Jane Harman: “this debate is not fundamentally about cars, tail pipes, or engine technology, it is about health and what policy gets…”

“this debate is not fundamentally about cars, tail pipes, or engine technology, it is about health and what policy gets our country to better air quality standards in the most cost-effective way. To be sure, CAFE standards are an imperfect tool. A fleet average has little bearing on what consumers are purchasing. Even though CAFE forces Detroit or Japan to manufacture a cleaner and more efficient vehicle, we see a proliferation of gas-guzzling SUVs, minivans, and trucks. They are what the consumer wants. If we are to increase fuel efficiency across the fleet of vehicles, we also need to change consumer behavior. In the Committee on Ways and Means title of this bill we begin to tackle the consumer side of the equation through tax incentives and credits for the purchase of electric, fuel cell, hybrid, alternative fuel, and advanced burn vehicles. Striking the right balance is hard. I opposed an earlier version of the Markey amendment in committee because I thought it imposed unreasonable burdens and unachievable goals. This amendment strikes a better balance. I believe industry can do this. I know that hybrid SUVs are close to production, and this amendment will push new technology solutions that are critical to increased fuel economy. I side with Markey-Boehlert, because it sets the direction in which we need to go.”