ROLL CALL on SUV Gasoline Mileage vote

AP ^ | 7-30-03

[Dan from Michigan]

MI Senate RollCall Gasoline Mileage, 1st Ld-Writethru

The Associated Press
7/29/2003, 8:36 p.m. ET

(AP) — The 65-32 roll call by which the Senate voted to reject an amendment that would have required automakers to achieve a 40 mpg fleet average fuel economy by 2015.

On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote in favor of the amendment and a "no" vote was a vote against the amendment.

Voting "yes" were 27 Democrats, 4 Republicans, and 1 Independent.

Voting "no" were 18 Democrats and 47 Republicans.

Alabama

Sessions (R) No; Shelby (R) No.

Alaska

Murkowski (R) No; Stevens (R) No.

Arizona

Kyl (R) No; McCain (R) No.

Arkansas

Lincoln (D) No; Pryor (D) No.

California

Boxer (D) Yes; Feinstein (D) Yes.

Colorado

Allard (R) No; Campbell (R) No.

Connecticut

Dodd (D) Yes; Lieberman (D) Not Voting.

Delaware

Biden (D) No; Carper (D) Yes.

Florida

Graham (D) Not Voting; Nelson (D) Yes.

Georgia

Chambliss (R) No; Miller (D) No.

Hawaii

Akaka (D) Yes; Inouye (D) Yes.

Idaho

Craig (R) No; Crapo (R) No.

Illinois

Durbin (D) Yes; Fitzgerald (R) No.

Indiana

Bayh (D) No; Lugar (R) No.

Iowa

Grassley (R) No; Harkin (D) Yes.

Kansas

Brownback (R) No; Roberts (R) No.

Kentucky

Bunning (R) No; McConnell (R) No.

Louisiana

Breaux (D) No; Landrieu (D) No.

Maine

Collins (R) Yes; Snowe (R) Yes.

Maryland

Mikulski (D) No; Sarbanes (D) Yes.

Massachusetts

Kennedy (D) Yes; Kerry (D) Not Voting.

Michigan

Levin (D) No; Stabenow (D) No.

Minnesota

Coleman (R) No; Dayton (D) Yes.

Mississippi

Cochran (R) No; Lott (R) No.

Missouri

Bond (R) No; Talent (R) No.

Montana

Baucus (D) No; Burns (R) No.

Nebraska

Hagel (R) No; Nelson (D) No.

Nevada

Ensign (R) No; Reid (D) Yes.

New Hampshire

Gregg (R) Yes; Sununu (R) No.

New Jersey

Corzine (D) Yes; Lautenberg (D) Yes.

New Mexico

Bingaman (D) Yes; Domenici (R) No.

New York

Clinton (D) Yes; Schumer (D) Yes.

North Carolina

Dole (R) No; Edwards (D) Yes.

North Dakota

Conrad (D) No; Dorgan (D) No.

Ohio

DeWine (R) No; Voinovich (R) No.

Oklahoma

Inhofe (R) No; Nickles (R) No.

Oregon

Smith (R) No; Wyden (D) Yes.

Pennsylvania

Santorum (R) No; Specter (R) No.

Rhode Island

Chafee (R) Yes; Reed (D) Yes.

South Carolina

Graham (R) No; Hollings (D) Yes.

South Dakota

Daschle (D) Yes; Johnson (D) No.

Tennessee

Alexander (R) No; Frist (R) No.

Texas

Cornyn (R) No; Hutchison (R) No.

Utah

Bennett (R) No; Hatch (R) No.

Vermont

Jeffords (I) Yes; Leahy (D) Yes.

Virginia

Allen (R) No; Warner (R) No.

Washington

Cantwell (D) Yes; Murray (D) Yes.

West Virginia

Byrd (D) No; Rockefeller (D) Yes.

Wisconsin

Feingold (D) No; Kohl (D) No.

Wyoming

Enzi (R) No; Thomas (R) No.

[Dan from Michigan]

Lenin and Stab got one right! I can't believe it!!!!

GOP'ers that voted with the dims were Snowe, Collins, Chafee, and Gregg.

And look at all those presidential candidates that chickened out of this one.

[finnman69]

Interesting...

West Virginia

Byrd (D) NO

[Semper Paratus]

Byrd (D) NO

Would have been yes if they named a car after him.

[Roughneck]

You know what? I'd love to see an auto manufacturer make TWO models of cars ONLY.

One type could be an itsy-bitsy accident-waiting-to-happen type that gets 30 MPG, the other a Super-Big SUV dont-I-just-love-to-be-safe type that gets 10 MPG.

That would satisfy such a stupid mandate would'nt it? Bet I could say right now which one of the "fleet" would sell the most . . .

[goldstategop]

Apparently the Democrats have realized there are more SUV drivers who vote than there are Sierra Club loathers who want to get rid of them who do.

[trebb]

And look at all those presidential candidates that chickened out of this one.

I think they should be forced to vote when running for the Presidency - otherwise, we have to assume that they:
1. Are afraid that voting for what the public wants will hurt their party image.
2. Are afraid that voting their conscience will show the public what they really stand for and that will lessen their chances to get elected.

Neither one is good, but the public deserves to know the truth (at least that's what they say when the "truth" means lies that they came up with about Republicans).

[sgtbono2002]

Somebody must be paying attention. It was the C.A.F,E.
law that started us in to SUV's to begin with. If you make a law putting people into small cars and outlaw SUV's and pickup trucks they will buy 18 wheelers.

[phugg]

Exactly, why would it be bad for a Ford Excursion to get 40 mpg. Historically the auto industry has been very resistant to change, especially in the area of safety. Given our technological advances, is a 300 hp, 40 mpg engine an impossibility? A yes vote would only have raised the bar.

There are 4 cars in our driveway. 2 SUV's, 1 Golf, and 1 V8 Pontiac Firebird (the most fun to drive). So this rant is not coming from one who drives a glorified electric golfcart.

Finally, if we all drove Excursion we would only have bigger collisions.

[backhoe]

Chambliss (R) No; Miller (D) No.

Hummm, mine did good.

As a member of several under-represented, detested minorities already
( Southern, smoker, male, hetrosexual, white, gunowner... you get the picture...)
I recently joined the ranks of SUV owners when I bought a 1994 Isuzu Amigo. An SUV was about the last thing I had in mind when looking for newer wheels; this one was available, cheap ( really cheap!), and in good condition. And I desparately needed something to haul 2 old dogs and a sick, elderly, and very heavy mother-in-law in that was better than my unairconditioned, fall-apart-as-you-drive Mazda.

After twiddling with the air cleaner and switching to synthetic oil, it gets 23 mpg- which is not bad for a heavy box goin' down the road.

I still think Lamar Alexander's idea of "cut their pay in half and send 'em home half the year" is outstanding- these clowns need to quit meddling in everybody else's business, and quit writing laws for damn fools. People can decide for themselves what to drive.

[Wilhelm Tell]

The same leftists who demand that all cars get 100 mpg are the very same people who demand that cars be made to withstand a 100 mph crash into a brick wall without the passengers getting a scratch! Along come SUVs, and the left complains that it is "unfair" that a bigger vehicle can withstand a crash better than a smaller vehicle. Even if they could make an SUV that is very fuel efficient the left would want to ban it if it proved to be safer than a sub-compact car. Next thing you know they will try to ban all vehicles that are not bigger on the inside than they are on the outside. The left doesn't want the peasants to be mobile, period.

[.cnI redruM]

I actually can see why a 'yes' vote may not be a bad thing. Our 'War on Terror' is faught against an enemy funded by our own imports of petrochemicals from their region of the world. I look at all these huge pick ups and SUVs that get gallons per mile and think their goea another lifeline for the Taliban.

[Starrgaizr]

My SUV saved me, my wife and son from serious injury when hit by an 18-year old doing about 80 in a 40. Only injuries were airbag and seatbelt cuts, etc. The teen got lucky, too.

If you want to burn less gas, tax the gas and use the funds to improve roads so we burn even less gas. CAFE standards a re a stupid relic from the regulation-crazy 1970s when overwhelmingly Democratic pols and their government funded technocrats believed they could centrally plan better than the Soviets.

[votelife]

your leftist Senators have to vote yes hear, they are home to Detroit, don't give them too much credit.

[Jorge]

Exactly, why would it be bad for a Ford Excursion to get 40 mpg. Historically the auto industry has been very resistant to change, especially in the area of safety. Given our technological advances, is a 300 hp, 40 mpg engine an impossibility? A yes vote would only have raised the bar.

It would mean a Ford Excursion made out of tin foil maybe, because in spite of your claims about "safety", stats show that demands for higher and higher gas mileage have increased the percentage of highway fatalities per year because of light weight construction.

Of course hybrid engines might be able to give us a 40 mpg Ford Excursion....but the savings in gas don't come close to making up for their high cost.
Who's going to buy them?

[Lancey Howard]

This is exactly the kind of vote that separates the scumbags from the humans. Want to know who is in the pocket of the America-hating, capitalism-hating, environazi elite? This vote nails it down for you.

One question (for anybody): What on earth is the deal with Gregg? Man, I suddenly have zero respect for that scumbag.

[oceanview]

Huh? An itsy bitsy car that gets 30MPG? A Mercedes E class with a european CDI diesel motor gets 30MPG, and its a hell of a lot safer then your typical American SUV.

That said, a 40MPG CAFE is too high. But a lower number, say 32, would be acceptable. It would force auto makers to invest in some new technology, instead of figuring out how to cram more cupholders, DVD players and LCD screens into the vehicle.

[Roughneck]

"***Huh? An itsy bitsy car that gets 30MPG? A Mercedes E class with a european CDI diesel motor gets 30MPG, and its a hell of a lot safer then your typical American SUV.

That said, a 40MPG CAFE is too high. But a lower number, say 32, would be acceptable. It would force auto makers to invest in some new technology, instead of figuring out how to cram more cupholders, DVD players and LCD screens into the vehicle***"

You missed my point. But that's OK.