First, I want to thank the Chairman for convening this hearing today.

I think the subject of high gasoline prices in an important one; indeed, my wallet is a little lighter every week after I fill up my car at the gas pump.

This morning we are here to discuss gasoline price gouging. This is a topic we have considered in the Energy and Commerce committee in the past. Prices rose after Hurricane Katrina knocked a significant amount of this country's refinery capacity offline and some unscrupulous retailers took advantage of that.

In my home state of Texas, we have tough anti-price gouging laws on the books. After the Governor declares an emergency, the Texas Attorney General can file suit. Anyone convicted of price gouging faces civil penalties of from $10,000 to a maximum of $100,000 per violation.

Price gouging is illegal in more than half the states, but to ensure that citizens in those remaining states were protected, we included anti-price gouging language in the Gasoline for America's Security Act, which was passed by this Committee under the leadership of then-Chairman Barton.

The House also passed a stand-alone anti-price gouging legislation sponsored by Energy and Commerce Member Heather Wilson. I supported both of those measures when they passed the House.

However, I have grave concerns about the Stupack bill, specifically regarding its lack of clarity in defining "unconscionable." I believe that this ambiguous term could lead to severe supply shortages in a time of emergency.

Under this proposal, a gasoline station owner could receive civil and criminal penalties totaling $5 million and ten years in prison for charging "unconscionable" prices. Yet there is no clear definition for "unconscionable."

To add insult to injury, if a gas station were to charge less than the market price, it could also be subject to charges of undercutting the market. If I were a gasoline station owner in a time of crisis, I would probably shut down my pumps.

I'm not defending those who would price gouge. I firmly believe that if it is determined that illegal pricing has occurred, it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

But we must make sure that we do not create a climate which causes business owners to stop selling gasoline rather than face losing their businesses -- and their livelihood.

If we do move forward with a bill such as this, I believe that we should use the highest burden of proof available for both civil and criminal penalties to ensure that we protect the small business owner from unjust damages. If this bill proceeds through regular order, as it should, I plan on introducing an amendment which would require the courts to use the clear and convincing burden of proof standard if civil damages are sought. While this measure does not fix the inequities in the bill, it would require the highest legally permissible burden of proof standard to be used for civil damages. Mr. Chairman, if you want to hold mom and pop shops accountable for selling gas at an undefined “unconscionably excessive” amount, then it seems only fair that the courts apply the highest burden of proof standard. Mr. Chairman, I hope that I can work with you to add this language to your bill.

I understand that we have a number of industry representatives who will be testifying before us today and there are surely an even greater number listening in the audience.

I have a message for you to take back to your companies. Teach the American people the cost of making gasoline; explain your business.

The Energy Information Agency publishes a primer on Gasoline Prices -- share this with your customers. This graphic appeared in The Hill last week -- post this on your gas pumps. Help to educate consumers.

Because if the American people do not understand, you will get something far worse than the Stupack bill. You'll get a windfall profits tax, and we all remember the long lines at the gas pump in the 1970s.