Bush Grudgingly Signs Oil Bill
Despite Strong Congressional Support, President Says Halting Reserve Purchases Is Bad Idea
-
Photo
President Bush, accompanied by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, speaks to reporters about the economy, May 19, 2008, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. (AP)
-
Interactive
Oil and Gas:
Fossil FuelsLearn more about energy costs and usage in your state and get the latest prices for gasoline.
"The president is not going to stand in their way on this bill," said deputy press secretary Scott Stanzel of Congress' overwhelming vote for the measure. Mr. Bush signed the measure without comment.
In a bipartisan rebuke, the Senate last week voted 97-1 and the House 385-25 for the legislation, margins suggesting that a veto could be easily overridden.
Earlier, the president and White House officials had spoken out strongly against the measure, although there wasn't a specific threat to veto it.
"He remains against it," Stanzel said. So why is he signing it? "I think he saw the overwhelming numbers of members of Congress who want to attempt to have an impact on prices by stopping the fill of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve."
"Congress keeps ... going from Band-Aid to Band-Aid that they think will have an impact but really won't," Stanzel said.
Sponsors of the bill said they hoped to lower energy prices. But the administration said the amount of oil involved was relatively small and would have no effect on gas prices.
The reserve, a system of salt caverns on the Louisiana and Texas Gulf coast, is 97 percent full, holding 701 million barrels of crude. The stockpile, currently sufficient to cover two months of oil imports, is kept as a cushion in case of a major disruption of oil supplies.
Not waiting for the bill to be enacted, the administration on Friday suspended oil deliveries into the reserve for the rest of the year.
The Energy Department said it would not sign six-month contracts, scheduled to have begun July 1, for the acceptance of 76,000 barrels of oil a day. The department also indicated it would defer deliveries under existing contracts once the legislation became law.
© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



- 1
- 2
- next
See all 65 Commentswhy isn''t anyone proposing incentives for efficiency in consumption? give a 100% tax deduction for (cost of) vehicles w/ mpg ratings over 70mpg. 200% deduction for vehicles over 100mpg.
you''ll have every car manufacturer suddenly finding a way to build these types of vehicles.
an energy policy should not just be another place to drill for oil ... ***.
All the US Congress memebers should be very proud, thier great vote to sacrafice 70,000 bls a day in a 21 million brl a day soceity is laughable.
Obviously, they have, in effect, spit into the ocean.
Pitiful !!
Any lawmaker who has more than two terms should be fired out and replaced with a new untainted blood.
[Posted by maxify55 at 04:45 AM : May 20, 2008]
looks like the ''demobrats'' must have picked up a few more seats when nobody was watching.
"In a bipartisan rebuke, the Senate last week voted 97-1 and the House 385-25 for the legislation, margins suggesting that a veto could be easily overridden. "
the ''idiot in charge'' only vetos the things the ''other half of the country'' wants.
Of course he thinks it''s a bad idea, he''d rather do anything, than to help the poor and middle class.
Of course, 3 months from now you will hear that the troops in Iraq are running out of fuel, due to the reduction of these strategic oil shipments.
Mark my words, that''s what we''ll hear!
Posted by dowjones20k at 05:34 AM : May 20, 2008
Hmmm, excuse me, but hasn''t this been done before? Like, many, many times?
OK, then. That means the problem is we keep voting for politicians who allow the money people to have the last word.
People don''t count in this system, money people do. Can you pay to get your congressman''s attention? If you don''t have a lobby, don''t bother.
It''s clear to me that Americans are confused on who to elect because of their irrational fears. So if you have someone who is unashamedly a socialist but has what it takes to be a great and honest politician, people will simply not vote for him because anything related to socialism is taboo.
So we''re not even considering the issues, we''re just reacting according to how the mass media has conditioned us to react.
Ralph Nader? The media says he''s bad, therefore he has to be bad.
We will never solve our problems if we limit the type of people we can elect into poltical office. It''s amazing that all you need in the US to blacklist people who have the brains and integrity to fix our problems is for some radio and TV hosts to be screaming about them.
If we''re unable to educate ourselves and trust our own instincts then we''ll never vote for people who deserve to be in Congress.
you''''ll have every car manufacturer suddenly finding a way to build these types of vehicles.
Posted by bobnjersey at 05:30 AM : May 20, 2008
Uhh I doubt it .... becasue no one could afford to purchase them .. have you gone out and bought your hybrid?
There has been NO energy policy in this country for decades .. just political banter.
Maybe Americans could use thier superior arrogance to stop driving so much ... maybe some pol somewhere could start asking the public to conserve and STAY HOME?
Nahhhh that would be too easy ..... our pols are too stupid and the public is too selfish to sacrifice.
Stanzel''s solution? "let it bleed."
He considers it a bad idea because it just might help the working class families Of America....
Lower the speed limit back down to 55.
Outlaw private jets. Make the oil execs and gov officials fly commercial like the rest of us. (conserve gas and help the airline industry)
then give 10+ billion bonus to any car co. that can make a vehicle that will go 350 miles at 70 miles and hour without using gas. It makes a whole lot more sense than using that money in the middle east like we''re doing now.
The oil companies only make about $.08 on a gallon of gas. Once you believe that, you will believe anything. Hey, I have a bridge in New York.....
Posted by ranger1948
President Bush is absolutely correct. The Band Aid action by Democrats will do nothing. The problem is the same. The United States is the only Modern Industialized Nation on Earth that has not built an oil refinery in 30 years. It is the law of supply and demand. The Arabs say they can ship more oil but, we are producing at 100% of capcity. We have no ability to refine more oil. So the supply stays low and the demand stays high. And while our population has grown from 200 million to over 300 million, the only solution Democrats have ever had was to move the population to communues where everyone will smoke dope, hold hands and sing songs. These are the same Democrat law makers that want to run the country.
[Posted by dowjones20k at 06:08 AM : May 20, 2008]
saying it can''t be done ... or wont work ... is self fulfilling. nobody would be able to own one if they didn''t make them. being able to afford doesn''t seem to stop anyone from buying everything else they own (cars, boats, houses).
many would be able to afford it if you give them the 100% (cost of vehicle) tax deduction. at $4/gallon ... and climbing ... the savings in fuel costs alone would justfiy the initial expense for those who drive nominal distances daily.
second vehicle is a 2006 honda civic hybrid. cost just about 10% more than the 2003 grand am it replaced ... in 2006 dollars.
One of the biggest wastes of oil in our country.
Until it becomes more profitable to conserve energy than to waste, this country won''t change. The greed never ends.
[Posted by demslie at 07:59 AM : May 20, 2008]
you''re such an ignorant moron. is there anything ''the idiot'' has done that you don''t agree with? i suppose begging his old friends ''the sauds'' was a great idea ... only to be snubbed publically.
check the story again ... oh myopic one ... it''s not the democrats policy ... it''s nearly a uniform vote.
Posted by demslie at 07:59 AM : May 20, 2008
I''ve heard worse ideas coming out of congress. Ever hear of the bridge to nowhere?
Now that was an idea! Wasn''t it?
Posted by demslie at 07:59 AM : May 20, 2008
The only communes I am aware of in recent times are the ones run by Christian fundamentalist nuts, which are closely tied to your fuhrer, the Decider-In-Chief.
You''re right about no new refineries being built, though. And I''ll give you one guess about the party affiliation of the oil company executives who make the decisions about building new refineries. I''ll even give you a hint. It''s spelled "REPUBLICAN".
It is absolutely amazing that there is still anyone supporting this idiot, or his party.
"I hate Bush" and the Democrats forget there was ever a question.
[Posted by demslie at 08:31 AM : May 20, 2008]
so what session between 2001 and 2006 did the republican controlled congress bring this up for a vote? how about a committee? how about sweet whispers in each other''s ears?
was this the thing that cheney wanted to keep so secret from the rest of those they allegedly represent in 2001?
you need some serious de-programming.
[Posted by demslie at 08:31 AM : May 20, 2008]
so what session between 2001 and 2006 did the republican controlled congress bring this up for a vote? how about a committee? how about sweet whispers in each other''''s ears?
was this the thing that cheney wanted to keep so secret from the rest of those they allegedly represent in 2001?
you need some serious de-programming.
Posted by bobnjersey at 09:00 AM : May 20, 2008
This would not even make it into the political arena, once big oil, big business got wind of it. Big oil, big business = GOP...
[Posted by faith_in_w at 08:51 AM : May 20, 2008]
are you waiting for the actual vote to be spoon fed to you in a talking point from rush, sean, or ann? if you can actually read .. here it is:
"In a bipartisan rebuke, the Senate last week voted 97-1 and the House 385-25 for the legislation, margins suggesting that a veto could be easily overridden."
demslie and yourself might be able to get a discount on the de-programming efforts if you go together.
Drudge is headlining the jpost article claiming Bush plans on attacking Iran before the end of a great American error, 1/20/09. Could this be why we need to fill the reserve?
Posted by faith_in_w at 08:51 AM
Are you obtuse or just a troll?
-----
and Bush has the jumbo band-aid: Iraq
Given the distinctly "chilly" reception that the Great Emperor got from the Arabs on his recent trip, the Great Emperor is concerned that without the oil going into the reserves, the government won''t have the oil to keep its war machine going in the Middle East.
Of course, it gives the Great Emperor Bush as well as VP Darth Vader Cheney and "Bagdad John Bomber McBush" McCain, an excellent excuse to go into Iran and wage war there. Cheney would use the old argument that the captured Iranian oil would pay for the war in 5 years; just like it did in Iraq(!!!???). McCain would argue that we don''t talk to "terrrrrrorists", even when they are elected to that post by their own people!
Where have we heard all this before???
And, naturally, BIG OIL would continue to price gouge us all at the pump!!!
SIG HEIL, BUSH!!!!
sig heil, DEFINITELY MORE OF THE SAME, McCain!!!!
Meanwhile the tree and animal-haters can only think of drilling absurdly expensive well sites in Arctic nature preserves.
Supposedly we are sitting on 2-trillion barrels of oil shale reserves with no real effort to exploit that either with 2/3 of being on federal land.
It''s not a free market economy it''s totally manipulated and I pukeup everytime I hear one of these jackals discuss how the free market determines the price of oil.
Instead of the president going over and kissing Saudis feet he should have been threatening them with shock and awe since their favorite son Osama Bin Bush has made a laughing stock of us.
Which is actually very true. It''s really sad to see so many US politicians who have no idea what to do or how we got here.
Are you really tired of paying $4.00/gal? Thank an environmentalist democrat. No drilling, no nuke plants, no new refineries.
But the caribou are loving life! :)
Posted by rafterman1 at 09:41 AM : May 20, 2008
How do you know?
If congress wants to lower gas prices stop funding W''s war! Oil prices will come down and we can stop borrowing money from China to pay for it and that will result in higher dollar value and again lower the cost of gas again.
But the caribou are loving life! :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by LibH8er at 10:00 AM : May 20, 2008
And the Republican controled Washington from 2000 - 2006 did what to address this problem? If you live in a glass house you shouldn''t throw stones!
Posted by skyhawk761 at 10:09 AM : May 20, 2008
And the democrat controlled congress since 2006 has done what to solve ANY problem?
Posted by rafterman1 at 10:08 AM : May 20, 2008
I did. Some left coast refineries are curtailing due to gloooooobal warrrrrrming issues. As far as I''m concerned, they deserve everything they get.
If the losers in CA have to pay $22.00/gal that''s fine by me.
Posted by LibH8er
---------------------------
Unfortunately, what affects CA will have an effect on the rest of the country...Hey! I''m all for getting a horse...They don''t use gas, and their "emissions" can fertilize the garden.
The last new refinery was built in 1976 (the result of extremely tight environmental restrictions, not-in-my-back-yard community opposition, and the high cost of new construction.)
Posted by msay3 at 10:58 AM : May 20, 2008
I''d have to move a LOT closer to work! :)
Bush still against it.
Bwaaahaaahahaaahaaaaaahaaa!
see? the man has been doing this on purpose his entire presidency.
this man is truly insane and a bad human being to boot.
we have a bad lunatic as a president.
great. Mussolini, Hitler were bad lunatics, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.
Now you Dimwitocrats can put a Dimwit in the white House--$6.00 a gallon can not be far behind that! LMFAO!!
Posted by thgdriver
Now this is funny! This idiot is talking about us DEMs putting a dimwit in the Whitehouse. Who is more of a dimwit the "W" and just look at the last 8 years. Sir, you are a fool and should be on here apologizing and begging for forgiveness for helping the most, incompetent, corrupt administration in history come to power. You neocons are absolutely retarded. Have you got the slighest bit of brain?
Posted by faith_in_w
Our wonderful President? LOL :). Little lady, I have this terrific bridge in NYC that I would like to sell you dirt cheap. Or maybe you might be interested in buying my summer home that I call the Whitehouse on Pennsylvania Avenue that I could give you a great deal on. :)
[Posted by LibH8er at 10:48 AM : May 20, 2008]
nearly every bill that passed by ''the shrub'' between 2000 - 2006 was rubber stamped ... responsible for increasing the national debt by nearly 30% in just 6 years.
nearly every bill that passed by ''the shrub'' between early 2007 and now has been vetoed ... responsible for complete gridlock in getting anything done.
so ... why didn''t ''your boys'' address the issue while they had the rubber stamp out?
this is the real ''inconvenient truth'' that none of you can answer ... for any issue you bring up. refineries, drilling, conservation, war, veterans, economic policy, ethics, etc.
replying with another question is not an answer to the initial question.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 65 Comments