Bart Stupak

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. And when you take a look at it, what we expect our refineries to do is refine enough for each day as we go along. And they did, and we had more than the previous 5 years ever. So if this supply crisis, as you seem to indicate there was, 5 years ago we should have seen it--4 years, 3 years, 2 years, 1 year. This is the most we've ever had, and they're claiming there's a supply problem?

Mr. STUPAK. Sure. And I thank the gentleman for his comments because he's absolutely right. The refineries are getting squeezed. In fact, some of the smaller refineries are actually refining diesel and gasoline at a loss because the base price of crude has skyrocketed. And as the gentleman is well aware because he has attended the hearings we've held jointly when you were Chair, and now as I'm the Chair of O&I, it's the excessive speculation. I know that's the second half of our comments here tonight, so I look forward--but the gentleman is right. And that's why so many of the refineries and the Members who represent the oil patch parts of our Nation have supported my legislation, the PUMP Act, Prevent the Unfair Manipulation of Prices, that take out the excess speculation which is causing the base product, crude oil, to just skyrocket. So I thank the gentleman for his comments. He's right. I would agree with him. And later on we'll get to talk about speculation, and I look forward to the comments.

Mr. STUPAK. I don't disagree with Mr. Westmoreland, what he had to say there. The only thing I would say is that's why we are saying we've got 68 million acres, let's drill or not. You know, I come from northern Michigan; we have no oil, we have a lot of trees. And when you get a contract to cut timber on the Federal forest, you get your current year plus 5, if not, you lose that right. Because in order to grow our trees and have a prosperous forest, you've got to prune it out and we have to cut. Same thing with oil. If we want to access U.S. oil, why are they sitting on these leases when the leases have been approved for drilling and all the environmental standards have been met? And if supply is the problem, as you claim-- and I'll grant you, that's part of it--then let's do it. No more excuses, let's drill. You've got 22.8 million acres in Alaska that can be drilled on right now, but instead we seem to be focused on ANWR. I'm not even talking about ANWR, I'm talking about the Alaska Petroleum Reserve area, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve area, National Petroleum Reserve area. In Alaska, 22.8 million acres we could actually drill on right now today, permits are approved, everything is ready to go. Do it. Use it or lose it.

Mr. STUPAK. Very briefly, I would just ask, whether it's ANWR or the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, would the other side, would the minority side agree and put into the legislation that all oil or gas discovered there or produced there would come strictly to the United States? Because what we see in ANWR and Prudhoe Bay, that oil goes around Laotian islands, it goes to Japan and China because it's actually closer and they get a higher price. So will you say that the oil in Alaska will come for U.S. citizens to be used for American energy?

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. 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.

Mr. STUPAK. 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.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. 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. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. 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.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. 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.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. 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.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. 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.

Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.

Mr. STUPAK. 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.''

Mr. STUPAK. 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.

Mr. STUPAK. Would the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. STUPAK. 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.

Mr. STUPAK. No.

Mr. STUPAK

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

Mr. STUPAK. 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).

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mr. STUPAK. 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. STUPAK. 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.