    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        SELF-DRIVING VEHICLE LEGISLATION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 27, 2017

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-42

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    32-518 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2018

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
                                     Chairman

    JOE BARTON, Texas                    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    FRED UPTON, Michigan                 BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania             ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            GENE GREEN, Texas
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    JERRY McNERNEY, California
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     PETER WELCH, Vermont
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         PAUL TONKO, New York
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    BILL FLORES, Texas                   Massachusetts
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana             TONY CARDENAS, California
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           RAUL RUIZ, California
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York              DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    TIM WALBERG, Michigan
    MIMI WALTERS, California
    RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia

                                     7_____

            Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection

                             ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
                                     Chairman
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    FRED UPTON, Michigan                 BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            TONY CARDENAS, California
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virgina      DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             PETER WELCH, Vermont
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana                   Massachusetts
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           GENE GREEN, Texas
    MIMI WALTERS, California             FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania           officio)
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)

                                      (ii)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Ohio, opening statement.....................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Illinois, opening statement...........................     4
    Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Oregon, opening statement......................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    10

                                   Witnesses

    Mitch Bainwol, President and Chief Executive Officer, Alliance of
      Automobile Manufacturers.......................................    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    15
    David L. Strickland, Counsel, Self-Driving Coalition for Safer
      Streets, and Partner, Venable LLP..............................    40
        Prepared statement...........................................    42
    William C. Wallace, Policy Analyst, Consumers Union..............    45
        Prepared statement...........................................    47
    Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public
      Interest and Public Service Law, George Washington University
      Law School.....................................................    64
        Prepared statement...........................................    66
    Tim Day, Senior Vice President, Chamber Technology Engagement
      Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce...............................    76
        Prepared statement...........................................    78
    John Bozzella, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association
      of Global Automakers...........................................    90
        Prepared statement...........................................    92

                               Submitted Material

    Discussion Draft, the Let NHTSA Enforce Autonomous Vehicle
      Driving Regulations (LEAD'R) Act...............................   135
    Discussion Draft, the Practical Automated Vehicle Exemptions Act.   139
    Discussion Draft, the Renewing Opportunities for Automated
      Vehicle Development Act........................................   141
    Discussion Draft, the Expanding Exemptions to Enable More Public
      Trust Act......................................................   143
    Discussion Draft, the Maximizing Opportunities for Research and
      the Enhancement of Automated Vehicles Act......................   145
    Discussion Draft, the Increasing Information and Notification to
      Foster Openness Regarding Automated Vehicle Matters to States
      Act............................................................   149
    Discussion Draft, the Disability Mobility Advisory Council Act...   151
    Discussion Draft, the Improving Mobility Access for Underserved
      Populations and Senior Citizens Advisory Council Act...........   155
    Discussion Draft, the Automated Driving System Cybersecurity
      Advisory Council...............................................   159
    Discussion Draft, the Sharing Automated Vehicle Records with
      Everyone for Safety Act........................................   164
    Discussion Draft, the Highly Automated Vehicle Pre-Market
      Approval Reduces Opportunities for More People to Travel Safely
      Act............................................................   168
    Discussion Draft, the Guarding Automakers Against Unfair
      Advantages Reported in Public Documents Act....................   171
    Discussion Draft, the Managing Government Efforts to Minimize
      Autonomous Vehicle Obstruction Act.............................   175
    Discussion Draft, the Designating Each Car's Automation Level Act   178
    Letter of June 27, 2017, from Marc Scribner, Senior Fellow,
      Competitive Enterprise Institute, to subcommittee members,
      submitted by Mr. Latta.........................................   180
    Letter of June 26, 2017, from Gary Shapiro, President and Chief
      Executive Officer, Consumer Technology Association, to Mr.
      Latta, submitted by Mr. Latta..................................   183
    Letter of June 26, 2017, from Nathaniel F. Wienecke, Senior Vice
      President, Federal Government Relations, Property Casualty
      Insurers Association of America, to Mr. Latta and Ms.
      Schakowsky, submitted by Mr. Latta.............................   184
    Statement of the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association,
      June 26, 2017, submitted by Mr. Latta..........................   187
    Statement of the American Car Rental Association, June 27, 2017,
      submitted by Mr. Latta.........................................   192
    Statement of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety by Jacqueline
      S. Gillan, President, June 27, 2017,\1\ submitted by Mr. Latta
    Report, ``Self Driving Vehicles: The Threat to Consumers,'' by
      Harvey Rosenfield, Consumer Watchdog, and Statement by John M.
      Simpson, Privacy Project Director, Consumer Watchdog, June 27,
      2017,\1\ submitted by Mr. Latta
    Statement of Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE), et al.,
      June 27 2017, submitted by Mr. Latta...........................   196
    Letter of June 27, 2017, from Marc Rotenberg, President, et al.,
      Electronic Privacy Information Center, to Mr. Latta and Ms.
      Schakowsky, submitted by Mr. Latta.............................   200
    Statement of the National Association of Mutual Insurance
      Companies, June 27, 2017, submitted by Mr. Latta...............   204
    Report of the Center for American Progress, ``The Impact of
      Vehicle Automation on Carbon Emissions,'' November 2016, by
      Myriam Alexander-Kearns, et al.,\1\ submitted by Ms. Schakowsky

    ----------
    \1\ The information has been retained in committee files and also
      is available at  https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
      ByEvent.aspx?EventID=106182.

                        SELF-DRIVING VEHICLE LEGISLATION

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2017

                      House of Representatives,
         Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer
                                            Protection,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
    Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert E. Latta
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Latta, Harper, Upton,
    Lance, Guthrie, McKinley, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Bucshon,
    Mullin, Walters, Costello, Walden (ex officio), Schakowsky,
    Clarke, Cardenas, Dingell, Matsui, Welch, Kennedy, Green, and
    Pallone (ex officio).
        Staff present: Karen Christian, General Counsel; Kelly
    Collins, Staff Assistant; Jordan Davis, Director of Policy and
    External Affairs; Blair Ellis, Press Secretary/Digital
    Coordinator; Melissa Froelich, Counsel, Digital Commerce and
    Consumer Protection; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach and
    Coalitions; Giulia Giannangeli, Legislative Clerk, Digital
    Commerce and Consumer Protection/Communications and Technology;
    Zach Hunter, Communications Director; Paul Jackson,
    Professional Staff, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection;
    Bijan Koohmaraie, Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer
    Protection; Katie McKeough, Press Assistant; Alex Miller, Video
    Production Aide and Press Assistant; Paul Nagle, Chief Counsel,
    Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Mark Ratner, Policy
    Coordinator; Madeline Vey, Policy Coordinator, Digital Commerce
    and Consumer Protection; Hamlin Wade, Special Advisor for
    External Affairs; Everett Winnick, Director of Information
    Technology; Michelle Ash, Minority Chief Counsel, Digital
    Commerce and Consumer Protection; Evan Gilbert, Minority Press
    Assistant; Lisa Goldman, Minority Counsel; Rick Kessler,
    Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and
    Environment; Caroline Paris-Behr, Minority Policy Analyst; Tim
    Robinson, Minority Chief Counsel; and Andrew Souvall, Minority
    Director of Communications, Member Services, and Outreach.
        Mr. Latta. Good morning. I'd like to call the Subcommittee
    on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection to order, and I now
    recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

        Good morning again, and welcome to today's hearing on self-
    driving vehicle legislation. Driving is an integral part of
    American life. When you think about who drives, you realize
    that it is pretty much everyone: urban and rural, young and
    old, and everyone and everywhere in between.
        Tragically, however, traffic fatalities are on the rise.
    Last year there were over 40,000 fatalities and over 2 million
    injuries on our Nation's highways.
        Our goal today is to enact the right policies to encourage
    self-driving technologies that can drastically reduce those
    opportunities to address this problem.
        One of the most important pieces is to define the right
    roles for the Federal, State, and local governments. The need
    for this framework was laid out by the Obama administration
    just last year from the front bumper to the back bumper.
        Whether it is a pickup truck, a car, or a van, how the
    vehicle works and its design should be the province of the
    Federal Government as the case has been for more than 50 years.
        The States and localities have an equally important role to
    play in determining insurance requirements, titling cars,
    requiring registration, and setting the rules of the road.
        They get to enact and enforce traffic laws and regulations,
    as well. States will also still be able to offer incentives to
    entities that are early actors in this field if they want to
    encourage testing in their States.
        We simply cannot have cars that stop at State lines. Just
    last week, we celebrated the 61st anniversary of President
    Eisenhower's interstate highway system connecting families and
    people across the country.
        We also want to maintain leadership in the United States.
    Testing is now happening in Europe, Australia, Japan, and
    China. Remaining at the forefront of this innovation ensures
    that we do not delay safety advances while also having the
    opportunity to grow jobs and investment.
        Over the last year, we have seen 80 State bills introduced
    in legislatures across the country. We want to be sure that a
    confusing patchwork does not emerge that would hurt innovation
    and ultimately would be bad for the consumer.
        Earlier this Congress, we held a hearing on smart
    communities and had the opportunity to hear from many different
    communities about the new technologies they were evaluating to
    bring to the benefits in their areas.
        In my home State of Ohio, the city of Columbus won the
    Department of Transportation Smart City Challenge last year and
    is already leveraging new technology to gather information-
    approved services for the community.
        Technology to improve everything from safety to sanitation
    to the environment is going through a period of innovation and
    communities are looking for wise investments to improve the
    lives of their citizens.
        This innovation will be a focus of the committee for years
    to come, especially self-driving vehicles. We are at the early
    stages and as the technology advances so will the need for us
    to continue our oversight.
        This first step is to set the broad outline to bring better
    safety and mobility to everyone. We want the Government to work
    actively with industry.
        It is important that we have these discussions in the early
    stages of innovation so that we do not limit the potential
    benefits.
        Our staffs have had constructive conversations with the
    Department of Transportation. They understand that the public
    will need to know an active watchdog is overlooking the
    industry as the administration continues to nominate candidates
    to join the department.
        I look forward to working together to advance these
    important goals. Finally, I always have had an open-door
    policy, and I know we cannot get this right without real-world
    stakeholder input.
        We will move forward under regular order with multiple
    opportunities to improve upon the staff drafts. We will meet
    with anyone--we are participating in bipartisan meetings.
    Pickups, cars, and vans are integral in the American way of
    life.
        When you revolutionize something so important to everyday
    life, you can greatly improve every day--you can always improve
    it.
        This isn't the Government saying that you have to get in a
    self-driving car. This is a Government making sure that the
    industry can innovate in response to our changing lives.
        I am ready to work with my colleagues to bring the safety
    investment and many of the benefits to the American people in
    Ohio and across the country.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]

                   Prepared statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta

        Good morning and welcome to the Digital Commerce and
    Consumer Protection Subcommittee hearing on self-driving
    vehicle legislation. Driving is an integral part of American
    life. When you think about who drives, you realize it is pretty
    much everyone. Urban and rural, young and old, and everyone and
    everywhere in between.
        Tragically, however, traffic fatalities are on the rise.
    Last year there were over 40,000 fatalities and more than 2
    million injuries on our Nation's highways. Our goal today is to
    enact the right policies to encourage self-driving technologies
    that can drastically reduce those numbers. We have a real
    opportunity to address this problem.
        One of the most important pieces is to define the right
    roles for the Federal, State, and local governments. The need
    for this framework was laid out by the Obama administration
    just last year. From the front bumper to the back bumper--
    whether it's a pickup truck or a car or a van, how the vehicle
    works and is designed should be the province of the Federal
    Government as has been the case for more than 50 years.
        The States and localities have an equally important role to
    play in determining insurance requirements, titling cars,
    requiring registration and setting the rules of the road. They
    get to enact and enforce traffic laws and regulations as well.
    States will also still be able to offer incentives to entities
    that are early actors in this field if they want to encourage
    testing in their State.
        We simply cannot have cars that stop at State lines. Just
    last week we celebrated the 61st anniversary of President
    Eisenhower's interstate highway system connecting families and
    people across the country.
        We also want to maintain leadership in the United States.
    Testing is happening in Europe, Australia, Japan and China.
    Remaining at the forefront of this innovation ensures that we
    do not delay safety advancements, while also having the
    opportunity to grow jobs and investment. Over the last year, we
    have seen 80 State bills introduced in legislatures across the
    country. We want to be sure that a confusing patchwork does not
    emerge that would hurt innovation and ultimately would be bad
    for the consumer.
        Earlier this Congress, we held a hearing on Smart
    Communities and had the opportunity to hear from many different
    communities about the new technologies they are evaluating to
    bring new benefits into their areas. In my home State of Ohio,
    the city of Columbus won the Department of Transportation's
    Smart City Challenge last year and is already leveraging new
    technology to gather information to improve services for the
    community. Technology to improve everything from safety to
    sanitation to the environment is going through a period of
    innovation and communities are looking for wise investments to
    improve the lives of their citizens.
        This innovation will be a focus of the committee for years
    to come, especially self-driving vehicles. We are at the early
    stages and as the technology advances so will the need for us
    to continue our oversight. This first step is to set the broad
    outlines to bring better safety and mobility to everyone. We
    want the Government to work actively with industry. It is
    important that we have these discussions in the early stages of
    innovation so that we do not limit the potential benefits.
        Our staff have had constructive conversations with the
    Department of Transportation. They understand that the public
    will need to know an active watchdog is overlooking the
    industry. As the administration continues to nominate
    candidates to join the Department, I look forward to working
    together to advance these important goals.
        Finally, I have always had an open door policy, and I know
    we cannot get this right without real world stakeholder input.
    We will move forward under regular order, with multiple
    opportunities to improve upon the staff drafts. We will meet
    with anyone, and we are participating in bipartisan meetings.
        Pickups, cars, and vans are integral to the American way of
    life. When you revolutionize something so important to everyday
    life you can greatly improve everyday life. This isn't the
    Government saying you have to get in a self-driving car. This
    is Government making sure that industry can innovate in
    response to our changing lives. I'm ready to work with my
    colleagues to bring the safety, investment, and many other
    benefits to the American people in Ohio and everywhere.

        Mr. Latta. And at this time, I would like to yield to the
    vice chairman the remainder of my time.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling today's
    hearing to continue the subcommittee's important work on self-
    driving vehicles.
        Three weeks ago today I actually had my first opportunity
    to ride in a self-driving car with Audi and it was an
    incredible experience and I am very thankful because my wife
    and I are the parents of an adult child with special needs. He
    has Fragile X syndrome and for the disability community one of
    the top problems that you have is transportation.
        So my son works Monday through Friday but my wife is the
    one who has to get him to and from work. He can't go anywhere
    without someone taking him. So this is something that opens up
    all kinds of possibilities. I want to thank each of the
    witnesses for being here.
        This is really a game changer, I believe, for our future
    and for our very special population.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields
    back, and the Chair now recognizes for an opening statement the
    gentlelady, the ranking member from Illinois.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A
         REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to first
    acknowledge that in the audience today is Joan Claybrook, who
    is a pioneer and continuing advocate for auto safety, former
    head of NHTSA. I want to welcome you here.
        The 14 bills before us today represent the starting point,
    by no means the ending point, for autonomous vehicle
    legislation.
        My Democratic colleagues and I are ready to discuss the
    majority's ideas, bring our own to the table and work toward a
    single legislative package. I will need to see the additions
    and changes to the bill before I can give my support.
        But it is my hope that we can have a bipartisan negotiation
    and we will see, hopefully, and perhaps put us on a path
    towards safe adoption of autonomous vehicles.
        Safety must be the top priority of AV legislation.
    Autonomous vehicles have the potential to save lives, reducing
    the number of accidents caused by human error.
        We can't take those gains for granted, though. Safety
    improvements depend on rigorous testing, responsible
    deployment, and consumer confidence in the technology.
        While safety is my primary consideration, I just want to
    mention that autonomous vehicles, it is predicted, could
    displace about 4.1 million driving jobs. We just have to think
    about those kinds of transitions and how will putting AVs on
    the road affect congestion and air quality.
        The key elements of the majority's approach are exemptions
    and State preemption. Notably absent from the bills before us
    is any direction for a rulemaking by NHTSA on autonomous
    vehicles.
        Automakers' requests for exemptions, which seems very
    premature to me, acknowledge that autonomous vehicles may not
    comply with existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
        Exemptions are no substitute for updated safety standards
    as more AVs share the road. Exemptions should only be a stopgap
    as NHTSA determines how to update existing laws and what
    additional safety standards might be necessary for AVs. We need
    to figure out a responsible way to keep innovation moving
    forward while ensuring safety at every stage.
        State preemption is not a new concept in auto safety.
    States are currently barred from legislation--from regulating
    design features of cars once NHTSA adopts a Federal standard.
        The Republican draft proposes preemption without any
    requirement for a Federal standard. I believe we need a
    framework for updating Federal standards if we even have that
    conversation about preemption, which I am very skeptical about.
        I also don't want to lose sight of the current potential
    for safety improvements. Some of the automakers pushing hardest
    for AV legislation have been the slowest in making automatic
    emergency braking, for example, which has proven to save
    lives--making them standard in all vehicles.
        The promise of AVs in the future should not cause us to
    ignore the safety gains that we can make right now.
        For example, rear seat reminders to prevent kids from dying
    in hot cars--and so we should be doing things like that right
    now, reminders to imminent hazard authority.
        Safety today, safety tomorrow--this legislation package
    should be a vehicle for both. Our panel today includes industry
    and consumer interest. However, I am concerned that no one from
    NHTSA is here to testify. Agency feedback is critical.
        We need to be mindful of NHTSA's current limitations and
    work to provide the data and resources it needs to be an
    effective consumer watchdog as the technology in our vehicles
    evolve.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you on
    this legislation. I thank all of our witnesses for being here
    today and now I yield the remainder of my time to Congresswoman
    Dingell.
        Ms. Dingell. I thank you, Madam Schakowsky.
        I want to tell you how important I think this hearing is
    today because this is the new frontier for automobiles. It is
    not about if this technology is going to be developed. It is
    where it is going to be developed and by whom, and I am
    unwilling to yield United States and America not stand at the
    forefront of innovation and technology.
        This is about safety. I could not agree with you more. In
    2015, over 35,000 people died on our roadways and early
    estimates indicate that this could rise to over 40,000 in 2016.
    That is a staggering amount of lives lost to auto accidents.
        NHTSA estimates that 94 percent of highway crashes are due
    to human error. This development of automated vehicles has the
    potential to lower that number very significantly. It is why it
    is so important that we come together around legislation that
    addresses AV deployment, always putting safety first.
        We have an obligation to examine the best ways to safely
    deploy these technologies, given the incredible amount of
    upside that they have.
        But as I have said, it is going to happen. Let's make it
    happen here. Today's hearing is an important step towards
    finding bipartisan consensus on what I hope will be a
    nonpartisan issue.
        The issues on safety do matter. Working with NHTSA does
    matter. I look forward to hearing our testimony from the
    witnesses, and I yield back my overtime.
        Mr. Latta. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her
    time, and the Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman
    from Oregon, the chairman of the full committee.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

        Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Chairman Latta, for your
    work on this and your staff's work on this and members on both
    sides of the aisle as we try to find the right legislative
    concepts.
        I want to associate myself with the comments of the
    gentlelady of Michigan because we too join you in wanting to
    make sure that this innovation takes place in America first.
        We have been on the cutting edge. We can continue to be on
    the cutting edge. But the long and the short of it is this new
    technology has a great opportunity to save lives.
        I have seen it first hand in the vehicle my wife now has as
    you look at collision avoidance. We were driving down the
    highway with the cruise control. I was driving down the highway
    with the cruise control on.
        She was napping and a big blackbird flew in front and the
    vehicle automatically braked. She thought I was, like, drowsy
    driving and are you OK, I am fine. It was a bird. Sure, it was
    a bird. It was a bird.
        My point of the story is it saw that and reacted long
    before I would have, and whether it is a bird or a child or
    another vehicle gone astray or something that radar is always
    watching. And the ability to save lives is huge and avoid
    accidents is tremendous and I just believe we are on the cusp
    of something big.
        I think the future generations will look back and say,
    ``What a bunch of barbarians. You drove yourselves? And how did
    you text?''
        Well, that is part of the problem, because people are doing
    that today and that is costing us an increasing number of
    lives--35,000 in 2015, maybe 40,000-plus in 2016. Millions of
    people being injured.
        You think of the loss of life, of limb, of property--
    everything that is associated with highway fatalities and
    accidents, the ability to move commerce efficiently through
    markets, the reduction in pollution that will bring if you are
    not stalled in a traffic jam because we found a better way to
    run a convoy of trucks through.
        Now, we don't have commercial trucking in this committee.
    We stopped at light trucks. And so these are issues that will
    be addressed in the future.
        But we are on the cusp of something really big here. I am
    really impressed with what I have learned that the automakers
    are engaged in I have seen, as I say, first hand and once you
    have this technology, by the way, you have to reeducate
    yourself when you get in your old vehicle because it doesn't
    beep and bark and the wheel doesn't automatically keep you
    between the lines.
        The question, though, is do you want these cars to stop at
    every State line? Because every State would have a different
    system. We have never done that in America with autos.
        We certainly have common transportation systems with rail,
    I mean, and so we have to find that right balance between the
    States and localities and the Federal Government so that we can
    be the great innovators.
        We can save lives. We can improve the environment with this
    technology. I am just really excited to be on the committee
    that is going to lead the way.
        These are staff discussion drafts. This isn't the end. This
    is the beginning. But it is the beginning of--we have done a
    lot up to this point.
        And so I just want to thank all the members of the
    committee on both sides of the aisle as we work forward to find
    the right balance here.
        With that, I want to yield to my friend from the great
    State of Michigan, former chairman of the committee, who I know
    has played a leading role in getting us to this point in prior
    Congresses.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden

        First, I want to thank and commend Chairman Latta for
    today's hearing and for the subcommittee's diligent work on
    self-driving vehicles.
        Unfortunately, our Nation has seen a sharp rise in vehicle-
    related injuries and deaths over the past few years. In my home
    State of Oregon, traffic fatalities last year were the highest
    they've been since 2003--up 20 percent from the year before.
        While no one is claiming that these numbers can be turned
    around overnight, self-driving vehicle technology has the
    potential to dramatically improve safety on our Nation's
    roadways and that is one of the most important reasons to
    advance the bills we have under consideration today.
        In addition to making our roadways safer, self-driving
    vehicle technology has the potential to offer many other
    benefits.
        I see real benefits in terms of cleaner cars with less of
    an environmental impact. The technological advances spurred by
    self-driving vehicles could ultimately make cars more efficient
    and create a positive shift in the industry.
        Additionally, this technology could help increase
    transportation access to underserved and rural communities and
    reduce traffic congestion in some of our largest cities.
        Self-driving vehicles could greatly improve mobility and
    accessibility, empowering senior citizens and those who suffer
    from disabilities. Simple things most of us take for granted,
    such as going to the doctor or to the nearby grocery store, may
    no longer present insurmountable hurdles for those who
    currently rely on others.
        However, for these benefits to be realized, we must create
    a regulatory framework that provides companies with the
    flexibility to test and generate data that will inform the
    continued development of these vehicles. We must also provide
    appropriate Government oversight to ensure that this is done in
    a safe and secure manner.
        It's also time for Congress to clarify the roles of both
    Federal and State government with regard to this industry. Just
    as Congress ensured uniformity in railroads traversing America,
    we need to make certain that in the future our cars can take us
    from one State to another. For America to remain a leader in
    this field, we need to act.
        I want to thank our distinguished panel for being with us
    today to engage in this extremely important discussion and I
    look forward to working with my colleagues on this critical
    issue.

        Mr. Walden. And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield
    to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton.
        Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
    say forget about the Jetsons. The Jetsons are here, and as all
    of us drive, as we commute back to our districts in our home
    States, for me, Michigan, and we drive hundreds of miles often
    every day that we are there crisscrossing our district, we see
    other drivers. We see other drivers texting and using their
    phones and we see them weave and get sleepy.
        And just going to Detroit yesterday morning, I think I saw
    three trucks that weaved into my lane, trying to cross. This
    morning it took me more than an hour to get 7 miles, because of
    a broken-down car on the 14th Street bridge, another little
    accident on the GW Parkway, and took my best shortcut, that I
    am not going to unveil now so that other people don't use it.
        But, you know, it took me, I think, 20 minutes to get from
    Southwest Airlines to American, just going through that arrival
    part of DCA, trying to get here and avoid some of that.
        This technology is going to save a lot of lives. It is
    going to save a lot of accidents. And years from now, we are
    going to wonder how was it that America let 35,000 people die
    on the roads in 2016, and maybe 40,000 this year.
        We are at the cutting edge and we need to do it right. We
    need to do it in a bipartisan way and I welcome the
    participation of all members of this committee as we try to
    figure this thing out right.
        Because at the end of the day, we are going to save a lot
    of lives. We are going to save a lot of casualty losses, as
    well, and it won't take us an hour to get 7 miles back and
    forth to the office.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time, the Chair recognizes for 5 minutes the
    gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member of the full
    committee.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This subcommittee has been reviewing automated vehicle
    technology for some time. As we have heard, there are a number
    of potential benefits both for safety and mobility in the
    deployment of self-driving cars.
        There are also challenges to the deployment such as
    increased cyber security and privacy exposure risks and safety
    issues regarding the interaction between human operated and
    computer operated vehicles.
        We all share the goal of promoting the safest possible
    transportation options. Before us today are 14 separate
    legislative bills that deal with some of the deployment issues.
        I support efforts to help get new technology advances on
    the roads faster. But we must review each bill through our
    safety lens.
        Only if we keep safety first as our mantra can we get these
    initiatives to a place where they are ready to become law.
        Although the minority was not involved in the development
    of these 14 bills, I would like to hold you, Mr. Chairman, to
    your commitment to work to make this a bipartisan effort. My
    goal is crafting a single bipartisan bill that all members can
    support.
        Right now there is some challenges to getting there,
    starting with the leadership vacuum at the National Highway
    Traffic Safety Administration. We should not be moving bills
    out of committee before we hear from the administration about
    how the bills would or could be implemented. And yet, once
    again, we have nobody here today to testify from the
    administration.
        The little we have heard from NHTSA is troubling. The
    president's budget estimate submitted to Congress this spring
    show NHTSA focusing on deregulatory actions that are in direct
    conflict with what Congress required it to do.
        Despite congressional mandates, NHTSA wants to stop
    important safety laws. Inexcusably, the agency is resisting
    critical safety measures designed to ensure blind pedestrians
    know a quiet car is nearby or that parents or grandparents do
    not unintentionally back over their little children.
        While the bills before us deal with a number of industry
    requests such as increases to the current exemption limit or
    how FOIA requests are handled, there are no directions to
    NHTSA.
        NHTSA must have an active role for self-driving cars to be
    successfully deployed on our roads. There also is not direction
    on the issues of cybersecurity, data security, or privacy.
        As we look forward to this new world of self-driving cars,
    we must also ensure that we promote safety which includes
    ensuring NHTSA fulfills its responsibilities both in the
    emerging area as well as with human-driven cars and we can't
    focus on the future at the expense of today.
        As Ranking Member Schakowsky pointed out, a number of
    things can be done right now to make traditional cars safe.
    Most of the auto industry have committed to making automatic
    emergency braking standard in all cars.
        This is a technology that we know promotes safety and some
    automakers have already met that commitment. But others are
    delaying such action. When we know a technology makes people
    safer, it should be put into all cars as quickly as possible.
        In addition, the legislation we discuss now should not be
    the end of the conversation. One recurring theme throughout the
    subcommittee's disrupter series is that technology is advancing
    extremely quickly.
        Today's new technology could be obsolete by next year.
    Self-driving vehicle technology is very much in the development
    phase and it is almost impossible to foresee all the issues
    that may arise.
        So we can't allow the actions we take now to stop us from
    addressing new issues that come up later or from revisiting
    some issues that may change in the future. So in my opinion,
    this is a big moment for us.
        Automated vehicles have the potential to change
    everything--how we move, what communities look like, how we
    interact with each other, for example, and we need to be sure
    that we get this right and that safety is the first priority.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

                 Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

        This subcommittee has been reviewing automated vehicle
    technology for some time. As we have heard, there are a number
    of potential benefits both for safety and mobility in the
    deployment of self-driving cars. There are also challenges to
    their deployment, such as increased cybersecurity and privacy
    exposure risks and safety issues regarding the interaction
    between human-operated and computer-operated vehicles. We all
    share the goal of promoting the safest possible transportation
    options.
        Before us today are 14 separate legislative bills that deal
    with some of the deployment issues. I support efforts that help
    get new technological advances on the roads faster, but we must
    review each bill through our safety lens. Only if we keep
    ``safety first'' as our mantra can we get these initiatives to
    a place where they are ready to become law.
        Although the minority was not involved in the development
    of these 14 bills, I would like to hold you, Mr. Chairman, to
    your commitment to work to make this a bipartisan effort. My
    goal is crafting a single bipartisan bill that all members can
    support.
        Right now, there are some challenges to getting there,
    starting with the leadership vacuum at the National Highway
    Traffic Safety Administration. We should not be moving bills
    out of committee before we hear from the administration about
    how the bills would, or could, be implemented. And yet, once
    again, we have nobody here today to testify from the
    administration.
        The little we have heard from NHTSA is troubling. The
    President's Budget Estimates submitted to Congress this spring
    shows NHTSA focusing on deregulatory actions that are in direct
    conflict with what Congress required it to do. Despite
    Congressional mandates, NHTSA wants to stop important safety
    laws. Inexcusably, the agency is resisting critical safety
    measures designed to ensure blind pedestrians know a quiet car
    is nearby or that parents or grandparents do not
    unintentionally back-over their little children.
        While the bills before us deal with a number of industry
    requests, such as increases to the current exemptions limit or
    how FOIA requests are handled, there are no directions to
    NHTSA. NHTSA must have an active role for self-driving cars to
    be successfully deployed on our roads. There also is no
    direction on the issues of cybersecurity, data security, or
    privacy.
        As we look forward to this new world of self-driving cars,
    we must also ensure that we promote safety, which includes
    ensuring NHTSA fulfills its responsibilities both in this
    emerging area as well as with human-driven cars.
        We cannot focus on the future at the expense of today. As
    Ranking Member Schakowsky pointed out, a number of things can
    be done right now to make traditional cars safer. Most of the
    auto industry have committed to making automatic emergency
    braking standard in all cars. This is a technology that we know
    promotes safety, and some automakers have already met that
    commitment, butut others are delaying such action. When we know
    a technology makes people safer, it should be put into all cars
    as quickly as possible.
        In addition, the legislation we discuss now should not be
    the end of the conversation. One recurring theme throughout
    this subcommittee's disruptor series is that technology is
    advancing extremely quickly. Today's new technology could be
    obsolete by next year. Self-driving vehicle technology is very
    much in the development phase, and it's almost impossible to
    foresee all the issues that may arise. So we can't allow the
    actions we take now to stop us from addressing new issues that
    come up later or from revisiting some issues that may change in
    the future.
        This is a big moment for us. Automated vehicles have the
    potential to change everything: how we move, what communities
    look like, how we interact with each other. We need to be sure
    that we get this right and that safety is the first priority.

        Mr. Pallone. And I would like to yield the balance of the
    time to Ms. Matsui.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Pallone,
    for yielding me time.
        I would like to echo the ranking member. Without sufficient
    resources, NHTSA won't be able to facilitate the safe and
    speedy adoption of autonomous vehicles.
        We all share the same goal: safely getting this lifesaving
    technology on the road. That is why I am disappointed with the
    process so far on today's legislation.
        We ought to be working together on bipartisan comprehensive
    legislation rather than these piecemeal bills and these bills
    don't do enough.
        California has been a leader in envisioning a pathway for
    the safe testing and deployment of AVs. If we are going to
    contemplate undoing this progress we ought to be focuses on
    giving NHTSA the tools to fill the void.
        Autonomous vehicles will be hear before we know it and I
    stand ready to work with my colleagues on both sides of the
    aisle to put in place a strong framework that includes the
    right regulatory safeguards while allowing flexibility for
    innovation.
        Thank you very much, and I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. The gentlelady yields back the balance of the
    time, and that will now conclude the Member opening statements.
        The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to
    committee rules, all Members' opening statements will be made
    part of the record.
        We want to thank our witnesses for being with us today and
    taking time to testify before the subcommittee. Today's
    witnesses will have the opportunity to give opening statements
    followed by a round of questions from the Members.
        Our panelists for today's hearing will include Mr. Mitch
    Bainwol, the president and CEO at the Alliance of Automobile
    Manufacturers; the Honorable David Strickland, counsel for
    Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets and partner at
    Venable; Mr. Will Wallace, policy analyst at Consumers Union;
    Mr. Alan Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public
    Interest and Public Service Law at the George Washington
    University of Law School; Mr. Tim Day, senior vice president
    for Chamber Technology Engagement Center at the U.S. Chamber of
    Commerce; and John Bozzella, president and CEO of Global
    Automakers.
        We appreciate you all being here today. We are going to
    start with Mr. Bainwol, and you will be recognized for 5
    minutes, and if you would just pull that mic up close to you
    and turn it on you will see when your time is about ready to
    expire by the lights. But thank you very much for being here,
    and the mic is yours.
        Thank you.

      STATEMENTS OF MITCH BAINWOL, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
        OFFICER, ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS; DAVID L.
    STRICKLAND, COUNSEL, SELF-DRIVING COALITION FOR SAFER STREETS,
     AND PARTNER, VENABLE LLP; WILLIAM C. WALLACE, POLICY ANALYST,
    CONSUMERS UNION; ALAN B. MORRISON, LERNER FAMILY ASSOCIATE DEAN
     FOR PUBLIC INTEREST AND PUBLIC SERVICE LAW, GEORGE WASHINGTON
    UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL; TIM DAY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, CHAMBER
      TECHNOLOGY ENGAGEMENT CENTER, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; AND
         JOHN BOZZELLA, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
                    ASSOCIATION OF GLOBAL AUTOMAKERS

                       STATEMENT OF MITCH BAINWOL

        Mr. Bainwol. Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Schakowsky, Chairman Walden,
    Ranking Member Pallone, Mr. Upton, members of the committee, I
    am Mitch Bainwol from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
        We represent 12 automakers. We are kind of the umbrella
    group. We have the Detroit Three. We have major manufacturers
    in Europe and three Japanese manufacturers--Toyota, Mazda, and
    Mitsubishi. I am really pleased to be here today. Your
    leadership moving this issue is critical.
        Rather than reading this statement, I am going to run
    through a quick slide deck--11 slides in about 4 and a half
    minutes--so bear with me.
        As we talk about the future--next slide--I think it is
    instructive to go back to 1961. I think it was 61 years ago
    tomorrow that Eisenhower signed the bill that created the
    highway system.
        That, obviously, was a critical assertion of Federal
    leadership. Ike said, our unity as a nation is sustained by
    free communication of thought and by easy transportation of
    people and goods. That was true then and it is true today.
        Ten years later--next slide--LBJ signed the Highway Act and
    really triggered an enormous Federal focus on safety. It was a
    remarkable success.
        Then public works chairman George Fallon said, this bill
    continues the policy of meaningful cooperation between the
    States and the Federal Government on highway matters.
        It was a firm step forward in the effort to save lives,
    talking about a theme of Federal and State roles.
        Next slide. This is really kind of the critical data slide.
    This shows 1949 to 2016 the fatalities on the roads. The gray
    line, which is faint, is the absolute number of fatalities and
    you can see it reached just over 50,000 in the '70s and is now
    roughly about 40,000.
        The green line is the line really to focus on. That is
    fatalities by VMT, vehicle miles travelled, and what you see is
    a phenomenal success story.
        We are not without concern about the task that remains. The
    last 2 years there is been a tick-up, and that is concerning.
    But the trend line over the 70-year period really is a powerful
    one.
        Next slide. That was the basis of the recognition by CDC
    that motor vehicle safety was one of the 10 great public health
    achievements of the century.
        So this is, I think, a statement--go to the next slide--
    that the Safety Act fundamentally works and the magic or the
    genius of the Safety Act is this scale and the scale--what we
    are trying to do is optimize the capacity to innovate and we do
    that with self-certification and protection of consumers, and
    that is a very, very crucial balance to achieve and we believe
    the Safety Act and the facts of the last 70 years demonstrate
    that the right balance has been struck.
        I would note that NHTSA has a huge backstop in terms of
    governing behavior--a strong defect authority, information-
    gathering authority--so it really is a powerful tool to govern
    behavior.
        You also have liability. You have reputational issues that
    condition behavior. The next slide drills down a bit on the
    35,000 lives lost in 2015 and what you see is at the very tip
    of the inverted pyramid you have about 1 percent, really less
    than 1 percent, that relates to the vehicle itself.
        We need to get that 1 percent down as far as humanly
    possible. But the magic of what you are doing today is that
    you're going to touch the 99 percent that is out there that we
    can make a difference on working together.
        Next slide. So there are clear hurdles here. We have got,
    you know, Government hurdles in terms of how Government manages
    to deal with the pace of innovation.
        We have got consumer acceptance issues, data risk,
    dislocation, technology itself--all the things that the opening
    statements have highlighted.
        The benefit stream is enormous. We have talked mostly about
    lives that have sustained injuries, access for the disabled,
    enhanced quality of life, less carbon emissions, more fuel
    efficiency, faster travel, more productive commerce, more
    flexible space utilization. The prize at the end of the rainbow
    here is enormous.
        So let's look at what countries are doing around--around
    the world and what you see is countries are nationalizing their
    frameworks for self-driving.
        That is what's going on globally, and there is a picture at
    the bottom of the Queen. She had a statement in May just a
    month ago, where even the Queen is getting into the act and is
    leading to the future.
        So this is the global context of--that defines the world in
    which you all are operating. And if we look at the next slide
    to the U.S., the U.S. is moving in a profoundly different
    direction.
        So rather than nationalizing our framework what we have
    been doing is establishing a patchwork and whether 70 or 80
    bills in the last year, it is a ton of activity.
        Not all of it is bad. Some of the State work is prudent and
    helpful. But when you have a patchwork it slows down innovation
    and that is a huge challenge.
        So the draft bills, we recognize, are a beginning and we
    are heartened by the call for bipartisan action and we are
    hopeful that a bipartisan bill can emerge.
        But we think it is a really good start. By increasing the
    number of vehicles eligible for temporary exemptions, the draft
    stimulates the generation of data that is necessary for later
    FMVSS.
        It provides the market incentive to drive the investment of
    industry research that ultimately will save so many lives and
    it enhances U.S. competitiveness in this space.
        The uniform national framework will accelerate testing and
    deployment and by adopting a forward-leaning approach you send
    a signal to States, to cities, and to the public that the
    future is worth accelerating.
        So I am down to my last slide and I am a little over. The
    point here is that this is a journey we are going to be on for
    a while. Moody's projects that AVs will not be ubiquitous until
    2055.
        Think of it: 1956, Eisenhower with the interstate highway
    system; 2055, nearly a hundred years later, ubiquity with AVs.
    It is a century of profound change for mobility. This committee
    has an opportunity to take the next great step to save lives
    and improve commerce and improve quality of life.
        This is the right time. We need to assert leadership and
    the question is ultimately will the technology be developed
    here in the U.S. or will it be imported.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bainwol follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, and the Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Strickland for 5 minutes.
        Thank you very much for being here.

                    STATEMENT OF DAVID L. STRICKLAND

        Mr. Strickland. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for the
    opportunity, and Ranking Member Schakowsky, nice to see you
    again. I am looking forward to working with you on this
    important legislation.
        I want to commend this committee for its efforts in taking
    a leadership in this important suite of bills. It is the first
    of its kind to address the major national legislative and
    policy challenges related to deploying self-driving vehicles
    and the coalition looks forward to working with this committee
    as this draft evolves.
        My name is David Strickland and I am a partner at Venable
    LLP. I am testifying here today as counsel to the Self-Driving
    Coalition for Safer Streets.
        The coalition--which members include Ford Motor Company,
    Lyft, Uber, the Volvo Car Group, and Waymo--is focused on
    enabling the development and deployment of level 4 and level 5
    fully self-driving vehicles.
        This cross-section of companies demonstrates the widespread
    interest in developing this technology across different
    sectors--technology, automobile, and transportation networking.
        Despite their different backgrounds, the companies came
    together to form the coalition because of their commitment to
    bring tremendous potential safety benefits of self-driving cars
    to consumers in the safest and swiftest manner possible.
        The coalition believes that fully self-driving cars will
    play a key role in making our roads safer. The members have
    noted the importance of safety and the fact that we are going
    in the wrong direction.
        Not only did we lose 35,092 people in 2015, the trend line
    looks for 2016 it is going to get even higher, and as Ms.
    Dingell noted that 94 percent of these crashes have an element
    of human error.
        Self-driving vehicles have the ability to, frankly, cover
    those accidents. All of the variations of human error can be
    addressed by this technology, which is the reason why we think
    that it is so important to have this technology tested and
    deployed as quickly as we possibly can in the most safest
    manner possible.
        Self-driving vehicles also hold the promise to enhance
    mobility for the disabled and the elderly, reduce congestion
    and improve productivity.
        It would appear that the committee shares many of these
    goals, as demonstrated through the various bills under
    discussion today. I would like to take the opportunity to
    provide some comments and feedback on the discussion draft.
        First, we believe the LEAD'R Act is an important step in
    clarifying the appropriate Federal and State roles and
    responsibilities when it comes to fully self-driving vehicles.
        The Federal Government retains the authority to promulgate
    and enforce nationally uniform motor vehicle safety standards.
    We do not believe self-driving cars present a reason to deviate
    from that well-established precedent.
        States should be discouraged from just creating a patchwork
    of inconsistent laws and regulations relating to such standards
    and have the potential to stifle this emerging industry.
        The LEAD'R Act would more clearly delineate the States
    continue to retain their traditional role in establishing and
    maintaining rules of the road, vehicle registration, traffic
    enforcement, and with respect to insurance while making it
    clear that it is the Federal Government's exclusive authority
    to set the standards related to safety, performance, and the
    design of fully self-driving vehicles.
        We have suggestions, and we look forward to working with
    the committee to strengthen and bolster the technological
    neutrality of this language.
        I also want to highlight the collection of proposals
    related to the expanding vehicle exemptions to permit new
    safety features unique to fully self-driving vehicles--more
    specifically, the PAVE, ROAD, EXEMPT, and MORE Acts.
        Today, level 4 and 5 self-driving vehicles are subject to
    all of the criteria in the Federal safety standards, even
    though certain decades-old provisions were clearly designed
    with a human driver in mind.
        The numerical and temporal limitations on exemptions under
    current law present a concrete obstacle to achieve the goal of
    rapid, safe, and robust deployment necessary to attain the
    safety and mobility benefits we believe the fully self-driving
    vehicles promise.
        The coalition supports these four bills as they would
    expand NHTSA's authority to permit a greater number of vehicles
    to be allowed on the road for testing and deployment of highway
    automated vehicles and because they would authorize exemptions
    for two well-intentioned purposes--first, to promote the public
    adoption and acceptance or facilitate meaningful commercial
    deployment of a new motor vehicle safety feature system, or
    two, to promote transportation access to individuals with
    disabilities.
        We think these two new purposes for exemptions, along with
    the requirement for equivalent safety, strike the right balance
    to encourage the safe innovation of level 4 and level 5
    vehicles.
        While we suggest some wording changes such as using the
    same test for equivalent safety that presently applies to the
    safety features, we think that this is the right direction in
    terms of increasing innovation.
        While we appreciate the committee's draft legislation all
    across a number of advisory councils, we believe it also too,
    making sure we thank the committee for its widespread and
    inclusion of a number of constituencies of stakeholders in this
    field that believe will have a great important ability to fuel,
    I guess, debate and a more thoughtful approach to the
    committee's work.
        Thank you again for the opportunity. I am looking forward
    to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Strickland follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
        And Mr. Wallace, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
    opening statement.

                    STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. WALLACE

        Mr. Wallace. Good morning, and thank you for the chance to
    testify.
        At the independent nonprofit Consumer Reports, experts at
    our auto test center have rigorously evaluated cars that can
    steer within a lane, adjust speed and brake automatically.
        Based on this work, we see the potential for self-driving
    vehicles to make our roads far safer. There is a smart safe
    path to realizing this promise that we encourage automakers,
    regulators and Congress to follow.
        Companies and policy makers should set a clear expectation.
    As highly automated vehicles improve mobility, these cars also
    must significantly improve safety for their occupants and
    others who share the road.
        Today, we urge the subcommittee to embrace both
    technological innovation and accountability. Innovation has
    brought about numerous practical and lifesaving features. But
    any accelerated deployment of automated vehicle systems should
    be evidence based and should include sensible and mandatory
    measures to protect consumers against new hazards that may
    emerge.
        First, with these principles in mind, we make several
    recommendations that are explained further in our written
    testimony. The first one is that exemptions from Federal safety
    standards for highly automated vehicles should be limited to
    equipment where a vehicle's automated driving system can fully,
    effectively, and safely replace a human driver's role.
        This would be consistent with NHTSA's governing statute.
    Further, because any vehicle should provide sufficient
    protection in a crash, no exemption should be granted for
    crashworthiness or occupant protection.
        Congress also should direct NHTSA to define specific
    criteria that must be followed by both companies and the
    agency. This could help bring some light to exemptions and make
    them more data driven which could, in turn, enhance consumer
    confidence. It also could promote business certainty to define
    a more specific process for exemptions.
        Second, new measures should be in place for vehicles that
    have level 2 or 3 driving automation which can give consumers a
    dangerously false sense of security and increase the risk of
    driver inattention.
        Humans have a limited ability to return to driving and
    monitoring the roadway after having disengaged from those
    tasks. Accordingly, additional NHTSA research into human-
    machine interface should be fully funded.
        Disclosure to consumers about these vehicles should be
    improved and NHTSA should take a look at whether it would
    improve safety to set performance standards for emerging
    systems and monitor whether the driver is paying attention and
    is able to take the wheel when alerted.
        Third, automakers should make their safety-related data
    public and share it with regulators in a timely manner. Right
    now, industry claims of the safety benefits of highly automated
    vehicles appear to be speculative or based on data held
    internally. Greater disclosure would help companies build trust
    in their products, which right now is lacking.
        For example, preliminary survey results released by MIT
    AgeLab in late May indicated that only 13 percent of
    respondents would be comfortable with a fully autonomous car,
    down 10 percentage points from the previous year.
        Fourth, preemption of State and local authority should be
    narrowly tailored and limited to areas where NHTSA has set
    strong Federal safety standards.
        It would be inappropriate to displace States' authority to
    protect their citizens without also having strong Federal
    safety standards in place.
        But if the subcommittee does preempt the States, it should
    be with a far narrower provision that does not inhibit
    traditional approaches States have used to protect their
    citizens.
        Fifth, the FTC and NHTSA should be given the authority to
    jointly set baseline enforceable privacy and security standards
    for cars. A nationally representative Consumer Reports survey
    found last month that 70 percent of U.S. adults lack confidence
    that their personal data is private and safe from being shared
    without their knowledge and, as multiple Federal agencies have
    documented, a breach of car systems can come with a risk of
    deadly consequences.
        Consumers should know what data their car is collecting and
    who has access to this information and should be able to trust
    that companies are legally obligated to protect their privacy
    and security.
        Sixth, NHTSA's research, enforcement, and other
    capabilities should be strengthened significantly for both
    increased funding and authority.
        NHTSA remains chronically under resourced and needs
    expanded funding and personnel as well as a greater practical
    ability to get unsafe cars off the road quickly.
        For the agency to be the kind of watchdog consumers
    deserve, Congress should give it the authority to take action
    without delay on defects that presents an imminent hazard as
    has been proposed in the Vehicle Safety Improvement Act.
        In conclusion, we see great safety potential in self-
    driving cars. But that promise should be realized by following
    a smart safe path like the one we propose today.
        As it continues its work, we stand ready to help the
    subcommittee ensure that these principles are upheld in the
    law.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wallace follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Morrison, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF ALAN B. MORRISON

        Mr. Morrison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        My written statement explains the general principles I
    believe should be applied to this area but now I want to take a
    lawyer's role and go over the bills that are before this
    committee.
        It is necessary because the other witnesses, neither in
    their written statements or in their oral statements, have gone
    through in detail and I think it is very important to
    understand exactly what kind of major changes these proposed
    laws would make.
        Part of the problem is that each one of these draft bills
    is a small piece of the problem and they are not all put
    together in the staff memorandum or anyplace else.
        As I read them, these would enact major changes in the
    laws. There would be less safety and more preemption, and it is
    all in the name of technological advances, which is wholly
    unnecessary to full testing, and that is my first point.
        There is no law change now to enable NHTSA to get out of
    the way of testing. There is a specific exemption in the law
    now, 30112(b)(10), which specifically says that the general
    prohibition of putting vehicles on the road without approval
    does not apply and therefore there is nothing standing in the
    way right now of all these vehicles being tested. The question
    is what else is going to happen.
        Now, I would point out that under my reading of the current
    preemption statute that States are permitted to regulate
    testing largely because NHTSA has no rules on testing.
        The testing provision makes it not applicable. It doesn't
    mean that it is complying with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
    Standard.
        But what's most significant is that the LEAD'R bill will
    vastly expand the exemption from State regulation at all. Under
    current law there has to be a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
    Standard in order for there to be preemption.
        That has changed under the LEAD'R bill. The LEAD'R bill
    provides that States cannot do anything unless they are doing
    something which is identical to what NHTSA has done.
        Since NHTSA has done nothing and has no immediate intention
    of doing nothing, that means that under this bill, no matter
    how little NHTSA does, the States can't do anything. That's
    very important and it is a major change in the law, and we are
    talking only about testing.
        Now, the second thing I want to talk about is the
    exemptions. These exemptions are not necessary for testing.
    They are necessary for deployment. Deployment means that
    anyone--you or I or the car rental companies or anyone in the
    country--can drive one of these vehicles under one of the
    exemptions. Testing means that only the car companies--the
    owners, the operators, and the people they contract with who
    are specially trained--are allowed to do this.
        So there is a big difference between deployment and testing
    and this exemption would apply to deployment. And let me tell
    you how broad this exemption is.
        It would go from 2,500 vehicles a year to 10,000 vehicles
    in a 12-month period for every single manufacturer of these
    vehicles and I believe there are 30-something companies.
        If my math is right, you multiply 30 times 100,000 per year
    and you get an idea of how much this exemption is going to
    allow these vehicles to be on the road with no NHTSA
    supervision whatsoever.
        Moreover, the process by which these exemptions is granted
    is going to be completely ineffective. The question before the
    agency will be is there an equivalent level of safety.
        That is a very difficult question to answer for vehicles
    that have never been tested, which have totally new features,
    which don't have brake pedals, steering wheels, accelerators,
    which assume that the driver is going to be in the car.
        Moreover, what NHTSA is going to be able to do is to say
    that none of this information that the auto companies are
    submitting can be seen by State regulators, the public, by
    members of this committee or anybody else because it is all
    confidential business information.
        Now, that means there is going to be no one guarding the
    guards. No one's going to be checking to see that what NHTSA
    does is going to assure the safety of these vehicles.
        I want to be clear. I am not opposed to these vehicles. I
    am not opposed to testing. But we need somebody to look at this
    material besides just NHTSA and the auto companies. There is a
    big problem of trust now in this industry and I don't think
    that the driving public, the pedestrians and everyone else in
    the world is going to be satisfied by saying it is all OK,
    NHTSA is taking care of it when we know that it is not doing
    anything and leaving it to all of the companies that have their
    own economic interest in doing this.
        Now, the bottom line for me is that when you work through
    the maze, and it is a maze of these rules, there is no
    requirement for new Federal regulation. None.
        Second, there is much greater preemption of State law.
    Third, there is much broader deployment, not testing
    exemptions.
        Fourth, there is no clear standards for granting the
    exemption, and fifth, almost total secrecy for the industry in
    submitting their test data and other information that is so
    necessary.
         So I want to ask this question. Is this what your
    constituents want? Do you think that this will engender public
    trust? I don't. I think there is a way forward but these bills
    are not it.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Morrison follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much for your testimony this
    morning.
        And Mr. Day, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Thanks.

                          STATEMENT OF TIM DAY

        Mr. Day. Thank you. Chairman Latta, Ranking Member
    Schakowsky, and members of the Digital Commerce and Consumer
    Protection Subcommittee, good morning.
        My name is Tim Day. I am senior vice president of C-TEC,
    the Chamber Technology Engagement Center. Thank you for the
    opportunity to provide testimony this morning on self-driving
    vehicles.
        The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest
    business federation representing the interests of more than 3
    million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions as well
    as State and local chambers and industry associations.
        The chamber established C-TEC to advance technology's role
    in the U.S. economy. I am here to testify on a vital aspect of
    the business environment--preemption--and also to support the
    LEAD'R Act.
        The Chamber of Commerce has historically supported
    preemption for all modes of transportation as transportation is
    key to the healthy interstate commerce and the growth of our
    economy.
        For example, according to the Department of Transportation,
    more than $1 out of every $10 produced in the U.S. GDP is
    related to transportation activity. As you can imagine, the
    United States is not the only country currently developing
    self-driving technology.
        In China, Baidu, one of the largest internet companies in
    the world, has already announced that it will introduce its
    fully autonomous cars on highways and open city roads by the
    year 2020.
        And Germany recently passed legislation to allow road test
    vehicles in which drivers will be allowed to take their hands
    off of the steering wheel.
        For the United States to continue to be globally
    competitive in the self-driving vehicle market, we must provide
    American innovators with a single set of standards as opposed
    to a patchwork of laws by individual States.
        Technology companies come in all sizes. Many of the current
    industry leaders once began with just an idea. The companies of
    tomorrow also will be started with ideas and we must create a
    business-friendly environment to allow them to succeed and
    thrive.
        A recent Morning Consult survey just last week of over
    2,000 registered voters found that three in five voters support
    the use of self-driving vehicles.
        It also found that voters overwhelmingly predict the
    positive impact of self-driving vehicles on the disabled and
    elderly citizens of this country as well as the issues of drunk
    and distracted driving.
        And finally, voters strongly prefer Federal standards when
    it comes to laws governing the use of self-driving vehicles.
    While further education of the American public is needed, this
    poll points to the fact that the public recognizes the
    potential benefits of this technology and the role of Federal
    Government.
        C-TEC's autonomous vehicle working group has been convening
    stakeholders from both the commercial and passenger vehicle
    sectors to ensure that the regulatory environment will allow
    for the U.S. to capitalize on these societal and commercial
    prospects.
        From an economic perspective, a study by Intel completed
    this month shows that the economic opportunity from self-
    driving vehicles will grow from $800 billion to $7 trillion as
    self-driving vehicles become mainstream.
        The study also finds that by the year 2050 the passenger
    economy, which is the result of self-driving vehicles turning
    drivers into passengers, will be a $7 trillion global industry.
        Business use will generate $3 trillion as industries use
    self-driving vehicles to reshape their businesses and leverage
    new opportunities.
        All this to say when we talk about self-driving vehicles,
    commercial or passenger, there is a lot at stake for the
    American people, our businesses, and our economy.
        To conclude, the chamber supports the development of
    voluntary standards that do not constrain innovation. We
    advocate for technology-neutral policies that will allow new
    technology to develop and recommends against policies that are
    too specific.
        The chamber also supports exemptions and recommends that
    regulatory agencies work closely with industry to craft these
    standards.
        On behalf of C-TEC, I thank you for the opportunity to
    testify this morning and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Day follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        Mr. Bozzella, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
    statement.

                       STATEMENT OF JOHN BOZZELLA

        Mr. Bozzella. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Ranking
    Member Schakowsky, Chairman Walden, members of the
    subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to
    testify today.
        I am John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Association of
    Global Automakers. Global Automakers represents major
    automotive manufacturers and suppliers that are making enormous
    investments in connected and automated vehicles right here in
    the United States.
        We thank the committee for its continued interest in
    vehicle automation and are encouraged by the discussion draft
    which advances a number of important ideas to help deploy
    automated vehicles.
        So why are we here? For Global Automakers, it is all about
    safety. Thirty-five thousand people lost their lives on
    America's roadways in 2015.
        Unfortunately, this number is rising even though vehicles
    are safer than they've ever been. We need to work toward a
    future where cars no longer crash and zero lives are lost on
    the roads.
        To get to zero, we need a comprehensive safety approach
    that involves all road users and transportation providers.
    Automated and connected vehicle technology is fundamental to
    this effort.
        Right now, the auto industry is developing and deploying an
    array of automated vehicle technologies. These advancements are
    developing rapidly and we can put vehicles on roadways now and
    in the near future that will help save lives while regulators
    develop the necessary policy framework.
        So the question is what do we do in this interim period?
    First, we need one set of running rules to support widespread
    introduction of automated vehicles.
        Congress must clarify that the Federal Government is the
    primary regulator of motor vehicle safety. The law currently
    recognizes that a national vehicle marketplace needs uniform
    safety standards and that a vehicle purchased in one State can
    drive to a neighboring State.
        Unfortunately, some States, perceiving a vacuum, have begun
    to regulate. This will lead to conflicting rules that could
    impede development of lifesaving technologies.
        Second, in the interim, we need a flexible process that
    provides safety assurance while allowing meaningful deployment
    of these technologies.
        This process should assure the regulator and the public
    that automakers are designing their systems with safety first
    in mind.
        It is important that this assurance process be nimble and
    account for the rapid pace of innovation as NHTSA develops the
    data and basis for updating regulations.
        Congress has a clear and key role to play in helping to
    remove barriers to innovation by expanding opportunities to
    deploy these technologies.
        The way to do this is to expand the current exemption
    levels for certain motor vehicle safety standards that were
    written for mechanical devices in a way that maintains motor
    vehicle safety.
        Finally, Congress should ensure that any framework does not
    pick winners and losers but instead encourages all levels of
    automation.
        While level 4 and 5 driverless cars will bring significant
    benefits, level 3 vehicles, where the driver is still in the
    loop, can also provide major gains in safety, particularly for
    rural areas where highway fatalities are over twice the rate of
    urban areas.
        Any framework should allow testing and deployment of all
    levels, and while safety is paramount, automated vehicles also
    create other benefits such as improved mobility for underserved
    communities and environmental benefits as automation, combined
    with transportation as a service, could significantly increase
    demand for electric vehicles.
        Congress has the opportunity now to set the policy
    framework that will help ensure these benefits become a
    reality.
        We look forward to working with the subcommittee on
    legislation to promote rapid and safe deployment of automated
    vehicles and I would be happy to answer any questions you may
    have. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bozzella follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for your testimony
    today, and that will conclude the statements from our panel
    and, again, thank you very much for being with us today.
        And I will recognize myself for the opening questions. Mr.
    Bainwol, I would like to begin with you. Cybersecurity is a
    critical issue that has been raised by members on both sides of
    the aisle.
        I know that when Mr. Welch from Vermont and I did the
    internet of things last Congress in our working group we had
    some discussions on this in that cybersecurity was a big issue
    that had come up.
        What's the current status of the Auto Information Sharing
    and Analysis Center and what is the proper role for Government
    in the cybersecurity for self-driving cars?
        Mr. Bainwol. Thank you, sir.
        First, cyber is absolutely a concern and it is one that as
    we move forward in this process we need to address. The auto
    industry in 2015, I believe it was, John--2015--established the
    ISAC uniquely in advance of an event. Almost every other sector
    had established an ISAC after an event occurred. So we were
    proactive--an overused word but truthful in this case, and the
    ISAC is up and running.
        What I'd like to do is offer the ISAC to come in to brief
    the committee privately. It is difficult to walk through the
    process and procedure of the ISAC that is in a public setting
    because we don't want to provide a roadmap for actors who want
    to abuse the system.
        But I think it might be useful as you contemplate
    finalizing this package of legislation to hear directly from
    the ISAC and so I'd like to make that offer.
        But it is up and running. It is promulgating best practices
    and it is dealing with threats today.
        Mr. Latta. Let me ask, as a quick follow-up, should the
    Government set the cybersecurity standards or act as a watchdog
    or what?
        Mr. Bainwol. So the threat is a dynamic one and the notion
    of setting standards today may be relevant for the moment but
    not enduring. And so we think that the approach should not be a
    standard set by Government.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        Mr. Day, your members include a host of industries involved
    in the development of self-driving cars. How important is a
    national safety framework at NHTSA for keeping self-driving car
    innovation in the United States?
        Mr. Day. Absolutely. Thank you for the question, Mr.
    Chairman.
        So we have been working on this issue at the chamber for
    quite some time. We have developed a working group of both
    large and small companies that have been engaged for quite some
    time.
        It truly is critical. We believe that, you know, as we were
    discussing in the opening statements, the Obama administration
    set the framework for this activity last year. The foreign
    competition is real.
        As I mentioned in my testimony, you've got China, you've
    got Germany and a number of other countries that are looking at
    this technology and for us to continue to maintain leadership
    in this area it is critical that we move forward with this
    legislation as proposed and we look forward to working with you
    and the members of this subcommittee to make sure that that
    happens.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        Mr. Bozzella, let me turn to something you said in your
    testimony that has been something I have brought up for a good
    number of months here.
        You stated that the advancements are developing rapidly.
    You know, if you look back 5 years--and one of the great things
    about serving on this committee and especially on this
    subcommittee, we look over the horizon, and the companies out
    there that are doing development are looking at the horizon--
    would you say that, if you look back 5 years, are you where you
    are today or are you farther ahead than you thought you'd be 5
    years ago?
        Mr. Bozzella. I think we are much further ahead than I
    thought we'd be and I have been in the industry over 20 years,
    and I think that it continues to surprise me, the rapid pace of
    innovation, and I think we have a real opportunity here with
    this framework to responsibly and effectively, with safety
    first in mind, continue to allow now these advancements to
    deploy into the marketplace and save lives.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        Mr. Strickland, there has been some discussion of the
    States filling the gap in the safety regulations with State-
    specific self-driving car rules.
        What would it mean for your members to comply with 50 or
    more different safety frameworks, and how and why is this not a
    concern today with cars on the road?
        Mr. Strickland. Mr. Chairman, frankly, I mean, this would
    be a disaster, frankly, not only the members of my coalition,
    which includes three technology companies and two OEMs, but,
    frankly, the entire industry.
        As was stated by the panel, historically speaking, the
    National Traffic and Safety Act is meant to create a uniform
    national framework of vehicle safety to make sure that there is
    no gaps in safety for any vehicle in the stream of commerce in
    the United States and more specifically not to hamper
    innovation.
        When you think about how cars are being tested today, the
    innovation is like--electronics' ability to control that was
    introduced in 1990 all the way through crash imminent braking.
        Those are innovations that were built within the current
    framework that maintain safe thoughtful testing and deployment
    and also have the protection of making sure that you can do
    this in all 50 States.
        So if this evolved or changed or if States created 50
    individual mini NHTSAs it, frankly, would be the undoing of,
    frankly, our auto market and really impact our competitiveness,
    our ability to be able to move new technologies into the fleet
    thoughtfully and safely.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. My time has expired, and
    the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, the ranking
    member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.So both you, Mr.
    Wallace, and you, Mr. Morrison, observed in your testimony that
    NHTSA's capabilities should be strengthened significantly
    through increased funding and authority, and you, Mr. Morrison,
    it sounds like to fill a vacuum.
        So let me ask each of you to comment, and if you could be
    brief because I have a number of questions. Do you believe that
    NHTSA currently has the authority, data, staff, expertise to
    ensure that highly autonomous vehicles are safely deployed?
        Mr. Wallace.
        Mr. Wallace. No. I believe that NHTSA needs far more staff
    that have the expertise in electronics and software. NHTSA
    needs to receive far more data about automated vehicle systems
    from companies and the systems that are approaching level 3,
    and as for authority, NHTSA, although some of the other
    witnesses have talked about NHTSA's broad authority, what we've
    seen in practice is that the agency has not had a practical
    ability to get vehicles off the road quickly. And so NHTSA
    needs imminent hazard authority so it can do that.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
        Mr. Morrison.
        Mr. Morrison. I will speak only about the authority
    question. I have no question in my mind that NHTSA has the
    authority to fill the vacuum and if it does it would be proper
    to preempt State laws.
        The problem is that the industry position is voluntary
    guidance from NHTSA is enough and the States should stay out of
    the way.
        I don't think that is the right balance to be struck and
    that NHTSA ought to find some way to exercise its authority not
    over testing specifically but before we start getting into
    deployment, which is what really concerns me.
        Ms. Schakowsky. You reacted to the statement that there
    ought to be exemptions for safety standards. I wondered if you
    wanted to comment on that.
        Mr. Morrison. I want to be clear that I am talking about
    the exemptions for deployment. That is, when anyone other than
    the car manufacturer is driving the vehicle or operating the
    vehicle, I guess, is more proper in this context, or
    controlling the vehicle even if nobody is in it that is where I
    get worried about the exemptions.
        We don't need any exemptions for the testing phase and the
    concerns about foreign countries getting ahead of us they will
    not be able to bring their cars into this country unless their
    HAVs meet our safety standards.
        There are currently no safety standards for them to meet.
    So unless they get an exemption, and they would not be eligible
    for exemptions here, we don't have to worry about foreign
    competitors.
        We need to do testing and then worry about exemptions and
    preemption after that.
        Ms. Schakowsky. So, Mr. Wallace, you were talking about
    NHTSA has already requested imminent hazard authority. Is that
    true?
        Mr. Wallace. That's true.
        Ms. Schakowsky. I want to talk about a number of issues
    that are currently on the safety radar screen, at least for me.
        You said, Mr. Morrison, in your written testimony, ``The
    focus on driverless cars and their potential for saving lives
    and money is not a green light to abandon all other safety-
    related rules that NHTSA could issue now without any changes in
    its governing statute,'' and I just wanted to bring up again an
    issue that has been close to my heart and constituents and
    consumers that I have been dealing with.
        Last year, 39 children died in vehicles from heatstroke,
    and I have talked to parents and we've had a press conference,
    the most heartbreaking press conference I ever had, who can
    never ever forgive themselves about forgetting their child in
    the back of a car.
        So, Mr. Wallace, how could NHTSA help reduce the number of
    heatstroke victims?
        Mr. Wallace. NHTSA could reduce the number of these tragic
    deaths that occur by requiring every new vehicle to have
    technology on it that notifies the driver if there is a child
    still in the back seat, and that is what the Hot Cars Act would
    do and that is why we support it.
        Ms. Schakowsky. And, Mr. Morrison, so you would put a focus
    on testing. Do you feel that the legislation before us doesn't
    distinguish sufficiently between testing and deployment? Is
    that a chief flaw that you see right now?
        Mr. Morrison. I think you have to read it very, very
    carefully to understand that deployment doesn't mean testing.
    Deployment means selling these cars to fleets like Uber, car
    rental companies, or anybody else who is willing to buy them at
    $100,000 per year per manufacturer with 5-year exemptions.
        That strikes me as an awful lot beyond testing and I think
    we need to be careful to say testing is OK now but no
    exemptions for deployment.
        Ms. Schakowsky. I am wondering if--my time is up--if you
    could give us your suggestions on how to proceed ahead and I
    would welcome them also from you, Mr. Wallace.
        Mr. Morrison. I will try to draft something for you.
        Ms. Schakowsky. OK. That would be great.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
    committee, the chairman from Oregon, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Walden. I thank the chairman. Again, I thank our panel
    of witnesses. Your testimony is most helpful in our work and we
    appreciate your insights and opinions.
        Mr. Bainwol, there are many potential benefits for self-
    driving cars, as we have heard from various participants in
    this discussion. I expect we'll hear even more today.
        That said, self-driving cars are not on the road today and
    won't be for the next few years. Why are these concepts in the
    discussion drafts important for your members--could you look at
    that for us--when it comes to innovation in developing self-
    driving cars?
        I mean, it is a range of options we are talking about here
    to get to where there is no steering wheel and it is completely
    autonomous, right?
        Mr. Bainwol. So this is a relatively long evolution. It is
    both true that the future is here and that it is going to take
    a while to get here in full. So I alluded to Moody's
    stipulating that ubiquity would occur in 2055 so that is 40
    years from now.
        But they'll be available in 2020, 2021. It is right around
    the corner and the research is going on as we speak and has
    been for years.
        So the question here is how do we accelerate the future in
    a prudent way that maximizes safety. In my oral, I discuss the
    NHTSA framework that sought to optimize the balance so that
    you'd have protection of consumer but also the lubrication for
    innovation to occur. And that is really what this day is all
    about is how do you promote and maximize innovation here in the
    United States.
        Mr. Walden. And I want to point out again that these are
    staff discussion drafts. This is the beginning, not the end,
    and the importance of having everyone weigh in is not lost on
    us.
        Mr. Day, in your testimony you mentioned a survey, I
    believe, that was completed earlier this month. Did that survey
    look at how people who have some of the advanced safety
    features on their cars, they feel about the future of self-
    driving cars?
        I gave you my example and it seems to me you would go, wow,
    that makes a big difference. Does that affect the data?
        Mr. Day. It does, and so people, once they start to
    experience, from our findings, from semi-autonomous vehicles,
    from automatic braking, from lane assistance----
        Mr. Walden. Right.
        Mr. Day [continuing]. Et cetera, when they start to
    understand the benefits and they understand what that means to
    overall safety, people understand and appreciate and support
    the technology. Absolutely.
        Mr. Walden. Yes. And I have to believe that, you know,
    you're going to reduce vehicle accidents, clearly, and the cost
    that goes with it.
        I suppose the auto body shop folks might not be as happy--
    oh, they don't want all this either, I know. But my chief of
    staff got a new Jeep--I will probably get in trouble for
    telling this story--but she was backing up and it stopped
    because she was very close to something near her mirror and it
    stopped the Jeep.
        And I just think about the savings this is going to bring
    everybody and the ability to save lives and injuries.
        Now, we do want to make sure before we unleash all these
    vehicles on the road with no steering wheels, off in the
    future, that that all is going to work.
        I got to admit, you know, that leaves you a little
    unsettled initially that all that may happen and how do you
    override it? I know with the technology in our car you can
    clearly override it but it does keep you in the lines.
        Now, I also have seen where--and this is part of why I
    think you need Federal involvement--if the paint is gone or not
    sufficient along the side lines or the center line or whatever,
    then that part of the safety technology doesn't work.
        So do you need a paint standard? By the way, none of that
    works if you got two inches of snow and ice, I assume, on the
    road. I mean, you're always going to have some level of
    importance of driver involvement.
        As you're looking at the development, going forward, what
    is it that will work in those situations where it is not a
    clear highway? Who can address that in terms of how we might
    minimize those--yes, sir. Go ahead.
        Mr. Bozzella. If I could, Mr. Chairman. I think you make
    two really important points. One is this is a whole spectrum of
    technologies that will be deployed based on competing business
    models, right.
        So you'll have driverless vehicles, but you'll also have
    vehicles where the technology is a guardian angel. I think that
    is a very important point.
        To your point about--we will call it redundancy, the idea
    that you need lots of different sensing capability: cameras,
    radar, LIDARS--we think vehicle-to-vehicle communications and
    vehicle-to-infrastructure communications is, frankly, the code
    that will connect all of these technologies together that will
    work in the snowstorm, that will connect highly automated
    vehicles with less automated vehicles. So that, to us, would be
    a significant policy and technology answer to your question.
        Mr. Walden. All right. It appears my time has expired.
        Chairman, thank you again for your leadership on this. I
    know everybody on the committee is very intrigued by what
    you're doing here and the drafts and where we might head. So I
    yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
    and your staff for all of the hard work on these bills. Taken
    together, they are an important step in the right direction to
    unleashing a safe autonomous future and I think for everybody
    in the room the way that they were drafted was to allow
    complete discussion of the various issues for people to express
    their concern, to not have this mammoth bill that nobody can
    read.
        But it is, obviously, a subject that is the future, has
    many issues connected with it. I am committed to working with
    my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass bipartisan
    legislation--it would be nice to say nonpartisan; why does the
    world always have to be Republican, Democratic?--American
    legislation that protects safety.
        There is nobody that is more bugaboo about cybersecurity
    than me. I didn't get a Kroger card for years because I didn't
    think it was anybody's business what I bought. And the motor
    vehicle safety issue we are trying to address--people don't
    realize that legislation right now is out of date. It is 50
    years old, and it has not kept up with technology, and it is
    moving so rapidly.
        Joan Claybrook is in the audience. She's been a hero of
    mine for a long time. How do we, in our ever-changing world,
    make sure what she's fought for a lifetime is there but that we
    aren't becoming outdated in this country because we are not
    keeping up? These are real issues that we need to talk about
    honestly and try to figure out.
        That said, I think it is very important we have clear rules
    of the road for Federal and State authorities when it comes to
    AVs.
        As you know, I represent the employees of a number of
    OEMs--yes, I am a car girl, and I am proud of it--who are
    investing in a lot of autonomous vehicle development. Those
    companies agree that establishing clear responsibilities for
    Federal and State authorities is essential. They also agree
    that we need a mechanism that will allow autonomous vehicles to
    be deployed in a safe and responsible manner. The PAY, ROAD,
    and EXEMPT Acts are designed to do that.
        Could I ask you all quickly whether you share that view and
    how will these bills help facilitate safe and responsible
    deployment? We will start with you, Mr. Bainwol.
        Mr. Bainwol. Sure. It is the combination of the two that is
    vital. You both need a national framework so that there is not
    confusion and you can--you can design to a single national
    approach.
        But you also need exemptions, and exemptions are not willy-
    nilly. This is a process where you will--where you will have to
    submit evidence to NHTSA, and if NHTSA does not feel like the
    evidence warrants the exemption it will not be granted.
        This will take months. There will be public comment. So the
    notion that this is just the Wild West is not accurate.
        The combination of the two--the national framework and the
    ability to invest a substantial amount of money, and have
    exemptions and a number where you can drive a return--is
    crucial. One without the other does not work.
        Ms. Dingell. Mr. Strickland, we are going to have to go
    fast. I got a minute and 52 seconds, and 20 questions is not
    going to work. But keep going.
        Mr. Strickland. Ms. Dingell, I align with Mr. Bainwol's
    assessment. I will make it that quick and easy, and I can
    expand LEAD'R.
        Mr. Morrison. So I would say two things.
        First, the statute is not out of date in terms of being
    able to do this particular job of writing standards.
        Second, if I were in charge, I would say direct NHTSA to
    begin work on standards immediately and start down the road and
    stop relying on voluntary guidance.
        That's the best way to strike the balance between State
    involvement and Federal involvement. If the Federal Government
    doesn't get involved, the States are going to fill the vacuum.
        Mr. Wallace. So we at Consumers Union Consumer Reports we
    are not opposed to testing. We are not opposed to the idea if
    exemptions. But first I want to note that not all highly
    automated vehicles will need exemptions.
        And second of all, we need across the board criteria for
    when exemptions are granted and how to apply for them so that
    it is clear to the public what assurances are provided about
    their safety.
        Ms. Dingell. Any other comments?
        Mr. Wallace. I agree with Mr. Bainwol's comments earlier.
        Mr. Bozzella. Yes. I agree also. We have a language
    problem, right. We have rules, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
    Standards, that refer to mechanical devices in human beings,
    and we need an opportunity in the near term to responsibly,
    with safety first in mind, deploy vehicles while the agency
    does its work.
        Mr. Morrison. May I say those standards are not a barrier
    to testing. The tests can go on right now with those existing
    standards because the statute says that the standards do not
    apply when there is testing going on.
        The big divide is between testing and deployment. Testing
    means that the auto companies have qualified people in these
    vehicles or running them. Deployment means anyone can do it.
    That is the big divide.
        Ms. Dingell. I want to say that we agree that when it is
    deployed that we address that motor vehicle safety--there are
    some differences here.
        Mr. Chairman, I'd like to put more questions in the record.
    Michigan shares with California wanting to be at the forefront
    making sure that this is safe. But we got to keep moving. So
    thank you very much.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time is
    expired.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi,
    the vice chair of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Strickland, in your testimony you mention the numerical
    and temporal limitations on exemptions under current law.
        Can you please explain why such limitations may present
    really concrete obstacles to the development and deployment of
    self-driving cars?
        Mr. Strickland. Yes, sir. The bottom line being is NHTSA
    lives on data. The only way that you get data is, frankly,
    ultimately by real-world experience and, frankly, deployment
    and testing are, frankly, our tongue and groove.
        So having the ability to test beyond, you know, 2,500
    vehicles for 2 years, frankly, is a hard limitation that you
    can't generate the kind of data needed for NHTSA's next
    activity. So this expansion, thoughtfully done, is a very
    necessary approach.
        Mr. Harper. OK. So if we are talking about that expansion,
    how will increasing the number of vehicles the manufacturer can
    get in exemptions help push this technology forward?
        Mr. Strickland. Well, I will say, think about--once again,
    you'll never divorce us from safety. It still had to prove
    equivalent safety in terms of what you're looking at the
    exemption for, number one, and as administrator of NHTSA for 4
    years, it is a power that is, frankly, very jealously guarded
    and very cautiously used.
        It has to be well evidenced, as Mr. Bainwol noted in his
    commentary. So having the opportunity to be able to have an
    expanded fleet to gather data can inform what's working in the
    fleet, what's not working in the fleet, what technology is
    working.
        Parts of what the policy that the Obama administration laid
    out last year gives the vector for the agency to be able to
    build the case for a future possibility of rulemaking.
        Without those exceptions, the agency had nothing to act on
    and it is going to be inert unless it gets that data. That's
    why exceptions are so necessary.
        Mr. Harper. Right. So speed up the time line is what we are
    talking about here.
        Mr. Strickland. Absolutely. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Harper. Right. If I could, Mr. Bozzella, I have heard
    some people argue that self-driving cars are good for
    encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles. Do you have an
    opinion on that topic?
        Mr. Bozzella. Yes, I do, and I think there are people
    across the spectrum that are looking at this and researching
    this. I do believe that when you combine these two very
    significant technology trends and advancements, one, automated
    vehicles, especially highly automated and driverless vehicles
    with changing ownership models, the idea of transportation as a
    service, those will create demand, in my view, for electric
    vehicles which have a perfect sort of capital model for that
    type of business.
        In other words, they have a greater up front cost but lower
    operation costs and so I think you'll see transportation as a
    service--providers who are using highly automated platforms
    adopt electric vehicles as well.
        Mr. Harper. OK. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Bainwol, it is good to see you again. I had a chance to
    visit with you at a reception not too long ago. You know,
    individuals with disabilities often face those transportation
    obstacles that we've talked about and from personal experience
    it does make daily tasks such as employment and other items
    very difficult.
        Do you see self-driving cars as being a catalyst for
    breaking down some of those barriers?
        Mr. Bainwol. Being a catalyst?
        Mr. Harper. Yes.
        Mr. Bainwol. Absolutely. There are an infinite number of
    benefits from self-driving cars from economic to quality of
    life.
        But the most profound one, in addition to the saving of
    life, is the quality-of-life aspect for those in the disabled
    community.
        Mr. Harper. OK. Do you see your members thinking about the
    potentials for the disability community as they plan out this
    and they look at the future and their future business plans for
    self-driving vehicles? Is this being considered by everyone?
        Mr. Bainwol. Absolutely, and not a member but a few years
    ago Google made a demonstration at Waymo of the blind
    individual going to a Taco Bell and it was a very vivid
    demonstration early on in this process that automation has
    these benefits.
        Mr. Strickland. Mr. Harper, may I add in on it?
        Mr. Harper. Yes, please, Mr. Strickland.
        Mr. Strickland. Absolutely. We are talking about a
    community of 36 million people that are underserved because of
    lack of individual transportation choices.
        Twenty million of those people, frankly, have the ability
    to work and be a part of this economy. Our members specifically
    have talked about this and have integrated disability groups
    into our coalition as well to think about this. How do we build
    a vehicle from the bottom up to make sure that it is fully
    accessible for the variations of the disability community?
        So we are very much leaning into that possibility not only
    for the safety benefits but how do we better serve, frankly, an
    underserved community that has suffered for way too long.
        Mr. Harper. Yes, and this is a question I would like to ask
    you, Mr. Strickland, and you, Mr. Bozzella, and that is what
    benefits do you see in creating councils that allow
    stakeholders, innovators, members of the public with expertise
    in self-driving cars to engage with public officials?
        Mr. Bozzella. I think the public debate is very important.
    I think manufacturers have a significant role in public
    education and I think part of that public education process is
    bringing different stakeholders together to continue to have
    dialogue about how to deploy these vehicles.
        I would say that that dialogue should also include
    automotive suppliers who are driving a significant amount of
    this vehicle technology research and development.
        Mr. Harper. My time has expired.
        Would you agree with what he just said, Mr. Strickland?
        Mr. Strickland. Yes. Not only with Mr. Bozzella, but I also
    think about too all those stakeholders, but especially those
    communities that have been affected, like the disability
    community, to be able to communicate their issues and their
    needs specifically but, frankly, everybody along the chain of
    responsibility in manufacturing and developing vehicles should
    have some say.
        Mr. Harper. Thank you. With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back
    the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Cardenas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
    opportunity for us to have this discussion.
        I love the fact that the U.S. has always had the most
    innovative and the strongest auto industry in the world. We
    should continue to support and grow our auto industry as
    autonomous vehicles because part of our present and our future.
        I believe that we can continue to lead by solving issues,
    for example, of cybersecurity and privacy and by making sure
    that autonomous vehicles designed here are used--here and
    around the world are the best when it comes to safety today and
    tomorrow and forever.
        That is why we need proper laws and regulations, not to get
    in the way of American innovation but to hold ourselves to the
    standard that we have always strived to adhere to and that we
    have done, that is, admired American products around the world.
        We should give our agencies the tools to enforce smart and
    targeted improvement. I am concerned that some of the language
    in this draft legislation, specifically the MEMO Act, hurts our
    ability to make sure customer information is protected by
    limiting NHTSA in one area and FTC to another.
        This could prevent us from helping to make sure that cars
    are not hacked and customer information is protected when we
    could just allow NHTSA and the FTC to make the determination of
    who will take on what in the course of their work, and this is
    something that we certainly don't want to make the mistake of
    making sure we have two departments pointing at each other and
    say, ``Well, that is not exactly my jurisdiction. Somebody else
    should take care of it.'' The problem would be when no one
    addresses those issues.
        Mr. Wallace, what consumer data could automated vehicles
    potentially collect?
        Mr. Wallace. These cars, it would be an understatement to
    call them computers on wheels. They are incredibly complex.
        They have hundreds of millions of lines of code in them,
    and that goes for highly automated vehicles that are coming
    down the pike as well as vehicles already on the road today.
        So the type of data that they can contain and collect is
    what you might see collected on the computer.
        But then in addition to that, where you go and other things
    that are directly related to driving. Now, I completely
    identify and agree with what you were saying about the two
    agencies, FTC and NHTSA.
        These two agencies have different authority and expertise.
    The FTC is charged with protecting consumers from unfair or
    deceptive acts or practices.
        NHTSA is charged with protecting auto safety. These two
    agencies should work together. In fact, we were calling for
    them to be granted the authority to write joint standards.
        But what shouldn't be done is to inhibit their work by
    drawing boundaries that could constrain the authority that they
    currently have.
        Mr. Cardenas. Is there a potential that third party
    companies could want to buy this information from a car
    manufacturer?
        Mr. Wallace. Yes.
        Mr. Cardenas. So if that is the case, wouldn't it help to
    make sure where those bright lines are about how that
    information can or can't be transposed from one company to
    another?
        Mr. Wallace. Absolutely, and that is why we are calling for
    joint standards to make sure that consumers know where their
    data is going, know who's collecting it, and also that they can
    trust that companies are having to abide by a legal standard.
        Mr. Cardenas. Mr. Wallace, is there any recommendation you
    would have for the current legislation before us in order to
    hold our manufacturers to a strong customer privacy standard?
        Mr. Wallace. Yes, we support strong joint standards written
    by NHTSA and FTC jointly and we recommend that the committee
    grants APA rulemaking authority for those two agencies to write
    standards together.
        Mr. Cardenas. Well, I sit on another subcommittee where we
    have the FCC before us quite a bit, and it appears that, when
    it comes to customer privacy and things of that nature, FCC
    seems to be much more accustomed to dealing with privacy
    issues, unlike FTC and NHTSA.
        So the fact that we have two hopefully able and willing
    departments willing to tackle this responsibility of the future
    of autonomous vehicles, I think it is important that we not
    make the mistake as legislators to leave gaps that could
    perhaps take years for us to finally say oops, we should have
    closed that the first time.
        I would love to see this legislation move forward with
    those gaps closed but as of right now, unfortunately, I think
    that where there are gaps and there are finger pointing, what
    happens is we tend to have a lot of mistakes before we correct
    them.
        So with that, I am out of time. So thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman, for holding this hearing, and I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to the
    panel.
        This committee has a long history regarding auto safety and
    we have taken the lead in pushing both industry and NHTSA to
    increase recall efficiency both on the supply and the consumer
    side.
        Mr. Strickland, how do you see self-driving automobiles
    affecting the rate of recall completion?
        Mr. Strickland. Well, it depends on the situation in terms
    of how this market evolves and how this technology evolves.
        The one thing that I think a number of stakeholders and
    technologists have talked about is that when a level 4 or level
    5 vehicle can actually be notified of its need to be coming up
    for a recall or repair, it can actually maybe flip the repair
    model as opposed to having for a consumer driving the car to
    the dealership to get the recall repair exacted.
        The car could drive itself. In off hours, it can exact that
    recall opportunity and get fixed and be back at home before the
    consumer needs it.
        So, frankly, the technology probably has an opportunity to
    improve recall remedy rates.
        Mr. Lance. Others on the panel, do you have views on this?
    Mr. Bozzella or Mr. Bainwol.
        Mr. Morrison. I just note that the correlation in terms of
    recall fix is very strong and as the newer the car the more
    likely the individual is to get it fixed, and the closer the
    relationship also to the dealer. Those are the two factors--new
    car and dealer relationship.
        So, obviously, at the advent of the introduction of these
    the cars will be new and they'll work and because, as David
    suggested, it is a self-driving car, from a time standpoint it
    will be easy to accommodate.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you.
        Mr. Bozzella.
        Mr. Bozzella. Yes, I would agree with Mr. Strickland and
    Mr. Bainwol.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you.
        I apologize for the redundancy, but I feel the statistic
    warrants repeating that over 35,000 people died and nearly 2.5
    million more were injured in automobile accidents in 2015.
        This is a very sobering figure, and approximately 95
    percent of crashes are caused by human error and I am
    encouraged by your technology.
        Mr. Bozzella, I have seen some reports that claim self-
    driving cars could free up 50 minutes a day on average for
    drivers.
        This is important in New Jersey, the most densely populated
    State in the Nation, where many of our residents are stuck in
    traffic on a daily basis during the work week.
        Do you have figures as to how you think this might affect
    the average commute for a constituent of mine in New Jersey?
        Mr. Bozzella. I would like to be able to get back to you
    with a full set of figures. But I think that the general notion
    is absolutely correct, and I think what we should be thinking
    about is not only the driverless car--the highly automated
    level 4, level 5 car of the future--but also the congestion
    benefits of level 3 cars and also which are safer, because
    congestion is often related to crashes, but also the idea of
    vehicle-to-vehicle communications which will allow vehicles to
    travel more closely together very, very safely.
        So I think the combination of technologies across the
    spectrum of vehicles can reduce congestion significantly.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you. Others on the panel, do you have a
    view on this?
        Mr. Strickland. I align with Mr. Bozzella's comments.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you. Thank you.
        Mr. Bainwol, can you share with the subcommittee how self-
    driving vehicles can provide positive effects on the
    environment perhaps in the area of emissions and pollution?
        Mr. Bainwol. Sure. Absolutely there is value. One of the
    things about crash avoidance--and self-driving is the ultimate
    in crash avoidance--is that it aligns safety and environmental
    objectives.
        It helps in several ways, cars that don't crash as often,
    because you have less congestion so you have less idling time.
    So you get from point A to point B faster.
        But the cars themselves are more efficient, and some say 5
    to 10 percent more efficient, in terms of the drive itself. No
    lead foot.
        So both for the purposes of avoiding congestion and for the
    purposes of a more efficient drive and also when you think
    about the nav benefits, the quickest route of--there are lots
    of reasons why this is environmentally positive.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you.
        Others on the panel? Yes, sir.
        Mr. Wallace. I would just note very briefly that additional
    research needs to be done to understand with greater certainty
    what the environmental impact is going to be----
        Mr. Lance. Yes.
        Mr. Wallace [continuing]. Because at this point currently
    it is not clear whether automation would lead to cars being
    more efficient or far less efficient, and in fact work done by
    the Department of Energy a couple years ago, those were the
    results. It could be less. It could be far more.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you.
        Mr. Bainwol. Actually, if I could--I have seen Energy work
    that speaks specifically to the point of environmental value.
    The question, though, really is whether there is going to be
    more VMT or less VMT. That's the question.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you.
        Well, I drive a 2004 Honda Accord stick shift with 200,005
    miles on it, and maybe the next car I will buy will be one of
    your automobiles. But it is only 13 years old, so I think it is
    middle-aged regarding the Lances.
        But I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
    expired.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California for
    5 minutes.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for having
    this session here today. As I said earlier, I believe we all
    have the same goal here. We all want to get autonomous vehicles
    on the road so we can begin to reduce the number of deaths on
    our roadways.
        I just want to make sure that as we work on a policy
    framework that allows for the deployment of AVs we ensure that
    States retain their traditional ability to keep the roadways
    and residents safe.
        We also need to create a level playing field that allows
    all innovative companies to compete. Competition means that the
    market will ultimately decide who is able to deliver the most
    consumer-friendly AV technology.
        As we all know, as I said before, historically States have
    regulated drivers while NHTSA has regulated vehicles. But now
    the vehicle is the driver.
        There are a number of situations where this could cause
    confusion. For example, today States are able to verify owner
    insurance information with a human driver. But if there isn't a
    human driver, the vehicle itself will need to present its
    insurance information.
        Further, AV software must be designed to comply with each
    State's traffic laws.
        Lastly, in order for law enforcement to identify a vehicle
    as highly automated, States may need to require the labelling
    of automated vehicles as part of the vehicle registration
    process.
        All of these situations could overlap with the regulation
    of vehicle design and communication systems, which is preempted
    in today's legislation.
        Now, I would ask all our witnesses do you believe the draft
    legislation should provide States with a limited exception,
    allowing them to create requirements that fall within these
    precluded areas but only when necessary to perform essential
    State functions?
        And starting with Mr. Bainwol--quick answers, please.
        Mr. Bainwol. I am the nonattorney on the panel. But I think
    we should respect the traditional roles of the States and the
    feds, and to the extent those are implicated they should be
    protected.
        Mr. Morrison. Two answers. One is it is not the traditional
    versus the nontraditional so much as the areas where NHTSA is
    not regulating versus the areas where NHTSA is regulating.
        Ms. Matsui. Exactly.
        Mr. Morrison. Second, I want to raise a point on this
    preemption. What about localities? Should a locality have any
    authority to say that testing of vehicles or even deployment of
    these vehicles under an exemption cannot be permitted in the
    streets of our town or can only be permitted away from the
    schools or at certain hours of the day.
        It is very unclear. The preemption provision in LEAD'R
    talks about traffic laws, and I would call that a traffic law.
    I am not sure that the industry would call it a traffic law but
    it is an important question which you would want to talk to
    your constituents about whether you should have some say in
    these vehicles coming and when they're coming and going.
        Ms. Matsui. I understand, and I would like to hear from the
    rest.
        Mr. Strickland.
        Mr. Strickland. Thank you, Ms. Matsui.
        I think, frankly, that directionally speaking, the LEAD'R
    Act is taking the right approach and making sure traditional
    roles are maintained.
        I think there needs to further discussions about those gap
    areas that Mr. Morrison is talking about. But I do think
    directionally speaking the LEAD'R Act is taking the right
    approach and we are looking forward to having further
    conversations.
        Ms. Matsui. Well, I am asking for limited exceptions here.
    Are you in favor of that?
        Mr. Strickland. I think the question is ultimately the
    situation and the time in terms of what you're looking for. I
    think specifically speaking I think, frankly, industry looks
    for regulatory certainty and I think a broader approach to make
    sure we don't have a patchwork assurances in terms of speed
    but, clearly, we can certainly understand situations where
    there may be conversations about particular areas where there
    is a vacuum.
        Ms. Matsui. Absolutely.
        Mr. Wallace. To answer your question, I would say yes and I
    would also say that States should be able to take action to
    protect their citizens where they're not already protected.
        Mr. Day. Thank you for the question.
        I believe that the legislation as prepared and written and
    proposed is sufficient at this point in time. I think it is
    evolving, and it is something that we should continue to
    monitor and work on.
        Mr. Bozzella. I think we need to strike the right balance
    between the existing Federal requirements to determine what a
    national vehicle market looks like and design and performance
    standards while maintaining the States' traditional roles.
        I think that is important. I think the legislation does
    strike the right balance, and we'd be open to a conversation to
    learn more about your concerns.
        Ms. Matsui. And my concerns are, I think, concerns of the
    public, too, and so I think it is important to address them and
    not be put in a box here because I think we really need to have
    these discussions and I truly believe this is really the
    beginning of the process, and I think it is really very
    important.
        I am now running out of time, but I want to ask another
    question here. Tech companies in California have been leaders
    in the push to develop AVs. It is important that they are able
    to test their technologies in a responsible manner, whether on
    their own or in partnership with traditional automakers.
        Now, the MORE Act is intended to open up testing to more
    innovators in the AV space. Mr. Strickland and Mr. Day, do you
    believe the text of the bill adequately allows tech companies
    to test?
        Mr. Strickland. I think there needs to be--frankly, I think
    we have an opportunity to think about decreasing discrimination
    between the tech companies and the OEMs, and I always want to
    sort of use, in a quick example, Uber and Lyft.
        Just a few years ago, those were fairly small companies
    that had limited impact. They deliver millions of rides a day.
    So you can't necessarily think about what is a small new entry
    versus what is an evolved company and making sure that we
    have--once again, the right balance is very important in terms
    of making sure that we have equity and competition.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you.
        Mr. Day, quickly. I am over time now.
        Mr. Day. I agree, and I think when you look at the
    rideshare programs like Lyft and Uber, that will be one of the
    first ways that we are going to be able to test this
    technology, and I think that will be sufficient as it is
    related to the MORE Act.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time has
    expired.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding and Mr.
    Strickland just said the right balance. I think a lot of things
    that we are looking for how do we get to the right balance.
        My questions are going to be on the exemptions. In your
    testimony you mentioned the numerical and temporal limitations
    on exemptions under current law.
        So kind of a complex question here, I guess. But one, I
    know you talked about it in your testimony but if you could
    further explain how the exemptions strike the right balance
    between one's safety and innovation, so we want to make sure
    that you have the right balance for safety.
        Second, can you explain why the limitations, once that they
    are safe, why the limitations present concrete obstacles to the
    development of deployment of self-driving cars and how will
    increasing the number help move that deployment forward?
        Mr. Strickland. Yes, sir. The National Highway Traffic
    Safety Administration makes its decisions based upon data--
    whether or not they are going to take a rulemaking posture,
    whether they're going to think about creating a change to the
    new car assessment program and once again acknowledging
    Administrator Claybrook's fine work--program began under her
    time--all those things need data. The only way you get data,
    frankly, is deployment and usage, and that generates those
    necessary components.
        So the smaller, more limited the opportunity we have to
    test and deploy these technologies, making sure that once again
    within they prove equivalent safely or overall safety to the
    vehicle, which is already stated in law, so we are not
    sacrificing safety but generating the data where needed to make
    wise decisions about this technology in the future.
        And the reason why it is a concrete obstacle now limited to
    2,500 vehicles over a 2-year period there is no way you're
    going to be able to generate the type of data information
    needed for, frankly, the companies to be able to innovate
    thoughtfully and, frankly, the agency to learn about those
    technologies.
        Mr. Guthrie. So increasing the exemptions can be done in a
    way that balance and strike with, say, on balance and safety?
        Mr. Strickland. Absolutely. Absolutely.
        I don't think there is anyone on this panel that works with
    the manufacturing community or the tech community who is going
    to sacrifice safety and NHTSA has the authority under current
    law to make sure that those exceptions are thoughtfully applied
    for, thoughtfully and conservatively granted and making sure it
    generates data without sacrificing the safety of the driving
    public.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. Thank you for that answer.
        Mr. Day, could you please explain how the current
    regulatory structure at NHTSA presents obstacles to the self-
    driving car industry that may result in America falling behind
    other nations with respect to the development of this
    technology?
        Mr. Day. You know, as I said in my comments earlier, there
    is a significant reason for concern and I think when you're
    looking at--for example, in the State of California the DMV
    recently issued 34 permits for autonomous vehicle tester
    program and of those 34, 12 are from foreign countries.
        And so I think this is a, you know, another issue where we
    are looking at potentially 50 different State regulations that
    apply to this and causing further delay and the longer that we,
    you know, prolong this effort it is going to cause more concern
    globally and the competition is real.
        Mr. Guthrie. Anybody else want to comment on that, that
    question of the current regulation at NHTSA?
        If not, then I will yield back my--so those are my two
    questions I prepared. I yield back my time.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields
    it back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the
    ranking member of the full committee, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have heard concerns that this legislation as written
    would prevent States from regulating autonomous vehicle safety
    without a guarantee that NHTSA would step in.
        In Mr. Day's testimony, he pointed out that Americans
    strongly prefer a Federal standard when it comes to laws
    governing autonomous vehicles, but in this current package of
    bills there is no standard and there are no governing laws.
        So I wanted to ask Mr. Wallace initially what are the risks
    to consumers if States are preempted from regulating AV safety
    and NHTSA does not take action to fill that vacuum?
        Mr. Day. Sure. Right now, there are no NHTSA regulations on
    the books protecting consumers from cybersecurity risks when
    they hit their vehicles.
        There aren't any standards on the books regarding cars that
    may lead consumers to lose attention in the driving task and,
    two, there aren't any standards in place to make sure that the
    car ensures that they stay plugged in.
        There aren't any standards in place to make sure that
    companies, manufacturers, suppliers, others, submit enough date
    for NHTSA to be able to assess whether a brand-new technology
    is safe on the road or not, and all of these are of great
    concern and, as long as those standards aren't in place at the
    Federal level, we think States should still have the
    opportunity to act on behalf of their citizens.
        Mr. Pallone. And then, Mr. Morrison, in your written
    testimony you said that you don't know of any laws where
    Congress has preempted States from acting on an issue where no
    Federal agencies have taken action. Is that correct?
        Mr. Morrison. That is correct.
        In my view, it raises serious constitutional questions. The
    supremacy clause of the constitution says Federal law shall be
    supreme. If there is no applicable Federal law, how can it be
    supreme, and that is the question we will have to answer.
        Hopefully, we won't get to that point--that the Federal
    Government will step in and issue standards. May I say--a
    followup to what Mr. Wallace just said--I think it is important
    to understand, in the past when safety innovations have been
    introduced, they haven't fundamentally changed the experience
    of the driver and the car.
        We haven't had to qualify drivers the way we would have to
    now. I would be frightened to death if I got into one of these
    cars and just went off on my own.
        But if start allowing the deployment phase with no
    regulation of the vehicle and no required testing of the driver
    to see that she or he is capable of driving these vehicles, I
    am afraid that whatever the safety standards are trying to be
    built in by the industry we are going to have a lot of problems
    on the highway, particularly because, as the gentleman pointed
    out a few moments ago, he has a vehicle that is 13 years old.
        It will be a long time before we have autonomous vehicles
    that comprise the whole fleet, and meanwhile we'll be having a
    mixed fleet of vehicles, some of which will be autonomous and
    some the kind of cars that we are all driving now.
        So before we get to the deployment stage when we are
    starting to allow individuals who are not specially trained to
    operate these vehicles I think we have to be very, very careful
    and the real dangers of both injuring people but also injuring
    the program in the long run by undermining consumer confidence.
         Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
        Now, we know the Trump administration has not appointed a
    NHTSA administrator or an acting administrator. The agency
    doesn't even have an employee who could testify today on major
    legislation that directly affects it.
        So let me ask Mr. Wallace in the time remaining, are you
    concerned that NHTSA may not have the resources or inclination
    to develop a Federal standard on AVs without direction from
    Congress?
        Mr. Wallace. History, including very recent history, has
    shown that NHTSA is most likely to take action when Congress
    tells it to do so and so I think that Congress should recognize
    that and recognize that, if there are actions that the agency
    needs to take, especially if they pertain to safety standards,
    it is going to need to ask NHTSA to do it. It is going to need
    NHTSA to take that action.
        Mr. Pallone. All right. Let me ask you two things at once
    because you only got 40 seconds. Why is it so important that
    NHTSA take an active role on autonomous vehicle regulation
    going forward and what action should NHTSA take next to ensure
    safe deployment of autonomous vehicles? That's for--I guess,
    for Mr. Wallace again.
        Mr. Morrison. I think the first thing it should do----
        Mr. Pallone. Would you rather answer?
        Mr. Morrison [continuing]. It should undertake a commitment
    to start down the process of starting to develop Federal
    standards. If it doesn't start that process it is never going
    to finish it.
        It has a serious resource problem, and I would point out
    that the resource problem is going to be intensified if these
    exemptions are all being given.
        After all, as several of the witnesses have pointed to
    today, these vehicles are not one size fits all and therefore
    NHTSA will have to carefully examine each application and I
    don't think it has the resources to do that now and it is going
    to be under tremendous pressure to let these cars go on the
    road and be deployed and I am very worried about that for the
    driving public.
        Mr. Wallace. And very briefly, just to add to what I said,
    if Congress asks NHTSA to take on new responsibilities or to do
    new tasks, like I said, this is a chronically underfunded,
    underresourced agency.
        Congress should include funding for the agency if it asks
    the agency to take on new matters.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia
    for 5 minutes.
         Mr. McKinley. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this
    has been one of the more interesting panels. This is probably
    the fourth or fifth panels that we've had on this subject and
    it is one of the two engineers in Congress.
        It is a fascinating dialogue about all of this. In fact, we
    are going to have a conference this fall back in the district
    over this subject because we want to explore this further.
        But I do have some issues or concerns that perhaps go
    beyond this legislation because I have all the confidence that
    we will develop a bipartisan approach that will develop this.
    But I am looking at maybe from 30,000 feet perhaps on
    something.
        Mr. Bainwol, maybe it goes back to you. One of your charts
    that you put up showed that there was an increase in accidents
    or deaths in the last few years. Can you just give me a real
    short version of what's caused that uptick in numbers?
        Mr. Bainwol. So there has been a tick-up and it is beyond
    VMT. We have looked at it preliminarily and we can't give you a
    totally conclusive explanation but there are a number of
    factors that are clear.
        One is distraction. We think it is about 10 percent of the
    challenge. It is also older drivers and older cars. There's an
    enormous correlation between the age of the car----
        Mr. McKinley. OK. If I could jump in on that, because that
    is really where I wanted to go is if we have available
    technology right now to address some of that with seatbelt
    legislation, possibly glare-proof windshields, breathalyzers
    that we can use, why aren't--why isn't the--why aren't the
    manufacturers using that as the first step instead of taking
    this giant leap over into self, you know, automated cars?
        Mr. Bainwol. Well----
        Mr. McKinley. Is it the cost? Because, when I talk to the
    auto dealers, that is what they tell me. People can't afford
    all of these provisions.
        Mr. Bainwol. There are a range of factors. One is cost. The
    price of a vehicle has gone up fairly dramatically and much of
    that is related to compliance and it is becoming increasingly
    difficult to afford. So that is a part of it.
        But there is also the question of what the end result of
    the investment is, and in my oral I showed that pyramid and the
    existing challenge that relates to the car is 1 percent.
    Ninety-nine percent has nothing to do with the car. With self-
    driving you can deal with the totality of the problem, and so
    the prize there is critical.
        Mr. McKinley. And given, again, the time frame here--we
    have this constraint on it--so we talked a little bit about
    costs, and we haven't as a board or as a panel here, we haven't
    really gotten into that other than I have asked that in the
    previous groups about what is the cost, and everyone says they
    will get back to me and I am going to say three months later no
    one has gotten back to me, because what I was raising the
    question was, this has to increase the cost to a household, and
    for a family in Connecticut or Maryland that has a $70,000
    annual house--that is their average in Maryland. But in
    Mississippi it is barely $37,000.
        How are people supposed to afford newer cars, especially
    when you also looked at one of your charts that you talked
    about--the older the car, the more liable there is going to be
    a problem with it.
        So how are we going to do this? Do you think the
    automobile's business plan, their strategy here--maybe called
    your business case--is assuming that ultimately we are going to
    go to some kind of subsidy or tax credits for consumers to be
    able to have an automobile?
        Mr. Bainwol. That is not part of any strategy. The----
        Mr. McKinley. Do you think that could ultimately lead to
    this? Because, if they're going to increase costs of the cars,
    how are they going to be able to do that or maintain them,
    keeping in mind that many States across the country don't even
    have automobile inspections.
        Now we are going to put this very sophisticated car on the
    highway without any inspection of that car.
        Mr. Bainwol. The early phase of adoption will be through
    services like Uber and Lyft and Chariot and Maven, and because
    of that the costs to the consumer will actually be lower than
    today's use of the vehicle.
        Down the road, as the technology matures, the price point
    will drop. So the blend of access versus ownership models will
    evolve. But the first experience, as I think Tim alluded to,
    will be through the ridesharing application, and there the cost
    will be low.
        Mr. McKinley. So, just for the record, you don't think that
    the automobile industry is ever going to ask for some subsidy
    or tax credit so that new buyers will be able to acquire an
    automobile with this kind of automation with it?
        Mr. Bainwol. I have never been part of conversation where
    the concept has been broached.
        Mr. McKinley. All right. Well, I am curious about it
    because there is a reason that there are older cars on the
    highway--that people can't afford them--and now we are going to
    impose this new standard.
        Again, I am fascinated with it. I think it is where we are
    going to be. But I am still hung up a little bit on how we get
    to there from a macro view. And we will take care of the
    regulations on that but how is it going to affect our economy
    let alone, as Schakowsky mentioned earlier, 4.1 million people
    losing their jobs that are drivers. I am really curious about
    the big scheme.
        Thank you very much. I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time is
    expired, and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Vermont for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling
    this hearing and I want to thank the witnesses for great
    testimony.
        There, I think, is a universal agreement that we'd like to
    have our car manufacturers be the first. We are in agreement
    that we want safety to not be compromised.
        The background here, though, where I think, ultimately,
    when we put pen to paper there is a difference, is putting any
    confidence in an organization--governmental entity--that has
    some responsibility to say the car is good to go, because there
    is an apprehension among many that, where you have a regulatory
    agency, it is going to delay the deployment and it is going to
    increase the cost. That's the divide here.
        But bottom line, at a certain point if these are going to
    be deployed some entity has to decide yes, it is good to go. So
    I just want to ask, Mr. Bainwol, who would be the decider that
    the fleet is ready to go on the road?
        Mr. Bainwol. Well, it is NHTSA. I mean, the exemptions will
    not be enforced unless NHTSA makes the decision to approve
    them. And I just want to make a point on that.
        Mr. Welch. OK. All right. So, you know, I will let you get
    to that. But the bottom line, what you're saying is this public
    organization is the one that has the final say this car goes on
    the road?
        Mr. Bainwol. It is the safety organization, and I do want
    to make a point that has been lost in the last few minutes--
    that is that NHTSA has broad enforcement and defect authority
    that applies not just when there is a standard but in the
    absence of standards when it is an exemption, when it is a
    test.
        Mr. Welch. All right. So what, in your view, does NHTSA
    need in order to most effectively do the job of protecting
    public safety? Because, by the way, if we don't have this done
    right, if we go too fast, one of two things is going to happen.
        There's going to be big delays because there will be a
    reservation to act or there will be a disaster because we acted
    too toon. And if I were on the manufacturing side, the last
    thing in the world I would want is some spectacular crash that
    totally compromises public confidence that this is good
    technology.
        So what does NHTSA need in order to do its job? Because a
    lot of folks in this building think the best thing for NHTSA is
    to starve its budget.
        Mr. Bainwol. It needs its existing authority. It needs to
    be properly budgeted and that is a congressional point, and it
    needs to act when it feels it needs to.
        Mr. Welch. Would the auto industry be willing to have like
    a contribution to funding NHTSA to boost its capability to do
    this work?
        Mr. Bainwol. We could talk about it. I mean, it is not
    something we have discussed. But let me point out----
        Mr. Welch. I am sorry. We only have 5 minutes. I wish I
    could hear more, but I am limited.
        Mr. Strickland, how about you?
        Mr. Strickland. Current authority, frankly, is very broad,
    and I think it is very effective in this case. Also remember,
    Congressman, that NHTSA requires a self-certification of
    compliance to the standards.
        So for the past 50 years, basically, the automakers have to
    say that, yes, our vehicle complies with all the Federal Motor
    Vehicle Safety Standards and then NHTSA goes out and tests for
    compliance randomly.
        So your suggestion of a type of approval of where NHTSA
    sort of signs off on the fleet before it is deployed would be
    dramatic change in the law that is, frankly, unprecedented and
    actually creates new problems in and of itself. I think----
        Mr. Welch. Well, I actually don't want to create problems.
    But I want to, like you, ensure safety. So would NHTSA need
    access to more of the data?
        I mean, there is always a proprietary argument about the
    data but how can the entity that is charged with certifying
    safety act without access to that data?
        Mr. Bainwol. NHTSA has access to the data. Basically, they
    have relationships with all the manufacturers to be able to get
    confidential business information. They have information
    requests.
        There's lots of opportunities for them to get the data they
    need. That's one of the aspects of the Federal Automated
    Vehicle.
        Mr. Welch. So your view would be that, whatever NHTSA needs
    datawise, they should get in order to certify.
        Mr. Bainwol. No. There are certain things that, frankly, I
    think that NHTSA is going to have to justify why they need
    particular data points. But in terms of safety, if there is an
    issue, NHTSA has the opportunity to ask for and then be able to
    get it.
        Mr. Welch. Is your concern about proprietary information
    leaking out?
        Mr. Bainwol. NHTSA has an excellent record in protecting
    proprietary data. The issue is ultimately going to be whether
    or not there being some ways to compel proprietary and
    confidential data to be propelled outside.
        Mr. Welch. Well, I don't know how we--you know, Mr.
    Chairman, for me, I see this as a practical issue and not an
    ideological issue.
        We have got to be certain that the public feels confident
    that these self-driving vehicles are safe. We all know that. It
    has got to happen.
        So I would have less confidence if the organization we've
    assigned the responsibility to say ``OK, it is good to go''
    didn't have the information that it wanted, and I am reassured
    by you that I am hearing that NHTSA has a good record of----
        Mr. Strickland. They have an excellent record.
        Mr. Welch. Yes. Well that is great----
        Mr. Morrison. May I point out?
        Mr. Welch [continuing]. And it is the way it should be.
        Mr. Morrison. I'd point out, Mr. Welch----
        Mr. Welch. Yes, go ahead.
        Mr. Morrison [continuing]. That the EXEMPT Act provides
    that all of the date submitted in connection with these highly
    autonomous vehicles shall be exempt from public disclosure as
    confidential business information.
        Contrary to the standard practice for years in which NHTSA
    has been able to exempt a limited amount of trade secret
    information.
        This would be a complete reversal and the public would have
    no confidence whatsoever that NHTSA was doing the right thing
    because all this information would be secret.
        Mr. Welch. Right. Yes. I only have a few more seconds. I
    guess I don't have any more seconds.
        [Laughter.]
        I will just say this. I appreciate the panel, all right,
    and I appreciate your leadership here. We want to get this
    done. Some of these practical challenges I think lend
    themselves to a quiet working group as opposed to kind of a
    contested approach.
        So I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much for the gentleman's
    discussion.
        The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Illinois
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
    for being here and taking your time with us today. It is
    important.
        A couple of points I want to make right off the bat. Safety
    is the most important thing in all this. I think this is the
    jump to safety that we've all been looking for.
        Illinois lost 998 fatalities last year, up 8 percent from
    the prior year. Those are a thousand lives that theoretically
    could have been saved through this.
        The other big important point to remember is that this is
    happening. It is just like with cell phones. I remember in '96
    I went to Germany and as an 18-year-old and saw that they were
    texting for the first time and was awed by that, and they were
    leading the United States in cell phone technology.
        Well, we were able to grab that back and now we basically
    lead the world on that kind of stuff and this is the
    competition we are in in self-driving cars. This is a
    competition against China, against Europe.
        We all kind of want to work together, but we also want to
    be the first in leading this technology, and so I think that is
    an important point to remember, even as we think about the
    employment implications, which I think we need to do a lot of
    work to figure out how to handle that, because that is coming.
        Mr. Bozzella, Germany has enacted a law that is paving the
    way for autonomous vehicles on public roads and the U.K. is
    working on legislation as well, and I can imagine that across
    the globe nations are updating their regulations to allow
    testing and operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads.
        How do today's proposals improve the U.S. competitiveness
    and ensure that we remain the leader in this technology?
        Mr. Bozzella. Well, thank you for the question,
    Congressman, and I appreciate, first, the sense of urgency here
    in Congress and with this subcommittee, because it is really
    important.
        There is a competition taking place. It is happening all
    around the world. What you're doing here with this framework is
    you are providing a flexible and nimble opportunity to deploy
    technology while at the very same time assuring the public and
    the regulator that we are doing this in the safest possible
    manner and you are doing this in a couple ways.
        One is, you are building on the notion of safety assurance.
    This is important. The regulators already recognize that.
        Secondly, what you're doing is you are assuring safety by
    giving the preeminent safety regulator the ability to get this
    technology on the roadway only if we can assure that we are
    producing equivalent safety and you are also allowing the
    regulator to build the database so that they can update their
    rules which were, frankly, set up in the world of mechanical
    automobiles.
        That's what you are doing. It is really important we
    appreciate it.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you.
        Mr. Strickland, the Safe Driving Coalition supports the
    four proposed bills to expand NHTSA's authority to permit more
    highly autonomous vehicles on public roads for testing and for
    deployment.
        In regards to the MORE Act, can you explain the benefits of
    expanding the eligible testing entities to include equipment
    manufacturers, suppliers, universities and new market entrants?
        Mr. Strickland. Frankly, you need--and you don't know where
    your next innovation is going to come and to be able to have
    the opportunity to thoughtfully test and test safely and deploy
    safely in order to generate data and, frankly, new
    opportunities for innovations to enter into the space is
    crucial.
        Level 4 and level 5 vehicles are farther away. Often, you
    talked about no driver being a part of the driving task ever
    and level 5 is in all conditions: rain, snow, sleet, et cetera.
        So you are going to need opportunities to make sure that
    you can thoughtfully test and deploy these technologies and a
    broad way to collect data which benefits both the agency,
    NHTSA, and benefits, frankly, all the innovators and
    manufacturers.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you.
        I think it is important to note with all that too we can
    never foresee what technology and innovations come along or it
    wouldn't be called innovation.
        It would just be called stuff we know, and so it is
    important to set the framework for these smart ideas and,
    unfortunately, we would like to admit that the 435 of us here
    can come up with the best ideas but we can't and people out
    there can, so provide that.
        Last question for Mr. Day. In your testimony, you state
    that exemptions are critical to the industry with respect to
    self-driving cars.
        Can you explain by exemptions are critical at this stage in
    the development of these cars and do you see a benefit to
    create new exemptions specifically tailored to self-driving
    cars?
        Mr. Day. I don't think we need new exemptions, and thank
    you for the question. I appreciate your leadership on the
    committee and I look forward to discussing this issue further
    but I think exemptions are one way and I think along with
    preemption of really getting us on the right track and I think
    it is something that we need to explore.
        I think there is another, you know, way of exploring these
    issues and we should be looking at how they complement each
    other, going forward.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Well, thank you. Thank you all for being
    here, and I will make up for Mr. Welch going over by yielding
    back 26 seconds.
        Mr. Latta. OK. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
    time.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California for
    5 minutes.
        Ms. Eshoo. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and especially
    for extending legislative courtesy to me to participate in this
    subcommittee hearing, which I am not a member of, but the
    issues is of great importance to me, to my constituents and
    certainly our country. So thank you to all the witnesses and
    thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As the member of Congress having the great privilege to
    represent Silicon Valley, I am proud to have essentially a
    front row seat in the next great revolution now in
    transportation.
        Everyone from the major domestic and foreign automakers to
    large tech companies and small start-ups are developing AV
    technologies in Silicon Valley. I have driven on Interstate
    280--I don't know how many of you have ever been on it; it is
    billed as one of the most beautiful freeways in the world--in a
    Tesla on autopilot with my heart in my throat. It was on
    autopilot mode. And I have ridden in a self-driving vehicle
    developed by a start-up in an old fire station in Menlo Park.
        In my view, consumer confidence should be the number-one
    priority of both the automakers and we, the policymakers, that
    want to speed deployment of AVs.
        Autonomous vehicles have the potential to revolutionize
    mobility, safety, urban planning and transportation around the
    world and I want to see America be the leader--the unquestioned
    leader in this.
        But if consumers don't have confidence in the technology or
    the policies and the safety regulations that govern it, I think
    that they'll be hesitant to turn over the controls to a
    computer.
        So I think a very important part of ensuring this
    confidence is passing the fully bipartisan legislation that
    will lead to evidence-based regulations by the expert agencies,
    obviously, instructed by all of you as well.
        When Congress first created the Federal Automotive Safety
    Standards in 1966, the law passed nearly unanimously and I
    think that we should draw from that and be inspired by it.
        The bills before us today represent policy by preemption
    and exemption rather than directing rulemaking to guide the
    safe deployment of this technology.
        Now, I recognize that there will be some preemption because
    traditionally the Federal Government has regulated the vehicle
    through safety and design standards while the States have
    regulated the driver through licensing and insurance.
        So we have a key role in this. But in an autonomous
    vehicle, the vehicle is the driver. So the issue of preemption
    I think by that very definition becomes more complicated.
        Today, there are, roughly, the same amount of traffic
    fatalities in the United States as in 1956, the year that
    Congress authorized the interstate highway system.
        So I think AVs have the potential to save thousands of
    lives, but consumers won't have confidence in the technology
    unless they have a sense that their safety is paramount in both
    the policy and the technology.
        So thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for extending the
    legislative courtesy to me. I want you to know that I want to
    very much be involved in helping to shape the policy. This,
    clearly, needs to be bipartisan and that in and of itself is
    going to project a message of confidence to the American people
    in this.
        And with that, I will yield back--oh, I have finished all
    of my----
        Mr. Latta. Well, our technology isn't quite working today.
        Ms. Eshoo. Did you speed it up? Did you speed it up? Was
    this on automatic pilot? Maybe it was autopilot mode.
        But at any rate, thank you very, very much.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. Appreciate the
    lady's----
        Ms. Eshoo. An important hearing, and I look forward to
    working with you on it.
        Mr. Latta. I appreciate the lady's comments.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California.
        Ms. Walters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Consumers' willingness to get into a self-driving car or
    feel about having their family members ride in a self-driving
    car is one of the most popular topics in news stories about
    self-driving cars.
        Consumer education seems to fit naturally with consumer
    adoption and the public's willingness to try out a new
    technology that interacts with lots of older cars on the road.
        The average lifespan of a vehicle recently increased to 11
    years on the road. In addition, we are still years away from
    the first limited commercial deployment of self-driving cars.
        Mr. Bainwol, what role do you see for industry
    communicating with their consumers about self-driving cars?
        Mr. Bainwol. We have a role and some of this is, you know,
    informally when you buy a car and have kind of a tutorial.
        The one thing I would note about consumer acceptance is, is
    there is a relationship between the number of driver assists
    that you've experienced and your attitude about self-driving?
        And so to some extent, over time, as your constituents
    experience more and more driver assists, the reaction to self-
    driving transforms in a dramatic fashion. If you have had no
    experience with driver assists, your attitude is very negative.
    If you have had lots of experience with driver assists, you
    have a totally different reaction.
        Ms. Walters. Do we know enough about the cars that will be
    on the road to set parameters for the Government to begin
    educating the public about self-driving cars?
        Mr. Bainwol. Conceptually, yes.
        Ms. Walters. OK.
        Mr. Day, in your testimony, you warn against too much
    specificity with regard to Government standards. Why do you
    believe there is an inherent danger in providing for very
    specific standards for technology such as self-driving cars
    that is continually evolving?
        Mr. Day. Thank you for the question, and I think we need to
    kind of step back. I think a lot of the questioning here
    today--we are at the beginning stages of this technology, and
    while we are conceptually aware of what the technology brings
    there is still a lot of questions to be answered, hence the
    importance of the testing that we are talking about and having
    the general framework by which we should have established to go
    forward.
        And so I think, you know, part of what I am trying to do at
    C-TEC within the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is to work with our
    State and local chambers and our member companies on truly
    messaging what they know now and making people feel more
    comfortable with the technology to understand it, to appreciate
    it, and to really understand and appreciate the benefits to the
    disabled, senior citizens, et cetera, and to keep drunk drivers
    off of the road.
        Ms. Walters. OK, and then I have another question for you.
        In your testimony you mention a study conducted by Intel on
    the economic impact of self-driving cars. Can you please
    discuss what the study looked at and its results?
        Mr. Day. I do not have that in front of me but I would be
    happy to share that with your office after this hearing today.
        Ms. Walters. OK. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of
    my time.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back
    the balance of her time.
        And now the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas. I am
    sorry for getting the order mixed up there. But you are
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would hope that
    clock would make sure.
        I want to thank the committee for the diligence we have
    been doing and as a member of it, but I was running back and
    forth between Energy and Healthcare. But I want to thank the
    Chair and the ranking member for this.
        I want to experience in our country with some type of self-
    driving vehicles. You have Governors on certain trucks or
    certain vehicles, but this is a whole new experience, and I
    think national standards and the safety ought to be the bottom
    line on anything.
        Mr. Morrison, in your testimony you mentioned there is a
    number of proposals before NHTSA currently that would enhance
    safety of all vehicles currently on the road.
        Could you please talk about these proposals briefly,
    because I only have 5 minutes, and tell us what you think these
    proposals--why they haven't received much attention.
        Mr. Morrison. I am sorry. I can't be specific about the
    details of these proposals. I know that they are there. They
    are on the DOT's docket. I think Wallace can help you be more
    specific.
        But the principal problem has been two things--number one,
    the will of the agency to proceed, the unwillingness of the
    companies to put the kind of safety first message that they
    have had here today and, of course, finally, the question of
    resources for the agency.
        Mr. Green. Like I said, the only experience we have in
    somebody controlling the vehicle we are driving is very
    limited.
        Mr. Wallace, automated vehicle innovations gathered steam
    over the years, and you voiced concern about level 2 and 3
    vehicles that still require an occasional human intervention.
        Is there a way we can blend that together? And let me tell
    you one joke. When I was a young State legislator in the '70s,
    my wife's grandmother said, ``I don't like to drive on the
    roads where we have the older road trucks--can we build a
    separate freeway for them?''
        And I said, ``Well, the gas taxes would really be high if
    we had to do that.'' But having one lane for automated vehicles
    and maybe other lanes for those of us who may not be driving an
    automated vehicle.
        Mr. Wallace. Thank you, Congressman.
        I am not sure about different lanes, but what I can tell
    you is that given our concerns about level 2 and 3 vehicles,
    automakers and dealers will need to be very clear with
    consumers about what they can and cannot do because too often
    we have seen marketing or other types of publicity about cars
    that have driver assist technology and portraying them as self-
    driving cars when they are not, and we are very concerned that
    that could lead to problems on the road.
        Mr. Green. And that is what I know the committee doesn't
    want, and that is why we are giving real good diligence to
    whatever we set up.
        Mr. Bainwol, in your testimony you mentioned the Federal
    Aid to Highway Act of 1956, which allocated $24.8 billion to
    build about 41,000 interstate highways.
        There is widespread agreement that self-driving cars will
    need well-maintained infrastructure to function including clear
    lane lines, stop lights and signage. Can you talk about what
    infrastructure investments you and your members anticipate will
    be needed to ensure that self-driving vehicle technology can
    work?
        Mr. Bainwol. So self-driving will be a product of the
    algorithms of the and the external environment, and so the
    external environment matters a ton.
        The simplest of eternal factors is the clarity of the white
    lines in the lanes. And so that is a fundamental kind of basic.
        But if you move further down the road, things like vehicle-
    to-vehicle communication, vehicle-to-infrastructure
    communication, so there are a number of implications for
    infrastructure down the road.
        Mr. Green. Well, I will give an example right now and I
    think everybody is familiar with Waze in the Houston area I
    grew up there and I know how to get around traffic. Waze may
    give us one way.
        Would that automated vehicle take that, you know, from the
    computer and this is the quickest way instead of the driver
    having any input?
        Mr. Bainwol. There will be some application like Waze or
    Google Maps or some other proprietary mapping nav service that
    would dictate the route in the fastest, most efficient way.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I thank the
    committee for their diligence.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back
    the balance of his time.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to get a couple things on the record so I will be as
    quick and, hopefully, you can be as direct as possible.
        Mr. Bozzella, buying a car can be very expensive and public
    transportation options are not available or sometimes
    inadequate in many communities.
        Do you see self-driving cars playing an important role in
    providing better, more reliable mobility options to those who
    must rely solely on public transportation?
        Mr. Bozzella. Absolutely. Yes, I do.
        Mr. Costello. All right.
        Mr. Day, in your testimony you state that self-driving cars
    will benefit American seniors. Can you please explain how this
    technology will help senior citizens remain independent?
        Mr. Day. A number of ways. You know, my parents in Ohio in
    their 80s would benefit by having--perhaps if they are not able
    to drive at some point in their future--having medicines
    delivered from or being able to pick up their own medications
    at the pharmacy.
        They are able to have a car drive them to the grocery store
    to get their groceries. I think there is a whole host of ways,
    and I think that that is one segment of our society that will
    benefit, amongst others, as we talked about here--the disabled
    community as well.
        Mr. Costello. Mr. Strickland, for some--I am picking up on
    that--access to transportation is a public health issue. Often,
    inadequate public transportation options stand in the way of
    receiving care. Do you think self-driving cars will play a role
    in solving that problem?
        Mr. Strickland. Yes. I think what Mr. Day mentioned and Mr.
    Bozzella mentioned, the opportunities for, frankly, individual
    mobility for those that are disabled, those that are seniors,
    and have the ability to get themselves to the doctor, get to
    the hospital, get to the pharmacy, I think it will be
    transformational for them.
        Mr. Costello. Mr. Bozzella, related to underserved
    communities, just explain how you view this as being
    transformational.
        Mr. Bozzella. I think there are a number of ways. One is
    that highly automated vehicles will enable a new business
    model.
        Let us call it transportation as a service, and it will
    reduce the cost of this service and I think make it much more
    affordable and accessible to underserved transportation
    populations.
        I think the other place that you will see automated
    technology provide mobility to underserved communities is,
    frankly, the ability to create more safety in rural areas by
    deploying level 2 and level 3 technologies on vehicles in rural
    areas.
        So I think there are a number of ways we are going to
    create more transportation for underserved communities.
        Mr. Costello. Avis and Waymo, Apple and Hertz, we are
    continuing to see business partnerships evolve here. Do you
    expect such business dealings to promote the introduction of
    fleet and electric self-driving cars? Whomever wants to take
    that one.
        Mr. Bozzella. I agree with that. I testified to that point
    earlier, and I think what will happen is electric vehicle
    platforms and the cost model for electric vehicles' higher
    upfront cost but lower operating costs will fit with a fleet-
    first automated vehicle strategy deployed by fleets.
        Mr. Costello. Another observation I have is, you know, a
    car driving itself ultimately is going to see to it that
    everybody is going to have that technology accessible.
        But the software side of this, you know--we can just look
    at antitrust litigation within the space of certain companies
    owning certain software and whose computer systems it can get
    on.
        I see the day when it is the software piece of this and
    updates and a new type of application or a new software product
    wanting to make its way into one specific car or a fleet of
    cars.
        Share with me, if anyone has these thoughts, about how to
    shape legislative policy so that we are not walking into the
    day when we are going to be dealing with that set of issues,
    which, obviously, has been front and center in the traditional
    tech world for quite some time. Or is it just unavoidable?
        Mr. Bainwol. I think the simplest thing is to recognize
    that as NHTSA does its work it should be nonprescriptive and
    should be technology neutral. Let the marketplace work.
        Mr. Day. Let me just add on very quickly. I mean, again, we
    are at the very early stages here, and this is not the only
    time that we are going to be looking at legislation addressing
    this issue.
        I think where we are right now, the legislation and the
    proposals that we have in front of us are adequate and as we
    have the testing done and as we learn more then perhaps that
    will, you know, require us to come back and think through some
    of the issues that you mentioned.
        Mr. Bozzella. And I would just add one more comment, and it
    comes up in the--I believe it is called the MORE Act. I do
    think that you want to make sure that a number of responsible
    companies have the ability to test.
        So not only what we would consider automakers but also auto
    suppliers that are increasingly developing the software you're
    talking about, increasingly deploying the technology that you
    talked about.
        Mr. Costello. Yes. I just wonder if there is a point in
    time where this just falls outside of NHTSA's jurisdiction if
    we are dealing in purely computer intelligence issues.
        But my time has expired. Thank you for your answers. I
    yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
    expired and seeing that there are no other members that are
    here to ask questions, I want to thank our panel today.
        You can tell there is a lot of discussion, a lot of
    interest in having you hear before us today. Before we do
    conclude today I would like to include the following documents
    to be submitted for the record by unanimous consent: the letter
    from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, letter from Property
    Casualty Insurers, a letter from American Car Rental
    Association, a letter from MEMA, a letter from CTA, a letter
    from Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, a letter from
    Consumer Watchdog, a letter from SAFE, a letter from ITS
    America, a letter from NAMIC, a letter from EPIC.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the
    hearing.]\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety letter and the
    Consumer Watchdog document have been retained in committee files and
    also are available at  https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
    ByEvent.aspx?EventID=106182.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Latta. And does the gentlelady have a----
        Ms. Schakowsky. Yes, I do. I wanted to add to the record a
    document from the Center for American Progress, a report
    entitled, ``The Impact of Vehicle Automation on Carbon
    Emissions.''
        And if I could just say a number of those submissions came
    from our side. They include important specific feedback on the
    14 bills before us and what is missing from those bills, in our
    view, and I urge my colleagues to look closely at the
    submissions from safety advocates and other interested parties.
        We will need to carefully weigh their concerns as we move
    forward, and I hope very much that this could be a bipartisan
    safety-focused legislative package.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, and for the two letters the
    lady submitted, without objection it will be added to the
    list.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The report has been retained in committee files and also is
    available at  https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
    ByEvent.aspx?EventID=106182.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Latta. Pursuant to committee rules, I remind Members
    that they have 10 business days to submit additional questions
    for the record. I ask that witnesses submit their responses
    within 10 business days from upon receipt of the questions from
    the Members.
        Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. Thank you
    very much.
        [Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]