mr. speaker , i thank the distinguished chairman for the time , and i come to the floor to speak against the stupak substitute . 
i would tell all my colleagues in the energy markup in the full committee , the gentleman from michigan ( mr. stupak ) xz4003910 did offer his amendment . 
it was defeated . 
i offered an amendment that was dealing with price gouging , and i won by only one vote . 
the gentleman from michigan ( mr. stupak ) xz4003910 did an able job of pointing out some of the things in my amendment that he felt were weak . 
so the chairman and i and others on the committee went back , and we incorporated a lot of what the gentleman from michigan ( mr. stupak ) xz4003910 brought up in the debate . 
we included it in this manager 's amendment . 
so there is really no reason to vote for the stupak substitute because much of what we have in the manager 's amendment is already included . 
as a member on this side of the aisle , i wanted to thank the gentleman from michigan ( mr. stupak ) xz4003910 for his help so that we are able to include in the manager 's 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 is talking about dealing with price gouging , as i mentioned earlier in my speech , we have included in the manager 's 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 manager 's amendment that i mentioned earlier offers these important consumer protections . 
the stupak amendment caps damages at $ 3 million per day , while the manager 's 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 manager 's amendment is better . 
the stupak amendment has a market manipulation provision that is current law . 
the manager 's 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 price-gouging 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 concerned 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 michigan 's ( mr. stupak ) xz4003910 concerns in our manager 's amendment . 
it made our bill stronger . 
we thank 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 can not support the manner in which mr. stupak 's amendment addresses the problem . 
the stupak amendment will create serious problems for consumers at a time of disaster . 
there is no mechanism to allow prices to reflect the changes in the market dynamic following a disaster other than cost . 
the stupak amendment 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 factors -- such 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 . 
this 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 price-gouging 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 manager 's 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 manager 's 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 manager 's amendment offers these important consumer protections . 
