Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have described my amendment at some length. I shall not do so again. But I do appreciate the courtesy of my colleagues, Senator Conrad and Senator Gregg. I ask that as you consider what you would intend to vote on as we move along this process, that you will give me the opportunity to have a recorded vote as early as is possible.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on March 5, 2008, I introduced a joint resolution of disapproval stating that the December 18, 2007, vote by the Federal Communications Commission to loosen the ban on cross- ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations shall have no force or effect. I am joined by Senators Snowe, Kerry, Collins, Dodd, Stevens, Obama, Harkin, Clinton, Cantwell, Biden, Reed, Feinstein, Sanders, Tester, Leahy, Feingold, and Boxer. We seek with this resolution of disapproval to reverse the Federal Communications Commission's, FCC, fast march to ease media ownership rules. The FCC has taken a series of destructive actions in the past two decades that I believe have undermined the public interest. On December 18, 2007, they took yet another step in the wrong direction. They gave a further green light to media concentration. The FCC voted to allow cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations in the top 20 markets, with loopholes for mergers outside of the top 20 markets. The newspapers would be allowed to buy stations ranked above fifth and above. The rule change was framed as a modest compromise. But make no mistake, this is a big deal. As much as 44 percent of the population lives in the top 20 markets of the United States. When nearly half of the people in this country are told that in their cities and towns the media will get the thumbs up to consolidate, they will not be happy. And with the loopholes in the rule, the FCC spurs a new wave of media consolidation in both large and small media markets. The last time the FCC tried to do this, the U.S. Senate voted to block it. On September 16, 2003, the Senate voted 55 to 40 to support a ``resolution of disapproval'' of the FCC's previous decision to further consolidate media. We warned Chairman Martin that if he rushed this vote we would have to use the resolution of disapproval again. On December 4th the Commerce Committee reported out the bipartisan ``Media Ownership Act of 2007,'' S. 2332 with 25 co-sponsors, requiring the FCC to give more time for public comment and study the issues of localism and diversity. The Chairman overlooked this bill. On the day before the vote, 27 Senators sent them a letter in opposition to such a rushed vote on the rules. He went ahead anyway. The FCC rushed towards a December 18th vote with a complete disregard for the process, let alone the substance of their ruling. They rushed to finish the localism and ownership hearings with as little as 5 business days of notice before the last hearings. The Chairman put out the proposed rule changes on November 13th in a New York Times op-ed--after the comment period had closed. He then didn't give the public nearly enough opportunity to comment on the actual rule changes that were voted on. He gave the public just 28 days to comment on the proposed rules. While he likes to speak of giving 120 days and six hearings around the country, this was prior to the announcement of what rules would actually change. And he ignored the public testimony anyway. This was hardly an open and deliberative process. It is a massive rush and a big mistake. This rule will undercut localism and diversity of ownership around the country. Studies show that removing the ban on newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership results in a net loss in the amount of local news produced in the market as a whole. In addition, while the FCC suggests that cross-ownership is necessary to save failing newspapers, the publicly traded newspapers earn annual rates of return between 16 and 18 percent. This Resolution of Disapproval will ensure this rule change has no effect. This is again a bipartisan effort to stop the FCC from destroying the local interests that we have always felt must be a part of broadcasting. It is time to ensure that we first protect localism and diversity, which the FCC appears to have long forgotten. Only then can we really review the rules of media ownership in a thorough process to see if it is actually in the public interest to reverse any of those rules, or if greater public interest protections are necessary.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration; amendment No. 4098.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered read.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this issue of imported products from abroad in an increasingly globalized world is a very significant and serious issue. I am not one who suggests we can retreat from the global economy. Clearly, the global economy exists. I would say the rules for the global economy have not nearly kept pace with the galloping movement of this global economy and, as a result of it, we have some very serious trade issues, we have imbalances in trade, we have the largest trade deficit in human history, we have the loss of American jobs being shipped overseas, and then we have, in addition to all that, we have products that are now made overseas, shipped into this country, that we have discovered are dangerous products. My colleague from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, under his leadership, and with others, have brought a bill to the floor of the Senate. I am on the Senate Commerce Committee, and I was pleased to work with them and play a very small role in helping create this legislation, but I wish to commend my colleague and others for bringing a bill to the floor that gives the Consumer Product Safety Commission some additional authority. Now, the Consumer Product Safety Commission is headed by somebody who didn't want the authority; didn't seem to think it was necessary, unfortunately. We need someone at the Consumer Product Safety Commission who is very interested, very alert, and very engaged on these issues. Because the fact is, these can be life-or-death issues. That is a plain fact. Now, the amendment I have offered, the second amendment, is relatively simple. I wish to describe it. It is an amendment that says the Consumer Product Safety Commission should have the authority to permanently ban imports from certain producers, foreign producers, that have shown a persistent pattern of shipping unsafe products to our shores. Let me repeat. This simply gives the Consumer Product Safety Commission the authority to ban imported toys from unsafe producers. Under this amendment, the Consumer Product Safety Commission would have the full discretion to decide whether a particular case warrants such a ban. I think it would shock most Americans to learn that there is no such authority that exists at the moment. We can have a company that sends us once, twice, 4 times, 5 times, 10 times or 20 times unsafe products into this country, and there is no authority for anyone to ban that company from shipping products into the U.S. marketplace. That is wrong. So let's say that a company, in this case let me say China--and I don't mean to pick on the Chinese, but the fact is 85 percent of the toys that come into this country are coming in from China--let's say a manufacturer has a complete and persistent record of painting their toys with lead paint. How often should we allow that company to be caught sending toys into this country with lead paint; lead paint that has a significant capacity to provide injury to children? How long should we allow that to happen? Under current law, the answer is, there is no limit. Hopefully, we will find the toys and prevent them from being on the store shelves. But at the present time, there is no limit, and no one has the capability to ban the producers from sending those products into this country. There are Chinese companies producing for U.S. brands that have had many repeated problems. In September, Mattel, Incorporated, announced the third massive recall in a 5-week period. At that point, Mattel found 848,000 Chinese-made Barbie and Fisher-Price toys that had excessive amounts of lead paint. Toys were pulled from the store shelves at that point, and that included Barbie kitchens, furniture items, Fisher-Price train toys, and Bongo Band drums, among others. The surface paints on these toys contained excessive levels of lead, which is prohibited under Federal law because, frankly, it is unsafe for children. Now, in addition to those recalls, Mattel has recalled nearly 9 million Chinese-made toys coated with toxic lead paint and other safety problems. The plastic preschool toys sold under the Fisher-Price brand in the United States include the popular Big Bird, Elmo, Dora, and the Diego characters. In June of last year, RC2 Corporation recalled 1.5 million wooden railroad toys and set parts from its Thomas & Friends. Most parents of young children will recognize Thomas & Friends, the wooden railway product line, which was made by Hansheng Wood Products factory using lead paint. So 1.5 million of these toys were headed to the store shelves in this country. Now, the question: Why would a producer anywhere use lead paint? Well, because lead paint is bright, it is durable, it is flexible, it is fast drying, and most of all, it is cheap. China mass produces lead paint and coloring agents such as lead chromate because they are generally cheaper than organic pigments. But lead is dangerous even in small quantities. We have known that for a long while in this country. Going back to 1978, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission made it illegal to use any paint containing more than 0.06 percent of lead for residential structures, hospitals, and children's products. We have known about lead for so long that Ben Franklin wrote about the dangers of lead. Ben Franklin wrote a letter about the bad effects of lead taken inwardly. Some 19th century paint companies advertised their paint in newspaper ads bragging it was lead free. So this isn't some new discovery, that lead is a problem and a potential human health problem. And it is no accident that some of these toys are containing excessive levels of lead paint. Because, as I said, lead is cheap, the contractors that are making these products are trying to lower costs, and they are not spending a lot of time wondering about human health issues. Now, let me describe this silver chain. This is a Chinese-made charm. This charm is an example of a heartbreaking case. This happened in March 2006 when a 4-year-old Minnesota boy died of lead poisoning after swallowing this small, heart-shaped charm that came as a gift with a purchase of Reebok tennis shoes. A little 4-year-old boy swallowed this, and this was 99 percent lead. The fact is, these kinds of circumstances can kill. Unsafe toys can kill. Jarnell died because a trinket, made of 99 percent lead, was included with a shoe, and that trinket was swallowed by a young child, and he is dead. Ann Brown, who headed the Consumer Product Safety Commission from 1994 to 2001--and by the way, I might say, she was an extraordinary public servant, did a wonderful job. She said there should be an outright ban on any lead in any toy product. She said: If I were at the CPSC now, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, I would say that trying to recall tainted products is like picking sand out of the beach: it is just not possible. I agree with that. The only way to make certain our products on our store shelves are safe, and especially toy products that are going to be used by our children, is to give the officials who are supposed to be monitoring this and regulating this the authority to permanently ban unsafe producers. Short of that, we are going to continue to see these problems. Then we are going to scratch our heads and wonder: Why do these still exist? The reason they still exist is the same companies are shipping us tainted products and unsafe products. This is not rocket science. We have seen the products, we have read about the products, we have heard about the products. They include, yes, a trinket with a tennis shoe; they include a small wooden toy painted with lead paint; they include toothpaste; they include cat food, contaminated shrimp, car tires--you name it. The question is, Who is going to stand up for and support the interest of American consumers? I think it has been the case that when these problems came to light and people lost their lives because of them, many of the producers, particularly some in China, said: None of this is true. These are problems that are exaggerated, and our products are safe. Then, in June, when there was a tremendous outcry here in the United States, regulators in China finally said they had closed 180 food plants and that inspectors had uncovered more than 23,000 food safety violations. China Daily, the nation's English-language newspaper, said industrial chemicals, including dyes, mineral oils, paraffin wax, and formaldehyde, had been found in everything from candy to pickles to biscuits to seafood. China announced on July 9 of last year that it had actually executed the former head of its food and drug safety agency for accepting bribes in excess of $800,000 in exchange for approving substandard medicines. Well, we know the problem. That is why we have a bill on the floor of the Senate. We know at least a part of this solution. The bill on the floor of the Senate is a good bill. But I have an amendment that would improve it, so that when you have a company that has a persistent and consistent and relentless problem of shipping unsafe products to this country, we can say: Stop, you cannot do it anymore. I read a while back about a guy in my home State who was picked up 13 or 14 times for drunk driving. Our State said: Stop. You cannot drive any more. It is over. We are not putting up with this. We ought to do the same thing with companies--not only in China but elsewhere--that send unsafe or tainted products that are unsafe for American consumers and especially children. We ought to do the same thing to companies that do that over and over again. If they are not willing to abide by the regulatory processes and by the standards we set and adopt in this country, then they are not welcome any longer to ship products to our store shelves. So I offer an amendment that would allow us at least the authority--not the requirement, the authority--to outright ban products from companies that have a record of persistent problems in sending unsafe or tainted products to our store shelves. Again, I wanted to say that as all of this has played out, this is all part of the global economy these days. You know, you produce somewhere and ship it somewhere else, and someone consumes it. I have spoken extensively about this, this issue of the global economy that has galloped forward, but the rules have not kept pace. This is one more area where the rules have not kept pace, and this underlying piece of legislation is an attempt to establish better rules. Now, the fact is, we cannot force this to work unless we have people in agencies who are hired and paid by the Federal Government who want to do their job. The fact is, we have had abysmal leadership at one of the agencies that ought to have been involved in stopping this. It is unbelievable to me that someone collects a paycheck and has a sense of self-worth if they are not interested in standing up for what their agency should stand up for, but that has been the case. So we bring a piece of legislation to the floor that is a good piece of legislation, that establishes new rules, rules that will provide for safety for American consumers. But we need better management and better leadership as well at some of these agencies who have decided they are going to stand up for consumers too. Amendment No. 4122 I wish to mention the second amendment I have offered, which is one about which I will not speak at great length. I wish to visit with the manager of the bill at some point. That is an amendment which would strike the provision that allows the Commission to certify a proprietary laboratory for third-party testing. I would like to see independent testing. Let me hasten to say I accept the good intentions, the good will of those who wish to test themselves, but in my judgment, when you have proprietary testing, it is a step or several steps away from independent testing. I wanted to talk to the manager of the bill about this amendment to see if we can find a way to at least make sure all testing that is done represents truly independent testing. Strategic Petroleum Reserve Mr. President, I wish to finish my comments with another point. Yesterday, I came to the floor, and I was going to offer an amendment, but there was an objection because my amendment is admittedly not germane. I will not attempt to offer it today. I understand others are not offering the nongermane amendments, so I will certainly not offer mine, except to say I intend to offer it every chance I get. I will find a crevice someplace on an authorization bill or I will do it on the Energy and Water appropriations bill that I write because writing the chairman's mark gives me an opportunity to simply write it in. It deals with this question of today, on Wednesday, we are sticking 60,000 to 70,000 barrels of oil underground in one of our domes to save it for the future, at a point when the price of gasoline is at $3, $3.50, going to $4 a gallon and oil is rocketing up around $103 a barrel and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, where we store oil underground for a rainy day, is 97 percent full. We have the administration taking oil from the Gulf of Mexico as royalty-in-kind from oil wells, and instead of putting it into the supply and converting it to money for the Federal Government, they are sticking it underground and saving it for a rainy day. This is, by the way, a subset of oil called sweet light crude. What that does is put upward pressure on oil and gas prices at exactly the wrong time. This is not rocket science either. Why would you pick the highest price of oil and say: By the way, the Federal Government has decided, in addition to all of the other issues out there with respect to energy policy, we have decided to see if we cannot put some upward pressure on gas prices, and they have. Government witnesses testified before the Energy Committee yesterday and admitted that this puts upward pressure on gas prices. So why on Earth would we stick 60,000 or 70,000 barrels of oil a day underground? That is unbelievable to me. It is going to double. There are going to be 125,000 barrels a day in the second half of this year, sticking it in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I now have a piece of legislation that would say: You cannot do that. There has to be a 1-year pause unless the price of oil goes back below $75. But if it does not, there has to be a 1-year pause, that the oil has to go into the supply, not underground. The Federal Government ought not be making things worse for consumers, you know. There are a lot of interests here that are causing American drivers to be burned at the stake, but the Federal Government is carrying the wood when it is putting oil underground. That makes no sense at all. We have OPEC, all of these other issues. We have unbelievable speculation in the market, with hedge funds and investment banks knee-deep in a carnival of speculation. We had a witness testify that the oil futures market has become like a 24/7 casino--never closes. The result of all of this speculation by people who are trading in oil--and they will never have the oil and never get oil, yet they are trading futures contracts and driving up the price every time as all of that speculation goes on. I think that deserves and needs an investigation. Our Federal Government has decided on a policy of taking oil out of the supply and sticking it underground. There is only one word for that; that is, ``nuts.'' We have to stop it. I was not able to offer this amendment on this bill yesterday, but I will be back with this amendment. In my judgment, we will have a vote on it in the Senate because we have the votes to pass it and say to this administration: Stop it. Put an end to it. Put that oil in the supply and put downward pressure on gas prices and downward pressure on oil prices. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 26, 2008, at 10:30 a.m., in the Missouri Room at Bismarck State College located at 1500 Edwards Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58501. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the challenges associated with rapid deployment of large-scale carbon capture and storage technologies. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Rosemarie_Calabro@energy.senate.gov For further information, please contact Allyson Anderson at (202) 224-7143 or Rosemarie Calabro at (202) 224-5039.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, March 6, at 10 a.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct an oversight hearing on the state of facilities in Indian Country-- jails, schools, and health facilities. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have an amendment I wish to offer. I will not do it at this point because in order to offer the amendment, I have to ask unanimous consent that the current amendment be set aside. I will describe at least what I am intending to offer. I am going to speak for a couple of minutes because there will be time later to consider this amendment. This amendment does not deal directly with the underlying legislation. It certainly deals with consumers and this bill deals with consumers. I first applaud my colleague from Arkansas for the work he has done on the bill. I have a couple of amendments to the bill that I will offer as we move along. But this amendment that I wish to offer deals with something else that is urgent and important, and either I get it done on this bill or the next authorization bill that comes along. The price of oil is somewhere around $103 a barrel at this point. It is bouncing around up in that stratosphere, and the price of gasoline, depending on where one lives, is $3, $3.25, $3.50, some analysts say going to $4 a gallon. Even as the price of oil has ratcheted way up, this Government of ours and the Department of Energy is taking oil from the Gulf of Mexico by awarding royalty-in-kind contracts to companies with to the Federal Government. Instead of putting this oil into the supply pipeline by allowing companies to simply sell it, our Government is actually putting oil underground in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I support the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but I do not support filling it when oil is $103 per barrel. Putting 60,000 to 70,000 barrels per day, every single day, underground makes no sense at all. That puts upward pressure on gas prices. The EIA Administrator estimated this morning at an Energy and Natural Resources hearing that the Government's action is raising prices about a nickel a gallon. The fact is, I believe it is more than that. In any event, I do not think we ought to be taking oil out of the supply pipeline as a deliberate policy of the Federal Government and sticking it underground in these caverns. That makes no sense to me. This issue came up in the hearing this morning. We have had hearings previously on this topic. I have indicated I intend to offer legislation. My legislation would do two things. It would say, at least for the next year: Let's take a pause on sticking oil underground and taking it out of the supply. Let's take a pause as long as oil is above $75 a barrel. When oil is above $75 a barrel, let's at least, for the next year, not be taking it out of the supply and sticking it underground. Here is what is happening. On this chart, these are places that our Federal Government is now putting oil underground--Bayou Choctaw, West Hackberry, Big Hill, and Bryan Mound. We are getting oil from the Gulf of Mexico and putting it underground in these salt domes. The price of oil is subject to a lot of things including excess speculation these days which I have described on the floor of the Senate previously. We had a hearing on this topic. Here are comments from Fadel Gheit, a top analyst from the Oppenheimer & company. He says: There is absolutely no shortage of oil. I'm absolutely convinced that oil prices shouldn't be a dime above $55 a barrel. Oil speculators include the largest financial institutions in the world are speculating on the future's market for oil. I call it the world's largest gambling hall. He is talking about the futures market on which these prices are made. I call it the world's largest gambling hall. . . . It's open 24/7. Unfortunately, it's totally unregulated. . . .This is like a highway with no cops and no speed limit and everybody is going 120 miles an hour. We have hedge funds that are speculating every day in a significant way in the oil futures market. We have investment banks that are speculating in the oil futures market. In fact, we now read that investment banks are actually buying storage facilities so they can take oil off the market, put it in storage, and wait until the price goes up. We have not had that before. This is not about a supply-and- demand relationship of oil. It is about speculators who are driving up the price of oil and a futures oil market that is rampant with speculation. Even as that is occurring and we see oil bouncing at $103 a barrel, we have a policy in the Federal Government to take oil from the Gulf of Mexico and stick it underground. That makes no sense to me at all. What we ought to be doing is, the royalty-in-kind oil we get from those wells that belongs to the people of the United States that comes to our Government ought to go into the marketplace to be sold, to be part of the supply system. The Federal Government gets the money for it because it was the Federal Government's payment for that oil as part of the royalty. The oil goes into the supply pipeline and, as a result of that, we put downward pressure on gas prices. Instead, as a matter of deliberate policy, our Government has decided to stick it underground in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It is now about 60,000 to 70,000 barrels a day, and it is going to increase to 125,000 barrels a day in the second half of this year. It is oblivious to all common sense to be putting upward pressure on gas prices as a deliberate policy of the Federal Government. It makes no sense. As I indicated, my amendment would very simply say: Let's take a pause; let's use a deep reservoir of common sense, take a pause during this year, during a 1-year period, that if the price of oil remains above $75 a barrel, we ought not put that oil underground. The average price, by the way, in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve of oil that has been stored is about $27 a barrel. Why on Earth would you buy oil at $103 a barrel, put upward pressure on gas prices, and stick that expensive oil underground? It makes no sense. I indicated that I do not intend to speak at length about this amendment. I have spoken about this before and will later. I see Senator Barrasso from Wyoming is on the floor. He was part of the hearing in the Energy Committee this morning. He and I talked about this subject. He and I have some of the same concerns. I visited with him, perhaps, about cosponsoring this amendment at some point. With that, I don't know whether we have been able to clear offering this amendment. I understand not at this point. In order for me to offer an amendment--in order for anybody to offer any amendment I have to ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside. So if I were to offer that, I understand that has not yet been cleared. My hope is we will be able to clear it so I will be able to offer this amendment later this afternoon. Mr. President, I have spoken with the manager of the bill and I will withhold asking unanimous consent to offer this amendment that I apparently cannot yet get. However, I would like to come back later this afternoon and hopefully we can clear my offering this amendment. I understand my colleague from Wyoming is seeking recognition. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to follow on the comments offered by Senator Reed of Rhode Island. This issue of the subprime mortgage scandal is a big one. It is affecting not just people who are losing their homes this week or next month; it is affecting all home values everywhere. We had this unbelievable bubble exist with respect to home values, but the collapse has been precipitous and has hurt a lot of people. It is a circumstance where people have discovered the mortgage interest rate they had not understood fully has been reset, they now have mortgage payments they can't possibly make, and they are discovering their home is gone. There is foreclosure on the mortgage. I wished to talk a little about what has caused all of this. This has been a trail of greed. When you look at the wreckage of this scandal, you see two trails--a trail of greed and a trail of tears. A trail of greed by some mortgage brokers, not all, some mortgage banks, not all, a good many hedge funds, not all, and speculators. They were all making a lot of money. This was great while the party continued. Then all of a sudden it was discovered that none of this made much sense. Let me describe what was happening and why it didn't make sense. Zoom Credit. You get up in the morning, brush your teeth and shave and you have a television set there and watch television in the morning and see the advertisements. Here is one, a company called Zoom Credit: Credit approval is just seconds away. Get on the fast track at Zoom Credit. At the speed of light, they will approve you for a car loan, a home loan, and a credit card. Even if your credit is in the tank, Zoom Credit is like money in the bank. It doesn't matter if you are not creditworthy. Come to us, we want to give you a loan. Millenia Mortgage Corporation: Twelve months, no mortgage payment. That's right. We will give you the money to make your first 12 months. And if you call in the next 7 days, we pay it for you. Our loan program may reduce your current monthly payment by as much as 50 percent and allow you no payments for the first 12 months. What they are not saying is that is all reset at the back end of the loan, which means the homeowner will pay a lot more for that mortgage. Countrywide is the biggest mortgage company. By the way, Mr. Mozilo, man of the year, was honored by everybody, made a lot of money, made a big old mortgage company bigger. Here is what they say: Do you have less than perfect credit? Do you have late mortgage payments? Have you been denied by other lenders? Then call us. That is the kind of business they are soliciting. Mr. Mozilo did real well, $142 million or so for himself. They all did well. Here is what they did. They put these mortgages out and in some cases they cold called people on the phone. People were in an existing home with an existing mortgage. They said: What are you paying for your mortgage payment? We have a new instrument we wanted to put you in at a 2-percent interest rate. Don't tell them there is an escrow payment, just tell them what the 2 percent payment will be. And don't tell them that 2 percent is going to reset, or quintuple in a couple years and they will not be able to pay it. We want to put you in a new mortgage. So a whole lot of unsuspecting folks went into these new mortgages. It all seemed too good to be true, and it was. But in the meantime, everybody was making money. There is the old story about in the old days when they were making sausage, they would take meat and sawdust and pack them together in the sausage, packing sawdust into sausage. That is what they did. They put out these subprime loans and the subprime loans were kind of attractive because, even as they were putting people into these new instruments, the brokers were making a fortune. I read that if they could make a $1 million jumbo subprime, they could get as much as a $25,000 payment up front for the broker. That is the broker's fee. So then the mortgage company now has a mortgage that is going to reset at a very high interest rate, and so then they package this up. They slice it and dice it with other mortgages. They package it up similar to sausage. And when they cut it up, they call it securitizing it and they start selling it. They can portray a much higher yield for this piece of sausage because they have these subprime mortgages in there, but nobody knows exactly how much is subprime and how much is real. Then they sell it to the hedge funds. The hedge fund thinks this is great. They are not making hundreds of millions of dollars. The top guys are making more than $1 billion in a year. They say: What we want to do is buy some of these securitized instruments. So they do. So the broker makes a lot of money. The mortgage company makes a lot of money. The hedge fund makes a lot of money. There are some people who are buying homes as flippers. They and the brokers were in cahoots. They also were greedy. The notion was, buy this home, get a 2-percent mortgage, you can flip it in 2 years because that housing bubble is going up. You will do nothing but make money. Then you had speculators, hedge funds, mortgage banks, and brokers. All of a sudden the whole thing wrecked, collapsed. Why? Because it never made any sense. It was a house of cards. You can't be putting a lot of mortgages out there to people who can't afford them, people who can't abide by the terms. I have described three companies, including the largest company, that said: You have bad credit? Come to us. I have also, in the Commerce Committee at a hearing, heard testimony about how the brokers' pitch went to borrowers out there who were in a home with a good mortgage, and they persuaded them, I think through terms that were never fully disclosed to the homeowner, to get a new mortgage, a new subprime mortgage. Then when it resets all of a sudden, this family is done. They can't possibly afford to stay in that home. Here is what the carnage is. This is FedEx Stadium. This is the largest football stadium in the NFL. It holds about 90,000 people, slightly more. Last month in January, we had foreclosures in this country in 1 month that meant about 20,000 more than are seated in this stadium are out of a home, in 1 month. In the next 2 years, it is estimated there will be 60 of these stadiums full of people who will have lost their home. Think of that. Now, there is a new credo here in this Chamber, apparently, this week. It is not even new, I guess. It is well practiced. It is by the minority: Don't just do something, sit there. This is an urgent problem, and all week long we have seen the minority decide, in two clotures motions, they would insist on 30 hours postcloture. What did that mean? That meant that starting Tuesday, midday, when I was on the floor with the Indian Health Care Improvement Act--the last thing we did this week was to pass the Indian Health Care Improvement Act on Tuesday--and then the minority insisted on two 30-hour periods, taking us to Friday, so that nothing could get done to try to address this housing issue, to try to address a very serious issue. By the way, this is not just affecting the people I have described. It is not just affecting the people who would sit in that stadium-- 120,000 people who are out of a home as of January. It affects every other home and every other homeowner. The folks around that home--in the neighborhood, in the community--their home values are impacted by homes that are now vacant whose upkeep is not guaranteed. There are a whole lot of folks who are affected by this, and this country's economy is affected by it in a very dramatic way. I know the President yesterday said he was surprised when a reporter talked about projections of $4-a-gallon gasoline. A reporter said: Mr. President, there are projections of $3.50 or $4-a-gallon gasoline. What do you think about that? The President said: Well, I have not heard of those. We have a lot of problems in this country. Gasoline and oil prices are one; the subprime mortgage scandal another; unbelievable speculation, for example, in the energy markets. Let me describe, for a moment, that issue. We are doing two things right now that are unbelievably inept and hurt every American. One, the Department of Energy--at a time when oil is $102 a barrel, and the price of gasoline is bouncing up, and there are some people thinking about getting a loan to fill their car with gas--the Department of Energy is sticking oil underground. We have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It is 97 percent full. The Department of Energy is taking oil coming off the Gulf of Mexico--royalty-in-kind payments to the Federal Government--and instead of putting that oil in the supply to put downward pressure on oil and gas, 50,000 to 60,000 barrels of oil a day right now are going underground into our domes to be saved. That is unbelievably inept, in my judgment. Why on Earth, when oil is $100 a barrel, would you take oil that belongs to the American people and put it underground? And they are going to go from 50,000 to 60,000 barrels of oil a day to 125,000 barrels of oil per day in the second half of this year. I have a piece of legislation to try to shut this down. I am going to do everything I can to stop it. Oil that is coming into the Federal Government ought to be in the supply pipeline to put downward pressure on oil and gas. It is that simple. I do not understand why the American consumer is being burned at the stake here with gas prices and the Department of Energy is carrying the wood. What are they thinking about? Now, there is another thing that is happening that, in my judgment, needs a full investigation by this Government. Oil is $100 a barrel, gas is $3, $3.50 a gallon, going, perhaps, to $4 a gallon. Who knows? We have had testimony before the Senate Energy Committee by experts who say there is not one bit of justification for oil being more than $55 or $60 a barrel. The supply/demand fundamentals in no way justify current prices of oil. Here is what is happening. Hedge funds are neck deep in the futures market for oil, speculating on oil futures. Investment banks are neck deep in the oil futures market. In fact, for the first time, some investment banks are actually buying oil storage. Now, why would an investment bank want oil storage? Buy oil, take it off the market and store it because when prices increase you sell it and you make money. There is a carnival of greed, in my judgement, in the oil futures. This is an unbelievable amount of speculation. Nobody is paying much attention to it. It is not very sexy. I know of very little reporting on it, even. But you have two things happening to the American consumers in this area of gas prices and the cost of energy that are just unbelievable. One is, we are sticking oil underground when we should not be, to take oil out of the supply. That is the Federal Government doing that. No. 2, we have unregulated hedge funds--and most hedge fund activity, as you know, is not subject to regulation--and an unbelievable amount of speculation by hedge funds, investment banks, and others in oil futures has driven this price well beyond the justification of the price of oil, given the supply-and-demand relationship. That is something we have to deal with. That comes on top of and at the same time we see the wreckage that comes from this housing scandal--the subprime loan scandal. As I said before, some are content to sit around here and thumb their suspenders and act important and look important and wear their blue suits but do nothing. Is that why one gets elected? Is that why one aspires to public service: to do nothing in a time of urgency? I think this economy faces great peril for a lot of reasons. We have a trade deficit that is the highest in history. Two billion dollars a day we import more than we export. We have a budget deficit that is way out of control, way off track. The President says: Well, my budget deficit that I propose is $425 billion for this coming year. No, it is not. He has asked to borrow $700 billion for this coming year--$700 billion. Now, you put that $700 billion with a $700 billion trade deficit and you are talking about borrowing, in 1 year, almost $1.4 trillion--10 percent of the value of our economy. It is unbelievable to me. This country is off track and we have to fix it. One portion of it is energy. One portion is trade policy. One portion is fiscal policy. Today I was talking about a subprime loan scandal that is affecting housing, and housing is an engine in this country. Housing is a very important economic engine. That is why we want to pass a stimulus package dealing with housing to try to at least catch and at least deal with--in a responsible, appropriate way; not rewarding speculators, but trying to help homeowners--we want to do that in a way that will begin to shore up and provide some foundation to an economy that is in trouble. Mr. President, I have said what I have come to say. I think there is a lot to do. It is very important for the Senate to take action. I hope next week will be a better week than this week. We do not need delays. We do not need stalling. What we need is action. We need bipartisan action working on pieces of legislation that will improve this country's economy and reach out to those folks in the trail of tears, in the wreckage of the subprime loan scandal, to say to them: We want to see if we can find a way to help you keep your home. Home ownership is a very important part of American life. The housing industry itself is a very important engine of opportunity for this county's economy. My hope is we can do something important in the next week that will address both of these issues. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I would not try to make a deal on behalf of the majority leader, but my guess is that if the other side is agreeable to amendments that deal with housing, we would probably have an agreement. Every time we put something on the floor, we get an abortion amendment or an amendment to provide tax breaks for wealthy people. I would guess that if there are housing amendments, Senator Reid will want to visit with Senator McConnell about this. Strategic Petroleum Reserve Mr. President, I want to speak for a moment about what happened today. cnnmoney.com says: Pain in the pocketbook within a few weeks. Gas could cost $3.50 a gallon. By spring, the price could hit $4 a gallon. While there are predictions of $3.50 and $4 a gallon for gasoline, we still have the U.S. Department of Energy putting oil underground in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. They have been putting 50,000 and 60,000 barrels a day. By the way, in the second half of the year, I have been told that they plan to put as much as 125,000 barrels a day. When the price of oil is around $100 a barrel, as it was trading at $102 barrels earlier today, it is putting upward pressure on gas prices. Our Government is taking oil from the Gulf of Mexico in the form of oil-in-kind transfers and putting it into a reserve. Instead of putting that oil into the supply pipeline to reduce prices, they are sticking it underground. The Energy Information Administration indicates that, on average, the price of regular gasoline last February was $2.22; in August, $2.78; in February, $3.02; and it is headed north. Yet, the U.S. Government takes royalty-in-kind oil, and our Department of Energy is sticking it underground in big salt caverns to save it for a rainy day. They are putting it in the SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I support the SPR, but it is about 97 percent full. Why on Earth would we put upward pressure on oil and gas prices to take $100-a- barrel oil and stick it underground? Here is where it is going: Bayou Choctaw, West Hackberry, Big Hill, and Bryan Mound. These are the locations where the Department of Energy is sticking it underground. It makes no sense at this time when prices are so high. I have introduced bipartisan legislation and intend to try to move it on an appropriations bill, if I must, to stop this. There is no reason to take 50,000 or 60,000 barrels a day out of supply. This especially includes sweet light crude. This is a subset of all oil, sweet light crude, which is even more valuable. We have heard testimony at a hearing before the Energy Committee that indicates that this diversion of light sweet crude could add as much as $10 to a barrel of light sweet crude trading on the market. It is putting upward pressure on prices. In addition to this, there is unbelievable speculation going on in the futures market. Fidel Gheit, with Oppenheimer & Company, testified: There is absolutely no shortage of oil. . . . I am convinced that oil prices should not be a dime over $55 a barrel. Oil speculators include the largest financial institutions in the world. I call it the world's largest gambling hall. It is open 24/7. Unfortunately, it is totally unregulated. This is like a highway with no cops and no speed limit and everybody going 120 miles per hour. Investment banks are buying their own storage capability to keep the oil off the market. As he says, this is a 24/7 gambling hall. Who pays the price for this unbelievable speculation? It is the American consumer that pays with ever higher prices for oil and gasoline. There are experts who say the price of a barrel of oil is trading at least $30 above where it is justified in being, given all other issues between supply and demand. In addition to this lack of regulation of hedge funds and other activities in this carnival of greed, there is excess speculation in the futures market. On top of that as I have indicated, our own Government is making it worse by taking oil and sticking it underground. It is not rocket science when oil is where it is and gasoline prices are where they are and headed north. The President, when asked about that today in the news conference, said, ``I have not heard this $4 issue.'' Well, read the newspapers from time to time. Gas prices are going through the roof. This Government is sticking oil underground and putting upward pressure on prices. There is no justification for doing this. We ought to have a pause, and we ought to say to the Administration that the 50,000, 60,000, or 70,000 barrels a day being put in storage today is impacting prices. It may be 125,000 barrels in the second half of the year if the Administration gets its way. This oil needs to go into the supply stream, and that would put downward pressure on gas and oil prices. Some say, well, it is a populist issue. You ought to produce more domestically. Here is where we should produce. Some of us were cosponsors of a bill that became law in 2006 to begin that production in what is known as the Lease Sale 181 area of the Gulf of Mexico. I agree with that. The Gulf of Mexico is our greatest resource asset. I think putting this oil in the ground at this point is nuts, and we need to stand up for consumers and for a decent price for oil and gas. We ought not have a government policy that makes things worse. My understanding is that my 5 minutes is up. I will speak about this subject later.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I know we are on a 30-hour postcloture period dealing with a piece of legislation related to Iraq. I want to speak about something else today, but let me at least begin by describing a somewhat different view. The fact is, Saddam Hussein was hung until he was dead, hung by his neck, and this brutal tyrant is dead. I suppose most of us wish that Osama bin Laden had been brought to justice, but it is Saddam Hussein who has been brought to justice in the country of Iraq. He is dead. The Iraqis have their own Constitution because they voted for it. The Iraqis have their own Government because they voted for it. The American taxpayer has spent $16 billion training 350,000 police and soldiers in Iraq for security purposes. Now the question is: Do the Iraqis who have been trained for police protection and security--both in the police force and as soldiers--do they have the will to provide for their own security? If they do not, this country cannot do it for any great length of time. We have been in Iraq for almost 5 years. Some day we are going to leave Iraq. The question is not whether; the question is when and how. The American people are not going to have us in Iraq for 10 and 15 and 20 years. That is not the case. We are spending massive amounts of money, about $16 billion a month. Last year the President asked for more than $190 billion in emergency funding for the war. That is $16 billion a month, $4 billion a week. It is time we begin to understand we have needs here at home, to begin taking care of things here at home. We are spending money on hundreds of water projects in Iraq. We are spending money on road- building in Iraq. We are spending money on health clinics in Iraq. Yet we get a President's budget sent to us saying we don't have enough money for those things in our country. We will dramatically cut water projects in the United States. We will cut back on all of these investments in the United States, even as we are making those substantial investments in the country of Iraq. My point is that at some point we are going to have to bring American troops home. We can't keep doing as the President suggests, and that is spending emergency money by sending soldiers to Iraq and putting this on top of the debt so that when those soldiers come back from Iraq, they can help pay the debt. That is not the right way to approach what is happening in the country of Iraq. All of us want the same thing for our country. We want our country to succeed. We want our country to confront and defeat terrorists. Yes, we want Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden is the person who heads al-Qaida. We are told by the Director of National Intelligence that he is safe and secure in northern Pakistan. There ought not be one square inch on the face of this Earth that is safe or secure for those who murdered Americans on 9/11. Yet more than 6 years later, this administration has not brought the leader and the leadership of the terrorist organization that attacked our country to justice. That is a failure, in my judgment, and it is a failure that results from taking our eye off the ball and having too few troops in Afghanistan and allowing Osama bin Laden to escape through Tora Bora, and then invading Iraq and committing ourselves to that over a lengthy period of time. The result is the greatest terrorist threat--according to the National Intelligence Estimate, the greatest terrorist threat against our country at this point is the leadership of al-Qaida. They are in a safe and secure haven in northern Pakistan. It seems to me that 7 years after 9/11, that has to be considered a failure. My hope would be all of us would engage in ways that begin to devote our attention to the greatest terrorist threat facing our country, and that is, as the National Intelligence Estimate says, the leadership of al-Qaida. They are recruiting and building new training camps and strengthening themselves even as we are tied down in the country of Iraq spending $16 billion a month. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 15 minutes on another subject.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, this is a picture of a man named Woodrow Wilson Keeble, a Sioux Indian. Woodrow Wilson Keeble died 26 years ago. If you take a look at this soldier's medals, you will see two Bronze Stars, a Silver Star, the Distinguished Service Cross, the second highest medal given in our country, and Purple Hearts. I want to tell my colleagues about Woody Keeble, a big man, well over 6 foot, and well over 200 pounds. On Monday of next week at 2:30 in the afternoon, at the White House, President Bush will present the Medal of Honor to Woody Keeble. As I said, he has been dead for 26 years. His wife Blossom Keeble died last summer. We had hoped this would be done before his wife died, but that was not to be the case. I want to tell my colleagues about him because it is so unusual that a Medal of Honor will be presented posthumously to a soldier who demonstrated great acts of courage and heroism in both the Second World War and the Korean war. He was a Lakota Sioux born in Waubay, SD, and grew up in Wahpeton, ND, and lived most of his life there. He was wounded at least twice in World War II and three times in the Korean War. Let me describe what he did so that my colleagues will know why he is being given the Medal of Honor all of these years later. In World War II Woody Keeble served with the famed 164th Infantry Regiment of the North Dakota National Guard. Shortly after joining in 1942, he found himself on Guadalcanal, in some of the most aggressive and dangerous hand-to-hand combat in the Second World War. He was in combat in the South Pacific until the war ended. He saw a great deal of combat. One of his fellow soldiers said the safest place to be was next to Woody. Woody earned a Bronze Star and Purple Heart in the Second World War. Woody was an unbelievable soldier. Then the Korean War came along and at age 34 this Lakota Sioux Indian signed up again. He said: Somebody has to teach the kids how to fight. So he went to Korea. He was attached to George Company, 2nd Battalion, 19th Infantry Regiment of the 24th Division. They were near the Kumsong River in North Korea in October of 1951. He was the acting platoon leader of the 1st platoon of ``G'' Company. Casualties were very heavy. Because the company's officers were killed, he ended up in charge of the 1st Platoon, the 2nd Platoon, and the 3rd Platoon. It was brutally cold in North Korea at the time, and the enemy, the Chinese, were entrenched on a hill with a rugged cliff, and the side of that mountain was a very difficult thing that the U.S. troops had to take. So Woody Keeble, in charge of these three platoons, made three attempts to take that hill from the Chinese. The Chinese had three machine gun nests on top of the hill and soldiers in trenches defending that hill. Three times these platoons, with Woody leading them, went up the hill, and three times they were repulsed and rejected, with heavy casualties. After three attempts to take that hill, Woody Keeble decided he would try it by himself. With grenades and a Browning Automatic Rifle he crawled back up the hill to the Chinese positions. Witnesses said he crawled through very heavy machine gun fire and through a blizzard of grenades. Woody Keeble scaled the hill, went around the pillboxes and knocked out all three machine guns by himself and then cleared out the trenches between them. When he returned they extracted 83 pieces of shrapnel from his body--83 pieces of shrapnel. But he wouldn't leave the battlefield until all of his men were on top of the hill and in a defensive position and only then would he allow himself to be evacuated. Right after the engagement all of the surviving members of G Company signed a letter putting him in for the Medal of Honor. It got lost and never got from the battlefield to the Pentagon. They did it a second time a month later and it too never got from the battlefield to the Pentagon. But in this photo, my colleagues can see the medals he did get: multiple Purple Hearts, wounded five times; two Bronze Stars, a Silver Star; the Distinguished Service Cross, the second highest medal. He was a well-decorated soldier. He went to Korea to help teach those kids how to fight and it turns out he is the one who climbed the hill and saved his soldiers, knocked out three machine gun nests by himself. Many years later the question was asked: Why was he not given the Medal of Honor? Those with whom he served began piecing together the action that day, all of those who were eyewitnesses and a part of the action on that hill in North Korea. A woman named Merry Helm especially took it upon herself over the years to try to reconstruct Woody's story. It took a lot of time to do so. Then it was sent to the U.S. Secretary of the Army with a request that he review the original request that had never been received at the Pentagon that Woody Keeble be awarded the Medal of Honor. The Secretary of the Army looked into the case and decided that Woody Keeble had indeed earned the Medal of Honor. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs agreed. But then all the people involved were informed that there is a 3-year statute of limitations on the request for a Medal of Honor. The Secretary of defense could only consider Woody's case if that statute of limitations was waived. At the request of those who had worked on it, I and my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, and our colleagues from South Dakota, Senator Johnson and Senator Thune, introduced legislation on an appropriations bill that waived the 3-year statute so the Secretary of the Defense could look at this case and decide. The Secretary of the Defense began evaluating what happened on that hill in North Korea on a cold day when Woody Keeble was a real hero. He eventually decided, having looked at all the information, that, indeed, this Lakota Sioux Indian who served this country in two wars, was wounded five times, deserved the Medal of Honor. He sent it to the White House with the recommendation that the President approve the Medal of Honor. This coming Monday, at 2:30 in the afternoon, I will be at the White House witnessing a ceremony at the invitation of the President in which the President Bush will present a Medal of Honor posthumously to a really remarkable, courageous American soldier named Woodrow Wilson Keeble, the only Sioux Indian ever to have received the Medal of Honor, someone who served this country with unbelievable courage and distinction and valor. After the Korean war, he came back to Wahpeton, ND, and worked at the Wahpeton Indian School much of his life. He suffered multiple strokes, suffered significant health problems, and died 26 years later. The moment won't pass without some notice because the President is making a presentation on Monday. However, I wanted to say something here on the floor of the Senate so those who read the Record of the Senate will understand this was an extraordinary American. We are hearing a lot of discussion these days about the bill on the floor of the Senate dealing with Iraq and about who stands up for soldiers, who cares about American soldiers. The fact is, every single person in this Chamber cares about American soldiers and wants to support them, understands that they get up in the morning in some parts of this world--in Iraq especially--and they strap on body armor before they go out because they know there is a chance they can be killed or harmed. All of us understand what soldiers are doing for this country. I believe the one thing that unites this Chamber is we want to do right by American soldiers. The story of Woody Keeble is a story that ought to inspire all of us about what soldiers do for our country. I have told my colleagues previously about another soldier, another American Indian. His name was Edmund Young Eagle. He was from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North Dakota. He went to war. He was in northern Africa, he was in Normandy, he was in Europe. He came back and lived with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. He never had very much. He had kind of a tough life. At the end of his life, he was lying in a hospital bed at the VA hospital in Fargo, ND. His sister asked if I would get the medals he earned in the Second World War and never received. I did, and I took them to the VA hospital on a Sunday morning in Fargo, ND. The doctors and nurses crowded into his room, and Edmund Young Eagle--who at the time I didn't know was going to die 7 days later of lung cancer. Edmund Young Eagle was a sick man but very proud that morning. We cranked his bed up to a seated position, and then I pinned on his pajama top a row of medals this American Indian had earned serving his country in the Second World War. As sick as he was, he said quietly to me: This is one of the proudest days of my life--seated on his hospital bed wearing his pajama tops with his military medals. There are so many whose names we will not talk about on the floor of the Senate today, but I do say Woody Keeble and Edmund Young Eagle are just two of thousands--millions of American soldiers over the years who have refreshed this democracy by being willing to risk their lives. I wanted to call to the attention of the Senate Woodrow Wilson Keeble. I am enormously proud of him and his family and his memory, and I am anxious to be at the White House on Monday when he receives posthumously the Medal of Honor. Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I wish to make a couple of additional comments on another subject. The price of oil is bouncing around at $100 a barrel, the price of gas is up to $3.00, $3.50, or more per gallon. There are people who kid about having to take out a loan at the bank to fill their gas tank. The question is, What is happening with oil? Let me tell you something. In the Energy & Natural Resources Committee this year, we have had witnesses testify that there is not a bit of justification for the price of a barrel of oil to be over $50 or $65 a barrel right now. So why is it $100 a barrel? Two reasons. One is that we have unbelievable speculation, a carnival of greed, with hedge funds and speculators neck deep in the futures markets speculating on oil. We have investment banks for the first time that are actually buying oil storage tanks so they can buy the oil and keep it off the market in order to sell it later when the price is higher. There is unbelievable speculation in the futures market pushing up oil which has nothing to do with the fundamentals of supply and demand, and there ought to be a full and complete investigation. I am asking the GAO to do that. The other issue is one that I find preposterous, and I am going to do everything I can in the coming days and weeks to stop it. Do you know that even as the price of oil is bouncing up at $100 a barrel of oil, this Government, this Department of Energy is putting oil underground for storage? We are awarding royalty-in-kind contracts to companies to take oil out of the Gulf of Mexico and instead of them selling the oil and putting it into the supply to put downward pressure on price, we are putting 60,000 barrels every single day underground in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Having the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is fine. Save it for a rainy day, save for our security, put some away--I understand that. But why would you do that when oil prices are $100 per barrel? The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is 97 percent full, and we are taking 60,000 barrels per day and sticking it underground? That is preposterous. Toward the second half of this year, the Department of Energy will be putting approximately 125,000 barrels per day underground. There ought not be one additional barrel go underground at that point. It ought to go into the supply. I used to teach a little economics. I understand supply and demand. If you decrease supply, you increase price. It is just a fact. So this administration, by taking this royalty-in-kind oil from the Gulf of Mexico and sticking it underground into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, is pushing up the price of oil and gas. In fact, we had a witness in the Energy & Natural Resources Committee who testified that the Department of Energy is taking light, sweet crude off the market to put into the SPR. That is a subset of oil, a much more valuable kind of oil. One witness said just that amount-- sticking it underground by this administration could have increased the price of oil by as much as $10 per barrel. What is our Government doing increasing the price of oil by 10 per barrel? What do they think? Does somebody have their wires crossed someplace, and could they please see if they can figure out maybe with some common sense what they ought to do when oil is $100 a barrel, and that is stop putting oil underground and put it into the marketplace so we put some downward pressure on gas prices? I introduced legislation that puts an end to this practice. I am chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that funds the Energy Department's programs, including the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I say to the Secretary and to those who made this decision: One way or another, I am going to win on this issue. We are not going to allow you to continue to stick oil underground when the price of oil is $100 a barrel and the price of gas is ranging up between $3.50 and $4 a gallon. We are just not going to allow you to continue to do that. This Congress is going to use some common sense and say stop it. Mr. President, that was therapeutic to say. My hope would be that at some point soon I will have a chance to offer that amendment, and we are all going to have a chance to vote on it. I will insist we vote on it. I believe this Congress is going to tell this administration to stop it, use a reservoir of common sense; don't stick oil underground when it's $100 per barrel. Put it into the supply, and put downward pressure on the price of oil. How about standing up for the American people and American drivers? Let's do that. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3897

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4015 Withdrawn

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we have reached agreement, and I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 4015 be withdrawn.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we have also been in discussions with Senator DeMint, and we are prepared--and I believe it has been agreed to on both sides--to accept amendment No. 4066 without debate. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized following the remarks of the Senator from Minnesota.