[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5219-5220]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, before I leave the Chamber, I do wish to 
mention the Energy Department has made an announcement last week which, 
once again, stands logic on its head. They have announced they would 
continue putting oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve underground. 
They are putting about 60,000 barrels of oil underground right now, at 
a time when the price of oil is $100 or $110 a barrel. They are busy 
putting 60,000 barrels a day underground.
  It makes no sense at all. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is 
where we store underground that amount of oil we want to use in an 
emergency is 97 percent full. So the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is 97 
percent filled at a time when oil is at a record high. This 
administration is taking sweet light crude oil, which is a subset of 
all oil, and a highly valuable subset of oil, and putting 60,000 
barrels of oil a day underground.
  They have announced beginning in August of this year, they hope to 
get contracts to do just that. We know that in addition to that, they 
want to increase that, almost double that, to be around 120,000 barrels 
a day underground for the second half of the year. They are going to 
use their royalty-in-kind authorities and likely some of the $585 
million they had received when they sold reserves because of supply 
disruptions caused by Hurricane Katrina.
  So here is where we are: We have oil prices that are akin to a Roman 
candle, going right through the roof, and instead of doing things that 
would put downward pressure on oil and gas prices, the administration 
is taking oil through royalty-in-kind transfers, oil payments off the 
Gulf of Mexico wells, and sticking it underground in the Reserve and 
taking it out off supply.
  I mean, that absolutely makes no sense at all. I followed a car once 
down

[[Page 5220]]

a road in North Dakota, an old beat-up car with a back bumper hanging 
by one hinge. He had a bumper sticker, and the bumper sticker said, 
``We fought the gas war and gas won.''
  I thought, that is not so unusual. I mean, the other side always 
wins. But at least this administration, this Congress, ought to insist 
that we not put oil underground and stick it in the Reserve, when it is 
97 percent full. We have to pay $110 a barrel for it and you take oil 
out of supply, which puts upward pressure on gas prices.
  I do not understand who is advising them, but whoever is, I hope 
perhaps they can find someone with a little deeper reservoir of good 
judgment att the moment to suspend putting oil underground in the 
Reserve.
  I have a piece of legislation I have introduced that does the 
following: It would suspend immediately the putting of oil underground 
in the Reserve for the remainder of 2008 unless oil comes back below 
$75 a barrel. But as long as it is over $75 a barrel, and the SPR is 97 
percent full, let's at least stand up on the side of the average family 
out there that is trying to figure out how they can get a bank loan to 
fill their gas tank.
  Let's see downward pressure on gas prices rather than allowing this 
administration to announce on Friday they want to continue to put 
upward pressure on gas prices by seeking to enter into contracts to 
continue filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  Now, the Secretary of Energy says: Well this does not matter much. 
This is a small amount. It is 60,000 barrels a day. What he does not 
understand, I think, is it is a subset, this is sweet light crude, the 
most valuable subset of oil we have.
  We had testimony before the Senate Energy Committee that clearly 
indicates this is putting upward pressure on gas prices. We do not know 
how much. One expert who came before the Energy Committee said 10 
percent. But why should we sit idly by and have the administration have 
a policy of taking oil off the market and putting it underground, 
especially the sweet light crude?
  This is not a debate about whether it is increasing gas prices, it 
is. The debate is simply: How much does it increase gas prices, and why 
should we have anyone in this town busy doing things that increase gas 
prices? How about standing up for the driver? How about standing up for 
ordinary families for a change?
  So I wished to say I noted the press release put out by the Energy 
Department as a matter of policy. They are wrong, dead wrong. One way 
or another we are going to deal with it. I chair the subcommittee that 
funds the Department of Energy. I will have a chance to write the 
Chairman's mark. That will be a couple months from now. But I 
definitely intend to deal with that in the Chairman's mark. But I hope 
before then we can stop 60,000 barrels or more of oil a day from going 
underground because that is a policy that, in my judgment, flies in the 
face of good sense.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, is the parliamentary procedure 
that we are on the Mortgage Foreclosure Protection Act?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At the present time, we are still in morning 
business.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I will speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I do wish to say a word about 
the Mortgage Protection Act, the protection against foreclosure on 
mortgages. Last Thursday, I had offered an amendment that will be 
considered perhaps tomorrow and will be voted on and it is a 
commonsense amendment which says that in order to save somebody's home 
and not have their mortgage foreclosed on, if they have a pile of cash 
sitting over in their retirement account, the 401(k), that they would 
be able to go in and get $25,000 out of their 401(k) retirement plan to 
use in order for them to forestall a foreclosure upon their home and, 
therefore, stay in their home.
  Now, that is plain common sense, to be able to do that, pull it out, 
without paying the 10-percent penalty under current law that you would 
have to pay in order to take money out of that retirement fund and set 
it aside. Why is it common sense? Because the symmetry of the current 
law is you can take money out of the retirement fund without paying the 
penalty in order to buy a home. If you can do that to purchase a home, 
why would you not want to give a homeowner the opportunity to keep 
their home from foreclosure by allowing them to go into the retirement 
fund or 401(k) fund?
  It makes common sense, and I am hoping the Senate is going to 
favorably consider that when we vote on this amendment. It is offered 
by me and a host of other Senators who are cosponsors.

                          ____________________