September 11th made crystal clear that any strategy to make Americans safer must include making our nation less dependent on foreign oil. You can't tell Americans you're serious about energy security unless you're willing to tackle transportation, where 70 percent of the oil we purchase is consumed. The most significant -- immediate -- step we can take toward reducing our dependence on oil is to make our passenger vehicles more efficient. That is why I am fighting in the United States Senate to increase the fuel economy of cars and light trucks. My approach to fuel efficiency would greatly reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, significantly cut pollution, enhance safety, and provide new regulatory flexibility for manufacturers -- and it would do it without compromising safety or costing workers jobs.

The most significant step we can take toward reducing our dependence on oil is to make our passenger vehicles more efficient. What is more, we've had practice. During the 1970's, America created the Corporate Average Fuel Economy-or CAFÉ--program to increase auto efficiency. This was the right decision. It worked -- resulting in the manufacture of more efficient, safe, reliable, and high quality cars. It saved oil. And it reduced long-term costs to consumers - and ironically the law was signed by a Republican President from Michigan, named Ford, no less.

Today, because of CAFÉ standards, we save 3 million barrels of oil every day -- three times the peak projected production of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Each year, consumers keep more than $20 billion in their pockets instead of paying for fuel, and greenhouse gas emissions are significantly lower. CAFÉ is a genuine and concrete step toward energy independence.

But in recent years, we have slid back. In 1995, Congress froze these standards. As a result, our vehicle fuel efficiency is worse now than it has been in twenty years. We are literally becoming less efficient with each new fleet of cars and trucks using more fuel than the last.

Some in Congress are perfectly content to allow us to continue to slide backwards. Republican Leader Trent Lott said last March, "The American people have a right to a great big road hog. And I'm gonna get me one." The key word here is "hog". Even the largest passenger vehicle can be made safe, reliable, and more efficient. SUVs, minivans and light trucks can be built to provide high performance at higher mileage. They don't have to be hogs. And there is nothing more American than efficiency.

But Sen. Lott is not alone in trying to avoid facing the truth about fuel efficiency -- the auto industry's response has been alarmist at best. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers threatens that our proposals would eliminate S.U.V.s, minivans and pickups, cause massive job losses and result in unsafe vehicles.

Their arguments are false, but their rhetoric is no surprise. The Senate Commerce Committee has been examining this issue for several months, and after dozens of hearings, meetings, discussions and requests for help, most of the auto companies have shown no willingness to find common ground. Their position has been absolutist from beginning to end: they say Congress should do absolutely nothing, and are willing to make any claim to achieve that result.

The industry is surely preparing a massive campaign against reasonable fuel efficiency standards. Through public relations and lobbying they will try to scare citizens and Congress with grossly exaggerated claims and we expect their effort to include hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions aimed at buying stalemate and inaction. Few industries can match the auto companies when it comes to fighting to kill even modest energy, consumer, environmental and safety protections.

In the late 1960s, the industry claimed that seatbelts and other safety standards were so "unreasonable, arbitrary, and technically unfeasible" that the industry might be forced to "close down." In 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court found that "the automobile industry waged the regulatory equivalent of war against the air bag and lost" -- adding that the "industry was not sufficiently responsive to safety concerns."

When the first fuel economy reforms were considered by Congress in 1975, the manufacturers' protests were nearly identical to their protests today. One charged that "the largest car the industry will be selling in any volume at all will probably be smaller, lighter, and less powerful than today's compact Chevy Nova." The industry's prediction was so wrong it is hard to believe it was intended as an honest policy critique. As we all know, millions of cars far larger than compacts are sold every year in America, and millions of barrels of imported oil have been avoided because of fuel efficiency.

Now it's time for Americans - and Congress - to again separate fact from auto industry fiction and embrace a long overdue round of reforms. The National Academy of Sciences, commissioned by Congress to examine the issue, concluded that "it is technically feasible and potentially economical to improve fuel economy without reducing vehicle weight or size, and, therefore, without significantly affecting the safety of motor vehicle travel." We can build more efficient and safe cars and trucks, just as we have before.

The manufacturers' argument that higher standards will cost thousands of jobs is equally untrue. The National Academy of Sciences concluded that an "examination of the data shows little evidence of a dramatic impact of fuel economy regulations."

I want the American auto industry to thrive, and it can. I also want Americans to build and drive cars and trucks that meet consumer demands, are safe, help us break the stranglehold of oil dependence, and reduce the pollution which leads to global warming, and we can. In a country where, increasingly, energy security is American security, we hope the auto industry will stop putting up rhetorical roadblocks and recognize this is a mission all of us should be willing to embrace.