Filed under: Flex-Fuel, Green Culture, Chevrolet, AutoblogGreen Exclusive, Legislation and Policy
Video: Congressman fights for his Chevy Tahoe
This video is a great exchange I recorded on CSPAN, Saturday, August 4, the day the energy bill passed. First, an amendment to the energy bill by Rep. Cleaver. The Congress must use low greenhouse gas-emitting vehicles. It's the same thing they require of federal agencies. Rep. Barton rises in "serious opposition" (he says it twice) to the amendment. He really likes his Chevy Tahoe... that just happens to be made in his district. Two representatives rise in support of Rep. Cleaver. One says even Bush has to comply with these standards so why not us?
Rep. Barton did not give up. He asked the Congressmen to think about the SUVs in their security details. Would green cars have the performance needed in an emergency he asked? Rep. Cleaver ends saying Congress must be willing to give up "big Cadillacs." It goes up for a vote with lots of yeses but very few (or only one?) noes. So it's a part of the energy bill now. If Bush does not veto the energy bill, Barton loses his Chevy Tahoe.
Cheer up Barton. There are flex-fuel Tahoes. I don't know if it's made in your district but it might be. You should look into it. Flex fuel cars are quite common now. The performance won't stop you from speeding off, saving yourself from attacking terrorists. I don't think you will notice a difference at all. You don't even have to use E85. Try E10 as a small first step.
[Source: CSPAN]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
MikeW 3:58PM (8/06/2007)
How about GM get a 6 speed auto in the Tahoe.
Maybe GM will offer the diesel 4.5V8/6L90 in the 1500 model (coil spring) suburban models vs. the rear leaf sprung models. (tahoe too)
Isn't the Avalanche now exclusively coil sprung?
Plenty of go (especially if they are transported via plane to a high altitude destination), mileage, and range.
Reply
Benson Leung 4:20PM (8/06/2007)
This congressman doesn't make a very compelling argument : "He asked the Congressmen to think about the SUVs in their security details. Would green cars have the performance needed in an emergency he asked?"
Smaller cars with smaller displacement engines can very easily out-accelerate big bulky SUVs with huge V8s because they don't have so much mass to move around... so using performance as a benchmark is bunk.
Horsepower is not everything.
And if this guy is so adamant of staying in a SUV to keep his congressional butt safe, why not consider a Two-mode Chevy Tahoe, which should be out shortly?
Reply
DT 8:28PM (8/06/2007)
This Congressman is clueless even about what is going on in his own district! GM is introducing the 2008 Hybrid Tahoe -- this fall.
http://www.chevrolet.com/hybrid/
Reply
Edsel 7:50AM (8/07/2007)
In the Socialist Republic of Massachusetts, our U.S. Senators and Congressmen have been running around in SUV's for decades.
Reply
Hank 8:24AM (8/07/2007)
Not only is he ignorant of the hybrid Tahoe, he's not considering the easiest way to keep himself driving one--buy it himself and save the taxpayers a dime! The bill only addresses vehicles purchased by the government. He's arguing over a perk.
Reply
Tim 8:55AM (8/07/2007)
Hank- One man's "perk" is another man's "entitlement."
"... endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these are Life, liberty..." and everything else the majority can use their vote to steal.
Our Constitutional Republic “USA” has been replaced with a corporate Legislative Democracy US where really has unalienable rights granted by God, just privileges allowed by the majority that can be stripped at any time.
Three men and one woman enter a room. One of the men says to the group “hey, let’s rape the woman.” The women protests so he says “let’s vote on it.” She looses the vote and is raped. That’s Democracy!
The UN “world constitution” has no bill of unalienable rights and neither does the North American Union constitution!
Reply
Tim 9:02AM (8/07/2007)
Should read "..where NOBODY really has unalienable rights.."
Sorry.
Reply
werepants 10:07AM (8/07/2007)
I applaud the congressmen who were willing to impose restrictions on themselves. We don't see enough of that kind of behavior lately.
Also, it is absurd to see this guy's arguments for his SUV. Just like all the other SUV buyers, he assumes big = safe. In reality, the bigger vehicles only provide the feeling of safety, and ultimately make it more dangerous for drivers all over. There are plenty of roomy, safe cars that provide the luxury this guy thinks he needs, all while getting highway MPG in the high 20's.
Reply
motorman 11:38AM (8/07/2007)
how about lets make them all fly commercial air lines on their political junkets to give speeches and campaign for president and not use private jets.this would cause less greenhouse gas and save lots of fuel.this guys tahoe uses less fuel than al gores private jet
Reply
The Other Bob 11:54AM (8/07/2007)
I am opposed to CAFE increases, but not because I am not worried about the environment. CAFE will not work and the economic damage it will cause will set back environmental regulations for decades.
I think making Congressmen drive eco-friendly cars is a great idea as long as the performance of these cars matches what will need to be produced to reach some of the crazier CAFE proposals. Then maybe they will understand what they are doing.
Ed Markey (sp?) gets a 3 cylinder suburban.
Reply
Don 3:27PM (8/07/2007)
Here's a great argument: Can you get away from a potential assassin in a Prius?
Reply
Dennis 7:29PM (8/07/2007)
Heres the deal. you can easily replace these huge SUV's with smaller cars and still have a level of comfort and s far as speed goes and acceleration sorry congressmen you don't need it. when it comes to security shit, slap a few performance parts in there you would burn allot less if you had a supped up Honda then a big ass Tahoe.
and then ask yourself can a potential assassin out drive a trained security officer in a performance enhanced civic?
Reply
Chris M 8:49PM (8/07/2007)
Whether they could "get away from a potential assassin in a Prius" depends a bit on what the "asassin was driving. The Prius is certainly a lot more manuverable and far less likely to rollover than a Tahoe, and has good acceleration, too. Of course, there are cars that are even more manuverable and quicker than a Prius, yet with much better gas milage than a Tahoe.
Congressmen, by their very nature, really do want to maximize their evasiveness...
LOL!
Reply
ellisgl 12:04AM (8/08/2007)
What about safety to others? SUV's maybe safer for the people in them, what about people like me that drive a normal car. And the people that drive the trucks that can run my car over in an accident.. (I would say ask my family friend - but he was killed by a truck that was jacked up - the driver wasn't paying attention - came over into his lane and ran the car right over - killing him.)
Reply
Honda Lover 1:01AM (8/08/2007)
one: Many of these vehicles are specially outfitted to be bullet and bomb proof. This adds extra weight to a vehicle. Thus, this vehicle needs the necessary power to accommodate the extra weight. These cars are not used to "out accelerate" as one not so informed poster wrote.
two: Security details usually mean extra equipment AND extra people. Hence the use for SUVs to accommodate more men and any equipment they might need.
three: flex fuel cars will not catch on. Ethanol is a government led boondoggle. A wasteful experiment with a fuel that is not economically feasible. Until the industry can find a more viable source that has the proper energy displacement and won't lift the prices of everything else (corn is not source we need but used because it's done politically to help the corn farmers), the use of flex fuel cars will never take off.
four: By mandating that the government do such a thing means more wasteful spending. do you really think it's going to be cheap to do this? If so, I have a bridge in MN I'd like to sell you.
five: do you really think the Tahoe hybrid is going to offer such improved mileage performance over a normal Tahoe to offset the higher price of the car? I doubt it. And again, the number of cars that the government would have to buy is staggering. Is GM going to produce these on the scale that the Government would need? Don't bet your life on it.
six: this explains why congress is inept. We have tons of fraud and waste in our government and they are debating this?
Reply
One Man - OneYearGoal.com 1:15AM (8/08/2007)
Haha. "Just happens to be made in his district." What a coincidence indeed.
One Man. One Year. $100,000 online. No coincidence.
http://www.oneyeargoal.com
Reply
BILL 10:27AM (8/08/2007)
Representative Barton must be new. He apparently has not figured out that whatever laws they pass on the Federal level, they do not apply to members of the House and Senate. Even if the laws are written to apply to the members of the House and Senate, they get blown off by the members. It is a great system if you understand how it works.
Reply
StephT 11:24AM (8/08/2007)
I live about a mile away from Barton's Arlington, TX office. What y'all seem to be forgetting is that in red Texas, most men have to drive a big truck or SUV or they are not real men. I ain't kidding either.
Reply
Afi K. James 10:10AM (8/12/2007)
Both Parties are just idiotic and stupid.
Vote Ron Paul.
Reply