry, and stepmother, Eva Gilroy. She attended and graduated from Sault Area Schools before marrying her husband of 45 years, Joe Gray, who is also a Sault Ste. Marie native.

Joe and Glenda moved south to Dearborn, Michigan, where they lived for 8 years and began to raise two children, Joe Jr. and Kelly. They returned to Marquette in the Upper Peninsula in 1970 and have resided on Lakewood Lane in Chocolay Township for the past 38 years. Before going to work for Congressman Davis, Glenda worked for 7 years at Silver Creek Elementary School in the Marquette Public School District.

After more than 25 years of devoted service, Glenda plans to enjoy her retirement with her husband, children, grandchildren, extended family and friends. And while I know she is looking forward to spending more time with her family and friends, she will be greatly missed by those who work with her day in and day out and by the countless Michiganders who have come to turn to Glenda when they need assistance.

Madam Speaker, I ask that you and my colleagues here in the United States House of Representatives join me in thanking Glenda Gray for her outstanding quarter century of service and in wishing her well as she embarks on a well-deserved retirement.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to a man who has served our Nation with dignity, pride, and honor. With that in mind, I ask that all of my colleagues join me in celebrating the retirement of Colonel Christopher Trouve of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. Colonel Trouve will retire on June 25, 2008 after a distinguished 25- year career with the United States Army.

Col. Christopher Trouve was born in Nurnberg, Germany on February 4, 1961, as one of the three children of Lt. Col. (Retired) Raymond and Clare Trouve, while his father was serving as a captain in the U.S. Army. Christopher grew up traveling the world until his father retired from the Army and settled the family in Sault Ste. Marie. Christopher attended and subsequently graduated from the Sault Area High School.

Colonel Trouve began his military career at Michigan State University through an Army Reserve Officer Training Corps scholarship. Following graduation, as a Distinguished Military Graduate, Colonel Trouve was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the Field Artillery branch of the Army.

Following in his father's footsteps, Christopher attended the Officer Rotary Wing Aviator Course at Fort Rucker, Alabama. After graduating from flight school, Christopher was assigned to the 159th Aviation Support Helicopter Battalion, 101st Airborne Division. It was during this first unit assignment that he was promoted to captain, developed his skills as a combat aviator and combined arms tactician, and was recognized by the Army's Aviation Resource Management Survey Team for managing a ``superior'' flight operation.

In August 1987, he volunteered for duty as the Operations Officer for the Aviation Company of the Logistics Support Unit, Sinai, Egypt in support of the Multinational Force and Observers. Shortly thereafter he took command of Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 7th Battalion, 101st Aviation Regiment (Heavy Lift) and deployed the unit to Saudi Arabia in support of Operation Desert Shield.

During Operation Desert Storm, Colonel Trouve flew as a Night Vision Goggle Combat Crew Pilot-in-Command of a CH-47D heavy lift helicopter. During this tour he flew more than 60 hours in combat missions. For his service and leadership, he was awarded two Air Medals and the Bronze Star.

During his career, Colonel Trouve also took command of the Charlie Company, 228th Aviation Regiment, the Alpha Company ``Predators,'' 7th Battalion, 101st Aviation Regiment, and the 2d Battalion (Heavy Lift), 52d Aviation Regiment ``Nightmare.'' As a commander, Christopher provided leadership, innovation, and inspiration in operations, training, and maintenance. He helped his crews increase night vision goggle flying time, sustain high operation tempos, and maintain high operational readiness.

Christopher earned a Master of Arts in Management at the Command and General Staff College in 1997 and was promoted to Colonel in October 2005 while attending the Air War College, where he graduated with a Master's Degree in Strategic Studies.

Colonel Trouve is currently serving in his final assignment as the Deputy Director, Technology Management Office, Office of the Chief of Staff at the Pentagon where he is responsible for oversight of all Secretary of the Army-designated sensitive activities.

Madam Speaker, Colonel Christopher Trouve has served the U.S. Army with distinction for 25 yeas. During his career as a commissioned officer, Colonel Trouve has flown almost 2,500 hours and earned the distinction as a Master Army Aviator. In 2002, he was inducted into the Honorable Order of Saint Michael, Bronze Award by the Army Aviation Association of America for ``outstanding contributions to the community of Army Aviation.''

On June 25, 2008, family, friends, and fellow members of the Army will gather to celebrate a well-deserved retirement for Colonel Christopher Trouve. As Christopher prepares to enter retirement, I offer him, his wife Nancy, and his two sons all the best for the future. I ask, Madam Speaker, that you and the entire U.S. House of Representatives join me in thanking Colonel Christopher Trouve for his service to the United States Army and our Nation and in commending him for the many years of his life he has spent in service to others.

I thank the gentleman. I thank him for his assistance and for pinch hitting for me tonight until I could get here.

Madam Chairman, the Stupak-Visclosky amendment would require that all steel and iron used under the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public Schools Facilities Act be produced in the United States. Cheap imported steel is a danger to our children and is compromising their safety.

In April, during the Congressional Steel Caucus hearing, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Assistant Commissioner David Baldwin testified that Customs and Border Protection does not conduct compliance tests to monitor the strength, durability, or hardness of the steel imported into the United States.

Until the Federal Government can make sure imported steel from China and other countries meet safety and quality standards, we should not let any of it be used in our schools, or in any other buildings, as a matter of fact.

We must make sure that the steel used in these projects meets the proper standards in the first place. The Stupak-Visclosky amendment would require educational agencies to use American steel and iron for modernization, renovation, or repair projects at a public school facility.

The amendment also includes a provision that will ensure that schools can comply with these standards. If steel and iron produced in the U.S. will increase the cost of a project by more than 25 percent, and iron and steel from elsewhere is proven safe, then agencies can use steel and iron from other sources as long as it is safe.

To protect our children, we must ensure that the steel used in our schools is from American companies that meet proper safety and quality standards. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Stupak-Visclosky amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment, labeled Stupak #39, to extend eligibility for disability pay to certain cadets at our military academies.

Each year, a small number of enlisted military personnel voluntarily separate from the military in order to attend one of the military academies. In doing so, they give up many of the privileges and protections that came with their regular military status.

In the Fiscal Year 2005 Defense Authorization Act, Congress recognized the sacrifices and risks that military cadets undergo by bringing them into the military health care and disability system. However, this protection is effective only from the date of enactment, which was October 2004.

Enlisted soldiers who choose to leave the service today to attend a military academy will be covered by the military disability system, but soldiers who attended before 2004 are not.

A problem with this arrangement came to my attention in 2006 and I have been working in Congress since then to make an effective change. James Hildgendorf, a constituent of mine, was serving as an enlisted soldier, and was selected to attend West Point. He de-enlisted and became a cadet. However, while at school, he sustained severe injuries that ended his military career.

Because he had given up his enlisted status to become a cadet, and because he graduated prior to October 2004, he was found ineligible for the disability pay that he would have received as an ordinary soldier.

My amendment would rectify James' situation and that of soldiers in the same situation, by taking the changes made by Congress in 2004 and pushing their effective date back to January 1, 2000 for personnel who gave up their enlisted status in order to attend a military academy. The amendment effectively extends eligibility for military disability retired pay to individuals who left enlisted service in order to attend a military academy between January 1, 2000 and October 28, 2004, and who suffered a disabling injury while attending the academy.

This amendment would not affect all cadets, but it would give recognition to the special risks taken by those enlisted men and women who gave up their enlisted status to attend an academy prior to 2004.

The affected population would likely be relatively small. The Congressional Research Service estimates that fewer than 575 individuals gave up military status in order to attend an academy between 2000 and 2004, and only a small percentage of those individuals incurred a disability at the academy. Additionally, a preliminary cost estimate conducted by the Congressional Budget Office shows this amendment would result in less than $500,000 in direct spending.

However, for those individuals to whom this amendment does apply, it will make a big difference. The soldiers who are chosen to attend the military academies are the best and brightest from among our enlisted ranks. Congress should not continue to deny them their disability benefits.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment and I encourage members to vote for final passage of the Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense Authorization Act.

Vote ``yes'' on the Stupak amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I hope we will defeat this motion to recommit. I sit on the Energy and Commerce Committee. I've done a lot of work on oil and gas, and I was in my office when I heard all these myths coming from the other side, and I thought we had to come down and refute this.

My friends on this side of the aisle keep saying Congress needs to open more areas to domestic drilling. The U.S. has already increased domestic drilling, and gas prices have continued to climb.

Since 2000, the number of wells drilled on Federal lands has increased by 66 percent, from 3,000 to nearly 5,000 wells. During that same time, the price of gas has doubled.

According to the Federal Government, 79 percent of the oil in the Outer Continental Shelf is already available for leasing. Eighty-two percent of the gas in the Outer Continental Shelf is available for leasing. And still, we open up more lands to leasing in 2006. The U.S. cannot drill its way out of high energy costs.

The other fact that my friends always try to put forth is that environmental laws are stopping oil companies from building refineries. Completely false. In the 2005 Energy Policy Act, we actually put in there a section that, as Secretary of Energy Bodman said, eases the constraints that have strangled new refinery construction. We put that in in 2005; yet no one has ever come forward and said we want to use that provision to put forth more refineries.

The U.S. has actually shut down its refineries. Since 1981, there were 324 refineries. Now, there are only 149 refineries. As chairman of Oversight and Investigations, we have the memos from Texaco, Chevron, Mobil that all said in order to raise our prices we have to shut down refineries, and they've shut them down.

Mergers in the oil industry have affected prices. In 2004, the Government Accountability Office found more than 2,600 mergers in the U.S. petroleum industry since the 1990s.

Gasoline inventories actually have a surplus. March 7, 2008, we had a surplus of 22 million barrels of gas more than the previous year. Gas supplies are up. Oil gas demand is actually down. And what do we have? We have a 51 percent increase in that same period of time. Gas went from $3.10 to $3.61 since April 1.

Look, we've had mergers. We've had refineries not being built. We have more exploratory. We have more supply. Supply is up, demand is down, the prices have gone sky-high. Why is that? Look at the profits.

ExxonMobil, first quarter of 2008, $10.9 billion; Royal Dutch Shell, $9.1 billion; BP, $7.6 billion, up 63 percent from last year; Chevron, $5.2 billion; Conoco Phillips, $4.1 billion. That is almost $40 billion in their first quarter. That's why gas prices are so high. That's why this Congress must act to lower gas prices.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, GINA.

After 13 years--this bill will finally make its way to the President's desk, to help protect families from genetic discrimination.

Congratulations to the Congresswoman from New York, Ms. Slaughter, for her work in drafting this bill and guiding it through the cumbersome referral to three committees.

Together, with Chairman Dingell, Ms. DeGette and Mr. Smith, we were able to include an important provision to protect families from unfair treatment on the basis of the genetic material of their fetuses or children in the process of adoption.

Without this bill, families may face genetic information discrimination from testing of embryos and fetuses, as well as children who are in the process of adoption.

As genetic testing becomes increasingly common, these provisions will ensure that genetic material gathered through pre-implementation genetic diagnoses, amniocentesis, or other future techniques is not used to limit families' access to health care.

Again, I thank Ms. Slaughter for her commitment to reflect these changes throughout the bill in order to avoid any further confusion as to whether or not families can be discriminated against on the basis of the genetic material of their unborn child or child under consideration for adoption.

I was proud to work with many Members to include this provision.

I encourage my colleagues to vote for this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize four dedicated educators at the North Central Schools in Menominee County, Michigan. These four individuals will be retiring at the end of the current school year and I ask that you, Madam Speaker, and the entire U.S. House of Representatives, join me in honoring their decades of service to educating children.

Deborah Bedogne came to North Central Area Schools (NCA) in 1985 after teaching at Marquette Area Public Schools. She has served as a guidance counselor and taught many different courses throughout her tenure at North Central. Her assistance in helping students choose their career path has impacted many lives, as has her dedication to the district and the students. Debbie's guidance will be greatly missed by the NCA community.

Janice Hafeman started her career in education in the North Central community with the Northern Menominee Community School program in 1989. She later came to North Central Area Schools in 1994 and has served as a Teacher of Special Education and Adult Basic Education. Both in and out of the classroom Janice treated all of her students with the utmost respect and kindness.

Donald Palmer began his career at North Central Area Schools in 2006 after serving as Superintendent of Hesperia Community Schools in Hesperia, Michigan. Although Mr. Palmer's time with NCA schools was short in years, in was great in impact, including a column that he wrote in the Escanaba Daily Press about his role as superintendent of schools. Throughout his career he has served as a teacher, principal and a Superintendent at several schools throughout the State of Michigan.

Mark Veeser was a dedicated and loyal teacher at North Central Area Schools for 31 years. He has taught in the very same community that his mother, Nell Veeser, and brother, Greg Veeser, also taught. His wife Barbara continues to teach there as well. Mark

Veeser not only shared his gift for teaching with the students of North Central Area Schools, he also shared his gift of coaching with hundreds of NCA students throughout the years. For 28 years he coached the Jets in many capacities. The lessons he taught his players on and off the field will live on forever. Coach Veeser led the following teams: 19 years with Varsity Football, 7 years with Junior Varsity Football, 4 years with Girls Track, 3 years with Junior High & Freshman Boys Basketball, 3 years as a referee and one year each with Junior High Girls Basketball and Varsity Boys Track.

Madam Speaker, the dedicated men and women who devote their careers to educating the next generation seldom receive the praise they deserve. I ask that you and my colleagues here in the United States House of Representatives join me in thanking these four outstanding individuals for their service and in wishing them well in their retirement.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, my amendment will facilitate a simple land transfer between the U.S. Coast Guard and the city of Marquette, Michigan.

The Coast Guard is currently located at the Coast Guard Station Marquette and Lighthouse Point in Marquette County on nine acres of land east of the Marquette Maritime Museum. This facility was originally constructed in 1891, and is the oldest of all U.S. Coast Guard lifesaving facilities in the Nation.

The Coast Guard is in the process of relocating to a new location just south of the Marquette Maritime Museum. This location will bring the Coast Guard closer to where their boats are docked and will help the Coast Guard respond to emergencies more quickly.

The City of Marquette sold this property for the new facility, 1.5 acres on the waterfront, to the Coast Guard for $1. In addition, the City of Marquette has committed $170,000 to reroute bike trails, make roadway improvements and other necessary infrastructure improvements in order to prepare the property for the new Coast Guard facility.

On April 7, 2008, the City of Marquette signed the official documents to turn over the City property to the Coast Guard. Upon moving to this new property, the Coast Guard will vacate their existing location.

My amendment will convey the property of the old Coast Guard facility to the City of Marquette. This is a straightforward amendment. The Coast Guard supports the conveyance of the existing property to the City. The City of Marquette is also in support of the land transfer, which would assist in accomplishing the goals outlined in the City's strategic Harbor Master Plan.

The Coast Guard Station in Marquette plays a vital role in responding to emergencies in the City of Marquette, the surrounding area, and on Lake Superior. This land transfer will facilitate a continued Coast Guard presence within the Marquette area. Without a well-equipped and state-of-the-art Coast Guard Station in Marquette, there would be virtually no presence of the Coast Guard between Sault Ste. Marie and Houghton, Michigan, which represents a stretch of at least 300 miles of shoreline on Lake Superior. This is a win-win for the Coast Guard and the City of Marquette.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment, and I encourage members to vote for final passage of the Coast Guard Authorization Act.

Vote ``yes'' on the Stupak amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the distinguished chairman.

The gentleman is correct, not only on Marquette but on the Christian Cornerstone Academy. We have been working to transfer this excess land. It would have been a straightforward transfer and supported by the Coast Guard to Christian Cornerstone Academy in the Sheboygan community.

I appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with us to have this inserted either at the Senate level or in conference. And, as always, I appreciate the gentleman's knowledge and wisdom on Coast Guard and Great Lakes issues, and look forward to continuing to work with him on this and thank him for his courtesies on this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his work to craft the Coast Guard Authorization Act, and for recognizing the need for a Coast Guard presence on the Great Lakes.

The Coast Guard Cutter ACACIA was decommissioned on June 7, 2006, after over 60 years of service to this country. The ACACIA has been stationed in Charlevoix, Michigan since 1990.

The ACACIA provided essential navigational and search and rescue services in the northern Great Lakes. This work is important for the safety as well as for businesses and individuals that rely on the Great Lakes. This year's cold winter showcased the need for a cutter presence when Beaver Island once again had to make an emergency call to the Coast Guard to break ice for a shipment of fuel for the island. This, unfortunately, is a common occurrence during the cold winter months, and this winter was exceptionally long and cold.

It is important that this new Coast Guard cutter or similar asset be stationed in Charlevoix. To facilitate this, I worked closely with the chairman to include language in the Coast Guard Authorization Act 2006 to require the Coast Guard Station to sustain icebreaking vessel capabilities in the Great Lakes. Unfortunately, the Coast Guard has ignored congressional intent.

I appreciate the chairman's support in our efforts, and I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member, and the chair of the Coast Guard subcommittee, to ensure that the Coast Guard honors congressional intent and provides adequate icebreaking services in the Northern Great Lakes.

I yield to the chairman for comment.

I thank the gentleman for his words. I thank the work from the chairman on all Coast Guard and Great Lakes issues. I thank Mr. Cummings and Mr. LaTourette for their help and support.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.