Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Mileage Vote Reveals New Configuration in Senate (NYT)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Eugene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 03:15 AM
Original message
Mileage Vote Reveals New Configuration in Senate (NYT)
Source: New York Times

Mileage Vote Reveals New Configuration in Senate

By CARL HULSE
Published: June 23, 2007

WASHINGTON, June 22 — Automakers had to know they
were in serious trouble when Senator Barbara A. Mikulski,
a Maryland Democrat with deep blue-collar roots, announced
that she had lost patience with their annual objections
to higher gas mileage rules.

-snip-

Bolstered by such converts as Ms. Mikulski, the Senate just
before midnight Thursday approved an energy bill that would
for the first time in more than two decades require auto
companies to produce cars and trucks that get substantially
more out of a gallon of gas.

But that was about the only industry it took on. The measure,
approved on a bipartisan 65-to-37 vote, essentially spared
oil and gas companies and major utilities and fell short of
goals initially set by supporters in areas like renewable fuels.

Still, lawmakers treated the traditionally insurmountable
opposition of the auto industry as little more than a speed
bump on the way to the bill’s passage. That amounted to a
cultural shift in the Senate, where an alliance of union-
backed Democrats, lawmakers of both parties from auto-
producing states and business-minded Republicans had always
pulled together to hold off increases in fuel efficiency rules,
also called the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE,
standards. They traditionally argued that the technology
for higher mileage was not available, car costs would rise
and Detroit would be forced to make lighter and smaller but
more dangerous cars.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/23/washington/23energy.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-23-07 04:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. iI would have loved to have it all too, but I'm realistic enough to
realize that under the current small majority that would have been imposesible. I'm GLAD they AT LEASt chose to buck the greedy auto makers who had the ba^^s a few weeks ago to say they were going to have their small cars made in China because they couldn't make a small fuel efficient car here in the US and still make a profit! THAT'S BS! They wouldn't have been able to make the AMOUNT of profit on a small car as they do on an SUV, TRUCK, or luxury land yacht...so MAKE IT UP IN VOLUME!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC