Bart Stupak

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. 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. STUPAK. 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. STUPAK. 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. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. 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.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. 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.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. 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.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. 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.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. 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.

Mr. STUPAK. 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. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. 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.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. STUPAK. 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.

Mr. STUPAK. 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.

Mr. STUPAK. 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.

Mr. STUPAK. 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.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. 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.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. We've passed energy price gouging legislation. We have a PUMP Act to take the speculators and close the Enron loophole. We've passed the renewable portfolio standard. We are moving forward. And we ask our friends on this side of the aisle to join us, not use a good bill like the Coast Guard bill to somehow say the Speaker is responsible. It was the President of the United States who said he would jawbone the Saudis to produce more oil to bring down our prices. He jawboned them all right, they jawboned right through to our pocketbook, with record prices at the pump, record prices of oil coming into this country. Pass the PUMP Act. We can reduce the price of oil by $30 a barrel, as testified on December 12, 2007 by experts before our committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee. Stop the unfair manipulation of prices. Lower the price of oil. Give the American taxpayers relief. And pass the Coast Guard bill to clean up our environment.

Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, I would like to associate myself with the comments of Mrs. Miller and Mr. Ehlers from the other side as they talked about this very important Coast Guard bill. I am from the Great Lakes State. In fact, I have more shoreline than any other congressional district in the continental United States. I have over 1,600 miles of shoreline on the Great Lakes. It is critically important that we pass this Coast Guard bill. But on this point, my colleagues on the other side use a very important bill like the Coast Guard bill to talk about energy, that somehow Democrats are not doing enough and somehow the Speaker is responsible for high oil prices. If you take a look, the Republicans have been in charge, until last year, for the last 12 years. What was their policy? Their policy has been no policy, do nothing, let the oil companies get away with it, record profits, record pensions to their CEO. Remember the $400 million pension for ExxonMobil? I guess I agree with Mr. Peterson, the last speaker, maybe we ought to lock them up. We ought to lock them up when you see oil prices, when President Bush comes in, at $27 a barrel, we're up to $119. And where is it going to stop? Why do you see this rapid increase? Well, an ill- advised war where everybody said when you get involved in a war in the Middle East, the longer you're there, the prices are going to go up. When you have no policy, sure oil prices are going to go up. When you pass, as the Republican Party did, the Enron loophole which allowed speculators to come into the market and drive up the price of oil, you're going to get these criminal record prices we're paying. So Mr. Peterson is right, we should lock them up. We should lock them all up. What have the Democrats done? Well, we've passed price gouging legislation, not once, but twice. And most of my friends on this side of the aisle, like Mr. Sessions and others who spoke here today, voted against it. How about the PUMP Act, Prevent the Unfair Manipulation of Prices. We have that legislation, all sponsored mostly by Democrats. I think we had two brave Republicans who came forward to help sponsor it. So what do we have here? You talk about refinery capacity. I'm chairman of Oversight and Investigations. A 1995 memo from the American Petroleum Institute to all the big oil companies was to say, shut down the refineries. You want record prices? Shut down the refineries. We have those memos. They're part of the Congressional Record. And what did they do? Between 1995 and 2002 they shut down over 30 refineries, including one just outside my district in Alma, Michigan, which used to refine 51,000 barrels a day, that's over 1 million gallons of gas, because there's 33 gallons of gas in every barrel of oil, they shut it down to increase the price so they could have their record profits, so they can pay their CEO a $400 million pension plan, so they can have $40 billion in profits, as we saw with ExxonMobil just last year. Democrats have been in charge now for, what, 16 months? What have we done?

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. I am proud to come to the floor to talk about solutions that the Democratic Party has put forth and this House has tackled in the last year. But let's not try to rewrite history, as we see being done on the other side. Let's remember when President Bush came to office in 2001, crude oil sold at $25.88 a barrel. When the Iraq war began, that terrible, misguided war, crude oil was $35 a barrel. Gas was approximately $1.56. In my district today, gas is $3.56. Crude oil is over $119. That is what the Republican policies have brought us, a bad war and gas and oil that we cannot afford. The Energy Information Agency says gas will be $4 this summer. Diesel is already $4. So what have the GOP and this President said they are going to do? Remember? He is going to jawbone his friends the Saudis to produce more oil so we would have it here in this country. Oh, he jawboned all right. He jawboned all the way up to record prices, record profits, where ExxonMobil can pay its CEO a $400 million pension with $44 billion in profits last year. Oh, boy, they jawboned all right. Their jawbone is chewing on our pocketbook and is hurting the middle class in this country. What have we done? The energy price gouging bill, H.R. 1252, which we passed last May 284-141. One hundred forty-one on the other side wouldn't even vote for us to stop the gouging of prices that we see day in and day out. This legislation would have provided the Federal Trade Commission with the authority to investigate and prosecute those who engage in price gouging, predatory pricing and other unfair practices. I don't know about you, but I am tired of seeing gas go up 30 cents like it did earlier this month in my district. One day, 30 cents. Now, if that is not excessive pricing, predatory price gouging, I don't know what it is. Let's take a look at the PUMP Act, a piece of legislation we have been working on since April of 2006, and we have plenty of cosponsors. We had a hearing last December, December 12. What did they say? Pass the PUMP Act to prevent the unfair manipulation of prices. Professor Greenberg said we could save $30 a barrel. For every barrel of oil that comes into this country, we can save $30 by getting the speculators out of the market. Why do we continue to allow speculators to run this country? They sure did a good job with mortgages, didn't they, with the subprime mortgages. That is why the values of our properties have gone down. Now the speculators are in the oil field, in the energy field. And why is that? Because of a little thing when the Republicans were in charge called the Enron loophole. The Enron loophole in 2005 allowed the speculators to come into the energy field, and therefore they have run up the price. What did the hearings show?

Mr. STUPAK. Ninety-five to 98 percent of those playing in this market have no intentions of taking possession of oil or providing a product. They are there for one reason, to rake all the profits off the American people that they can through their excessive speculations. This Democratic Congress has also passed a Renewable Energy Tax Act to help lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources. Look. Since this war started in Iraq, everything has doubled and tripled. We have heard nothing from the other side. This Democratic Congress continues to do things to try to curb the abuses we find in the energy field, that we find in manipulation of prices and speculation. We will continue to work towards that. To come down here and somehow try to rewrite history, it is just not going to work. It is important to note that tax breaks that are eliminated in the Renewable Energy Tax Act are equivalent to less than 1 percent of the oil companies' net income, but yet they complain.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Arenac County, Michigan on its 125th anniversary. On Friday, April 11th, I will be in Omer, Michigan to join local leaders and residents of the county at Arenac County's quasquicentennial kickoff celebration. Located at the bottom of Saginaw Bay on Lake Huron, the area we now know as Arenac County was recognized more than 500 years ago as an ideal place for settlement by Native Americans. The Rifle and AuGres Rivers made excellent fishing and canoeing routes for the Ottawa Indians and eventually early European settlers. It is these rivers and other abundant natural resources that have sustained the area these many years. Arenac County is rich in Native American history because of its abundance of hard chert and flint for arrowheads. Later, it was also an ideal location for European settlers. Most early settlers came from Canada, starting with the Scottish and English, and later people of French descent. Later came Germans, followed by Polish, Slavic and Balkan natives. The county traces much of its 125-year history to its logging roots. Michigan's logging industry developed around Michigan's white pine and hardwoods and the county was at the heart of it. In addition to abundant forest lands, Arenac County was ideally situated as a conduit to the lake for shipping lumber. The county also was the location of a 19th century summer resort hotel, to which guests arrived by ship. Its history was gradually reshaped due to the disastrous wildfires that eventually destroyed the logging business in the area. Once part of Bay and Saginaw counties, Arenac County was founded in 1883, during Michigan's post-Civil War lumber boom. In addition to lumbering, other early industries included shingle mills, farming, commercial fishing and brick and tile manufacturing. Michigan's first coal mine shaft was dug in Arenac County, and although it was never productive because of an inability to remove excess water, the shaft remains there today. The Rifle and AuGres Rivers continue to be favorite canoeing spots and provide ample opportunity for local fishermen. Arenac County's forests are favorite spots for hunting deer and small game. These areas, along with about 50 miles of Lake Huron shoreline, fuel the area's recreation and tourism economy. As the residents of Arenac County celebrate their 125-year history, I am honored to join them in commemorating this milestone. Madam Speaker, I ask that you and the entire U.S. House of Representatives please join me in honoring Arenac County, Michigan on its 125th anniversary.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation which would reauthorize the Beach Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act, or the BEACH Act. My district has over 1,600 miles of beach frontage on the Great Lakes, and the BEACH Act has been instrumental in providing funding to protect beachgoers from bacteria and other dangerous pathogens. Michigan residents rely on BEACH Act funding to protect them. In my district, residents on Sugar Island near Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, depended on this important funding to monitor water that had been contaminated with E. coli, coliform, and other bacteria. Without the support of BEACH Act grants, the Chippewa County Health Department would not have been able to determine that the pollution was originating from a wastewater treatment plant in Canada. This legislation would improve the BEACH Act program to ensure a fairer distribution of funds. In July of 2007, the Government Accountability Office released a report at the request of myself and several other Great Lakes colleagues. This report found that the EPA was using a funding formula that prioritizes States with warmer climates, ignoring other important factors such as beach miles and beach use. This formula put Great Lakes States like Michigan at a distinct disadvantage, making it more difficult for these States to protect their beachgoers. This legislation addresses this problem by instructing EPA to revise its funding formula to take factors such as beach miles and beach use into consideration. While monitoring water quality and tracing the sources of pollution to its origin are important steps to keeping our beaches clean, knowledge is only half of the battle. The July 2007 GAO report also found that while the BEACH Act has helped protect beachgoers from polluted waters, States still do not have the resources they need to clean up the pollution and prevent future problems. The latest survey by EPA has estimated that an additional $181 billion is needed nationwide for infrastructure projects eligible for funding under the State revolving fund. I look forward to working with Chairman Oberstar and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee later this year to address our water and wastewater infrastructure needs and provide resources for the State revolving fund. I appreciate the work of Mr. Pallone and Mr. Oberstar on this important legislation, and look forward to working with them as we continue to address important Great Lakes issues.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, and I ask them to vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit. The House bill is stronger than the Senate bill. The House bill provides stronger parity protections than the Senate bill for the same cost. The House bill requires parity in out-of-network benefits. The Senate bill does not. Out-of-network care is important where plans cover a limited number of providers and there are long waiting lists to access the care. The House bill requires coverage for all clinically significant disorders if the insurer chooses to provide coverage for mental illness. The Senate bill lets health plans pick and choose which diseases they will cover, so they could deny care for autism, eating disorders, alcoholism and more. And also, on this motion to recommit, when it comes to protecting human life, I stand with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. But this abortion provision in this legislation is a red herring. If this abortion provision was a problem, why would my colleagues, our colleagues, our friends in the Senate like Senator Coburn, Senator Brownback, Senator DeMint vote for it? I sit on the Energy and Commerce Committee where this bill came from. The abortion issue never was raised. Under the House bill, health care plans retain the right to make decisions about medical necessity, and nothing in this bill would overturn the ability of health care plans to impose a conscience clause and not cover certain services due to religious or moral objections. This was made part of Federal law in 2005 under the Abortion Nondiscrimination Act authored by Congressman Dave Weldon. That is the law today. Nothing in this bill would affect the Weldon amendment as we know it. Nothing in this bill would affect the ability of a plan to prohibit coverage of abortion either on medically necessary grounds or on a conscience clause. The bill provides for treating mental health services and physical services with parity. It doesn't address how plans cover physical, i.e., abortion services. The bill addresses the diagnoses plans must cover, but does not tell plans what specific benefits they have to provide for those diagnoses.

Mr. STUPAK

Mr. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, on February 27, 2008 the U.S. House of Representatives agreed to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5264 by voice vote. Had I been given the opportunity to vote on this measure I would have voted ``no'' on H.R. 5264, the Trade Preference Extension Act of 2008. In fact, prior to the voice vote on H.R. 5264, I sent a Dear Colleague with Representatives Dale Kildee and Marcy Kaptur to all Members of the U.S. House of Representatives urging our colleagues to vote against extending the Andean Trade Preference Act. The Trade Preference Extension Act of 2008 extends the Andean Trade Preference Act for another 10 months. Since the last extension, 8 months ago, Congress has still not adequately addressed fundamental problems of labor practices in the region and the agreement's effect on U.S. agriculture. Furthermore, with the on-going debate surrounding the Colombia Free Trade Agreement it is irresponsible to simply extend these preferences without thorough discussions. Originally passed in 1991, the Andean Trade Preference Act, ATPA, was designed to develop economic alternates to narcotics production in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. However, ATPA has failed to reduce cocaine production, but it has harmed American farmers. In both Colombia and Peru, the size and production of illegal drug crops has remained virtually unchanged. In a 2001 report to Congress, the U.S. Foreign Agricultural Service said that they ``do not believe that Peruvian asparagus production provides an alternative economic opportunity for coca producers and workers--the stated purpose of the Act.'' As a result of the ATPA, the U.S. had a $10 billion trade deficit with the four ATPA countries in 2006. Specifically, the asparagus and fresh-cut flower industries have been severely hurt by lower prices. Since the implementation of ATPA, asparagus acreage in the United States dropped from 90,000 acres in 1991 to under 49,000 acres in 2006. There are 40,000 flower workers in Ecuador and over 100,000 in Colombia working to grow, harvest, and package flowers. Unfortunately, these workers routinely experience labor rights violations including violations of the right to freedom of association. H.R. 5264 does not include stronger labor provisions. Before agreeing to extend the Andean Trade Preferences Act for a third time, Congress should have taken a closer look at damage it has done to American farmers and how it has failed to reduce illegal drug production in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru.