“The Senate on Wednesday turned its back on raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards in favor of a lesser measure that probably will have little or no impact on the amount of oil - most of it imported - consumed by American vehicles. The price for that unfortunate vote will be paid by American drivers and American security … how can anyone argue that the United States needs to limit its consumption of oil but not view higher CAFE standards as a legitimate way of doing that?” -- The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 14, 2002 _______________

“Rather than raise gas mileage standards, U.S. Senate caves in to scare tactics.”

“Some reasonable souls in government simply want to make her Cherokee more fuel-efficient, saving the country barrels of imported oil and saving her money at the pump. But the U.S. Senate didn't have the guts.”

“Scare tactics and disingenuous arguments triumphed yesterday as senators passed up a great chance to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil by raising gas mileage standards …senators contended Congress didn't have the expertise to set fuel standards. Yet in the next breath, the Senate passed a measure capping the fuel standard for pickup trucks at 20.7 miles per gallon.” -- The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 14, 2002 _______________

“…the Senate rejected higher gasoline-mileage standards, apparently persuaded by automakers that fuel-efficient cars and trucks would be smaller and more dangerous. By that logic, the only way we can protect our families is by driving around in armored vehicles … What's needed to reduce air pollution, conserve energy AND save lives is good-old American ingenuity, prompted by enlightened public policy. But Washington's supply of the latter is all but depleted.”

“The Senate will continue debating energy policy for several more days. Then its bill will have to be reconciled with a House measure. So some of these crazy ideas could change. But for now, it looks as if the best energy strategy the nation's greatest deliberative body can devise is a requirement that we fill gas-guzzling cars with either a slippery poison or an expensive pollutant. Fine balance, indeed.” -- The Keene Sentinel, March 14, 2002 _______________

“THE SENATE'S defeat of a plan to increase fuel-efficiency standards for U.S. cars and light trucks was not done so much to promote traffic safety or appease soccer moms or save the rest of us from the kind of "purple people- eating" micro-cars that cruise European streets … No, the lopsided defeat this week was merely a tribute to the power and unswerving recalcitrance of the nation's auto industry.”

“How could they reject a plan to improve air quality, cut dependence on foreign oil and mitigate global warming while soccer moms still tool about in oversized vehicles? Sadly, since a similar House measure has also failed, the fast-talking, overposturing auto industry has again succeeded in sellng us all a lemon.” -- The San Francisco Chronicle, March 15, 2002 _______________

“Senators rejected tighter fuel-efficiency standards for fear of putting soccer moms in golf carts. Or so they say. What a dump-truck load of political balderdash.”

“… the National Academy of Sciences says automakers could build safe, more efficient and aerodynamic vehicles that would get much better gas mileage, and at a reasonable cost … Mom could have her SUV and burn less gasoline per mile. She'd like that. Her kids would be healthier and face a brighter future … But the senators knew all of this. They picked industry interests over the environment, and ran behind a soccer mom's skirts for cover.” -- The Roanoke Times & World News, March 15, 2002 _______________

“The Senate voted 62-38 Wednesday not to require the auto industry to improve fuel efficiency. In other words, it left in place mileage standards adopted in the mid-1980s. The senators decided any improvement would be too expensive or too dangerous (because vehicles would be lighter). But that defies common sense. Technology does progress, after all, including fuel-efficiency technology. Surely we can do better in the future than in the past.”

“Opponents of the bill pretended it would force people into "golf carts" or tiny 70-mpg two-seaters. They must have felt unable to make a serious case against the bill.”

“The Senate did pass a bill that would require the Bush administration to come up with new mileage standards. That appears to be approximately nothing, given the administration's close ties to the energy industry and its anti-regulatory bent.” -- The Dayton Daily News, March 15, 2002 _______________

“If you needed any evidence that Congress isn't serious about lessening the nation's dependence on foreign oil, look no further than the Senate's resounding defeat this week of higher fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles. The conservation measure … was run over by auto-industry lobbyists.” -- The Wichita Eagle, March 15, 2002 _______________

“… the United States has only increased its dependence on foreign oil, the Achilles heel of the economy. The Levin-Bond reprieve cannot be the last word on CAFE … there should be standards.” -- The Detroit Free Press, March 16, 2002 _______________

“Like a mastodon knee-deep in a tar pit, the American automobile industry is sinking under its own weight from its inability -- make that refusal -- to adapt and evolve. And, once again, its thrashing and bellowing have brought lawmakers in Congress rushing to the rescue … the Senate voted 62-38 to drop higher gas mileage requirements for cars and trucks from its version of a comprehensive federal energy bill. So, without stricter fuel economy standards … [or] until Congress has the good sense to stay out of tar pits -- or gas prices quadruple -- we're doomed to go the way of the mastodon.” -- The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 16, 2002 _______________

“The U.S. Senate's rejection of higher fuel-efficiency standards Wednesday keeps the nation dependent on imported oil, Caves in to the auto industry and its unions, [and] Disregards a National Academy of Sciences study … “

“Kerry's proposal would have put SUVs and minivans in the same category as passenger cars - which is where they belong because that's what most of them are … With the Senate joining the House in refusing to increase fuel-efficiency standards, Congress says it is OK to continue to burn oil without regard for the environment, conservation or dependency on unpredictable sources that have the nation, literally, over a barrel.” -- The Westchester Journal News, March 17, 2002 _______________

“Senate flunks Fuel 101 … Not content with mere inaction, the Senate actually made the situation worse … the Senate approved a watered down amendment [and] they approved a provision that exempts pick-up trucks… Sadly, the Senate chose auto industry rhetoric over national security, fuel independence and common sense.” -- The Sacramento Bee, March 17, 2002 _______________

“There has been a conspicuous lack of effective leadership in Washington on the issue of setting higher fuel economy standards for vehicles - unless you count auto industry lobbyists deftly leading Congress by the nose … Clearly, the standards should be raised substantially. They haven't been increased in 17 years, despite significant technological advances that make greater fuel economy possible.”

“Higher standards will cut fuel consumption. That will reduce air pollution, decrease America's heavy reliance on foreign oil and save motorists money at the pump. Why can't Congress figure that out?” -- The Fort Worth Telegram, March 17, 2002 _______________

“Shame on Senate for Punting on Auto Emissions … Congress [instead] should have set a hard mileage target ...” -- NY Newsday, March 18, 2002 _______________

“… the Senate approved a virtually meaningless measure that puts CAFE standards in the hands of federal transportation officials under control of the White House. This is not progress for a nation that should be weaning itself from foreign oil. Senate opponents of the tougher CAFE requirements seemed more interested in political protection than energy independence. On the whole, motor vehicles get about the same mileage they did 20 years ago. That’s not good enough in today’s world …” -- The Toledo Blade, March 18, 2002 _______________

“The U.S. Senate punted on the subject of setting higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks (including SUVs) last week, a disappointing failure of duty.” -- The Miami Herald, March 18, 2002

“… the Senate this week foolishly shied from the consequences of requiring all vehicles to run an average of 36 miles per gallon by 2015, up from 24 now.” -- The Raleigh News & Observer, March 18, 2002 _______________

“Just how dumb do they think Americans are, these U.S. senators who voted against a major energy security measure on the pretense of protecting soccer moms and preserving the pickup truck? Do these leaders, Democrats and Republicans, want us to believe that making a sport-utility vehicle get more miles per gallon would force mothers to drive their shin-guard-clad darlings around in golf carts? That fuel-efficient pickups would endanger the family farm? … What is surprising is that so many lawmakers should reiterate such nonsense on the Senate floor.” -- The Los Angles Times, March 18, 2002 _______________

“U.S. Senate should reverse [its] stand … The U.S. Senate dealt energy conservation a severe blow last week in rejecting tougher auto gasoline mileage requirements for U.S. cars -- which will only promote more gas guzzlers and increase dependence on foreign oil … America cannot go on destroying the environment and being the lead producer of gases that cause global warming just to protect the profits of Big Oil and the automakers.” -- The Jackson Clarion-Ledger, March 18, 2002 _______________

“The U.S. Senate, in refusing Wednesday to pass a proposal that would have improved the fuel efficiency of many gas-guzzling vehicles, turned away from a virtually painless way to help reduce Americans' dependence on Mideast oil … the hue and cry arose from the Big Three U.S. automakers and United Auto Workers members, who prefer to lobby Washington when their market share slips rather than build safer and more fuel-efficient cars.”

“Perhaps most disappointing was the Senate's blindness to the link between Americans' love affair with gas guzzlers and this nation's vulnerability to the changing political winds in the Mideast. The fuel-efficiency measure was designed to be part of a broader energy bill. In its place, senators passed an amendment that amounted to little more than window dressing.”

“… no significant reduction in dependence on foreign oil can occur without improving fuel efficiency of minivans and SUVs. An energy bill that pretends otherwise flunks the get-real test.” -- The Columbus Dispatch, March 18, 2002 _______________

“…[a] sign of deep denial came last week … after a 62-38 vote that directs the Transportation Department to develop new, but unspecified, fuel economy standards over the next two years. That is a poor substitute for Sen. John Kerry's proposal for a 36-mile-per-gallon average by 2015. The vote not only was a defeat for those concerned about the nation's reliance on imported oil, but also for advocates of cleaner air. The numbers speak for themselves. The Senate must try a second vote, and soon.” -- The Albany Times Union, March 18, 2002 _______________

“The U.S. Senate turned its back on energy efficiency last week when it voted 62-38 against raising fuel standards for cars, sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks … Congress hasn't raised fuel standards in 27 years, and its March 13 vote was an indefensible denial of the need to cut the gas-guzzling appetites of pickups and SUVs …senators should not stoop to fear-mongering to let an industry produce vehicles that are less efficient than the public deserves.” -- The Pittsburgh Post Gazette, March 20, 2002