Leaders of the Big Three auto companies visited Capitol Hill yesterday to try to save their industry. With the House Energy and Commerce Committee considering a bill by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) to raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, and an even stronger bill going to the Senate floor next week, the auto executives can see the writing on the wall. And it’s in Japanese, not English.

The auto executives arrived in their hybrid vehicles in order to underscore their commitment to advanced technology. The problem is not lack of technology, however, but the expense of the impractical new vehicles—and customers’ preference for pick-ups and SUVs, both of which would fare poorly under the House and Senate bills.

Already in the process of restructuring to try to reduce labor costs, CAFE standards would be the domestic industry’s nail in the coffin.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee bill would raise CAFE standards to an average of 36 miles per gallon for passenger cars for model year 2021, and 30 miles per gallon after 2024 for light trucks, defined as pick-up trucks, SUVs, and minivans. The original levels, passed in 1975 and little changed, are 27.5 and 22.2 miles per gallon respectively for cars and light trucks.And next week the full Senate will consider a bill to raise CAFE standards to an even stricter level of 35 miles per gallon in 2020 for both cars light trucks, with standards continuing to rise 4% annually between 2020 and 2030.

What’s wrong with tighter fuel standards? After all, everyone wants to save fuel and alleviate global warming.

A 2002 National Research Council study showed that 1,300 to 2,600 more Americans were killed on the roads in 1993, a representative year, because cars had been made lighter in pursuit of fuel economy. If a crib had resulted in even one death, the product would be banned.

Many Americans prefer larger vehicles to have the flexibility to carry passengers and possessions. It’s hard to make larger cars fit into higher CAFE standards.

The domestic car manufacturers, GM, Ford, and Chrysler have invested in plants that make Americans’ favored large sedans and light trucks. Already in the process of restructuring to try to reduce labor costs, CAFE standards would be the domestic industry’s nail in the coffin.

For the past several years Americans have bought more light trucks than passenger cars, and domestic companies have the bulk of light truck sales—which would bear the brunt of more CAFE. In the first four months of 2007, Ford sold 570,000 light trucks, but only 300,000 passenger cars. Each F-Series truck makes about $8,000 in profits for the company, whereas Ford loses money on passenger cars.

Higher standards would also discourage the production of new potentially-profitable high-performance sedans such as a proposed 2009 rear-wheel drive line of GM sedans.

In contrast, foreign auto manufacturers would benefit from the proposed law because most of their sales come from small, fuel efficient vehicles, so they would not have to change production to meet the new standards. It’s no coincidence that the Big Three auto executives, not leaders of Toyota and Honda, were visiting Congress.

There’s an easier way to reduce gasoline consumption than by legislating costly standards. As gasoline becomes scarce, prices will rise to reflect future availability, just as prices have done with other products.

But Congress wants to stop this natural process. Just last month the House passed Rep. Bart Stupak’s (D-MI) price gouging act, penalizing those who allow prices to rise—in Congress-speak, “those who take unfair advantage of consumers at the pump.”

Ironically, the same politicians who want to raise CAFE standards to reduce gasoline consumption want to discourage price increases—which would provide a bigger incentive for consumers to cut back than cumbersome CAFE regulations.

If America is using too much gasoline, politicians need to reflect on how best to reduce our consumption. If they could refrain from legislating against price increases, consumption would fall on its own, without bankrupting the American automobile industry.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and an economics columnist for the New York Sun.