    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                   LEGISLATION TO MAKE CARS IN AMERICA SAFER

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION AND COMMERCE

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 24, 2019

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-56

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                       govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                            energycommerce.house.gov

                              ______

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    40-723 PDF            WASHINGTON : 2020

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                         FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                     Chairman
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             FRED UPTON, Michigan
    DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
    MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
    G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
    DORIS O. MATSUI, California          CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
    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, Vice     BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
        Chair                            BILLY LONG, Missouri
    DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                BILL FLORES, Texas
    JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,               SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
        Massachusetts                    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    TONY CARDENAS, California            RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
    RAUL RUIZ, California                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
    SCOTT H. PETERS, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
    DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
    MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
    ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
    ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
    A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
    LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
    DARREN SOTO, Florida
    TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
                                     ------

                               Professional Staff

                       JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                    TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                    MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
                Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce

                            JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
                                    Chairwoman
    KATHY CASTOR, Florida                CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
    MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                  Ranking Member
    ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois             FRED UPTON, Michigan
    TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
    TONY CARDENAS, California, Vice      BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
        Chair                            LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
    DARREN SOTO, Florida                 EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
    DORIS O. MATSUI, California          GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
    JERRY McNERNEY, California
    DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
        officio)
                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Jan Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Illinois, opening statement.................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     2
    Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Washington, opening statement.....................     3
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     6
    Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Oregon, opening statement......................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................     8

                                   Witnesses

    Susan Clark Livingston, daughter of Dr. James Duane Livingston
      III and Dr. Sherry Penney Livingston...........................    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    13
        Additional material submitted for the record.................    20
    Benjamin R. Nordstrom, M.D., Executive Director,
      Responsibility.org.............................................    40
        Prepared statement...........................................    42
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   119
    Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety    56
        Prepared statement...........................................    58
        Additional material submitted for the record \1\
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   122

                               Submitted Material

    H.R. 3888, the Impaired Driving Study Act of 2019................    92
    H.R. 3593, the Hot Cars Act of 2019..............................    94
    H.R. 3145, the Protecting Americans from the Risks of Keyless
      Ignition Technology Actof 2019.................................   102
    H.R. 3890, the Combatting Impaired Driving Act of 2019...........   107
    Letter of July 22, 2019, from Colleen Sheehey-Church to Ms.
      Schakowsky and Mrs. Rodgers, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky.......   109
    Letter of July 23, 2019, from Suzanne Zitser of Westbrook, CT, to
      Ms. Schakowsky and Mr. Pallone, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky....   112
    Letter of July 23, 2017 [sic], from Doug Schaub to subcommittee
      members, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky...........................   114
    Letter of July 23, 2019, from Nathaniel F. Wienecke, Senior Vice
      President, American Property Casualty Insurance Association, to
      Ms. Schakowsky and Mrs. Rodgers, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky...   115

    ----------

    \1\ The information has been retained in committee files and also is
    available as part of Ms. Chase's statement at https://docs.house.gov/
    meetings/IF/IF17/20190724/109842/HHRG-116-IF17-Wstate-ChaseC-
    20190724.pdf.

                   LEGISLATION TO MAKE CARS IN AMERICA SAFER

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2019

                      House of Representatives,
      Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:26 a.m., in
    room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jan Schakowsky
    (chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Schakowsky, Castor, Kelly,
    O'Halleran, Blunt Rochester, Soto, Rush, Matsui, McNerney,
    Dingell, Pallone (ex officio), Rodgers (subcommittee ranking
    member), Burgess, Latta, Guthrie, Bucshon, Hudson, Carter, and
    Walden (ex officio).
        Staff present: Billy Benjamin, Systems Administrator;
    Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; Evan Gilbert, Deputy Press
    Secretary; Lisa Goldman, Senior Counsel; Waverly Gordon, Deputy
    Chief Counsel; Daniel Greene, Professional Staff Member; Alex
    Hoehn-Saric, Chief Counsel, Communications and Consumer
    Protection; Joe Orlando, Staff Assistant; Alivia Roberts, Press
    Assistant; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Chloe Rodriguez, Policy
    Analyst; Rebecca Tomilchik, Staff Assistant; Justin Discigil,
    Minority Press Secretary; Margaret Tucker Fogarty, Minority
    Staff Assistant; and Bijan Koohmaraie, Minority Counsel,
    Consumer Protection and Commerce.
        Ms. Schakowsky. The Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and
    Commerce will now come to order. The Chair now recognizes
    herself for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

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

        Good morning and thank you all for attending today's
    hearing on legislation to make cars safer. We continue in the
    subcommittee on our mission to save lives. The number of
    vehicle-related fatalities has been staggering over the last
    several years. In both 2017 and 2018, vehicle-related deaths
    have exceeded 40,000.
        This troubling development means that Congress must act,
    and today we are here to look at bills to address contributing
    factors to this spike in auto-related deaths. One of these
    factors is impaired driving. I thank my colleague Debbie
    Dingell for her leadership on this issue, and I thank Ranking
    Member McMorris Rodgers and Representatives Bucshon and
    McNerney for their initiative to address impaired driving.
        Another factor is uneven or slow deployment of technology.
    Since 1990, over 800 children have died from heatstroke in
    vehicles. In the vast majority of those cases, the adult did
    not realize the child was inside the car. Most of the children
    dying are infants and toddlers, 87 percent are 3 years or
    younger, but adults as well as pets have fallen victim to
    heatstroke as well. Twenty-one children have died already this
    year. Twenty-one. This is unacceptable. We can do better, and
    we must do better.
        This raises the question, How do we prevent heatstroke
    deaths? It is not enough to educate parents about the risks.
    Even the best parents can get distracted. We need safety
    features built into our vehicles. You get a warning when you
    leave your car keys in the ignition. You should get the warning
    when a child is left in the back seat, and that is what the Hot
    Cars Act does.
        The bill, which was introduced with Representatives Tim
    Ryan and Peter King, would require new vehicles to be equipped
    with sensors, sensor technology, to detect the presence of a
    child in the vehicle and notify the driver or parent. This
    safety technology has already been developed, and it is
    available in some vehicles today. A Hot Cars Act will ensure
    that this lifesaving technology is equipped on all vehicles.
        But our auto safety work does not end there. The New York
    Times has identified at least 28 deaths and 45 injuries since
    2006 attributed to carbon monoxide poisoning caused by keyless
    ignition vehicles that were inadvertently left running. Since
    keyless ignition systems do not require drivers to turn off a
    vehicle to remove their key from the ignition, drivers can
    leave their vehicle's--and that is what happens--key fob in
    hand, not realizing that the vehicles are still running. A
    vehicle left running in an attached garage can and has quickly
    filled the living space with lethal levels of carbon monoxide.
    We will hear more about that today.
        The rise in keyless ignition has also exacerbated the
    problem of automobile roll-aways. Unlike traditional ignition
    systems, a keyless ignition system permits the driver to exit
    the vehicle, key in hand, without the car being in park.
    Fortunately, some auto manufacturers, including GM and Ford,
    have responded to these hazards by implementing additional
    safety features, including auto-shutoff systems to prevent
    carbon monoxide poisoning and safeguards that prevent a vehicle
    from shutting down unless the vehicle is in park.
        Still, few automakers seem willing to address these new
    risks to drivers and passengers and pedestrians and property
    from keyless ignition technology. And that is why--let me check
    on the time here, whoops--and that is why I introduced the PARK
    IT Act with my colleagues Darren Soto, Joe Kennedy, and Seth
    Moulton.
        So I thank the witnesses for being here, especially Ms.
    Livingston for being here because she has experienced the
    tragedy of her parents dying. We will hear from her today. It
    takes a lot of courage to be here.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Schakowsky follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Hon. Jan Schakowsky

        Good morning, thank you all for attending today's hearing
    on legislation to make cars safer. The number of vehicle-
    related fatalities has been stagnant over the last several
    years. In both 2017 and 2018, vehicle-related deaths have
    exceeded 40,000.
        This troubling development means that Congress must act.
    And today, we are here to look at bills to address contributing
    factors to this spike in auto-related deaths. One of these
    factors is impaired driving. I thank my colleague Debbie
    Dingell for her leadership on the issue, and I thank Ranking
    Member McMorris Rogers and Representatives Bucshon and McNerney
    for their initiatives to address impaired driving.
        Another factor is uneven or slow deployment of technology.
    Since 1990, nearly 800 children have died from heat stroke in
    vehicles. In the vast majority of those cases, the adult did
    not realize the child was inside the car. Most of the children
    dying are infants and toddlers--87% are 3 or younger. But
    adults, as well as pets, have fallen victim to heatstroke as
    well.
        Twenty-one children have died already this year. TWENTY-
    ONE. This is unacceptable. We can do better, and we must do
    better.
        This begs the question--How do we prevent heatstroke
    deaths?
        It's not enough to educate parents about the risks. Even
    the best parent can get distracted.
        We need safety features built into our vehicles. You get a
    warning when you leave your keys in the ignition. You should
    get a warning when a child is left in the back seat.
        That's what the Hot Cars Act does. The bill, which I
    introduced with Reps. Tim Ryan and Peter King, would require
    new vehicles to be equipped with sensor technology to detect
    the presence of a child in a vehicle and notify the driver or
    parent.
        This safety technology has already been developed, and it's
    available in some vehicles today. Our Hot Cars Act will ensure
    that this lifesaving technology is equipped on all vehicles.
        But our auto safety work does not end there.
        The New York Times has identified at least 28 deaths and 45
    injuries since 2006 attributable to CO poisoning caused by
    keyless ignitions vehicles that were inadvertently left
    running.
        Since keyless ignition systems do not require drivers to
    turn off a vehicle to remove their key from the ignition,
    drivers can leave their vehicle--key fob in hand--not realizing
    the vehicle is still running. A vehicle left running in an
    attached garage can quickly fill the living spaces with lethal
    levels of carbon monoxide (CO).
        The rise in keyless ignitions has also exacerbated the
    problem of automobile rollaways. Unlike traditional ignition
    systems, a keyless ignition system permits the driver to exit
    the vehicle--keys in hand--without the car being in park.
        Fortunately, some auto manufacturers, including GM and
    Ford, have responded to these hazards by implementing
    additional safety features, including auto shut-off systems to
    prevent CO poisoning and safeguards that prevent a vehicle from
    shutting down unless the vehicle is in ``park.'' Still, few
    automakers seem willing to address the new risks posed to
    drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and property from keyless
    ignition technology.
        That's why I introduced the PARK IT Act with my colleagues
    Darren Soto, Joe Kennedy, and Seth Moulton.
        I thank the witnesses for their testimony, and now
    recognize the ranking member for 5 minutes.

        Ms. Schakowsky. So now I yield back, and I recognize Mrs.
    Rodgers, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Consumer
    Protection and Commerce, for 5 minutes for her opening
    statement.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
        REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chair. And good morning to
    everyone and welcome to the Consumer Protection and Commerce
    Subcommittee legislative hearing on improving motor vehicle
    safety.
        We lose more than 37,000 lives a year on our roads. We can
    and we must do more to make our roadways safer, especially
    considering most of these accidents were preventable. According
    to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 94
    percent of all accidents are due to human error. These include
    distracted driving, driving drowsy, and driving while under the
    influence of alcohol or drugs.
        Drunk driving remains a significant public health concern
    that tragically cuts life short for too many--not just for
    those who make the reckless decision to get behind the wheel
    after consuming alcohol, but also our family and friends on the
    road in the wrong place at the wrong time.
        Drug-impaired driving is also on the rise. ``If you feel
    different, you drive different.'' It is the new public safety
    message from NHTSA. It means exactly what it says. If you
    consume drugs, you will feel different. If you feel different,
    you will drive different. And if you drive different, you will
    put your life in danger and the lives of those on the road with
    you.
        Whether the drug is illegal or legally prescribed, driving
    while drug impaired is a serious safety threat. According to a
    recent report, in 2016 more than a thousand fatally injured
    drivers, or almost 20 percent of the drug-positive drivers,
    tested positive for opioids in their system. The most frequent
    opioids abused were oxycodone, hydrocodone, morphine, fentanyl,
    and methadone.
        Opioids aren't the only drug making our roads less safe. So
    is marijuana. In fact, marijuana is the most common drug found
    in fatally injured drivers. In 2012, my home State of
    Washington legalized marijuana. According to a recent report
    conducted by the Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking
    Area, one in five tenth-graders, one in four twelfth-graders
    reported riding with a driver who had been using marijuana. One
    in six twelfth-graders admitted to driving a vehicle within 3
    hours of consuming marijuana. And the percentage of marijuana-
    positive drivers has more than doubled, from 7.8 percent to
    18.9 percent, and fatal crashes involving marijuana have spiked
    to almost 13 percent, up from 7.8 percent prior to
    legalization.
        Recreational use of marijuana poses a serious threat to
    roadway safety. We must learn from the lessons we have seen in
    Washington State and make sure that we are focusing on
    addressing drug-impaired driving and alcohol-impaired driving.
    That is why I, along with Mr. McNerney, have introduced
    legislation to direct NHTSA to study impaired driving to learn
    more about the risk drug impairment poses. Our solution gives
    NHTSA the flexibility it needs to examine the drug-impaired
    driving in the most efficient and effective way possible. It
    allows NHTSA to review methods to detect drug-impaired driving.
    It supports NHTSA's research to review methods to detect drug-
    impaired driving and develop impairment standards for driving
    under the influence.
        Our bill will lead to a better understanding of the risks
    and the ways to prevent drug-impaired driving. It will allow
    NHTSA to produce extremely important data that will inform
    decisionmaking on policies that can save lives. We are also
    considering legislation introduced by my colleagues Mr. Bucshon
    and Mrs. Dingell that will authorize money that has been
    appropriated for the last 2 years, 2 fiscal years. Returning to
    regular order and ensuring funds are accounted for by this
    committee is critical. Remember, if you feel different, you
    drive different.
        I would also like to acknowledge that this is the last day
    for Melissa, who has been the head staffer for the Republicans
    on the Consumer Protection and Commerce Subcommittee. And I
    just want to say thanks for her exceptional leadership. She has
    a tremendous depth of knowledge, her strategic thinking, her
    hard work, all to get results on behalf of the many important
    issues before this committee. And although we are going to miss
    her, I just wanted to take this opportunity to recognize her
    and wish her all the best in this next chapter. Thank you,
    Madam Chair.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. And let me also wish Melissa the
    best of luck and thank her for the service that she has been to
    our committee.
        And now I would recognize Mr. Pallone, the chairman of the
    full committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.

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

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairwoman Schakowsky, and thanks
    for all you do on these safety issues. I know we reported out
    of the full committee last week a number of initiatives from
    this subcommittee that you are responsible for that, you know,
    to help children and, you know, this continues with your
    constant efforts to help consumers, you know, in so many
    different ways.
        Since 2014, the number of auto fatalities has steeply
    increased after nearly a decade of falling. And despite the
    rising death toll, the National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration, or NHTSA, has failed to prioritize vehicle
    safety. NHTSA has failed to complete needed rulemakings or
    prioritize resources to address preventable injuries and
    fatalities.
        Where the administration has been slow to act, Congress
    must step in. The bills we are considering today will help
    address preventable tragedies, including child vehicular
    heatstroke, carbon monoxide poisoning, and impaired driving. As
    we learned in May when this subcommittee held the hearing on
    summer driving dangers, 823 children have died from heatstroke
    after being left in hot cars over the last 20 years. And since
    that hearing, 2 more children have died and that is 21 children
    so far this year. No child should lose their life because they
    became trapped in a hot car.
        Fortunately, technologies exist today that can end these
    senseless tragedies, technologies that can alert drivers to the
    presence of a child in a vehicle or remind a driver to check
    their back seat before leaving the car. Regrettably, these
    sorts of lifesaving technologies have not yet been widely
    deployed.
        And I commend the chairwoman and Representatives Ryan and
    King for their work on the Hot Cars Act. This legislation would
    require vehicles to be equipped with safety technologies to
    detect and alert the driver to the presence of a child or
    occupant in the rear seat of a vehicle after the engine has
    shut off. And I look forward to exploring how this
    technological revolution can save lives.
        I also look forward to exploring how we can ensure that
    technological innovations like keyless ignition systems do not
    actually present unintended safety issues. Keyless ignition
    systems provide an added level of convenience for the driver:
    Merely sit in the vehicle and push to start, all with your keys
    in your pocket or bag. But that added convenience has been tied
    to a troubling rise in carbon monoxide deaths, more than three
    dozen since 2006. Without the physical motion of turning a key,
    some drivers inadvertently forget to turn off the vehicle--I
    will include myself among those--and some keyless ignition
    systems permit the engine to continue idling even when the
    driver exits the vehicle with the keys.
        If the vehicle is left in an enclosed area, tragedy can
    ensue as dangerous levels of carbon monoxide build. Such a
    tragedy claimed the lives of Dr. James Livingston and Dr.
    Sherry Penney. I thank Ms. Livingston for testifying today and
    sharing her parents' story, and I again commend the chairwoman
    as well as Representatives Soto, Kennedy, Moulton, Deutch, and
    Gonzalez for introducing the PARK IT Act.
        This legislation would ensure the engine of a keyless
    ignition vehicle automatically shuts off if left idling for an
    unreasonable amount of time. I also look forward to discussing
    two impaired-driving bills. With 10,000 deaths--30 percent of
    all fatal crashes--tied to drunk driving, and troubling
    increases in the rate of drug-impaired driving, we have to
    double down on our efforts to prevent such threats to auto
    safety.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

        With more than 40,000 deaths and 4.6 million injuries in
    2017 alone, the chaos and destruction on our Nation's roads has
    reached epidemic levels. And, unfortunately, automobile
    fatalities are on the rise. Motor vehicle death rates have
    steeply increased since 2014, after nearly a decade of falling.
        A crisis of this magnitude demands swift and decisive
    action. Action to deploy innovative, lifesaving crash avoidance
    technologies like automatic emergency braking, forward
    collision warning, and lane keeping support, which hold the
    promise of cutting the number of automobile crashes in half.
    Action to develop technologies that can automatically detect
    when a driver is intoxicated and prevent the vehicle from
    moving. Action to modernize the 5-Star Safety Rating for the
    21st century automobile; enhance recall efforts; and finalize
    over two dozen safety mandates languishing at NHTSA.
        This hearing is the opening salvo in our campaign to bring
    tragedies on our Nation's roads to an end. And we are starting
    with a tranche of bills that will help eradicate some of the
    most devastating auto safety issues, like child vehicular
    heatstroke.
        As we learned in May when this subcommittee held a hearing
    on summer driving dangers, 823 children have died from
    heatstroke after being left in hot cars over the last 20 years.
    Fifty-two last year alone, and 21 children so far this year.
    Since that hearing, 12 more children have perished.
        No child should have their right to life taken from them
    because they become trapped in a hot car. Fortunately,
    technologies exist today that can end these senseless
    tragedies--technologies that can alert drivers to the presence
    of a child in the vehicle or remind a driver to check their
    backseat before leaving the car. Regrettably, these sorts of
    life saving technologies have not been widely deployed.
        I applaud Chairwoman Schakowsky and Congressman Ryan for
    their work on the Hot Cars Act--legislation that would require
    vehicles to be equipped with safety technologies to detect and
    alert the driver to the presence of a child or occupant in a
    rear seat of a vehicle after the engine is shut off. And I look
    forward to exploring how these technological revolutions can
    save lives.
        I also look forward to exploring how we can ensure that
    technological innovations--like keyless ignition systems--do
    not actually present safety issues. Keyless ignition systems
    provide an added level of convenience for the driver--merely
    sit in the vehicle and push to start, all with your keys in
    your pocket. But that added convenience has been tied to a
    troubling rise in carbon monoxide deaths--over three dozen
    since 2006.
        Without the physical motion of turning a key, some drivers
    inadvertently forget to turn off the vehicle. And some keyless
    ignition systems permit the engine to continue idling even when
    the driver exits the vehicle with the keys. If the vehicle is
    left in an enclosed area, tragedy can ensue as dangerous levels
    of carbon monoxide build.
        Such a tragedy claimed the lives of Dr. James D. Livingston
    and Dr. Sherry H. Penney. I thank Ms. Livingston for testifying
    today and sharing her parents' story. And I applaud Chairwoman
    Schakowsky for introducing the PARK IT Act, legislation that
    would ensure the engine of a keyless ignition vehicle
    automatically shuts off if left idling for an unreasonable
    amount of time.
        I also look forward to discussing two impaired-driving
    bills being considered here today. With 10,000 deaths--30
    percent of all fatal crashes--tied to drunk driving and
    troubling increases in the rate of drug-impaired driving, we
    must double down on our efforts to prevent such threats to
    automobile safety.
        I thank our witnesses for testifying this morning, and I
    look forward to the discussion.

        Mr. Pallone. So I want to thank our witnesses, and I wanted
    to yield the remainder of my time to Representative Dingell.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you and
    Chairman Schakowsky for holding this important hearing today. I
    want to start by talking about the single largest cause of
    traffic fatalities: drunk driving. This is a cause that matters
    to too many families that have been hit and struck by it, the
    most recent in my own community by the Abbas family in January.
        The Abbas family was driving back from a family vacation
    when their car was struck head-on by a drunk driver, and there
    were no survivors. Mother, father, three children needlessly
    killed because someone made the decision to drink and drive.
    July, this month, is the deadliest month for drunk driving.
    Across the country, families and loved ones are repeating what
    our community went through in January.
        It is time. Congress has to step up and do something, and
    do something we will. I am so proud to colead Mr. Bucshon's
    bill that we are considering here today that would authorize
    funds for pilot programs, demonstration projects, and
    innovative solutions to address impaired driving, and I also
    will be introducing legislation of my own later this week. I
    yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.
        Mr. Pallone. And I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back, and the Chair
    now recognizes Mr. Walden, ranking member of the full
    committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.

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

        Mr. Walden. Good morning, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Good morning.
        Mr. Walden. And thanks for having this hearing. Each year,
    tragically, we lose 37,000 people on our roads, in no small
    part due to impaired driving. And, in fact, since January of
    2000, more than 200,000 people have died from impaired driving.
    Now, whether that is alcohol, marijuana, or opioids, the
    consumption of drugs is making our roads less safe and more
    deadly.
        Alcohol-impaired driving remains a serious problem and one
    that cuts far too many lives short, as we all know. But drug-
    impaired driving has also taken a hold of our roadways, and to
    be clear, you cannot drive safely if you are impaired. While it
    is illegal to drive while under the influence of marijuana,
    opioids, or any potentially impairing drug, even if the drug
    has been legally prescribed, sometimes it is difficult to
    figure out.
        Driving while impaired by any substance, legal or illegal,
    puts drivers and those who share the road with them in great
    danger. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
    NHTSA, is getting the word out about the dangers of driving
    after consuming drugs through its ``If You Feel Different, You
    Drive Different'' and ``Drive High, Get a DUI'' campaigns, and
    we are appreciative of that.
        Today, we will discuss two measures that will help advance
    NHTSA's efforts to combat impaired driving introduced by
    Representatives Rodgers and Dr. Bucshon. The first bill, the
    Combatting Impaired Driving Act of 2019, introduced by Dr.
    Bucshon and Mrs. Dingell, authorized important funding to NHTSA
    to conduct research on impaired driving, including drug-
    impaired driving. The more NHTSA can focus on this issue, the
    more we can learn about its unique challenges and make better,
    more informed public policy decisions.
        The second piece of legislation, the Impaired Driving Study
    Act of 2019, introduced by Mrs. Rodgers and Mr. McNerney,
    directs NHTSA to study impaired driving so we can learn more
    about the devastating effects marijuana- and opioid-impaired
    driving are having on our roads. And coming from a State that
    has legalized marijuana, this is an increasingly important
    issue to overcome.
        The bill is intended to give NHTSA the flexibility it needs
    to determine how best to study this issue and requires NHTSA to
    report to us on the progress of the study as well any findings.
    And under the bill, NHTSA can review different methods to
    detect drug-impaired driving, work with State and local
    partners on State-based drug-impaired driving policies, and
    learn the role in extended drug impairment in motor vehicle
    accidents, and any other issues NHTSA believes necessary to
    examine to combat drug-impaired driving in effective and
    efficient ways.
        So I appreciate the work on that and on, obviously, the Hot
    Cars Act as well.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden

        Good morning, and thank you Madame Chair for holding
    today's hearing focused on auto safety.
        Each year, we lose almost 37,000 people on our roads, in no
    small part due to impaired driving. In fact, since January
    2000, more than 200,000 people have died from impaired driving.
    Whether it be alcohol, marijuana, or opioids, the consumption
    of drugs is making our roads less safe.
        Alcohol-impaired driving remains a serious problem and one
    that cuts far too many lives short. But drug-impaired driving
    has also taken hold on our roadways. To be clear, you cannot
    drive safely if you are impaired. It is illegal to drive while
    under the influence of marijuana, opioids, or any potentially
    impairing drug, even if the drug has been legally prescribed.
    Driving while impaired by any substance--legal or illegal--puts
    drivers and those who share the road with them in danger.
        The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
    is getting the word out about the dangers of driving after
    consuming drugs through its ``If You Feel Different, You Drive
    Different'' and ``Drive High, Get a DUI'' campaigns.
        Today, we will discuss two measures that will help advance
    NHTSA's efforts to combat impaired driving introduced by Rep.
    Rodgers and Dr. Bucshon.
        The first bill, the Combatting Impaired Driving Act of
    2019, introduced by Dr. Bucshon and Mrs. Dingell, authorizes
    important funding to NHTSA to conduct research on impaired
    driving, including drug-impaired driving. The more NHTSA can
    focus on this issue, the more we can learn about its unique
    challenges and make better, more informed policy decisions.
        The second bill, the Impaired Driving Study Act of 2019,
    introduced by Ms. Rodgers and Mr. McNerney, directs NHTSA to
    study impaired driving so that we can learn more about the
    devastating effects marijuana- and opioid-impaired driving are
    having on our roads.
        The bill is intended to give NHTSA the flexibility it needs
    to determine how best to study this issue and requires NHTSA to
    report to us on the progress of their study as well as any
    findings.
        Under this bill, NHTSA can review different methods to
    detect drug-impaired driving; work with State and local
    partners on State-based drug-impaired driving policies; learn
    the role and extent of drug impairment in motor vehicle
    accidents; and any other issue NHTSA believes necessary to
    examine to combat drug-impaired driving in effective and
    efficient ways.
        This study will produce critical information necessary for
    us to make policy decisions. Saving lives from impaired driving
    is a bipartisan issue.
        I am hopeful we can continue to work together to advance
    legislation to address this growing crisis of impaired driving
    on our roads.
        Today, I am also interested in learning more about the
    other bills under consideration today, the Hot Cars Act,
    introduced by Rep. Ryan, and the PARK IT Act, introduced by
    Rep. Schakowsky, which seeks to address the threat of carbon
    monoxide poisoning from motor vehicles. It is worth noting that
    last week, we forwarded a bill led by Reps. Kuster and Carter
    to the House floor to incentivize installing carbon monoxide
    detectors in homes in order to help avoid these tragedies no
    matter the source of carbon monoxide.
        Again, thank you for holding today's hearing.

        Mr. Walden. And with that I want to make sure and provide
    plenty of time for Dr. Bucshon to discuss his legislation. With
    that, Madam Chair, I would yield to him.
        Mr. Bucshon. Thank you. And thank you to Chairwoman
    Schakowsky and Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers for holding this
    hearing today.
        Impaired driving is an epidemic across our Nation that
    claims far too many lives each year. Although we continue to
    make headway in addressing drunk driving, drug-impaired driving
    is on the rise. In 2018, 38 percent of drivers killed in
    Indiana tested positive for alcohol, while 45 percent tested
    positive for one or more drugs.
        It is important that we take steps to promote technological
    advancements that help our law enforcement professionals on the
    ground to detect and prevent impaired driving. For that reason,
    I introduced, along with Congresswoman Dingell, H.R. 3890, the
    Combatting Impaired Driving Act of 2019.
        This bill authorizes the Department of Transportation to
    provide funding to support grants and pilot programs that
    create innovative solutions to address impaired driving,
    including alcohol-, opioid-, and marijuana-impaired driving. I
    am glad to see the committee discuss this legislation today,
    and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how we can
    eliminate impaired driving and save lives. And I yield back to
    Mr. Walden.
        Mr. Walden. And I yield back.
        Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
        And the Chair would like to remind Members on the committee
    that, pursuant to committee rules, Members' written statements
    will be made part of the record.
        And I would now like to introduce our witnesses for today's
    hearing. We have Ms. Susan Livingston, daughter of Dr. James D.
    Livingston and Dr. Sherry H. Penney. And I just want to give
    again a special thank you to you. In our efforts to save lives
    in this committee and to change laws, we have seen the courage
    of family members who have suffered such devastating tragedies
    come forward, and appreciate that so much.
        We have Dr. Benjamin Nordstrom, executive director of
    Responsibility.org. And Ms. Cathy Chase, president, Advocates
    for Highway and Auto Safety. We want to again thank all the
    witnesses for joining us today. We look forward to hearing your
    testimony. At this time, the Chair will recognize each witness
    for 5 minutes to provide their opening statement.
        Before I begin, I want to explain the lighting system for
    those who may not know it. In front of you is a series of
    lights. The light will initially be green at the start of your
    opening statement. The light will turn yellow when you have 1
    minute remaining, so please begin to wrap up your testimony at
    that point. The light will turn red when your time expires. So,
    Ms. Livingston, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENTS OF SUSAN CLARK LIVINGSTON, DAUGHTER OF DR. JAMES
    DUANE LIVINGSTON III AND DR. SHERRY PENNEY LIVINGSTON; BENJAMIN
    R. NORDSTROM, M.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESPONSIBILITY.ORG; AND
      CATHERINE CHASE, PRESIDENT, ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO
                                 SAFETY

                  STATEMENT OF SUSAN CLARK LIVINGSTON

        Ms. Livingston. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Schakowsky
    and Ranking Member Rodgers, honored members of the
    subcommittee. My name is Susan Clark Livingston. I am the first
    female partner of Brown Brothers Harriman, the private banking
    firm in Boston. I am on the executive committee and board of
    governors of the Investment Company Institute in Washington,
    and honorary consul general to Luxembourg for the Commonwealth
    of Massachusetts. But today I am here as a daughter and as a
    mother.
        I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you about the
    tragic simultaneous deaths of my parents, Dr. James Duane
    Livingston and Dr. Sherry Penney Livingston. They died together
    the evening of this past May 7. Their bodies were found the
    early morning of May 10. I will never forget my sister
    Barbara's phone call to me that morning saying, ``Dad and
    Sherry passed away last night, both of them, from carbon
    monoxide.''
        There are no words for this kind of family tragedy, and yet
    I want the story told. I am here today to tell you that these
    deaths were preventable. They died of indifference. These
    deaths were caused by an automobile design flaw that can be
    fixed at low cost with readily available technology. It is a
    design flaw the car industry and the NHTSA have known about
    since keyless ignitions were introduced in 2006, 13 years ago.
    The truth is, the car manufacturers have failed to install this
    simple fix voluntarily. The NHTSA has failed to institute
    regulations that were proposed back in 2011 to prevent these
    deaths, so we beg you to act so that no other family has to go
    through what ours has experienced.
        As a family, we are still in shock, and we speak of these
    amazing individuals in the past tense. It still feels very
    strange. They are not yet in the ground. They will be buried
    next week on Tuesday, July 30th, at St. James Church in Hyde
    Park, New York--the church of our ancestors and that of
    Franklin Delano Roosevelt--buried together beside my
    grandparents and great-grandparents. We are still in mourning,
    yet the more I learned about the failure of these car
    manufacturers constantly touting the safety of their vehicles
    to properly protect consumers, the more I want to be here
    today, which I know is a busy day in Washington, but to ask for
    your help to get this done.
        Jim and Sherry had a love affair like no other. Married 34
    years, they were inseparable. Dad called Sherry his bride, and
    their love and respect for each other were unmatched. The news
    reports on their deaths referred to them as elderly, but the
    word hardly describes the physical and mental energy of these
    two intellects. Daily aerobics, tennis, swimming, attendance at
    every Harvard Club event both in Sarasota and Boston, season
    tickets to the theater--they were indeed in their 80s, but
    these seniors had so much life and love left in them. We loved
    them. We miss them every day.
        Dad got his Ph.D. from Harvard in Physics at the very young
    age of 23. A brilliant scientist, 25-year research career at GE
    in Schenectady, he had seven patents to his name on alloys that
    are still used in the space program today. He followed Sherry's
    career to Boston, being a feminist, and he was a professor of
    physics at MIT for 22 years. Top-rated professor year after
    year for freshman physics. I liked having him help me with my
    homework. He was an author and avid tennis player, and he wrote
    a space column for The Patriot Ledger. He was a pretty cool
    guy. He was a proud father of three daughters and his only
    granddaughter, Julia Pell Livingston, age 17, who is here with
    me today.
        Sherry, my stepmom, was a driving force of nature. At 4-
    foot-10, she punched above her weight. Provost at Yale, first
    woman chancellor of the entire system of University of
    Massachusetts, and chancellor of UMass Boston with 20,000
    students for over 12 years. She ran the Center for
    Collaborative Leadership there until last year. There is an
    endowed chair there in her name. She was my mentor, my role
    model. She was on the board of Boston Edison, now Eversource,
    the JFK Library. The night she died she gave a speech to the
    International Women's Forum in Sarasota entitled, ``Women in
    the 21st Century: Stuck or Unstuck?'' That was the last time
    she was seen alive.
        Dad retired from MIT just 3 years ago, but even after
    retirement he had regular speaking engagements and continued to
    author books. He awaited Sherry's retirement from UMass last
    year. They looked forward to retirement between Sarasota and
    Hingham, Mass, where they had just bought a new oceanfront
    condo. It was built last winter. It looked out over the
    shipyard and the harbor.
        Their bodies were found Friday. They were moving into the
    condo the following Tuesday. Sadly, they never saw it. They
    were looking forward to these final years together, on the
    verge of a new adventure after each working close to 50 years,
    contributing as teachers and wonderful contributors to society.
        They are no longer here to tell us what happened, and
    people ask what happened, but the scenario might go something
    like this. It could happen to anyone. It happened to two
    energetic and lively Ph.Ds. After Sherry's speech, they drove
    back to their condo, they opened the automatic door to the two-
    car garage and drove in. Neither of these two were hard of
    hearing. Sherry reminded Jim, ``It is trash night,'' and he
    went over to roll out the garbage can and the recycling bin. I
    know just where those barrels were in the garage.
        Sherry was still in the car. Perhaps the radio is still on.
    You know, the radio can run 4 minutes after a car stops. She
    went to the back seat, took out the briefcase and her speech,
    which we found later on the table in the condo, she entered the
    ground floor condo through the door in the garage and closed
    the garage door. After putting the barrels at the end of the
    drive, Dad entered the condo through the front door just next
    to the garage. The police found the key fob in Sherry's purse
    when they recovered the bodies.
        These engines are quiet. The key fob can be miles away from
    a car once that engine starts running, some of you know. This
    was a flawed vehicle murder weapon. It was missing a basic
    safety feature. The neighbor noticed the barrels--sorry.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Got to wrap up. Go ahead.
        Ms. Livingston. OK, no problem.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Just finish really fast.
        Ms. Livingston. The neighbor noticed the barrels still left
    outside at the curb. And just like Chairman Pallone, I myself
    have also left my car idling. Carbon monoxide overwhelms a
    victim, causes piercing headaches, disorientation, nausea. It
    is not a great way to die. They found my dad's body, his head
    in a pool of blood. The cleaning woman called 9--1--1. They
    determined a hazmat team needed to evacuate the carbon dioxide.
        Ms. Schakowsky. I am going to have to cut off your
    testimony.
        Ms. Livingston. Let me finish. We beg of you to please
    prevent another family from going through this. I know we
    cannot bring Dad back and Sherry back. Our family sky is dark
    after losing these two bright stars, and how many more need to
    die? Can this measure please be passed? Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Livingston follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I think it sounds like not only
    did you lose precious parents, but they were great
    contributors. And our condolences, I am sure I speak for the
    whole subcommittee, are certainly with you, and that is why we
    are dealing with this today.
        Ms. Livingston. Thank you.
        Ms. Schakowsky. And now let me call on Dr. Nordstrom. You
    are recognized for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN R. NORDSTROM

        Dr. Nordstrom. Thank you.
        Well, good morning, Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking Member
    Rodgers, and all of the distinguished members of the
    subcommittee. I really want to thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today in support of the Impaired Driving Study Act of
    2019 and the Combatting Impaired Driving Act of 2019.
        So my name is Dr. Benjamin Nordstrom. I am the executive
    director at Responsibility.org, and we are a national nonprofit
    that is funded by leading distilled spirits companies to
    eliminate drunk driving and underage drinking. My background is
    that I am a board-certified addiction psychiatrist, I am a
    criminologist, and I also serve as a physician with the U.S.
    Army Reserve.
        I want to applaud this committee for its longtime
    leadership on a whole host of auto and traffic safety issues,
    such as the topics being discussed today, and I really want to
    thank you for keeping focus on impaired driving over the years,
    and that is the topic that I have been asked to speak about.
    Now, my written testimony contains a lot of specific details,
    and in my oral comments what I would like to do is focus on
    three foundational points and then some policy recommendations.
        The first point I want to make is that, while drunk-driving
    deaths have fallen by 50 percent since 1982 and by about 30
    percent since 1991, they have really plateaued over the past 10
    years. And they still account for about a third of traffic
    deaths, and that is around 11,000 deaths a year, each and every
    one of which is completely preventable. And I think, as Ms.
    Livingston's moving testimony points out, it is not just losing
    a life, it leaves a hole in families, it leaves a hole in
    communities, and they are all vitally important.
        The second point I want to make is that drugged driving has
    been increasing at an alarming rate over the past decade. Now,
    it is really hard to give you a specific number about how much
    it has because the data that we have around this are fairly
    limited, but the information we do have is alarming.
        Now, there are no national standards for obtaining
    toxicological data after motor vehicle crashes or impaired
    driving cases, and we know that obtaining these toxicological
    samples and running tests on them is very expensive, and as a
    result a lot of municipalities don't look after they ascertain
    that there is a presence of an illegal blood alcohol
    concentration, so we think that we are undercounting these
    things, perhaps significantly.
        My third foundational point is that increasingly people are
    driving after having used more than one substance. We know this
    from toxicological evidence from people who have died in
    crashes. And the reason why this behavior is so lethal is that
    combining drugs can lead to additive if not multiplicative
    effects on impairment.
        So continued investment in research initiatives to better
    understand the scope of this problem as well as to better
    understand how drugs impair driving is really essential to
    guide not just resource allocation, but also to identify
    effective drug-driving countermeasures. And we fully support
    the proposed legislation to authorize NHTSA to study this issue
    further.
        Drug-impaired driving is different and more complex than
    alcohol-impaired driving, and so a lot of the strategies that
    have been used in alcohol-impaired driving can be applied to
    this. There are going to be some specific policy approaches
    that need to be used specifically for this. So a comprehensive
    approach that includes public education, policy and enforcement
    initiatives is outlined in my written testimony, but we fully
    support the impaired-driving legislation introduced this week
    to authorize NHTSA funding for grants and pilot programs into
    drug-impaired driving prevention efforts.
        So, in addition, the other things that are worth
    considering include supporting the creation of a national
    minimum standard for toxicological investigations in motor
    vehicle crashes and drug-impaired driving cases; allocating
    additional highway safety funds to improve State labs;
    monitoring NHTSA's progress in creating large-scale education
    efforts and then allocating funds appropriately to expand the
    efforts that are deemed effective; using screening and
    assessment in all cases of impaired driving so individual risk
    treatment needs can be identified; researching the effects of
    drugs on driver impairment and expanding the implementation of
    accountability in DWI courts for high-risk offenders; and,
    lastly, requiring the use of interlocks for all DUI offenders.
        In conclusion, this is going to take a comprehensive
    approach that is going to require that we break down some of
    the silos that typically exist between the State and the
    Federal levels and building broader coalitions than we have
    ever had before so that we can reduce recidivism and save
    lives. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Nordstrom follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
        And now let me ask Ms. Chase to take 5 minutes and give her
    statement.

                      STATEMENT OF CATHERINE CHASE

        Ms. Chase. Good morning, Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking
    Member McMorris Rodgers, and members of the subcommittee. I am
    Cathy Chase, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto
    Safety. Celebrating our 30th anniversary this year, Advocates
    is a unique and successful coalition of insurers, consumers,
    public health and safety groups dedicated to preventing motor
    vehicle crashes, which are responsible for approximately 100
    deaths and 7,500 injuries each day, on average.
        Thank you for convening this important hearing to address
    issues that will protect and keep families whole. Steps can and
    must be taken to protect children from tragic heatstroke
    incidents in cars, to curb the dangers associated with keyless
    ignition systems, and to reduce impaired driving. We are here
    today because people are not infallible. We are, however,
    inventive. There are current, proven solutions to these issues.
        Tragically, the problem of hot cars has taken the lives of
    at least 21 children this year, including 12 children during
    the short time since this subcommittee held a hearing on this
    issue in May. Moreover, we are in the dog days of summer and
    most of the country just experienced a major heat wave,
    punctuating the need for swift action.
        Neuroscience experts have explained that common
    circumstances such as stress, fatigue, or change in routine can
    all lead to this serious and deadly outcome. Technology is
    available now that can detect the presence of a child in a
    vehicle and alert drivers and caregivers. The ability of the
    system to detect is a critical component, especially since on
    average over 25 percent of vehicular heatstroke deaths happen
    as a result of the child getting into the car on their own.
        I would like to now show a brief video to highlight this
    feature from just a couple companies. I have been told that the
    audio might not work, but I still think it is important that
    you see that the technology is in existence.
        [Video shown.]
        So here, the detection system is in the roof--you can't see
    it--and the alarm system was going off. If you could hear this,
    it is quite loud and there are multiple components. There is an
    audio, a visual, and also an app. In this instance, the child
    is getting into the car unbeknownst to the parents. The dad
    gets out. There is the visual. And now what you can't hear is a
    very loud honking noise because the car detected that the child
    was hiding in the car.
        As you can see from the clips, lives can be saved now using
    technology on the market today which, according to suppliers,
    costs approximately 20 to 40 dollars. And the cost will go down
    even further once it becomes standard equipment as we have
    experienced with other safety technologies like rearview
    cameras and airbags. We commend Chairwoman Schakowsky along
    with Representatives Tim Ryan and Peter King for introducing
    the Hot Cars Act and call on Congress to swiftly enact it.
        Secondly, the invention of keyless ignition systems, also
    known as push-button starts, has resulted in unintended deadly
    consequences. This feature is now standard in nearly two-thirds
    of vehicles sold, up from just over 10 percent in 2008. Without
    needing to turn and remove a key to disengage the vehicle,
    drivers can park their car in the garage, exit the car, and go
    inside their home with their key in hand or handbag, all the
    while thinking they have turned the car off. This scenario can
    lead to a fatal level of carbon monoxide being emitted from the
    parked, running car.
        Stories like this continue to devastate families across the
    country, including Susan who bravely recounted the recent
    deaths of her parents. The PARK IT Act will require new cars
    with keyless ignitions to have an automatic shutoff before
    carbon monoxide can accumulate to a dangerous level.
        Additionally, the legislation would help prevent vehicle
    roll-aways, which happen when a driver exits the car while it
    is still in gear. These incidents can lead to a driver being
    struck by their own vehicle or the car continuing unabated,
    potentially striking objects or people in its path. We applaud
    the leadership of the chairwoman and other cosponsors in
    introducing the PARK IT Act and urge Congress to enact it.
        Thirdly, impaired driving continues to kill more than
    10,000 people every year. My written testimony includes a
    number of actions Congress should take, including getting
    passive sensor technology such as DADSS into cars,
    incentivizing States to lower their BAC laws and enact all
    offender ignition interlock laws, and providing funds to
    accelerate research, training, and solutions to the growing
    problem of drug-impaired driving.
        In conclusion, these remedies address a few of the
    fallibilities of humans. Some claim that driverless cars will
    be the panacea, and we hope they are correct. However, when
    this subcommittee decides to consider driverless car
    legislation, we urge you to require safeguards, including
    minimum performance standards for technologies to protect those
    in AVs and everyone around them. Proven technologies in
    addition to the ones being discussed today such as automatic
    emergency braking, blindspot detection, and lane departure
    warning should be in all new cars now. They will both pave the
    way toward AVs and save lives along the way.
        Advocates looks forward to continuing to work with the
    subcommittee to make cars, drivers, and roads in America safer.
    Thank you so much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Chase follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional material submitted by Ms. Chase has been
    retained in committee files and also is available as part of
    her prepared statement at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/
    IF17/20190724/109842/HHRG-116-IF17-Wstate-ChaseC-20190724.pdf.]
        Ms. Schakowsky. I thank the excellent testimony of all our
    witnesses. So we have concluded the opening statements, and now
    we will move to Member questions. Each Member will have 5
    minutes to ask questions of our witnesses, and I will start by
    recognizing myself.
        So one death may be an anomaly, but over three dozen
    documented deaths prove that keyless ignition systems can be
    deadly and dangerous, and without appropriate safeguards in
    place anyone with a keyless ignition vehicle could be in
    danger. So, Ms. Livingston, you yourself have accidentally left
    your keyless ignition vehicle running--I have done it as well--
    for 9 hours while you were at work. Is that right?
        So what I wanted to ask you, though, is if you could
    explain how easy it is for a distracted driver to inadvertently
    leave keys in the ignition and the car running.
        Ms. Livingston. Yes, so in my case I have had it happen
    three times. And I dropped my car off at Wonderland T Station
    to go into Boston and parked my car at Lucky's, an outdoor
    garage, but my radio continued running. I listen to Bloomberg
    on the way to work, and the radio was going. I grabbed my bag.
    I stepped out. There is quite a bit of traffic, by the way, as
    well, so you can't hear the engine.
        I locked the car, and there is absolutely no indication,
    went into work, and when I came back to the car I got in and I
    looked at the dashboard and I thought, wait a minute. I think
    my car is running. And I just felt really lucky I didn't run
    out of gas. And I have heard so many stories now since this
    happened to my parents of other people who came and their car
    had run out of gas.
        One time I did the old valet trick where I valeted the car
    at the United Way Women's Breakfast in Boston, and they took
    the car. I had the key fob in my purse. Went to the breakfast
    and I came out to the valet and waited and waited, and all
    these people were leaving. I was like, I have another meeting,
    where is my car? And they said, ``Oh, you never gave us the key
    fob.'' So again, this has happened.
        And I had a friend who they rented a car, and he drove the
    car up and his son took the rental car from here, from D.C., up
    to New York, and his son got to New York and realized his dad
    still had the key in his pocket. So these are things that
    happen that are inconvenient and annoying, but usually not
    fatal. And I would suggest this happens a lot.
        Now, when there are two-thirds of new vehicles all have
    this keyless technology, we really do need better systems, and
    GM and Ford have embraced it.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thirty-six deaths that we have documented.
    There may be more that we don't know about.
        Ms. Livingston. There are many more, I am sure.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Exactly. Mistakes obviously should not cost
    lives. Ms. Livingston, should technologies that automatically
    shut off a keyless ignition vehicle if the engine has idled for
    a dangerous period of time be required in all cars, and do you
    support the PARK IT Act?
        Ms. Livingston. Yes, I support the act. And I have noted
    that if the car had run just 30 minutes and turned off, my
    parents would still be alive. I rented a GM down in Sarasota
    when I was cleaning out the condo, which is not an easy job to
    do, and it was so hot. It was 103 degrees, so I understand
    people saying, ``Oh, I want to leave the a/c on.''
        I had to grab papers to go to the lawyer, and I walked out
    of the car and the horn honked. I mean that was a really great
    reminder that I had the key. I intentionally was just running
    into the condo and back. I think these things are so easy to
    install, I can't get my head around why the other car
    manufacturers have just ignored it.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
        So I want to switch to a different topic right now. Twenty-
    one children have tragically died this year--this is a record--
    inside a hot car. A majority of these tragic deaths are
    accidents, distracted parents merely going about their busy
    lives accidentally leaving their children inside a rapidly
    warming car.
        So, Ms. Chase, the technologies exist today that can detect
    the presence of a child left in a car. We saw your video. Why
    is it important, so important, to adopt technologies that can
    detect--I am talking about detection systems now--the presence
    of a child, and why this is an element that is essential?
        Ms. Chase. Thank you for the question. It is so important
    that there is a detection system. First of all, no parent or
    caregiver thinks that this will happen to them. Nobody wakes up
    in the morning and thinks they are either going to leave their
    child unintentionally or that a child will climb into a car,
    but it is happening.
        And we have the technological solutions, especially as you
    mentioned, Madam Chairwoman, the detection system, because that
    can say there is somebody in this car, or a pet, and action
    needs to be taken. If there is just an alarm, that can be
    accomplished with different technologies such as door
    sequencing and it won't detect all of the children that are
    dying now. So we want the effective solution to take place and
    Hot Cars will do that.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. Time flies, I yield back, and
    now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mrs.
    Rodgers.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Dr. Nordstrom, why is it important for NHTSA to study drug-
    impaired driving, including the opioid impairment? Are there
    holes in the data we have today that we could learn more about
    with a targeted study?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Indeed. Thank you for the question. First,
    there are holes in the data, I think, because that really
    speaks to one of the fundamental challenges that we have. When
    we think about the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, which
    looks at drugs that might be present in somebody after a fatal
    car crash, what we see is that the way that is it implemented
    is very different from State to State.
        And it is used in 2 percent of cases in some States, up to
    96 percent in other States, so there is not any uniformity to
    it. And then, furthermore, when the drugs are actually looked
    for, different cutoffs are used as well, and so we get uneven
    reporting and so we are kind of constantly comparing apples to
    oranges. It makes it really hard to know the actual full extent
    of the problem.
        The reason why it is very important is because there are
    large educational holes that probably need to be filled. We
    know that, when it comes to people's beliefs about using
    different medications or different recreational drugs, there is
    not any really clear sense from the population, the using
    community, about what is safe and what isn't safe. And so we
    have to understand the scope of the problem, so then we can
    actually target finding out what kinds of countermeasures we
    need to do and then measure them to see if they are working so
    we know how to allocate those resources in the future.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Good. What do you think is the most important
    aspect to be studying as far as the drug-related impaired
    driving?
        Dr. Nordstrom. So I think that there are a number of things
    that are really important, and I think that a big one is
    looking at the prevalence of things. And so, looking at doing
    things like oral fluid analysis where--and expanding
    opportunities to do that like is being done in Michigan, I
    think, would be very, very important so that we can understand
    what is happening on the roads.
        And then that also leads to, I think, the next thing that
    is really important, which is a very, very good assessment and
    screening for everybody who is found to be driving while
    impaired, so that we can understand what their treatment needs
    are and what their supervision needs are, so that we can
    individualize plans so that we know that we are targeting the
    underlying causes of very lethal criminal behavior.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Great, I appreciate that. Would you share
    with the committee what polydrug use is and what risk it poses
    to the public? Is this an issue that NHTSA should focus on
    during the study in our bill, and if so, how would improving
    data on this issue help State and Federal officials?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Thank you, yes. So polydrug use is just the
    use of more than one psychoactive substance at the same time.
    So that could be alcohol and marijuana, which seems to be the
    most common combination that is being detected in the FARS
    data. But it could also be, you know, cocaine or
    methamphetamine and alcohol or it could be opioids and
    marijuana. It could be lots of different things.
        And the reason why that is very important is, again, those
    substances are going to interact in the brain and create kind
    of unpredictable at this point effects on driving. We know that
    sometimes it is a one plus one equals two, and so people have--
    smoke a little bit and do some opioids, and sometimes it is
    actually multiplicative, and so you will get a 1 plus 1 equals
    like a 3 kind of effect out of it.
        And so this is the sort of things that we need to
    understand better in terms of how these drugs affect people,
    and then we also have to be able to communicate that to the
    public so that they know what is safe.
        Mrs. Rodgers. One last question. Based on your experience
    with impaired driving, do you believe it is important to treat
    drug-impaired driving as seriously as driving under the
    influence of alcohol?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Well, I certainly think it is every bit as
    lethal. Now, we know that drunk driving is still far more
    prevalent a behavior, but as people's drug use patterns change
    over time, we are going to see those changes in our statistics
    as well. And it is every bit as lethal, so it deserves as much
    attention.
        Mrs. Rodgers. OK, thank you very much. I yield back.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I do want to acknowledge in the
    audience today we have Helen Witty, who is the head of MADD,
    Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who for decades has been helping
    to make our roads safer.
        And now I recognize Chairman Pallone for 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Consumers have an expectation that safety is ingrained in
    every component of their car, even features like keyless
    ignition systems. But I wanted to start out by asking Ms.
    Livingston, were you or your parents aware of the potential
    dangers posed by keyless ignition vehicles, and even if your
    parents were notified of the potential dangers, do you believe
    that that awareness alone would have saved their lives, if I
    can ask?
        Ms. Livingston. No. They were not aware, as far as I know,
    nor was I. And in fact, Sherry purchased this particular car
    based on its safety features. So the keyless ignition has been
    marketed and sold as a convenience without any real
    notification of the potential dangers. I think education does
    help, but as Ms. Chase suggested, humans make mistakes, and I
    still think with a very inexpensive technology we really could
    protect people and save lives.
        Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you. I am not even sure I
    understand how it is a convenience, but whatever, thank you.
        Ms. Livingston. Me neither. It wasn't that hard to turn a
    key.
        Mr. Pallone. I know.
        Ms. Livingston. Do you agree? OK.
        Mr. Pallone. I agree. Ford and General Motors have
    installed technologies automatically shutting off the engine of
    a keyless ignition vehicle if it has idled for an unsafe period
    of time, and Toyota has pledged to do the same with its 2020-
    year model vehicles.
        So I wanted to ask Ms. Chase, with industry beginning to
    adopt some of these safety features, why do you think it is
    still important to have a robust Federal standard on the books?
    We always ask the question, Do we need to do this?
        Ms. Chase. We need to do this. And we need to do it because
    these are voluntary measures, and there is no requirement
    without a Federal mandate that this technology that has been
    proven to save lives be in all cars. It is also not happening
    quickly enough. With every passing day we are endangering
    people throughout this country unnecessarily, when there is
    proven technology that can be saving lives.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you. And vehicle roll-aways are another
    hidden danger tied to keyless ignition systems. With a
    traditional ignition system, a driver is unable to physically
    remove the key from the ignition until the vehicle is in park.
    But with keyless ignition systems, drivers are reporting that
    they can shut off and leave the vehicle with the car still in
    gear.
        So let me again, Ms. Chase, what safeguards can be deployed
    to prevent these sorts of issues with that?
        Ms. Chase. And I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. Are you talking
    about the roll-away issue?
        Mr. Pallone. Yes, the roll-away.
        Ms. Chase. So the PARK IT Act would solve this problem.
    There are five conditions that if a car isn't in park, if the
    door is open, if the driver is out, then the car will be
    stopped. And this is essential legislation that should be
    passed expeditiously, and that is a really hard thing to say.
        But we really thank you for your leadership. And when we
    know that people are dying when there is a solution at hand, it
    is all the more tragic, so let's get this technology into cars.
    We urge Congress to take immediate action on the PARK IT Act as
    well as the Hot Cars Act to stop these preventable fatalities.
        Mr. Pallone. Again, thank you, because I think we really
    should spare no expense to protect our Nation's kids.
        Ms. Chase, again, how expensive is the technology used to
    detect the presence of a child in a vehicle and alert the
    driver or parent?
        Ms. Chase. I have spoken with a few of the suppliers, and I
    have heard that it can range from 20 to 40 dollars. But the key
    of that is, once they are required as standard equipment, we
    all know that the price significantly goes down. So that is why
    this legislation is so essential, to get it as standard
    equipment into all cars.
        Mr. Pallone. Now, we know that during our May hearing, Mr.
    Harrison shared the heartbreaking story of the death of his
    son, Chase, who tragically died after being accidentally left
    in a hot car. So let me go back to Ms. Chase. Do you believe
    that Mr. Harrison or any of the hundreds of other parents who
    have lost a child to vehicular heatstroke would have been
    willing to pay for these technologies?
        Ms. Chase. Absolutely. Miles's story is heart wrenching. We
    worked very closely with him and KidsandCars.org and all of the
    incredibly brave families that come up to Congress, who have
    been coming for years, and talk about the worst thing that has
    ever happened to them and their families over and over again.
    It is time for this technology to be put in all cars now.
        Mr. Pallone. Just let me ask one more question. Do you
    believe that child detection technologies are sophisticated
    enough to accurately and reliably detect the presence of a
    child in the vehicle?
        Ms. Chase. I do believe that. And in fact, we are working
    on holding another demonstration so that all Members of
    Congress and members of the public can come see how this
    technology works. We had one a couple months ago, and we are
    going to keep showing this technology, which gets better and
    better over time. But we believe that it is there now. And we
    also know that the rulemaking process takes some time, so
    what--that period of time, technology will continue to evolve.
    When we are talking in the same breath about driverless cars,
    certainly we can get a detection system into cars.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Schakowsky. I now recognize Mr. Latta for 5 minutes for
    his questions.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you very
    much for our witnesses for being with us in today's hearing.
        Dr. Nordstrom, in your testimony you spoke about the need
    to implement a comprehensive approach that includes innovative
    solutions to eliminate impaired driving. Two of the bills that
    we are discussing today aim to improve motor vehicle safety and
    prevent impaired driving. In addition to these proposals, I
    believe we should also be examining and encouraging the
    deployment of self-driving technologies, which have the
    potential to save tens of thousands of lives that are lost
    every year to impaired driving. Over 10,000 people lost their
    lives in 2017 in alcohol-impaired driving crashes.
        We have also seen a significant increase in the number of
    American drivers killed in vehicle crashes in which drugs were
    detected. According to the Governors Highway Safety
    Association, in 2016 the number of drivers who were fatally
    injured in accidents with drugs in their systems surpassed the
    number of those with alcohol in their system for the first time
    ever.
        Ninety-four percent of the accidents are attributed to
    human error, including through impaired driving. These
    statistics are staggering and show that we must work together
    to prevent more tragedies. And that is why last Congress I
    introduced the SELF DRIVE Act, which would have clarified the
    Federal and State rules in regulating the self-driving
    vehicles, ensured consumer safety, reduced traffic-related
    fatalities and injuries, and improved mobility for individuals
    with disabilities.
        This legislation also included legislation from a previous
    version of our chair, Chair Schakowsky's, legislation to
    prevent the tragedies we heard about today when a child is left
    in a hot car. The SELF DRIVE Act passed unanimously out of this
    committee and on the floor, and I hope that we and our Democrat
    colleagues will continue to work with me to make this a
    priority again.
        Self-driving cars are our future, and without congressional
    action the U.S. will be at a competitive disadvantage and
    Americans will lose out in its lifesaving benefits. We have
    this opportunity to work towards ending senseless deaths on our
    roads by making investments in our vehicle technology.
        So, Dr. Nordstrom, have you considered the self-driving
    vehicles as a component of the comprehensive approach to
    addressing impaired driving?
        Dr. Nordstrom. So thank you for the question. I think you
    are absolutely right. I think that there is a lot that will be
    gained when we get there, and I think that it is, you know,
    that could be a massive boon for saving thousands of lives on
    American roadways. The challenge is, it is going to take a
    while to get there.
        And so, in the meantime, you know, I am very heartened to
    see the time and attention this committee is putting into all
    of the incremental steps between now and when we finally get to
    where you are describing so that we can save as many lives as
    possible in the interim.
        Mr. Latta. OK, so I just want to make sure. So in your
    studies right now you haven't been taking in the thought of
    driverless technologies, or you have been considering it as you
    are doing the research?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Well, I think that, you know, we see that as
    something that is pretty far in the future for us, and
    especially when you think about the way that the fleet is going
    to turn over for the--that when we think about this and how we
    are going to sort of allocate our efforts, we are concerned
    about the nearer term.
        So, even though I completely agree with you that that is
    ultimately something that I think is going to be perhaps even
    sort of solving the problem definitely, until we get there, we
    have to be doing these other things.
        Mr. Latta. OK. If I could just follow up with another
    question. You focused on increasing dangers of drivers being
    impaired by opioids across the country, and especially in my
    home State of Ohio the opioid and drug addiction crisis has
    devastated our communities. And you pointed out that the
    Government, especially the FDA, can do more to increase
    awareness of the safety risks of driving while impaired by
    opioids.
        What are some of the ways that the FDA can do this, and how
    can the Federal Government, in general, help to improve the
    understanding of opioid-impaired driving?
        Dr. Nordstrom. So it is a great question, and I think that
    ultimately one of the things that we really need to do is have
    much better efforts at educating physicians on how to talk to
    patients about risk when they are prescribing and also to talk
    with pharmacists about how to talk about risks when they are
    dispensing to people.
        I can tell you from having been in clinical practice for
    years, the number of patients who would express surprise when I
    would tell them, ``Do not drive after you start taking this
    medication until you know exactly how it affects you, and it is
    going to take several days for you to know that.'' They would
    say, ``Well, nobody has ever told me that before.''
        And it is the kind of thing that we really need to be
    pushing so that people understand what these risks are, because
    I think that there is a lot of this that people just kind of
    assume that, if their doctor or pharmacist isn't saying
    something or if they are just putting a little sticker on the
    bottle, it must not be that serious, and it really is. So I
    think we need to be doing more in terms of educating.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
        Madam Chair, my time has expired, and I yield back.
        Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
    Congresswoman Dingell for 5 minutes for questions.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        As I mentioned, this week I will be introducing a bill that
    calls for commercializing and standardizing a passive alcohol
    detection system. This technology needs to be the standard in
    all new vehicles, and it will save 7,000 to 10,000 lives every
    year. It also calls for a significant field test and a
    reasonable rulemaking process leading towards making driver-
    impaired technology a Federal standard. I hope my colleagues
    can join me in supporting this measure, and I ask the
    chairwoman if she would consider another hearing in September
    when the legislation is introduced.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Yes.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I am a car girl, everybody knows that. And I believe the
    U.S. auto industry is home to some of the best and the
    brightest engineers in the world. They have solved complex
    problems, and they are working on new and amazing safety
    features all the time, and we all agree that we need to see
    some of them put on the vehicles themselves.
        You know, Frank asked, Do we need regulation. Well,
    unfortunately, sometimes we do, and here is an example of when
    we do. It is just when it comes to advancing technology in
    vehicles that will prevent those who drink and drive, like the
    driver alcohol detection system for safety, we have got to get
    it done faster, because if the technology was in use today, the
    Abbas Stop Drunk Driving Act and legislation wouldn't be
    necessary.
        So I want to first ask a couple of questions on DADSS,
    because we have been hearing about this program for so long,
    before I ever got to Congress, to tell you the truth. And while
    we know there is room for improvement, we really need to get
    this technology tested at scale in front of consumers so we can
    start saving lives.
        Dr. Nordstrom, these questions are for you. Do you have an
    estimate on how many vehicles the DADSS program currently is
    being tested on?
        Dr. Nordstrom. I don't know right off the top of my head.
        Mrs. Dingell. Can you get that for the record, please?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Yes.
        Mrs. Dingell. And in your opinion, what is needed to
    finally--it is not a lot though, is it?
        Dr. Nordstrom. No, ma'am.
        Mrs. Dingell. It is like a minimal. But could you, just so
    that--I know what it is, but can you give other people a sense
    about of how many vehicles it is really being tested on?
        Dr. Nordstrom. I think it is just a handful, ma'am.
        Mrs. Dingell. Right, thank you. And in your opinion, what
    is needed to finally move this technology from the lab and that
    limited field testing to something that can be placed in
    vehicles and fleet-tested on a larger scale?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Well, from my understanding, it is
    additional money in order to get the technology to finish the
    development of it and to start putting it into vehicles.
        Mrs. Dingell. It is only money?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Well, money and time.
        Mrs. Dingell. Do you think this technology--I shouldn't say
    only money. Money does matter. Do you think this technology
    would be ready for a fleet test of 1,500 cars by 2020?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Yes, I am being told by the end of 2020 we
    could expect that.
        Mrs. Dingell. OK. I want to change my focus and ask a few
    questions about mandatory first-offender interlocks. In States
    that have mandatory first-offender interlock laws, have you
    seen a reduced number of alcohol-related fatalities?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Yes, ma'am.
        Mrs. Dingell. Do you have a sense for the cause of the
    resistance from States that haven't implemented that mandatory
    first-offender law?
        Dr. Nordstrom. So, from my conversations with people, you
    know, the things that we kind of hear about are that there are
    very frequently difficulties, especially in States that are
    fairly rural, that getting people to places where they can get
    those interlocks installed is difficult. And then the other
    thing that we frequently hear is difficulty getting them put in
    for indigent people.
        Mrs. Dingell. OK. And one last one, Dr. Nordstrom. If a
    police officer is out on patrol and sees someone swerving all
    over the road, they hopefully will pull that person over,
    because from the outside the car impaired driving tends to look
    the same. It could be a sleepy driver. They could be drunk,
    high--I share my colleagues' concerns about marijuana--texting
    distract, or any combination of these.
        Do you think that law enforcement is generally in need of
    more resources for enforcement of impaired driving?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Yes, ma'am. I definitely do.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
        Madam Chair, thanks for holding this hearing again, and I
    hope we are going to stay very focused on this issue, and I
    yield back.
        Ms. Schakowsky. The gentlelady yields back, and Mr.
    Guthrie, I think, is next. Am I right? Yes.
        Mr. Guthrie, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the
    opportunity, and thanks for having this hearing.
        Thanks for being here and sharing your story, and thanks
    for being here and sharing your expertise and your advocacy.
    One of my big concerns--and I am really glad we are pursuing
    the technology that affected your family, Ms. Livingston, but
    also one of the concerns that I have had is impaired driving,
    particularly as some States are making the decision to allow
    people to use marijuana. And I think that encourages young
    people to say it is OK, you know, I mean that for some reason
    it is, and that is just my belief.
        And so, the question I hear from law enforcement people,
    just the difference is that, when you see impaired driving, the
    difference is you can do a blood test, a sobriety test with
    alcohol that you really can't do with marijuana. And so, as
    more people are doing it, because it is being--the word not
    encouraged, but saying it is OK, by the State saying it is OK
    to do, then more people are doing it.
        So, Dr. Nordstrom, just the differences between drunk
    driving and--or just impaired driving, one by alcohol and one
    by, I will just say marijuana, I know there are other people
    and have other--and how--I know there is a study underway from
    NHTSA to try to differentiate and how you can test for that in
    the field test. Could you explain what is going on and how we
    could explore further?
        Dr. Nordstrom. So the challenge with alcohol versus
    cannabis, you know, it is that alcohol is very, very well
    studied at this point. It follows a pretty clear dose/response
    curve that, when people drink a certain amount of standard
    drinks, their blood level will rise a predictable amount.
        Alcohol metabolism follows something called zero order
    kinetics, which means that a very predictable amount is removed
    over time, and it is just a much more sort of knowable field.
    When it comes to cannabis and THC, which is the psychoactive
    component in cannabis, that dose/response curve is much
    trickier to estimate.
        That the thing that is also difficult is the amount of THC
    in any given product varies wildly. The root of administration
    changes, whereas all alcohol is basically swallowed. Sometimes
    people are smoking, sometimes people are swallowing and, you
    know, orally ingesting cannabis products, so it is very, very
    hard to know when the levels are going to rise, and then the
    metabolism is different.
        The other thing that is different is in alcohol we know
    that a certain blood level corresponds to a certain level of
    impairment. We don't have that same clear predictability when
    it comes to blood levels----
        Mr. Guthrie. Because you still have THC in your system but
    not be impaired, right, because it lingers in your system
    longer?
        Dr. Nordstrom. So, well, THC itself will--it is always
    going to be intoxicating, that is psychoactive and one of the
    first metabolites. So one of the first breakdown steps in THC
    is still active, eventually you get to an inactive form and
    that inactive form stays around much longer than the active
    forms do.
        Mr. Guthrie. So you know when the active and inactive, and
    active is what is intoxicating.
        Dr. Nordstrom. So that is what is important.
        Mr. Guthrie. It is impairment----
        Dr. Nordstrom. For our purposes that is what is important
    to measure for impairment.
        Mr. Guthrie. What is the field test, field sobriety,
    because if a police officer suspects alcohol or smells it or
    whatever, they can do a field test to see if they are impaired,
    then they go to the more--tests, if you are going to do
    something in court, I am sure you have to go further than that.
        Does the field tests--can you tell an impaired driver with
    cannabis as you can with----
        Dr. Nordstrom. Well, to Congresswoman Dingell's point, when
    somebody is weaving around the road, that is the first
    indication. When they pull them over and they are acting
    impaired but they don't smell alcohol, they do a portable
    breath test and it is negative, then this is where it gets
    tricky. If they are not a specifically trained drug recognition
    expert, they might not know necessarily what to look for.
        Mr. Guthrie. So the walking heel-to-toe, touching your
    nose, with your eyes, because that kind of stuff wouldn't be
    the same effect as alcohol?
        Dr. Nordstrom. They could do those field sobriety tests and
    say, ``Yes, this person is impaired'' but not be able to detect
    alcohol. So they will say, ``Well, something is up,'' and that
    is where the oral fluid testing can be very useful. For
    somebody who hasn't gone through all the rigorous training to
    become a drug recognition expert, they could at least test oral
    fluid and then say, ``OK, this person does have THC or its
    active metabolite present in their system,'' and then you can
    start building probable cause for building a more kind of
    comprehensive that the person is driving under the influence of
    cannabis.
        Mr. Guthrie. And I am sure that is inconsistent across
    police jurisdictions about how that is applied or not applied?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Yes, sir. Yes. There is not a standard
    approach. It is not--that oral fluid testing has not really
    been built into standard operating procedure anywhere in the
    United States, as far as I know.
        Mr. Guthrie. Because there is no jurisdiction that does it
    now?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Not as part of SOP, sir.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK.
        Dr. Nordstrom. But it has been done in, I believe, Canada
    and Australia. There is precedent.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK, so there are some places that we could
    study to see how it works and how it moves forward.
        Dr. Nordstrom. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Guthrie. Well, thanks for that. And I know it is very
    concerning, and thanks for all of you for being here today. I
    appreciate it very much, and I yield back.
        Dr. Nordstrom. Thank you, sir.
        Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back, and now I
    recognize Mr. Soto for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        You know, as technology increases in vehicles, we in
    Congress have to keep up with those changes. And, while it is
    so exciting to have vehicles that are keyless and others that
    turn off and on for energy efficiency and others that will be
    plugged in, this committee's work is going to have to continue
    to make sure that we are doing the things we do to keep people
    safe.
        And we hear every week different issues that we have to
    work on, and I am really proud to be part of a lot of these
    bills to help increase vehicle safety, particularly joining our
    chairwoman, Seth Moulton, and Congressman Kennedy, as well as
    Congressman Moulton and dealing with issues in the PARK IT Act
    of the risks of keyless ignition technology.
        I wanted to first start by asking Ms. Livingston, How
    important is this bill to protect our seniors, to protect our
    children, and other vulnerable populations?
        Ms. Livingston. Thank you for the question. I think it is
    essential. I can't believe keyless ignition has been around for
    over 10 years and we don't have a regulation. The auto industry
    sometimes represents, ``Oh, we will do it on our own
    voluntarily,'' has not happened. We need the legislation as
    soon as possible.
        Two more people have died since my parents died in May, and
    it is not just elders. There was a young 20-year-old woman who
    died and, sadly, her fiancee survived. Sometimes it is worse to
    survive carbon monoxide. But we definitely need a law. NHTSA is
    looking for leadership from Congress on this.
        Mr. Soto. Do you think most consumers are aware right now
    of the dangers of a car remaining on in a keyless ignition
    scenario?
        Ms. Livingston. I don't think so. I don't think my parents
    knew. I know I wasn't really aware of it other than the fact
    that I had left my car a few times when it was still running,
    and I couldn't hear it. And I think this--so a little confusion
    on terminology, but the auto-stop to save gas, as you
    mentioned, a number of cars, when you get to a red light, the
    car engine stops, so people think that the engine is off.
        I think very few people are aware, and a number of people
    after the story came out on my parents mentioned to me that
    they had never heard of it, and then more and more stories come
    out. We need to do something to protect consumers.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you for that. And it is part of the initial
    theme which is, you know, all these things are progressing, but
    it is the Federal Government's responsibility with these types
    of progress that are in interstate commerce to make sure they
    are safe. People assume we are doing our jobs and today this is
    part of that.
        Ms. Chase, how important is the Hot Car technology, and a
    similar question: Are people aware that this threat is out
    there, in your opinion?
        Ms. Chase. The Hot Car technology is essential because,
    with every passing day and it is hot outside, and by the way
    this still happens when it is not so hot out. It can happen
    when it is 60 degrees outside. Children are at risk, and we
    have a proven solution that there is a detection system and
    alarm system. There is no reason why this shouldn't be in all
    cars today.
        Mr. Soto. And do you think people are aware of this risk,
    particularly if it is 60 degrees out, who would really think
    that that could be a risk?
        Ms. Chase. You know, I think there is some awareness but
    not enough. And nobody wakes up and thinks, oh, I might leave
    my child in the car today. And this happens especially when
    there is a change in routine where Mom is usually the one who
    drops off the child at daycare, but Mom is out of town on a
    business trip, so Dad is doing it today. And say Dad is driving
    to work--we all kind of go on auto pilot in a sense, and you
    start thinking about something at work or you get a call which
    you shouldn't answer, but people do, and then you get
    distracted and you forget there is a sleeping baby, rear-
    facing.
        There is no indication, really, there is no sound, there is
    no movement. There is technology there that can solve this
    problem. It is not the fault of the parents.
        Mr. Soto. Well, and I am glad you mentioned that, because
    that is what I would like to end on. The fact that we have this
    increasing technology to help with some of the new issues that
    other technology causes, it gives me hope that we are going to
    be able to resolve these issues and prevent the kind of
    tragedies that you all saw with your own eyes with your
    families. So thanks for being here today, and thanks for your
    courage.
        Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back, and I now
    recognize Mr. Bucshon for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I just had a hot
    car death in my district about a week and a half ago, 3 years
    old, was apparently asleep. So this is--it has been devastating
    for the family, but also for the community of Evansville,
    Indiana, to realize that these things do happen. And the parent
    was a responsible parent, it just happens. So I am glad the
    committee is working towards addressing that particular issue.
    I think it is important.
        You were talking, Dr. Nordstrom, about THC and impairment.
    As you know, opioid abuse is out there, but also just using
    opioids for legitimate purposes. And you mentioned, I think, in
    your testimony that because of that rise that there is a huge
    opportunity for healthcare providers--and I was a physician
    before I was in Congress--healthcare practitioners to address
    opioid-impaired driving.
        Can you further expand on the opportunities available and
    how education plays a role and how physicians can help?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Absolutely, and thank you for the question,
    sir. You know, I am sure as you remember from being in
    practice, very frequently you will see people whose medications
    get added to, they are seeing a number of different specialists
    and sometimes people aren't always thinking about medication
    interactions, especially when it comes to sort of cumulative
    effects on alertness.
        Mr. Bucshon. Yes.
        Dr. Nordstrom. So I think one thing that is very important
    is to be making sure that we are educating physicians about not
    just kind of the pharmacodynamic interactions, so how the drugs
    relate to each other chemically, but then the pharmacokinetic
    actions but also the pharmacodynamic interactions which----
        Mr. Bucshon. So it could be, I mean there could be some
    impairment with medications that are not opioid-related, right?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Of course. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Bucshon. You could have a couple medications that cause
    reactions that would result in impaired driving that are not
    traditionally thought of as being--causing impairment?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Absolutely, sir.
        Mr. Bucshon. So that is where pharmacies come into play
    too, right?
        Dr. Nordstrom. And this is where, yes, that there has to be
    sort of levels of intervention here, where if the physician
    forgets or doesn't have the conversation, that the pharmacist
    does. Because somebody is on an antihistamine that is sedating,
    you know, that is going to potentially affect their ability to
    drive, same as a benzodiazepine, the same as an opioid.
        Mr. Bucshon. Right.
        Dr. Nordstrom. You know, and so I think that the physicians
    need to be thinking about this when they are doing informed
    consent with patients about medications. But the other part of
    it is that the doctors need to be thinking about when they are
    prescribing making sure that they are reviewing the whole of
    the med list and for the pharmacists to be doing the same thing
    as----
        Mr. Bucshon. Yes, I have seen patients on 20 medicines
    before.
        Dr. Nordstrom. Exactly.
        Mr. Bucshon. Honestly, it is pretty routine. And Buddy, who
    is a pharmacist, will tell you that is the case. So do we
    have--and you were talking about just THC, but do we have
    laboratory tests for drug, other non-THC drugs like opioids
    that can hold up in court as it relates to impairment?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Well, certainly we have----
        Mr. Bucshon. Unless you have a zero tolerance. I mean, if
    you have an opioid and the law is it is zero.
        Dr. Nordstrom. And a zero tolerance. And there are per se
    standards for opioids in Nevada and Ohio, I believe, and I
    think those are the only two----
        Mr. Bucshon. But broadly we don't.
        Dr. Nordstrom. But broadly we really don't. And part of
    this is that there is not that same level of knowledge about
    what drug level in blood corresponds to----
        Mr. Bucshon. Yes. But we do have pharmacokinetics. Probably
    to get FDA approval, you are going to have to show human
    pharmacokinetics for an opioid, right?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Sure. Absolutely, sir.
        Mr. Bucshon. So, I mean, that may not necessarily have a
    direct correlation, though, with an impairment to a level which
    would make you dangerous.
        Dr. Nordstrom. Exactly. And I think that those----
        Mr. Bucshon. So how do we get to that? That is why this
    money is important, right? How do we get to that?
        Dr. Nordstrom. So I think part of it is doing those--having
    those tests be done where they look at specifically driver
    impairment at different blood level----
        Mr. Bucshon. How did we do it with alcohol? Did we actually
    have drivers and have them--I mean initially, way back.
        Dr. Nordstrom. There are standardized lab sort of
    experiments where you can be in a driving lab with lane
    excursion and things like that.
        Mr. Bucshon. That is what I am saying. Then you have people
    literally drink alcohol and----
        Dr. Nordstrom. Absolutely. The same methodology----
        Mr. Bucshon [continuing]. Measure their drug and test. So
    we don't do--we haven't done that for opioids, really?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Well, I mean, I don't think we----
        Mr. Bucshon. Or other drugs?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Not to the same extent that we have with
    alcohol where the blood level would----
        Mr. Bucshon. Correlate.
        Dr. Nordstrom [continuing]. Definitively correlate and hold
    up in court in such a way that it would meet standards.
        Mr. Bucshon. Yes. Yes, that is one of the things. And law
    enforcement are in a pretty tough spot.
        Dr. Nordstrom. Absolutely.
        Mr. Bucshon. Because they--the field sobriety tests may or
    may not hold up. And the reason I say that, I had a case in my
    district, again, where a 16-year-old girl was hit as a
    pedestrian and killed.
        Dr. Nordstrom. Oh, my God.
        Mr. Bucshon. And the driver in the field was obviously
    impaired, but the laboratory tests showed no alcohol, no
    opioids, and was probably THC, but ultimately they are still
    trying to--this was a couple years ago. They are still trying
    to prosecute that case. But there was a blood alcohol level of
    zero, no opioids, no benzos, but clearly failed the field
    sobriety test, probably on marijuana.
        Dr. Nordstrom. Oh, my Lord.
        Mr. Bucshon. And they have not been able to adjudicate that
    case because there is no standard. So anyway, that does happen.
    I yield back.
        Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back, and I recognize
    Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes for his questions.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chair and I thank the
    witnesses this morning, very illuminating testimony. And I want
    to thank the ranking member for inviting me to colead the
    Impaired Driving Study Act. I have thought a lot about this
    issue, actually.
        And I am going to sort of follow up on Mr. Bucshon. Mr.
    Nordstrom, can you envision a field impairment test that tests
    manual dexterity that can hold up in court?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Yes, sir. I mean, I think that with the
    standard field sobriety test we can get to a point where the
    officer, especially if it is a drug recognition officer, can
    really correlate then what they are seeing in terms of a
    performance decrement to a specific drug or a class of drugs.
    So I think we could get there.
        Mr. McNerney. And it would hold up in court?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Ideally, sir, yes.
        Mr. McNerney. OK, thank you. How would NHTSA conducting
    such a study as proposed in our legislation help us to reduce
    the number of casualties resulting from alcohol-impaired and
    other impaired driving?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Well, I think, sir, that if we have the
    opportunity to get people on their first offense and we can
    really identify what is going on, what they have been using,
    and then come up with specific targeted plans for how to
    intervene to address the underlying causes of the behavior,
    then it could potentially correct the problem later on so that
    there aren't multiple reoffenses.
        Mr. McNerney. I mean, it is my impression that reoffenses
    are really the dangerous incidents.
        Dr. Nordstrom. That is, you know, the highest sort of risk
    are those people that have very high blood alcohol levels, you
    know, above 0.15. The multiple reoffenders and the polyusers,
    those people account for about 70 percent of the DUI deaths, so
    that those really high-risk people are the ones that we need to
    be focusing on.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, thanks. What are some of the things
    that would be helpful for NHTSA to examine in conducting the
    study?
        Dr. Nordstrom. So I think that there are a number of
    things, but I think really being able to get to the point where
    we can meet the sort of standards, like the Daubert standards
    for expert testimony. And so that is going to take a
    significant amount of kind of work to be able to correlate what
    we are seeing in terms of performance decrements so that, when
    an expert goes into court and says that they have noticed that
    this is, you know, what they have observed, that it can hold up
    to rigorous cross examination so that the jury can have
    confidence that there actually was a deficit there.
        Mr. McNerney. So there is really opportunity for
    improvement in impaired driving?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Yes, sir.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Thank you.
        Ms. Chase, I am going to talk a little bit about
    cybersecurity issues with regard to all the safety. Today's
    cars really are computers on wheels, and they can be hacked.
    There was an incident in 2015 where two white hat hackers
    cybercommandeered a Jeep Grand Cherokee, and so that has caused
    some change in the rules. As cars become increasingly
    interconnected, are you concerned that cybersecurity could pose
    a threat to safety?
        Ms. Chase. We are absolutely concerned about hacking and
    threats to cars as they become more and more computerized, and
    there needs to be some Federal action on this to protect both
    the people in the car and all of us who are surrounding,
    including pedestrians, bicyclists, and other road users.
        Mr. McNerney. But what steps are the automobile industry
    now taking to help prevent that?
        Ms. Chase. I can't speak to what the auto industry is doing
    right now, but what I can offer is that there should be some
    Federal requirements that cars are not able to be hacked to the
    best of the ability of the intelligence that is available now.
        Mr. McNerney. So is NHTSA taking steps?
        Ms. Chase. Not to my understanding.
        Mr. McNerney. So then it is kind of up to Congress to do
    something?
        Ms. Chase. I would urge Congress to take steps to move this
    along.
        Mr. McNerney. OK. I thank the witnesses, and I yield back.
        Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back, and now I
    recognize Mr. Carter for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank all of you
    for being here, very important information.
        Mr. Nordstrom, as Dr. Bucshon alluded to earlier, currently
    I am the only pharmacist serving in Congress. And this is
    extremely important to me, particularly as it relates to
    medications and how they are impairing people, and particularly
    when they are operating machinery, especially cars and trucks
    and that type of thing.
        Do you see this on the rise? Do you see a rise in the rate
    of drug-impaired driving?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Yes, sir, absolutely. That, you know, the
    National Roadside Survey found that 22 percent of drivers
    tested positive for illegal, prescription, or over-the-counter
    medication.
        Mr. Carter. Now, illegal prescription, are these
    prescriptions----
        Dr. Nordstrom. Illegal, comma, prescription, comma, or
    over-the-counter medication.
        Mr. Carter. So they were prescribed to them?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Some of the time. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Carter. OK. Well, OK. Let's just assume they were
    prescribed for them and they were taking them like they were
    supposed to be, but still they shouldn't have been behind the
    wheel and using these medications.
        Dr. Nordstrom. I mean, absolutely that happens.
        Mr. Carter. OK. And any idea of any factors that led to
    this increase or that have led to an increase? I mean----
        Dr. Nordstrom. You know, sir, I don't need to tell a
    pharmacist how much more medication is being consumed in this
    country----
        Mr. Carter. Right.
        Dr. Nordstrom [continuing]. You know, I mean, when it comes
    to opioids, we know we are 4 percent of the world population
    and we consume about 80 percent of the world's opioids, right.
    More and more, people are taking medication and they are doing
    all kinds of things, including driving, you know, and so there
    is certainly more of that happening.
        Mr. Carter. Outside of opioids and marijuana, any other
    particular medication, any other particular class of
    medications that you see?
        Dr. Nordstrom. No, you know, I mean, obviously when we are
    talking about medications, the other things that we would worry
    about are benzodiazepines and other sedative hypnotics. That
    could certainly impair judgment and performance.
        Mr. Carter. Let me ask you specifically about marijuana. In
    full disclosure, I am not a fan. I am absolutely, adamantly
    opposed to the recreational use of marijuana. Nevertheless, I
    understand there are States that have legalized it. Do you see
    an increase in impaired driving in those States?
        Dr. Nordstrom. From the data that we have seen coming out
    of--especially Washington has done a really incredible job
    tracking their data, and it is one of the things that we would
    really encourage States to do is to look at Washington's
    example of measuring so that they can see----
        Mr. Carter. So how are they measuring?
        Dr. Nordstrom. So what Washington actually did is they went
    back and they looked at blood samples from before they
    legalized for different crashes and cases so that they could
    see what happened pre and post. And, you know, they have seen
    an increase, and I think it is just very important that other
    States as they contemplate legalizing that they think about
    doing that kind of rigorous measurement, so that they can see
    what is happening after they make a change in policy so that
    they know then how they are going to respond.
        Mr. Carter. Are there any tests out there? I mean, you
    know, we had a Breathalyzer and we can test for alcohol. What
    about for marijuana? I mean, are there any--I am not familiar
    with it. Georgia is not--it is not legal yet in Georgia, and I
    hope it won't be. But nevertheless, I am just not familiar with
    it.
        Dr. Nordstrom. So there are oral fluid assays that can be
    done, and there are portable oral fluid kits that can be done
    at the roadside that look specifically for THC and active THC
    metabolites. And that is about as--apart from doing bloodwork
    and then GCMS, that is what we have got right now.
        Mr. Carter. OK. I don't mean to be redundant, and I came in
    on the tail end of Dr. Bucshon's questions, but in your
    testimony you mentioned there is a huge opportunity for
    collaboration with healthcare practitioners and pharmacists on
    this issue. What do you see as the collaborative process, and
    how can pharmacists play a role?
        Dr. Nordstrom. Well, I certainly think that the
    communication between physicians and pharmacists could always
    be better. You know that as an addiction psychiatrist I have
    great relationships with our pharmacists, because frequently
    people would act one way in front of me and then when they are
    in a retail setting that they would act in a very different
    way, and they forgot that there was a licensed healthcare
    professional who is still assessing them.
        So we would get very, very good information back from the
    pharmacists, and because we had them sign the HIPAA releases,
    we could speak with pharmacists. And so, I mean, I think that
    that kind of communication, though, needs to really happen
    between prescribers, so not just physicians but any prescriber,
    and the pharmacist on the dispensing end to make sure that if--
    because if I made an oversight or an omission, the pharmacist
    would catch it, would call me, and we made sure that the
    communication was tight.
        Mr. Carter. Great. Well, and, you know, just when I was
    still practicing pharmacy, you know, it was routine when I
    would dispense the medication, I would tell them, ``Look, this
    is going to make you drowsy. Be careful if you are driving.'' I
    mean that was just routine of what we did for patient
    counseling.
        Dr. Nordstrom. And I think that is the kind of thing we
    need to be doing more of, sir.
        Mr. Carter. Right, OK. Well, thank you very much, and I
    yield back.
        Ms. Schakowsky. I now recognize Congresswoman Castor for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, for calling this
    hearing on how we make our cars safer, and I want to thank the
    witnesses for sharing your expert points of view. And, Ms.
    Livingston, thank you for sharing your very personal story of
    your wonderful parents. I am sorry.
        You know, automobile defects were identified over 10 years
    ago. Ten years ago the Society of Automotive Engineers
    identified the dangers posed by keyless ignition systems, two
    years later NHTSA proposed a rule that would require
    automobiles to provide supplementary warnings when a driver
    inadvertently left a keyless ignition vehicle running, and yet
    8 years later, now there is still no final rule.
        The result has been at least 21 documented cases of people
    dying from carbon monoxide poisoning after accidentally leaving
    a keyless ignition vehicle running. I mean, automobile defects
    that were identified over 10 years ago should not be causing
    deaths in 2019.
        Ms. Livingston, the vehicle that killed your parents was a
    2017 Toyota Avalon, which was manufactured several years after
    automakers identified carbon monoxide hazards tied to keyless
    ignition systems and several years after NHTSA proposed
    standards to reduce those risks. Do you believe that the auto
    industry failed to protect your parents? Do you believe that
    NHTSA failed to protect your parents?
        Ms. Livingston. Absolutely.
        Ms. Castor. Ms. Chase, I am concerned that NHTSA's hands-
    off approach to addressing safety issues like keyless ignition
    systems is costing lives. Why--you know, 10 years--why has
    NHTSA not finalized the rule to protect the public? I mean, it
    is going to take an act of Congress now to do this? But they
    have had all of the evidence. How can we ensure that NHTSA
    proactively identifies and addresses these sorts of automobile
    safety issues?
        Ms. Chase. You have identified the issue perfectly. And the
    inaction at the agency is why the PARK IT Act and other pieces
    of legislation that we have discussed today are critical,
    because it is not moving and people are dying. And there is
    technology that is existent and inexpensive that could be put
    in all cars today.
        So I urge this subcommittee then to move these bills
    through, and let's get them to the floor and start saving
    lives.
        Ms. Castor. So that is the PARK IT Act, and hopefully it
    will be moving. On the Hot Cars Act, a friend of mine--I went
    grocery shopping with a friend of mine recently. They have a
    new vehicle and they--you know, this is Tampa, Florida, we are
    talking about--they wanted to make another stop at a different
    store and I said, ``But you can't. Your groceries are going to
    bake, and they are going to be ruined.''
        And they said, ``No, look at this.'' In this vehicle there
    is--the temperature will, the air conditioning will come on as
    it is parked if the temperature in the car goes up too high. Is
    that one of the answers?
        Ms. Chase. That is one of the answers. So what is needed is
    a detection system, so there must have been in whatever vehicle
    that was a detection system that----
        Ms. Castor. If it hit a certain temperature internally then
    the a/c would come on for----
        Ms. Chase. So that is one solution. So it has the detection
    system, it kicks in the a/c, or it could also kick in the horn
    beeping, or, you know, you get a notification on your phone.
    There are a number of different ways that this problem can be
    solved.
        And what is so critical about the Hot Cars bill is that it
    doesn't mandate one over the other, it just mandates that the
    problem be solved. And there are different ways. There are
    different innovators that can solve this problem, including the
    one that you just mentioned.
        Ms. Castor. And we were just talking about groceries, but
    children are dying.
        Ms. Chase. Children are dying, animals are dying, and it is
    unnecessary.
        Ms. Castor. And again, it looks like it is going to take an
    act of Congress when it shouldn't. The agency should be more
    proactive.
        Ms. Chase. I agree with you.
        Ms. Castor. A person's gender should not determine whether
    he or she is injured or killed in an automobile crash, but
    researchers have found that women are 73 percent more likely to
    die or suffer severe injuries in a car crash than a man. And a
    study from the University of Virginia suggests that female
    crash dummies may contribute to this troubling trend.
        According to the study, female crash dummies do not
    appropriately account for the size and weight of an average
    woman. Inaccurate test dummies can lead to ineffective safety
    measures. Are you aware of this study, and what factors do you
    think are contributing to the discrepancy here between men and
    women and car crashes?
        Ms. Chase. In honesty, I have read the highlights of the
    study but not the extensive study. Some of my staff have. But I
    am aware of the problem, and there needs to be more different
    types of crash dummies that are more reflective of people's
    body sizes and weights so that the equipment that is put into
    cars will be responsive and protect them as they should.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
        And I hope, Madam Chair, you will look into this with me.
    Thank you.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Fascinating questions and answers, or
    things that need to be answered.
        I now recognize Congresswoman Kelly for 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank you
    and the ranking member for holding this hearing. It is so
    important. I too have left my car running, and both times--one
    time I was trying to make the train and when I came back, I
    wondered why my gas was so low. And the second time I had
    actually parked it under Cook County's building and left the
    car running all day, so I can relate to what you guys are
    saying.
        Ms. Livingston, you made a comment, ``Thanks for having the
    hearing, and you know it is a busy day today,'' but I could say
    on behalf of this committee, we are never too busy to save
    lives. That is what this committee is about, so thank you for
    being here.
        Safety should be a standard feature of every new vehicle,
    not an add-on that a consumer has to pay for. The level of
    safety in your car should not depend on the size of your
    wallet. But many existing and emerging safety technologies,
    such as automatic emergency brakes, where automatic braking,
    blind spot detection, and lane departure warnings are sold as
    luxury items which must be purchased for an extra fee or as
    part of an expensive add-on package, these additional costs may
    put these lifesaving technologies out of reach for many
    Americans. Automatic emergency brakes are not the same as
    leather seats. Lane departure warnings are not the same as a
    Bluetooth-enabled stereo.
        Do you believe that selling safety-enhancing features such
    as backseat warnings or a keyless ignition override as part of
    accessory packages with a bunch of other gear like luxury floor
    mats and wheel locks discourages consumers from buying cars
    with crucial safety features? Any of you can answer.
        Ms. Chase. I could not have said it better than you just
    did that these safety features should be in all new vehicles,
    and they should not be packaged with a moon roof or a heated
    steering wheel. They should be--these are proven technologies
    to reduce crashes, save lives, and prevent injuries. The only
    reason that they are not being put into all new cars now is
    that more money can be made from selling them as luxury
    packages, or they are in some high-end vehicles that not
    everyone can afford.
        Ms. Kelly. Sure.
        Either one of you, any comments?
        Ms. Livingston. I totally agree with you. These are things
    that are readily available, should be in every car, and we do
    need an act of Congress. That is just the way it is. And the
    car industries have proven over more than a decade that for the
    keyless ignition that they haven't voluntarily put these
    protections in, and some say that it could be only 60 cents a
    car in that particular case. But to call things that are for
    safety a luxury is just wrong.
        Dr. Nordstrom. Well, ma'am, it is a bit outside my lane as
    the Director of Responsibility.org, but certainly, I mean, as a
    consumer I couldn't find fault with a single word that has been
    said here.
        Ms. Kelly. And, in the panel's opinion, are there certain
    advanced safety technologies that should no longer be an option
    but should be standard on all vehicles?
        Ms. Chase. Obviously, the hot cars technology and the
    cutoff switch for the keyless ignition switch, additionally
    automatic emergency braking, lane departure warning, blind spot
    detection, just to name a few that have been proven by the
    Insurance Institute for Highway Safety to reduce crashes.
        We know that these are effective. They should be in all
    cars as standard equipment, and there should be performance
    standards for them, so that if somebody calls something a
    particular name, we know that it will respond the way that it
    is expected to.
        Ms. Kelly. OK, going back to watching people's pocketbooks,
    what do you think can be done to retrofit all cars? Everybody
    can't afford to buy a new car or, you know, everybody can't
    afford some of the luxury cars.
        Ms. Chase. I think there needs to be some more research and
    studies done on how retrofits can be effected. I can say, in
    terms of the hot cars, I have seen some aftermarket products. I
    don't know the verification of them, but I have seen them.
        And so, the problem therein, though, is that no one really
    thinks that they are going to leave their child or that their
    child is going to climb in, so that would put it incumbent upon
    the consumer to go out and buy the aftermarket product. That is
    why it needs to be standard, so that people, you know, have
    that safety insurance without even thinking about it.
        Ms. Livingston. I just wanted to mention on the keyless
    ignition on how both GM and Ford embraced going in and making a
    change and did a recall so that the older vehicles would have
    it put in. It is possible to do. Technically, I think Toyota's
    announcement that the new cars will have it is great. However,
    there are a lot of cars out there and they will be on the road
    7 or 8 years, and I think a recall is in order for that so more
    people don't die.
        Ms. Kelly. Good idea.
        Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Ms. Schakowsky. The gentlelady yields back, and I now
    recognize Mr. Rush for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Madam Chair, and the ranking
    member for conducting this hearing. It has been fascinating to
    witness, and I certainly want to join with all my colleagues in
    commending Ms. Livingston, whose courage to take her pain and
    turn it into a pursuit of well-being for all Americans is
    totally commendable, and we certainly want to express our
    appreciation to you. You didn't have to do it, but you are
    doing it, and we thank you so much for all your work and your
    effort.
        Ms. Chase, in your testimony you discussed the role that
    technology can play in increasing vehicle and pedestrian
    safety. Specifically, technologies like the AEB, the Automatic
    Emergency Braking, are important factors in decreasing crash-
    related injuries. That is why I was pleased to see the 2016
    voluntary agreement implemented in AEB from 20 vehicle
    manufacturers.
        In one instance, NHTSA has announced that it will
    accelerate its research into advanced AEB systems that include
    pedestrian and bicyclist application. They have not done
    enough. And that is why this morning I, along with seven of my
    Democratic colleagues on this subcommittee, sent a letter to
    NHTSA asking for an update on implementation of this advanced
    technology.
        That being said, can you please expand upon why this
    technology is so important to pedestrian and bicyclist safety
    and what other technologies should also be considered?
        Ms. Chase. Congressman, thank you for your leadership, and
    I look forward to reading your letter after the hearing is
    concluded.
        Mr. Rush. Right.
        Ms. Chase. AEB is an essential piece of technology that
    should be in all cars because the problems of impairments like
    we discussed, and distraction among others, is prevalent in our
    motoring public. And AEB, if someone is distracted or impaired,
    will detect is it object or a person in front--hopefully a
    person--that is an advanced AEB system--is in front of them,
    and if a person doesn't brake, it will brake for them.
        I would just like to make a side note about the voluntary
    agreement. While it may seem like a step forward, we really
    would like to see a minimum performance standard, because with
    a voluntary agreement a company can walk away from it. A
    company can also call something a system, name it something,
    but we don't know how it truly performs.
        So we would like to see the added step of it first being
    required as a standard equipment and then also there being a
    minimum performance standard for the technology.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you.
        Congresswoman Kelly asked a lot of questions that I want to
    pursue. Most of my constituents don't have new cars. Most of
    them have used cars. And 5 years down the road, new cars that
    are online that will be purchased today and tomorrow will also
    be used cars, and cars that may or may not have this advanced
    technology. And I understand that there could possibly be
    devices that will be marketed for to deal with some of these
    issues that we have been discussing.
        But what I would like you to inform this committee about is
    what role can the Congress play in addressing the issues of
    some of the older model cars in terms of how can we use this
    legislative perspective that we have to address the issues of
    older cars that are still a threat to life, limb, and safety.
        Ms. Chase. As the proud owner of a 15-year-old minivan, I
    hear you. And what I would encourage Congress to do is to find
    out what NHTSA is doing on this issue. And then also I would
    like to work with you and your staff to see if there are any
    legislative solutions to this problem, because it is a problem.
    There are a lot of used or secondhand vehicles on the road, and
    they should not be, you know, they should have the advances
    that are available in new cars. So I look forward to working
    with you to see where we can go on this.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you. Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Ms. Schakowsky. I want to thank all of the witnesses. This
    was just really wonderful testimony today. Thank you for your
    participation. There is a lot of followup that we need to do.
        I want to remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules,
    they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for
    the record to be answered by witnesses who have appeared. And I
    want to ask each of the witnesses to, please, if you get
    questions to respond as promptly as possible to those
    questions.
        At this time, the--let's see. Before that--so these are
    things I would ask unanimous consent to insert into the record.
    Where are we? OK. We have a letter from the College Church--oh,
    I am sorry. OK, we have a letter from Colleen Church, advisor
    and counsel to Responsibility.org, a letter from the daughter
    of a carbon monoxide poisoning victim, a letter from the son of
    a carbon monoxide poisoning victim, a letter from the American
    Property Casualty Insurance Association. Is that it? So,
    without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Ms. Schakowsky. And the committee is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]