Date: 2005-10-07
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. went back. and we incorporated a lot of Speaker. I thank my colleague for what the gentleman from. Michigan yielding me time. 7 brought up in the debate. We included it in this managers amendment. So there is really no reason to vote for the Stupak substitute because much of what we have in the managers amendment is already included. As a Member on this side of the aisle. I wanted to thank the gentleman from Michigan for his help so that we are able to include in the managers amendment some of his points. and I think we made a stronger bill. I would say to those Members on both sides of the aisle. there is really no reason to support the Stupak amendment because lots of what he 4s talking about dealing with price gouging. as I mentfoned earlier in my speech. we have included in the managers amendment. There are some other things I would like to point out dealing with the Stupak amendment. It does not provide consumer protection against price gouging in the crude oil or home heating oil market. The managers amendment that I mentioned earlier offers these important consumer protections. The Stupak amendment caps damages -at $3 million per day. while the managers amendment allows for $11.000 per violation with no cap on the amount of damages that can be assessed. I think that is an important difference. and I think we should realize that is why the managers amendment is better. The Stupak 4mendment has a market manipulation provision that is current law. The managers amendment does not include this provision because the Federal Trade Commission has authority under. current antitrust law to enforce against market manipulation. The Stupak amendment includes petroleum distillates that are subject to pricegouging violations. Unfortunately. petroleum distillates. which are used in so many products that are sold to consumer product companies. such as cosmetics. could be subject to price gouging under this amendment. That is our interpretation. My colleagues might not agree with it. but that is an area we are coicerned about. If we have price gouging. it could affect such things as cosmetics. Overall. I think the point I am trying to make is. we incorporate a lot of the gentleman from Michigans concerns in our managers amendment. It made our bill stronger. We thahk him for what he did. In the end. I think my colleagues should realize we should vote against the Stupak substitute. I agree we should have legislation to prevent people from lining their own pockets by taking advantage of others in a time of crisis. However. I cannot support the manner in which Mr. STUPAKs amendment addresses the problem. The Stupak amendment will create serious problems for consumers at a time of disaster. There is no mechanism to allow p)dces to reflect the changes in the market dynamic following a disaster other than cost. The Stupak arfiendment defines price gouging violations with very subjective terms. such as "unconscionable" and "grossly exceeds". that will prove unworkable for the FTC. Instead. the FTC possesses a history of determining what is unfair under the FTC Act and we should rely upon their expertise to define price gouging. Because the amendment only accounts for price increases related to costs increases and does not include other factorssuch as fear or panic--it will artificially restrain prices that lead to shortages in gasoline at the time consumers in a disaster area most need access to gasoline. ThisL is because the amendment does not adequately allow for actual or anticipated changes in supply to be reflected in price. The Stupak amendment includes "petroleum distillates" that are subject to pricegouging violations. Unfortunately. petroleum distillates are used in so many products that selling distillates to consumer products companies. such as cosmetics. could be subject to price gouging .under this amendment. While it does provide supply and demand considerations as a mitigating factor. it does so only for dollar costs actually incurred by the seller. It does not allow the*FTC to consider countervailing benefits to consumers. namely that an increase in price can discourage hording by the first consumers to arrive at the gas station. leaving no gas for those who arrive later. The amendment is not adequately tied to a time of disaster. It gives the President authority to declare an emergency for any disruption of gasoline distribution or any significant pricing anomalies in the market. If exercised. this would interfere with supply. and demand and lead to shortages for extended periods of time. The Stupak amendment caps damages at $3 million per day while the. Managers Amendment allows for $11.000 per violation. with no cap on the amount of damages that can be assessed. The Stupak amendment has a market manipulation provision that is current law. The Managers Amendment does not include this provision because the FTC has authority under current antitrust law to enforce against market manipulation. The Stupak amendment does not provide consumer protection against price gouging in the crude oil or home heating oil markets. The Managers Amendment offers these important consumer protections.