SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 536 words

COMMITTEE: HOUSE SCIENCE

HEADLINE: ENERGY DEPT. AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH

TESTIMONY-BY: SHERWOOD BOEHLERT, REPRESENTATIVE

BODY:
REPRESENTATIVE SHERWOOD BOEHLERT (R-NY)

OPENING STATEMENT FOR FREEDOM CAR HEARING

February 7, 2002

It's a pleasure to welcome everyone here today for our first hearing of the Second Session and for the first of a series of hearings on the President's proposed fiscal 2003 budget.

We selected FreedomCAR to be the subject of our first hearing because the program addresses one of the nation's most critical issues - the future of the automobile industry.

Not only is the long-term health of the automobile industry essential to the future of our economy, but the nature of the industry's products will determine how dependent we are in the future on foreign oil and whether we continue to be plagued with polluted air and water. For while our nation's transportation fleet has gotten cleaner over time - thanks largely to government regulation - and, for a time, was becoming more fuel efficient, we have to do a lot more if we are to improve our national security and public health. And history has shown that relying on the industry alone to accomplish that is foolhardy. So the question is, "What should the government role be in working to make our nation's cars and trucks cleaner and more fuel efficient while ensuring that the auto industry remains an engine of our economy?" I think regulation, including CAFE standards, has to be part of the answer, but government-industry partnerships to advance technology can also help. That's why I was a supporter of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, or PNGV.

It's also why I approach the FreedomCAR proposal with an open mind. And this hearing is designed to give all of us more detailed information about FreedomCAR so we can fairly evaluate it.

So far, frankly, it's been hard to get more than the most general sense of what the program will entail. The Department of Energy has oscillated between describing the program as a radical departure from PNGV and as its logical continuation - irreconcilable rhetorical postures that we should today be able to replace with hard facts.

One clear change from the PNGV program, though, is the elimination of a clear, specific, integrated, deliverable goal for the program. Regardless of whether PNGV had the right goal, I think this Committee needs to determine whether this sort of partnership needs the kind of goal that PNGV set. I have heard plausible arguments that the goal was an impediment to progress - limiting research on more long-range ideas - and that the goal was a driver for progress - ensuring that ideas were actually integrated into real products. I hope we can sort through that question today as well.

I also have questions as to whether, when it comes to hydrogen and fuel cells, the government could leave the vehicle research to the private sector while focusing more on related issues such as the development of a distribution system.

I look forward to hearing today from all our witnesses as we puzzle through these important questions.

Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, we will have a bill on the floor during part of this hearing, so I will have to leave for a time. But after the floor vote, I will be back to pursue these questions.



LOAD-DATE: February 11, 2002