Context of 'July 29, 2003: Senate Rejects Measure to Increase Fuel Efficiency Standards for Automobiles'

US Congress approves plans to construct a defense facility on the island of Diego Garcia in the Chagos Archipelago. [British Royal Courts of Justice, 10/9/2003]

The US Congress votes to authorize “non-military” aid to Nicaragua’s Contras: $38 million over two years. [PBS, 2000]

US Congress votes 392-22 in favor of legislation that restricts international inspections of chemical sites in the United States, effectively killing the Chemical Weapons Convention. [Henry Stimson Center, 6/16/1998 ; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists website, 2/23/2004]

In a 65-32 vote, the US Senate rejects a proposal that would have required automakers to increase their fleet averages to 40 miles per gallon by 2015. Current regulations require only a 27.5 mpg average. Those voting against the proposal say they are concerned that more stringent requirements would result in a loss of jobs and give consumers less choice. Senators decide instead, by a 66-30 vote, to support an industry- and labor- favored bill which turns the issue over to the Transportation Department. The bill requires that the agency consider how raising fuel efficiency requirements might impact jobs, traffic safety, and US auto manufacturers before making any changes to the current standards. [Associated Press, 7/29/2003]

The Environmental Protection Agency decides to delay the release of its annual report on fuel economy. The report—leaked to the New York Times minutes before the decision—shows that automakers have exploited loopholes in US fuel economy regulations to manufacture vehicles that are less fuel-efficient than they were in the late 1980s. Fuel-efficiency has on average dropped six percent during that period, from 22.1 miles per gallon to 20.8 mpg, the report shows. Critics suggest the administration delayed the report’s release because of its potential to affect Congress’s final vote on the energy bill which mostly ignores fuel economy regulations. [New York Times, 7/28/2005]