PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 111-67.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 4, 2009
Strategic Petroleum Reserve Modernization Act of 2009 - Amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to require that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) contain at least 30 million barrels of refined petroleum products.
Directs the Secretary of Energy to submit to the President and, if the President approves, to Congress, a plan for inclusion of such products in the SPR.
Prohibits drawdown and sale of SPR petroleum products unless the Secretary determines that: (1) the drawdown and sale are required by a severe energy market supply interruption or U.S. obligations under the international energy program; or (2) a sale of refined petroleum products will mitigate the impacts of weather-related or other natural events that have resulted in a severe energy market disruption.
People & committees
Sen. Bingaman, Jeff [D-NM] · D–NM
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 111-67.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (text of measure as introduced: CR S5081)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S5080-5081)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.967 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.967 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.967 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.967 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.