The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Energy was published in the Senate section on pages S2624-S2625 on April 7, 2008.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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 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.
____________________
