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


                     AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES: PROMISES AND CHAL-
                      LENGES OF EVOLVING AUTOMOTIVE TECH-
                      NOLOGIES

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION AND 
                                 COMMERCE

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                           FEBRUARY 11, 2020

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-98
                           
[GRAPHIC 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                    
51-559 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
 
                    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)
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Jan Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Illinois, opening statement.................................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................     2
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Washington, opening statement.....................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Oregon, opening statement......................................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    11
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Ohio, prepared statement....................................    90

                               Witnesses

Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety    13
Prepared statement\1\
Answers to submitted questions\2\
John Bozzella, President and CEO, Alliance for Automotive 
  Innovation.....................................................    15
    Prepared statement...........................................    17
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   284
Gary Shapiro, President and CEO, Consumer Technology Association.    24
    Prepared statement...........................................    26
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   293
Daniel Hinkle, the American Association for Justice..............    31
    Prepared statement...........................................    33
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   298
Mark Riccobono, President of the National Federation of the Blind    43
    Prepared statement...........................................    45
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   301
Jeffrey P. Tumlin, Director of Transportation, San Francisco 
  Municipal Transportation Agency................................    46
    Prepared statement...........................................    48

                           Submitted Material

Statement of February 11, 2020, from the American Property 
  Casualty Insurance Association, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky....    91
Letter of February 11, 2020, to Ms. Schakowsky, and Ms. Rodgers, 
  from Jason Levine, Executive Director the Center for Auto 
  Safety, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky............................    96
Letter of February 11, 2020, to Ms. Schakowsky, and Ms. Rodgers, 
  from Daniel Ammann, CEO, Cruise, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky...   100

----------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and also 
  is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/
  20200211/110513/HHRG-116-IF17-Wstate-ChaseC-20200211.pdf.
\2\ The information has been retained in committee files and also 
  is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/
  20200211/110513/HHRG-116-IF17-Wstate-ChaseC-20200211-SD001.pdf.
Letter of January 2, 2020, to Mr. Pallone, et al., from Jeffrey 
  P. Tumlin, Director of Transportation the San Francisco 
  Municipal Transportation Agency, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky...   103
Letter of February 11, 2020, Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, from 
  Susan Henderson, Executive Director, Disability Rights 
  Education and Defense Fund, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky........   113
Letter of February 10, 2020, to Ms. Schakowsky and Ms. Rodgers, 
  from Laura Perrotta, CAE, President and CEO, American Highway 
  Users Alliance, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky....................   115
Letter of February 10, 2020, to Ms. Schakowsky and Ms. Rodgers, 
  from Curt Magleby, Vice President, Government Affairs, Ford 
  Motor Company, submitted by Mr. Upton..........................   117
Letter of February 11, 2020, to Ms. Schakowsky and Ms. Rodgers, 
  from Jennifer Thomas, Vice President, Government and Industry 
  Relations, Honda North America, Inc., submitted by Mr. Long....   118
Letter of February 11, 2020, to Subcommittee of Consumer 
  Protection and Commerce, from the National Safety Council, 
  submitted by Ms. Schakowsky....................................   119
Letter of February 11, 2020, to Mr. Pallone, et al., from the 
  National Association of Manufacturers submitted by Ms. 
  Schakowsky.....................................................   125
Letter of February 11, 2020, to Mr. Pallone, et al., by Bryan 
  Salesky, Chief Executive Officer, from Argo, submitted by Mr. 
  Walden.........................................................   137
Letter of February 11, 2020, from the Consortium for Citizens 
  with Disabilities, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky.................   138
Report from the Union of Concerned Scientists called ``Maximizing 
  the Benefits of Self-Driving Vehicles,'' submitted by Ms. 
  Schakowsky.....................................................   141
Report ``Where Are Self-Driving Cars Taking Us'', Union of 
  Concerned Scientists, by submitted by Ms. Schakowsky...........   145
Letter of February 10, 2020, to Ms. Schakowsky and Ms. Rodgers, 
  by Linda Moore, President and CEO, TechNet, submitted by Ms. 
  Schakowsky.....................................................   181
Letter of February 10, 2020, to Ms. Schakowsky and Ms. Rodgers, 
  by Ariel S. Wolf, Counsel, Self-Driving Coalition, submitted by 
  Ms. Schakowsky.................................................   183
Letter of February 11, 2020, Schakowsky and Ms. Rodgers, from 
  Privacy for Cars, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky..................   186
Letter of February 11, 2020, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, by 
  Gerardo Interiano, Head of Government Relations, Aurora, 
  submitted by Ms. Schakowsky....................................   194
Letter of February 11, 2020, by Jack Gillis, Executive Director, 
  Consumer Federation of America, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky....   197
Letter of February 11, 2020, to Ms. Schakowsky and Mr. Rodgers, 
  from the United States Vehicle Data Access Coalition, submitted 
  by Ms. Schakowsky..............................................   199
Letter of February 11, 2020, from the National Association of 
  Mutual Insurance Companies, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky........   206
Letter of February 10, 2020, to Ms. Schakowsky and Ms. Rodgers, 
  by David Estrada, Chief Legal and Policy Officer, Nuro, 
  submitted by Mr. Latta.........................................   228
Letter of February 6, 2020, to Mr. Pallone and Mr Walden, by Jeff 
  Rittener, Chief Government Affairs Officer and Vice President, 
  Markets and Trade Intel Corporation, submitted by Ms. 
  Schakowsky.....................................................   231
Letter from Intel, Safety First Policy submitted by Ms.Schakowsky   233
Letter of February 10, 2020, by Seleta J. Reynolds, General 
  Manager, from City of Los Angeles, DOT, submitted by Ms. 
  Schakowsky.....................................................   235
Letter of February 10, 2020, by Danielle Burr, Head of Federal 
  Affairs, from Uber; submitted by Ms. Schakowsky................   237
Letter of February 11, 2020, by Robbie Diamond, President and 
  CEO, Securing America's Future Energy, submitted by Ms. 
  Schakowsky.....................................................   240
Letter of February 11, 2020, from Continental submitted by Ms. 
  Schakowsky.....................................................   245
Letter of February 11, 2020, to Ms. Schakowsky and Ms. Rodgers, 
  by Ann Wilson, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, Motor 
  Equipment Manufacturers Association, submitted by Ms. 
  Schakowsky.....................................................   249
Letter of February 11, 2020, to Ms. Schakowsky and Ms. Rodgers, 
  from Coalition for Future Mobility, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky   251
Letter of February 10, 2020, to DOT, from the Senate, submitted 
  by Ms. Schakowsky..............................................   254
Letter of February 11, 2020, to Ms. Schakowsky, by Polly 
  Trottenberg, Commissioner, from the New York City Department of 
  Transportation, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky....................   256
Letter of February 11, 2020, by Ian Jefferies, President and CEO, 
  Association of American Railroads, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky.   268
Letter of February 11, 2020, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, by 
  John Thune and Gary C. Peters, United States Senator, submitted 
  by Ms. Schakowsky..............................................   276
Article ``Toyota's New `LQ' Wants to Build an Emotional Bond With 
  Its Driver'', Toyota Motor Corporation, submitted by Ms. 
  Schakowsky.....................................................   278

 
  AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES: PROMISES AND CHALLENGES OF EVOLVING AUTOMOTIVE 
                              TECHNOLOGIES

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2020

                  House of Representatives,
  Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in 
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, 
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Schakowsky, Castor, Veasey, Kelly, 
O'Halleran, Ca AE1rdenas, Blunt Rochester, Soto, Rush, Matsui, 
McNerney, Dingell, Pallone (ex officio), Rodgers (subcommittee 
ranking member), Upton, Burgess, Latta, Guthrie, Bucshon, 
Hudson, Carter, Gianforte, and Walden (ex officio).
    Also present: Representatives Doyle, Bilirakis, Johnson, 
Kinzinger, and Long.
    Staff Present: Jeffrey 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; Zach Kahan, Outreach 
and Member Service Coordinator; Phil Murphy, Policy 
Coordinator; Joe Orlando, Staff Assistant; Alivia Roberts, 
Press Assistant; Chloe Rodriguez, Policy Analyst; Andrew 
Souvall, Director of Communications, Outreach and Member 
Services; Sydney Terry, Policy Coordinator; Mike Bloomquist, 
Minority Staff Director; S. K. Bowen, Minority Press Secretary; 
Jordan Davis, Minority Senior Advisor; Tyler Greenberg, 
Minority Staff Assistant; Peter Kielty, Minority General 
Counsel; Bijan Koohmaraie, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, 
Consumer Protection and Commerce; Tim Kurth, Minority Chief 
Counsel, Consumer Protection and Commerce; Brannon Rains, 
Minority Policy Analyst; Peter Spencer, Minority Senior 
Professional Staff Member, Environment and Climate Change; and 
Callie Strock, Minority Press Secretary.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and 
Commerce will now come to order.
    The Chair will now recognize herself for 5 minutes for an 
opening statement.

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

    So I wish you good morning, and I thank you for being here 
to attend our hearing, much-awaited hearing on self-driving 
cars.
    In 1966, the year Ralph Nader published "Unsafe at Any 
Speed," more than 50,000 Americans died in auto crashes. The 
same year, President Johnson signed into law the National 
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which required the 
adoption of new, upgraded vehicle safety standards, and created 
an agency, NHTSA, to enforce those safety issues.
    Since then, the country's population has increased by 100 
million people, but we have seen auto fatalities drop to--still 
not great--36,500. This represents significant progress, but 
much of this progress is thanks to safety advocates who have 
pushed regulation to require a host of new or stronger safety 
requirements, often, I must say, after stiff opposition from 
industry, that bring technologies like airbags, antilock 
brakes, and, more recently, rearview cameras to market for all 
consumers.
    Many safety technologies, such as automatic emergency 
braking, lane departure warnings, and pedestrian--and 
pedestrian detection, those exist today and can dramatically 
reduce the number of auto fatalities and injuries every year, 
but deployment of such features is slow and often reserved for 
those who are willing to pay a premium for advance safety 
features.
    Beyond the scope of this committee, I just want to mention, 
however, are serious questions about the impact mass deployment 
of self-driving cars will have on the economy, particularly on 
the workforce. Congress must be very thorough and move with an 
abundance of caution when it comes to passage of legislation 
that has the potential to cause mass labor displacements.
    More than 4.4 million Americans age 16 and over work in 
some capacity as drivers. After NAFTA was passed in 1993, which 
resulted in enormous job loss, the Federal Government had done 
next to nothing to support workers who were displaced, and we 
can't let that happen again.
    The job before this subcommittee is to work on legislation 
that will significantly reduce fatalities and injuries from 
vehicle accidents. This means smaller steps that can be done 
immediately and longer term opportunities like self-driving 
cars, which have the potential to provide mobility to seniors 
and those with disabilities. It is my expectation that other 
committees will work on the issues affecting our workers.
    So I thank the witnesses for being here today, and yield 
the balance of my time to my friend and colleague, 
Representative Mike Doyle.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Schakowsky follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Hon. Jan Schakowsky

    Good morning, thank you for being here to attend our 
hearing on self-driving cars. In 1966, the year Ralph Nader 
published "Unsafe At Any Speed", more than 50,000 Americans 
died in auto crashes. In 1966, President Johnson signed the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which required 
the adoption of new or upgraded vehicle safety standards and 
created an agency, NHTSA, to enforce them and supervise safety 
recalls. Since then, the country's population has grown by more 
than 100 million, while auto fatalities have dropped to thirty-
six thousand, five hundred sixty.
    This represents significant progress, but much of this 
progress is thanks to safety advocates who have pushed 
regulators to require a host of new or stronger safety 
requirements- often after stiff opposition from industry--that 
bring technologies like airbags, antilock brakes, electronic 
stability control and, recently, rearview cameras to market for 
ALL consumers.
    So, while it's refreshing to hear industry pushing for a 
law that can help them more rapidly deploy a technology, they 
say will save even more lives, one can understand why many are 
skeptical.
    Many associated safety technologies--such as automatic 
emergency braking, lane departure warnings, and pedestrian 
detection--exist today and can dramatically reduce the number 
of automobile fatalities and injuries every year.
    But deployment of these safety features is slow, and often 
reserved for those willing to pay a premium for advanced safety 
features.
    Beyond the scope of this Committee's jurisdiction, however, 
are serious questions about the impact mass deployment of self-
driving cars will have on the economy, specifically the 
workforce. Congress must be very thoughtful and move with an 
abundance of caution when it comes to passage of legislation 
that has to potential to cause mass labor displacement.
    Recall 1994, when Congress passed NAFTA. Nearly everyone in 
the labor movement said that Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 
was ill-equipped to handle the job displacement that was 
predicted, and yet many insisted on pushing through the 
agreement and fixing TAA later. By the time President Bush 
supported Chinese Accession in the World Trade Organization 
(WTO), the Federal government had done next to nothing to 
support workers who had already taken it on the chin from 
NAFTA. Chinese Accession into the WTO meant workers got 
walloped again, while corporate executives saw their stock 
options balloon. We can't make mistakes like those ones again. 
The job before this subcommittee is to work on legislation that 
will significantly reduce fatalities and injuries from vehicle 
accidents. This means smaller steps that can be done 
immediately and longer-term opportunities like self-driving 
cars. It's my expectation that other committees will work to 
mitigate the economic damage AVs could cause.
    I thank the witnesses for being here and yield the rest of 
my time to my friend and colleague, Mike Doyle.

    Mr. Doyle. I want to thank the Chair for yielding time to 
me and for holding this important hearing.
    Autonomous vehicles hold tremendous promise for the future 
of mobility and auto safety. In Pittsburgh, we have been 
leading the world in the development of autonomous vehicles at 
Carnegie Mellon University for decades, where companies like 
Argo AI, Aurora, Aptiv, Uber and others have based their R&D 
efforts.
    Pittsburgh has also developed a set of principles and 
partnership with industry, academia, and local government for 
the testing and deployment of AVs in our community. The 
Pittsburgh principles prioritize human safety, transparency, 
cybersecurity, and public engagement. I believe that by working 
collaboratively, we can develop, test, and deploy AVs in a 
responsible way that maintains American leadership while 
instilling in the American people the confidence that these 
vehicles are not only safe, but that they can positively 
benefit us in ways we can't yet imagine. To achieve this, the 
government needs to have the resources, expertise, and 
authority to deal with the challenges and opportunities posed 
by this technology.
    Madam Chair, thank you so much for yielding the time, and I 
yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Rodgers, our ranking member 
for the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce, for 5 
minutes.

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

    Mrs. Rodgers. Good morning, and welcome to the Consumer 
Protection and Commerce Subcommittee hearing on autonomous 
vehicles. Today's hearing is a critical step in our bipartisan 
effort to advance solutions that will save lives, end road 
congestion, and improve mobility for people with disabilities, 
our seniors, and those without easy access to public 
transportation.
    Each year, we lose about 37,000 lives on our roads. That is 
equivalent to more than three commercial passenger planes 
falling out of the sky every week. If that was happening, it 
would be a national emergency. Deadly traffic accidents are 
just as much a crisis, and we must treat it as such.
    But there is hope. Automating the driving process can 
drastically improve safety, because 94 percent of all traffic 
accidents are due to human error. Autonomous vehicles will 
remove that error and save lives. Like for people who are blind 
and have other disabilities, AVs will be transformative. This 
technology will completely knock down mobility barriers. People 
will no longer need to rely on others to go to work, to the 
grocery store, or visit a friend across town.
    Mr. Riccobono, I want to thank you for being here today to 
discuss the autonomous vehicles and what they will mean for 
your community. Also, welcome to David Fair and Marci 
Carpenter, who traveled from Washington State with the National 
Federation for the Blind.
    Last Congress, every Republican and Democrat on this 
committee voted for the SELF DRIVE Act, a rare 54-0 vote, which 
the House then passed unanimously. The SELF DRIVE Act 
established a needed Federal framework for the safe development 
and deployment of this technology. Unfortunately, a framework 
is still needed today.
    America is leading the world in innovation and is home to 
the most advanced autonomous vehicle companies on the planet, 
but we still trail other countries in our lack of a national 
approach with no viable path to deployment. According to an 
annual report that ranks countries on AVs, the U.S. has fallen 
behind since our work on the SELF DRIVE Act, and we will 
continue to fall if we fail to act.
    Other countries, like China, are not waiting for us. They 
are moving full speed ahead, and it is happening in our own 
backyard. Since this committee passed SELF DRIVE, Chinese 
developers have nearly doubled their presence in California. 
Just last year, Chinese developers logged the second most miles 
of any country testing there. China is using our 
infrastructure, testing on our roads, collecting information on 
our citizens, and stealing our technology to beat us.
    There is a global race to AVs. Do we want China to win that 
race or do we want to lead? Do we want all the safety, faster 
traffic, and mobility benefits to go abroad, or do we want to 
win this future and deliver for the American people? I urge 
everyone here. We have no choice. We must lead and we must 
deliver. That is how America wins the future to beat China and 
maintain our global competitive edge. We must establish a 
Federal framework that enhances the safe development of AVs and 
provides a path for deployment.
    If we fail, investment in this transformative technology 
will go abroad. If we fail, the safety, less congestion, and 
mobility benefits that will come with this technology will go 
elsewhere. If we fail, the American people will lose.
    We have a real opportunity here. We can advance lifesaving 
and life-changing technology. We can ensure America remains the 
global leader in innovation. We can beat China. As we proved 
last Congress, we can do this together with bipartisan ideas 
that aren't just Republican or Democrat, but uniquely American. 
The time is now.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy Rodgers

    Good morning and welcome to the Consumer Protection and 
Commerce Subcommittee hearing on autonomous vehicles.
    Today's hearing is a critical step in our bipartisan effort 
to advance solutions that will save lives end road congestion 
and improve mobility for people with disabilities, our seniors, 
and those without easy access to public transportation.
    Every year, we lose about 37,000 lives on our roads.
    That is equivalent to more than three commercial passenger 
planes falling out of the sky every week. If that was 
happening, it would be a national emergency.
    Deadly traffic accidents are just as much of a crisis and 
we must treat it as such.
    But there is hope. Automating the driving process can 
drastically improve safety because 94 percent of all traffic 
accidents are due to human error.
    Autonomous vehicles will remove that error and save lives.
    Like for people who are blind and have other disabilities, 
AVs will be transformative.
    This technology will completely knock down mobility 
barriers.
    People will no longer need to rely on others to go to work, 
go to the grocery store, or visit a friend across town.
    Mr. Riccobono, I want to thank you for being here today to 
discuss what autonomous vehicles will mean for your community.
    Also, welcome to David Fair and Marci Carpenter who have 
traveled here from Washington State with the National 
Federation for the Blind.
    Last Congress, every Republican and Democrat on this 
Committee voted for the SELF DRIVE Act--a rare 54-0 vote--which 
the House then passed unanimously.
    The SELF DRIVE Act established a needed federal framework 
for the safe development and deployment of this technology.
    Unfortunately, a framework is still needed today.America is 
leading the world in innovation and is home to the most 
advanced autonomous vehicle companies on the planet.
    But we still trail other countries in our lack of a 
national approach with no viable path to deployment.
    According to an annual report that ranks countries on AVs 
the U.S. has fallen behind since our work on SELF DRIVE. And we 
will continue to fall if we fail to act.
    Other countries--like China--are not waiting for us. They 
are moving full speed ahead and it's happening in our own 
backyard.
    Since this Committee passed SELF DRIVE, Chinese developers 
have nearly doubled their presence in California. Just last 
year, Chinese developers logged the second-most miles of any 
country testing there.
    China is using our infrastructure, testing on our roads, 
collecting information on our citizens, and stealing our 
technology to beat us.
    There is a global race to AVs. Do we want China to win that 
race or do we want to lead?Do we want all the safety, faster 
traffic, and mobility benefits to go abroad or do we want to 
win this future and deliver for the American people?
    I urge everyone here: we have no choice. we must lead. and 
we must deliver.
    That's how America wins the future to beat China and 
maintain our global competitive edge.
    We must establish a federal framework that enhances the 
safe development of AVs and provides a path to deployment.If we 
fail, investment in this transformative technology will go 
abroad.
    If we fail, the safety, less congestion, and mobility 
benefits that come with this technology will go elsewhere.
    If we fail, the American people will lose.
    We have a real opportunity here. We can advance lifesaving 
and life-changing technology.
    We can ensure America remains the global leader in 
innovation. We can beat China.
    As we proved last Congress, we can do this together with 
bipartisan ideas that aren't just Republican or Democratic but 
uniquely American.
    The time is now.

    And I would like to yield the remainder of my time to a 
leader on this issue, Mr. Latta.
    Mr. Latta. Well, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and 
also thank the Chair for holding today's hearing. It is very, 
very important.
    Self-driving cars are the way of the future, will 
revolutionize our Nation's highways. Three years ago, as chair 
of the subcommittee, I began the process to legislate on self-
driving cars. We took over 300 meetings before drafting a bill 
that found the right balance of encouraging innovation and 
implementing Federal guidance where appropriate. Congress' role 
isn't just to ensure the United States is a leader in the 
development of autonomous vehicles; Congress must act to 
provide Americans with safer vehicles so that we can better 
prevent accidents and loss of life on our roads.
    Self-drive cars will make America safer and give mobility 
and independence to seniors and individuals with disabilities. 
These are just a few of the reasons why the SELF DRIVE Act was 
so significant and why it was passed out of the House in 2017.
    I am pleased to see the committee continue to focus on this 
critical issue, and I urge the Chair to swiftly consider 
bipartisan AV legislation.
    And, before yielding back, Madam Chair, if I may ask 
unanimous consent to offer the letter from CTech for the 
record. I greatly appreciate it. And I, again----
    Ms. Schakowsky. Without objection.
    Mr. Latta [continue]. Want to thank you very much for 
holding today's hearing. I yield back.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mrs. Rodgers. I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, 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, Madam Chair.
    Last year, nearly 37,000 people were killed in motor 
vehicle traffic crashes. Another 4.5 million were injured. 
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, or NHTSA, human factors, such as driving error, 
speeding, and drunk driving, are linked to 94 percent of 
serious motor vehicle crashes.
    Automakers, often pushed by Congress and regulators, are 
integrating technology into vehicles that mitigate human error 
and save lives. Advanced driver assistance systems have arrived 
and are already reducing unnecessary motor vehicle deaths and 
injuries.
    Other technologies, like automatic emergency braking, lane 
departure prevention, and blind spot detection are in luxury 
vehicles today and will hopefully be in all cars soon. These 
incremental technologies will save lives, and we must continue 
to advance these technologies.
    At the same time, we also must look to revolutionary 
advances that may transform vehicle safety. Soon these advance 
systems may be replaced by systems that don't need a driver at 
all. Several companies are actively testing and developing 
self-driving cars. These vehicles are programmed to avoid risky 
and dangerous driving behaviors. Self-driving vehicles also 
could provide a vital means of transportation for people with 
disabilities, the elderly in communities lacking access to 
traditional public transportation.
    But technology is only as reliable as its human developers. 
In March of 2018, an Uber self-driving test vehicle struck and 
killed a pedestrian in Arizona. The National Transportation 
Safety Board found that the vehicle did not have the capability 
to classify an object as a pedestrian unless the object was 
near a crosswalk. The NTSB has launched five other 
investigations into crashes involving vehicles with varying 
degrees of automation. They found that some self-driving cars 
cannot detect and avoid common roadway hazards, and vehicle 
occupants can over-rely on the technology.
    So safety and deployment must come hand in hand. We can't 
have one without the other because, ultimately, public 
acceptance of self-driving cars depends on their reliability 
and safety. Troubling safety incidents, regulatory black holes, 
and lax oversight threaten to disrupt this critical balance in 
the future of this technology itself. For self-driving cars to 
succeed and make our roads safer, appropriate safeguards must 
be put in place, protections to ensure self-driving cars 
operate safely and adhere to State and local law.
    Federal regulators must have a hands-on approach to self-
driving technology. They must ensure that safety is ingrained 
in every sensor, feature, and line of code of a self-driving 
car. Regulators also must have the expertise to understand 
self-driving technology and not simply rely on the assurances 
of technology companies.
    Congress plays an important role here. We can bridge safety 
gaps by creating a national roadmap for self-driving cars. We 
should pass legislation that establishes safety standards and 
regulations for the gradual deployment of self-driving cars. 
The legislation should facilitate the collection and reporting 
of vital crash and incident data, and protect Americans' rights 
to access the courts for the inevitable incidents relating to 
self-driving cars. It should also promote consumer awareness 
and provide robust resources to Federal regulators to oversee 
these complex technologies, while also preserving the 
appropriate role of State and local government.
    So we are working on a bipartisan, bicameral basis to draft 
a self-driving car bill that will help ensure that these 
lifesaving technologies are safely deployed. And I thank the 
ranking member for her partnership on this on--his 
partnership--I'm sorry--on this effort.
    Wait a minute now. It is Cathy is the ranking member. Oh, 
we're talking about Greg. OK. I thank the ranking member for 
his partnership.
    Mr. Walden. We all are thankful and welcome you.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. We thank Greg and Cathy and look 
forward to continuing our work to advance legislation.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    Last year, nearly 37,000 people were killed in motor 
vehicle traffic crashes. Another 4.5 million were injured. 
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA), human factors, such as driving errors, speeding and 
drunk driving, are linked to 94 percent of serious motor 
vehicle crashes.
    Automakers, often pushed by Congress and regulators, are 
integrating technology into vehicles that mitigate human error 
and save lives. Advanced driver assistance systems have arrived 
and are already reducing unnecessary motor vehicle deaths and 
injuries. Other technologies like automatic emergency braking, 
lane departure prevention, and blind spot detection are in 
luxury vehicles today and will hopefully be in all cars soon. 
These incremental technologies will save lives, and we must 
continue to advance these technologies.
    At the same time, we also must look to revolutionary 
advancements that may transform vehicle safety. Soon, these 
advanced systems may be replaced by systems that don't need a 
driver at all. Several companies are actively testing and 
developing self-driving cars. These vehicles are programmed to 
avoid risky and dangerous driving behaviors. Self-driving 
vehicles could also provide a vital means of transportation for 
people with disabilities, the elderly, and communities lacking 
access to traditional public transportation.
    But technology is only as reliable as its human developers. 
In March of 2018, an Uber self-driving test vehicle struck and 
killed a pedestrian in Arizona. The National Transportation 
Safety Board (NTSB) found that the vehicle did not have the 
capability to classify an object as a pedestrian unless the 
object was near a crosswalk. The NTSB has launched five other 
investigations into crashes involving vehicles with varying 
degrees of automation. It found that some-self driving cars 
cannot detect and avoid common roadway hazards and vehicle 
occupants can over rely on the technology.
    Safety and deployment must come hand in hand--we cannot 
have one without the other. Because ultimately, public 
acceptance of self-driving cars depends on their reliability 
and safety. Troubling safety incidents, regulatory blackholes, 
and lax oversight threaten to disrupt this critical balance and 
the future of this technology itself.
    For self-driving cars to succeed and make our roads safer 
appropriate safeguards must be in place--protections to ensure 
self-driving cars operate safely and adhere to state and local 
law. Federal regulators must have a hands-on approach to self-
driving technology. They must ensure that safety is engrained 
in every sensor, feature, and line of code of a self-driving 
car. Regulators also must have the expertise to understand 
self-driving technology and not simply rely on the assurances 
of technology companies.
    Congress also plays an important role. We can bridge safety 
gaps by creating a national roadmap for self-driving cars. We 
should pass legislation that establishes safety standards and 
regulations for the gradual deployment of self-driving cars. 
The legislation should facilitate the collection and reporting 
of vital crash and incident data, and protect Americans' rights 
to access the courts for the inevitable incidents related to 
self-driving cars. It should also promote consumer awareness 
and provide robust resources to federal regulators to oversee 
these complex technologies, while also preserving the 
appropriate role of state and local governments.
    We are working on a bipartisan, bicameral basis to draft a 
self-driving car bill that will help ensure that these life-
saving technologies are safely deployed. I thank the Ranking 
Member for his partnership on this effort and look forward to 
continuing our work to advance legislation that enjoys broad 
support.

    So I yield the remainder of my time to Representative 
Dingell.
    Ms. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 
everybody on both sides for getting us here today. It really 
means a lot.
    Automated vehicles aren't just something to read about in 
science fiction novels anymore; they are here, transforming 
mobility and transportation as we know it.
    Just this month, there was a big announcement from GM, 
Honda, and Cruise that they are building an AV called Origin in 
Detroit. AVs are bringing jobs to this country, but we cannot 
take it for granted. This transformation is an open 
international competition, and other countries are stepping up. 
My colleague from Washington is right: Other countries are in 
the game and trying to beat us.
    Automated vehicles will be developed globally, whether we 
like it or not, and it is critical that America be at the 
forefront of innovation by leading the development in this 
technology. If we don't, we are going to lose our competitive 
edge in this critical space, despite the uncertainty past 
legislative inaction has brought about. My home State of 
Michigan is leading the way. And, yes, I told Mr. Doyle he was 
wrong about Pittsburgh, but they are doing OK.
    In my district, the American Center for Mobility is 
focusing on testing, verification, and self-certification of 
automated vehicles, and Michigan--the State of Michigan is 
dedicating considerable resources to automated vehicles, but we 
do need to do it right. Safety, including cybersecurity, has to 
be our top priority here. Nobody, nobody wants to let unsafe 
technologies on the road, but we also don't want to prevent 
vehicles that improve safety and mobility--do you know how much 
John Dingell would love to have let me get in a car again--from 
reaching consumers easier.
    This committee has done good work on this issue over the 
years. And I would like to point out the vote in the House was 
unanimous last year, unanimous. Republicans and Democrats 
worked together. But we must, in 2020, get this over the line. 
If you are a safety advocate, you should want a bill to give 
NHTSA the authority to ensure these vehicles are safe. If you 
are an innovator, you need certainty to know what the rules of 
the road are.
    We have worked hard to find consensus over the last year, 
but now is the time for action. I beg my colleagues that we 
will do so, and I hope this hearing is the momentum for us 
getting it done.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back, right?
    The Chair now recognize Mr. Walden, the ranking member of 
the full committee, for his 5 minutes for an opening statement.

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

    Mr. Walden. Well, good morning, Madam Chair. Thanks for 
holding this hearing today. I want to thank our witnesses for 
being here as well and sharing your thoughts on this really 
important legislative effort.
    As you know, Madam Chair, this subcommittee did some 
amazing work over the last few years. We laid out a compelling 
framework for the United States to lead the world in research, 
development, and manufacturing of autonomous automobiles. We 
also gave people hope. We gave hope to people currently facing 
a life of restriction, introducing a whole new world of 
mobility for those with physical disabilities and for seniors.
    On that note, I would like to recognize that not only on 
the witness panel is the head of the National Federation of the 
Blind, Mark Riccobono, but I am also pleased to welcome from 
the great State of Oregon, the president of the State 
organization, Carla McQuillan. So, we appreciate you and all of 
the folks here in the audience.
    From the first disrupter series hearing on self-driving 
cars in November of 2016, three other hearings would follow, 
along with more than 300 stakeholder meetings. This process led 
to the markups in July of 2017 where AV legislation was 
approved unanimously and continued to House passage in 
September of 2017 with the same consensus result.
    Our Senate friends, who were committed to our shared goal, 
were not able to clear legislation in their Chamber, 
unfortunately. It was a disappointing conclusion when you 
consider 12 bills from members of both sides of the aisle in 
this committee were rolled into our final product. I have 
always believed that this is the way this place is supposed to 
work; a bipartisan, collaborative process.
    Now, despite the work that was done then and the setback of 
coming up short, we are still here today talking about a need 
to pass an AV bill in the House. The U.S. is in a global race 
to AVs, but, today, the cost of inaction is clear: We are 
falling behind.
    Now, I certainly respect the fact that my friends across 
the aisle have the gavel now, and it is ultimately up to them 
how to proceed in this process. Given that, we have a respected 
process that the majority called for last year on how we reach 
an agreement, not just among ourselves, but also in accord with 
the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Commerce Committee. And 
I am anxiously awaiting the consensus from that process, which 
I hope is imminent, so we can move expeditiously to the next 
step of this discussion.
    On that note, I am pleased that we have a witness from the 
American Association for Justice on the panel, to provide your 
organization's perspective on how we might reach this elusive 
deal. Now, I want to be pretty transparent here, sir. It should 
be clear from the history of this process that Republicans and 
Democrats on this panel worked very hard with your organization 
to get sign-off and support when we first moved this bill, so 
you might imagine my disappointment when you all asked for more 
changes in the Senate, despite the deal we had here in the 
House with your organization. But it was even more curious that 
when Senate Republicans and Democrats ceded to the provisions 
you were seeking, you still didn't support the deal.
    So this was a bridge too far, so you can understand why I 
am admittedly reticent to ask whether you all advocated for 
last Congress is enough, and, if it is not enough, why, and how 
are we going to deliver for the blind, the disabled, the 
elderly if we can't reach a compromise we can all trust in?
    So my plea to all of you is this: It takes not only a 
compromise among the members of this dais, but also all of you 
at this table. We are all Americans, and we share this goal 
together. We are talking about the United States leading the 
race and setting the rules or, frankly, having it dictated to 
us by other countries, other countries that are able to direct 
adoption and data collection, notably where citizens aren't 
lucky enough to have input from safety organizations, I might 
add. And we are talking about giving vulnerable populations an 
entire new ability to live their lives with a new level of 
mobility. We are talking about how this initiative will lend 
itself to reducing emissions, to protect our environment as 
well.
    All this can be done, and we don't have to compromise 
safety, and we won't. In fact, the roads actually will be 
safer.
    We have the opportunity to prevent a family from 
experiencing the overwhelming despair from the loss of a loved 
one due to human errors on the road. We lose something like 
7,000 pedestrians. We have the ability to break down the 
barriers to mobility facing seniors and the disabled community, 
and we can create new economic opportunities by ensuring the 
United States can be a global leader in this emerging 
technology.
    So that is my ask all of you. Work with us and let's get 
this done this year.
    Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden

    Thank you Madame Chairwoman for holding this hearing today, 
and thank you to our witnesses for being here and sharing your 
thoughts on this important legislative effort.
    This subcommittee did some amazing work the last few years. 
We laid out a compelling framework for the United States to 
lead the world in research, development, and manufacturing of 
autonomous vehicles. We also gave people hope. We gave hope to 
the people currently facing a life of restriction--introducing 
a whole new world of mobility for those with physical 
disabilities and seniors. On that note, I'd like to recognize 
that not only on the witness panel is the head of the National 
Federation of the Blind, Mark Riccobono, but I am also pleased 
to welcome from my great state of Oregon, the president of the 
state organization, Carla McQuillan.
    From the first ``Disrupter Series'' hearing on self-driving 
cars in November 2016, three other hearings would follow, along 
with more than 300 stakeholder meetings. This process led to 
markups in July of 2017, where AV legislation was approved 
unanimously, and continued to House passage in September of 
2017 with the same consensus result.
    Our Senate friends--who were committed to our shared goal-
were not able to clear legislation in their chamber. It was a 
disappointing conclusion when you consider twelve bills--from 
members of both sides of the aisle in this committee--were 
rolled into that final product. I have always believed that is 
the way this place is supposed to work: a bipartisan, 
collaborative process.
    Despite the work that was done then and the setback of 
coming up short, we are still here today talking about a need 
to pass an AV bill in the House. The U.S. is in a global race 
to AVs, but today the cost of inaction is clear: we are behind.
    Now, I certainly respect the fact that my friends across 
the aisle have the gavel now, and it is ultimately up to them 
how the process should be run. Given that, we have respected a 
process that the majority called for last year on how we reach 
an agreement not just amongst ourselves but also in accord with 
the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Commerce Committee. I 
am anxiously awaiting the consensus from that process, which I 
hope is imminent, so we can move expeditiously to the next 
stepof this discussion.
    On that note, I am pleased that we have a witness from the 
American Association for Justice on the panel to provide the 
organization's perspective on how we might reach this elusive 
deal. I want to be very transparent--it should be clear from 
the history of this process that Republicans and Democrats on 
this panel worked very hard with your organization to get sign-
off and support when we first moved this bill. You can imagine 
my disappointment when you all asked for more changes, in the 
Senate, despite the deal we had struck. But it was even 
morecurious that when Senate Republicans and Democrats ceded to 
the provisions you were seeking, you still didn't support a 
deal.
    This was a bridge too far, so you can understand why I'm 
admittedly reticent to ask whether what you all advocated for 
last Congress is enough. And if it's not, why? How are we going 
to deliver for the blind, the disabled, the elderly if we can't 
reach a compromise?
    My plea to all of you is this: it takes not only a 
compromise amongst the members on this dais, but also all of 
you at this table. We are all Americans, and we are in this 
together. We are talking about U.S. leading the race and 
setting the rules, or having it dictated to us by other 
countries. Other countries able to direct adoption and data 
collection, notably where citizens aren't lucky enough to have 
input from safety organizations.
    We are talking about giving vulnerable populations an 
entirely new ability to live their lives with a new level of 
mobility. We are talking about how this initiative will lend 
itself to reducing emissions to protect our environment.
    All of this can be done without compromising safety. In 
fact, the roads will all be safer. We have the opportunity to 
prevent a family from experiencing the overwhelming dispair 
from the loss of a loved one due to human errors on the road.
    We have the ability to break down the barriers to mobility 
facing seniors and the disabled community. And we can create 
new economic opportunity by ensuring the United States can be 
the global leader in this emerging technology. That is my ask 
to all of you, work with us, and let's get this done.
    Thank you, and I yield back.

    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to 
committee rules, all members' written opening statements shall 
be made part of the record.
    And I would now like to introduce our witnesses for today's 
hearing, and I thank all of you for coming.
    Ms. Cathy Church, president--Chase--sorry--Ms. Cathy Chase, 
president of the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety; Mr. 
John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive 
Innovation; Mr. Gary Shapiro, president and CEO of the Consumer 
Technology Association; Mr. Daniel Hinkle, state affairs 
counsel for the American Association of Justice; Mr. Mark 
Riccobono--got that right? OK, president of the National 
Federation of the Blind; Mr. Jeffrey Tumlin, director of 
transportation for the San Diego Municipal Transportation 
Agency.
    Voice. San Francisco.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Did I say San----
    Voice. San Francisco.
    Ms. Schakowsky. San Francisco. What I did I say?
    Voice. San Diego.
    Ms. Schakowsky. San Diego. Oh, sorry. Don't tell the 
Speaker that I said that, OK, please?
    San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency.
    We want to thank all the witnesses for joining us today. We 
look forward to your testimony.
    At this time, the Chair will recognize each witness for 5 
minutes to provide their opening statement. Before we begin, I 
would like to explain for those who haven't had the experience 
the lighting system.
    In front of you are 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. I 
will, for Mr. Riccobono, I can tap the--when you have 1-minute 
left, if you would like. OK. Very good. So please begin to wrap 
up when you hear that sound or you see the yellow light. The 
light will turn red when your time expires.
    So, Ms. Chase, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENTS OF CATHERINE CHASE, PRESIDENT, ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY 
AND AUTO SAFETY; JOHN BOZZELLA, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ALLIANCE FOR 
    AUTOMOTIVE INNOVATION; GARY SHAPIRO, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 
 CONSUMER TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION; DANIEL HINKLE, STATE AFFAIRS 
  COUNSEL, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE; MARK RICCOBONO, 
  PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND; AND JEFFREY P. 
  TUMLIN, DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION, SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL 
                 TRANSPORTATION AGENCY (SFMTA)

                  STATEMENT OF CATHERINE CHASE

    Ms. Chase. Good morning, Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking 
Member McMorris Rodgers, and distinguished members of the 
subcommittee. I am Cathy Chase, president of Advocates for 
Highway and Auto Safety. Thank you for holding today's hearing.
    For too many decades, tens of thousands of people have 
died, and millions more have been injured in motor vehicle 
crashes every year. The direct economic crash cost is nearly 
$250 billion. That amounts to an annual crash tax of $784 for 
every American.
    However, we are now at a transformational time in 
transportation history. To be clear, advocates and many public 
health, safety, smart growth, first responder, and other 
organizations believe driverless cars or autonomous vehicles, 
known as AVs, hold tremendous potential to significantly 
mitigate preventable deaths and injuries on our roads in the 
future. Yet, as noted in my testimony, even industry leaders 
admit that the technology is not yet mature and proven. 
Already, missteps in rushing deployment of self-driving 
technologies have resulted in crashes, deaths, and injuries. 
The technology isn't ready and neither are our roads. Yet, on 
the path to AVs, crashes can be avoided and lives saved with 
advanced driver assistance systems.
    Since 2016, the National Transportation Safety Board has 
recommended expanding implementation of these technologies in 
its most-wanted list. These include automatic emergency 
braking, lane departure warning, blind spot detection, among 
other technologies. Advocates has been a longtime safety 
technology proponent, and this subcommittee has been a leader 
in advancing legislation that has resulted in numerous 
lifesaving technologies as standard equipment in new vehicles.
    We urge you to pass the Protecting Roadside First 
Responders Act, H.R. 4871, which directs DOT to require these 
technologies in all new vehicles. Similarly, enactment of 
Congressman Dingell's bill, H.R. 4354, will result in the 
installation of technology to reduce drunk driving. 
Furthermore, we ask passage of the bipartisan Hot Cars Act of 
2019. There is no reason that children should be dying in hot 
cars every week.
    However, there is reason to act with great care and 
deliberation on our Nation's first AV law. Three years ago, 
there was a false and frantic urgency by some in the industry 
to push for adoption of an AV bill so the U.S. did not fall 
behind other countries, but the thing is, we are not falling 
behind other countries in AV deployment, but we are falling 
behind in implementing safe AV policies.
    My written testimony, our analysis of previous bills, and 
proposals for new legislation provide a blueprint on how our 
Nation can successfully move forward, inspire innovation, and 
earn consumer confidence. And public trust is sorely lacking by 
many measures.
    Leading up to today's hearing, Advocates released the 
findings of a new opinion poll. It shows the American public 
has serious concerns about the safety of driverless cars. 
However, this apprehension can be addressed and resolved with 
appropriate action by the Federal Government.
    I will briefly summarize the key findings. And, Madam 
Chairwoman, I request that the poll report be entered into the 
hearing record.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Without objection----
    Ms. Chase. Thank you.
    Ms. Schakowsky [continue]. So ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Ms. Chase. As you'll see on the boards, 85 percent express 
concern about sharing the roads with driverless cars as a 
motorist, bicyclist, or pedestrian. And 63 percent are not 
comfortable with Congress substantially--did we switch to the 
next one? Yes. Good.
    And 63 percent are not comfortable with Congress 
substantially increasing the number of vehicles that auto and 
tech companies can sell that do not meet existing Federal 
safety standards. However, 71 percent support government 
officials developing minimum safety requirements for new 
driverless car technologies. And more than two-thirds of 
respondents said knowing companies had to meet minimum safety 
requirements before selling driverless cars would address their 
concerns.
    Lastly, three out of four respondents support government-
issued cybersecurity safety rules, as well as a vision test for 
driverless cars, to make sure they can operate safely in 
different weather and road conditions.
    Some may dismiss public opinion polls and espouse the 
mantra: If you build it, they will come. But we need only look 
at recent disastrous outcomes of rushing to put new tech in 
planes and a Federal regulatory agency relinquishing important 
control and independent review. Tragically, 346 people died in 
two crashes in the Boeing 737 MAX. This mistake must not be 
replicated with autonomous vehicles. This tragedy also shows 
that it is easy to lose public confidence and hard to regain 
it.
    Going forward, any legislation must ensure that the U.S. 
DOT conducts thorough oversight, establishes regulations that 
sets minimum performance standards, and requires industry 
accountability before driverless cars are available in the 
marketplace.
    In conclusion, Advocates firmly believes that substantial 
reductions in our Nation's fatality toll can be achieved with 
technological advances. We look forward to working with you to 
advance validated and verified solutions to make our roads 
safer for all.
    Thank you very much.
    [The information of Ms. Chase appears at the conclusion of 
the hearing.]
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
    And now, Mr. Bozzella, I recognize you for your opening 
statement for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF JOHN BOZZELLA

    Mr. Bozzella. Thank you.
    Good morning, Chair Schakowsky, Ranking Member McMorris 
Rodgers, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. On 
behalf of the members of the Alliance for Automotive 
Innovation, thank you for the opportunity to testify today 
regarding automated vehicle technologies and the tremendous 
promise that they offer to the traveling public, the economy, 
and the future of this country.
    This January, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation was 
formed to become the singular authoritative and respected voice 
of the auto industry in the United States. Our 35 members 
include auto manufacturers who produce nearly 99 percent of 
cars and light trucks sold in the United States, along with 
original equipment manufacturers, suppliers, technology 
companies, and value chain partners, employing roughly 10 
million Americans.
    Our mission at Auto Innovators can be distilled in three 
words: Cleaner, safer, smarter. We work with policymakers to 
find intelligent solutions to improve the environment, reduce 
crashes, and enhance personal transportation. Today's hearing 
is important, timely, and fully consistent with the 
association's mission.
    This committee has a proud history demonstrating leadership 
on these issues in a fully bipartisan fashion. More than 2-1/2 
years ago, the House overwhelmingly passed legislation, the 
SELF DRIVE Act, to enhance, advance these safety innovations. 
Then and now, Congress has a great opportunity to advance 
highway safety and expanded mobility.
    AV technologies could not come at a better time. The 
numbers are sobering. In 2018 alone, 36,560 people, 100 a day, 
died in the 2 million traffic crashes on our Nation's roadways. 
NHTSA has found that 94 percent of car crashes are attributable 
to human choice or error.
    By supplementing or even replacing the human driver with 
advance sensors and other technologies, we can dramatically 
decrease the frequency and severity of these crashes. AVs can't 
get distracted, drive impaired, or fall asleep at the wheel. 
AVs can provide numerous social and economic benefits, 
including less congestion, lower fuel consumption, and the 
increased mobility for older adults and people with 
disabilities.
    As you work to draft AV legislation on a bipartisan and 
bicameral basis, it is important to recognize that successful 
testing and deployment of AVs rests on a robust Federal safety 
agency, increased public awareness and education, and 
coordination between Federal, State, and local governments.
    I would like to offer three recommendations today as 
Congress works to realize these benefits. One, establish a 
regulatory framework that allows for the safe testing and 
deployment of automated vehicle technologies. The pace of AV 
innovation is occurring faster than DOT can update existing 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. In the interim, 
exemptions which are granted on a case-by-case basis are a 
necessary bridge for the safe deployment of AV technologies and 
will generate the real world data needed for new safety 
standards for AVs.
    Two, reinforce and clarify the roles of Federal, State, and 
local authorities for automated vehicle technologies. NHTSA 
should retain its traditional responsibility regarding design, 
construction, and performance, and States should maintain their 
traditional responsibilities regarding licensing, registration, 
insurance, traffic laws, and enforcement.
    Three, any legislation that this committee or Congress 
ultimately passes is not the final word on the subject. Both 
the Congress and Federal safety authorities will further refine 
and adjust AV policy in the future. Only Congress can ensure an 
appropriate Federal framework to spur the development of 
lifesaving technologies, including the parameters for their 
safe testing and deployment.
    It is not at all acceptable that more than 36,000 Americans 
lost their lives on our roads in 2018. From my perspective, as 
the president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive 
Innovation, no other safety or mobility solutions hold as much 
promise or provide as many benefits to the traveling public as 
automated vehicle technologies.
    It is also critical to note that there is a global race to 
develop and deploy these technologies. The U.S. currently has a 
leadership position, and here is where international companies 
have chosen to invest their resources, but America's leadership 
position is not guaranteed.
    The Congress and, specifically, this committee has played a 
central role in improving motor vehicle safety and mobility. 
Legislation could provide the clarity and structure needed to 
allow the safe testing and deployment to go forward with 
appropriate protections. This hearing is part of that process.
    I thank you. We are grateful to be a part of it.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bozzella follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
    Mr. Shapiro, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF GARY SHAPIRO

    Mr. Shapiro. Thank you, Chairman Schakowsky, Ranking Member 
McMorris Rodgers, and the subcommittee. Thank you for this 
opportunity to testify.
    Still thank you for that opportunity to testify.
    The Consumer Technology Association is a national 
technology association, over 2,000 American companies, 80 
percent of whom are small businesses, and we own and produce 
the world's largest and most influential business event, the 
biggest innovation event. Some of you have seen it. It is CES.
    At CES last month, we saw amazing advancements in mobility, 
and we have seen self-driving demonstrated there repeatedly for 
the last few years. But the fact is that technology is already 
improving safety. Automatic braking, driver-alert systems. What 
we saw are results. Traffic deaths are down 3.4 percent in 
early 2019, despite a 0.8 percent increase in miles traveled, 
as well as marijuana legalization, distracted driving, other 
things likes that.
    Advanced driver assistance systems can prevent nearly 30 
percent of all crashes. Lane departure warnings lower certain 
crash rates by 11 percent, industry--injury rates by 21 
percent. And already today--actually, in 2018, 93 percent of 
new vehicles sold have at least one of these features.
    The solution going forward is what we are all agreeing upon 
here: self-driving vehicles. They don't get distracted, they 
don't get tired, they don't drink too much. They save lives, 
prevent injuries, and empower seniors and people with 
disabilities, and I think that is more important than 
protecting lucrative contingency fee settlements for trial 
lawyers.
    Seniors no longer have to wait for family members to drive 
to doctors' appointments, and auto insurance premiums will be 
radically cut for all Americans. We will cut medical costs and 
productivity losses. We will waste less time in traffic and 
save billions of hours of productivity. There will be fewer 
parking garages. There will be more green space and 
development. There will be greater green use of our scarce 
societal resources.
    And our research, contrary to what we heard, is slightly 
different. We see an American thirst for these. Sixty percent 
of adults are interested in replacing their cars with self-
driving vehicles, and they see all sorts of benefits, over 80 
or 90 percent in various categories of these vehicles, 
including avoiding aggressive drivers and empowering disabled 
people.
    We are now testing SDVs with almost 1,500 vehicles in 80 
companies across 36 states. Our members, Aptiv and Lyft, have a 
pilot project in Las Vegas since 2018, 100,000 rides. On 
almost--on a 1 to 5 scale of satisfaction, 4.95 percent 
satisfaction on average, 92 percent of the riders felt very or 
extremely safe. Our member Nuro received the first ever in 
those exemptions just last week, and delivery vehicle testing 
starts soon in Houston.
    As many of you mentioned, this is a global competition. It 
is an important issue where every developed nation is focusing 
on, but we are ahead. We have more companies here focusing in 
the entire ecosystem, dozens of companies, and we have the 
opportunity to be in a position to set the global standard. But 
we can't wait for everything to be perfect the way some have 
asked for. Delay will cost thousands of lives. Every day we 
delay, literally we are killing people.
    Cars that are ten percent safer than human drivers will 
save more lives than waiting for them to be 75 to 90 percent 
safer.
    As you have all described, last Congress, this committee 
and the Congress unanimously acted--or the House acted, but 
there are challenges. We have to update the safety rules. That 
is why this legislation is important. We have to inform the 
consumers of the benefits, as has been described, and we have 
to adapt our insurance and liability laws.
    We recommend that NHTSA update the outdated safety 
standards, that we clarify responsibility of who does what. 
There is a patchwork of laws States are passing every day that 
Congress does not act and making it more difficult. There is 37 
States and D.C. now have rules.
    Federal Government safety standards is job safety 
standards. That is the job of Congress here. State governments 
have clear responsibilities as well in terms of insurance 
liability, inspection, and traffic.
    But we have to expand the SDV testing exemption. We need 
parity, not only among OEMs, but on so many others that are 
part of this process, suppliers and developers of automated 
vehicles and systems.
    We have to expand NHTSA's exemption authority, which will 
help gather data to improve safety and performance and perform 
the agency oversight. We are an industry here actually coming 
to Congress and saying, we want regulation for safety to move 
this important innovation forward to preserve our national 
competitiveness, and it should be a technology neutral 
approach.
    We can't delay this testing. It will hinder America's 
global leadership, and it will cost lives. We have an 
international scorecard where we analyze developed countries on 
how innovation friendly they are. Friendliness to self-driving 
is one of the criteria we use, and there is countries like 
China, Japan, Germany, and Canada, which are moving forward 
very quickly, while the U.S. seems to be marching in place.
    We appreciate the opportunity to testify. We need this 
legislation. We look forward to working with you to make our 
roads safer and our country stronger, and I look forward to 
your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Shapiro follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Hinkle, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF DANIEL HINKLE

    Mr. Hinkle. Thank you, Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking 
Member Rodgers, and members of the committee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify here today.
    The American Association for Justice, or AAJ, is the 
world's largest trial bar, and we are established to strengthen 
the civil justice system, foster public accountability, and 
safeguard victims' rights and survivors' rights. AAJ members 
represent the families whose lives are tragically altered when 
corporations fail to make safe choices.
    In 2010, Ken and Beth Melton lost their daughter Brooke 
when her car veered into another lane and crashed. It was her 
29th birthday. The police report put Brooke at fault for that 
crash, but the Meltons thought differently. In a quest to 
understand what happened, they filed a lawsuit against General 
Motors.
    That lawsuit uncovered a defect related to the ignition 
switch in Brooke's Chevy Cobalt that left it without power 
steering and brakes. That lawsuit revealed that GM may have 
known about the problem as early as 2001, and that the 
potential fix cost 90 cents. NHTSA considered issuing a recall 
on this affected vehicle in 2007, but ultimately did not.
    The Meltons fought with GM for years and, ultimately, in 
2014, GM initiated a recall of what has become over 2.6 million 
vehicles in the United States. Over a hundred deaths are linked 
to that same faulty ignition switch as Brooke Melton's. The 
Meltons' story exemplifies why automated vehicle legislation 
must prioritize safety by preserving Americans' access to 
justice.
    Now, in understanding this issue, it is important to step 
back and acknowledge what exactly distinguishes an automated 
vehicle from a human-driven one. It isn't technology, as the 
technology used in automated driving is being installed on 
vehicles today.
    The difference between an automated vehicle and a human-
driven vehicle is a promise. It is a promise from the 
manufacturer of that automated driving system that they will 
operate the vehicles safely on our roads. This promise is what 
gives cities and States and, ultimately, Federal regulators the 
confidence to allow these vehicles on our roads. And this 
promise is essential in convincing the public to trust that 
automated driving will be safe. The key question is whether our 
laws will hold these companies accountable for that promise.
    As the committee is acutely aware, 36,560 people died in 
automobile crashes in 2018. AAJ's members see those deaths 
through the eyes of the parents and the spouses and the 
children who come to them for help. If automated driving is 
going to reduce this number, this committee must place the 
utmost priority on ensuring that automated driving is safe. And 
fundamental to safety is public accountability.
    For over 50 years, lawsuits regarding design choices and 
failure to install safety technology has spurred vehicle safety 
from seatbelts, to airbags, to automated systems, like 
electronic stability control. It is often lawsuits that led the 
way in improving vehicle safety by showing how and when 
corporations put profits over safety.
    When corporations are held publicly accountable for the 
decisions they make, those decisions are made differently. In 
order to ensure public accountability, any legislation in this 
area must address three key issues.
    First, those hurt by automated driving must be able to hold 
the driver manufacturer accountable. This means any legislation 
must preserve remedies under State law.
    Second, the public must not be forced into arbitration. 
Forced arbitration is a secretive, one-sided rigged system 
which effectively immunizes the company from all public 
accountability. Forced arbitration gives a company the power to 
write the rules and, worse, forced arbitration is secret, 
keeping critical safety issues out of the public view.
    Last, legislation must designate the driver manufacturers 
as responsible for following the rules of the road or we risk 
leaving it open for companies to use passengers and owners of 
the vehicle as a human crumple zone by making them responsible 
for the operation of the vehicle. The driver manufacturer must 
take public accountability for the harm they cause.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hinkle follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
    And now, Mr. Riccobono, it is yours for 5 minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF MARK RICCOBONO

    Mr. Riccobono. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and ranking 
member of the committee and to the subcommittee. I appreciate 
the tremendous leadership of all of you for taking these issues 
so seriously in providing leadership and having this hearing. 
It is an honor to represent the National Federation of the 
Blind to speak with you about the opportunities that autonomous 
vehicles will provide for blind people.
    Now, I am elected by blind people, so I represent the view 
of blind people, not other people with disabilities. Although 
much of what we talk about applies to other people with 
disabilities, we do coordinate also with other disability 
organizations.
    Blind people recognize that autonomous vehicles provide an 
unprecedented opportunity to bring an entire class of people 
into the realm of driving: Individuals who have not been part 
of the driving class ever before, and, for us, that means blind 
people. And that means opportunities and access that has never 
been available.
    And we also support the notion of safety, because we 
recognize, in due respect to all of the drivers in the room, 
that 100 percent of accidents today are caused by sighted 
drivers.
    You know, according to the American Community Survey of 
2017, there is 7.5 million individuals who identify as having a 
visual disability, more than 1 million individuals who are 
legally blind. And if you follow the statistics and trends, 
those numbers are going up because of the aging population. In 
fact, we hope that each and every one of you lives long enough 
to be a blind person.
    You know, autonomous vehicles are a key to access to 
employment and independent living for blind people, because, 
today, access to easy and affordable transportation is just not 
something we have, especially if you live in rural areas, but 
in many urban areas as well. Blind people have to go through 
extraordinary efforts and fight through big barriers just to 
get basic access to get to the places they want to go in a 
timely fashion.
    Often, accessibility is an afterthought, and the reason 
that we are particularly excited about autonomous vehicles and 
the leadership that Congress has shown so far is that we are 
thinking about, talking about accessibility from the beginning, 
and that is the right approach.
    We know from our work in buildings today that we would not 
think about putting in an elevator after the fact. Why? Because 
it is more expensive, it causes headaches. Thinking about it 
ahead of time is what needs to happen.
    Now, a decade ago, the National Federation of the Blind was 
imaginative enough to decide that we were going to build a car 
that a blind person can drive, not a car that would drive 
itself, but a car that a blind person can drive. And working 
with engineers at Virginia Tech, we leveraged early autonomous 
vehicle technology to build a vehicle equipped with nonvisual 
interfaces that would allow a blind person to drive it 
independently.
    How do I know? Well, I was tasked with being the driver in 
the first public demonstration at the Daytona International 
Speedway on January 30, 2011. You can watch it on YouTube, 
``Blind Driver Challenge.'' No accidents.
    That technology was our springboard to introduce ourselves 
to the autonomous vehicle discussion. Although we would love to 
put blind drivers on the road, we recognize that autonomous 
vehicles present the real opportunity. And when we first 
started talking to people about autonomous vehicles, what we 
were told was, we will get to you. Just wait long enough.
    We are not prepared to wait, and we appreciate that 
Congress has us included from the beginning. Autonomous 
vehicles can transform transportation for all of us, and we 
believe that accessibility will actually make it better for 
everyone.
    Two things: One, we ask Congress not to include regulatory 
schemes that shut people out based on licensing that requires 
vision. Second, that any framework and all frameworks 
incorporate accessibility from the beginning. That is why blind 
people have come. That is why we are pleased to be here.
    Thank you for including us. We look forward to answering 
questions and being part of the conversation going forward.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Riccobono follows:]
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields 
back.
    And, Mr. Tumlin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                 STATEMENT OF JEFFREY P. TUMLIN

    Mr. Tumlin. Good morning, Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking 
Member Rodgers.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Put your microphone on.
    Mr. Tumlin. Thank you.
    Good morning, Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking Member 
Rodgers. Thank you, Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member Walden, 
for this opportunity to share a city perspective on the 
promises and challenges of autonomous vehicles, or AVs.
    My name is Jeffrey Tumlin, and I am the director of 
transportation for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation 
Agency. We are unique nationwide because we not only operate 
the seventh largest transit system in the country; we also have 
responsibility for designing a thousand miles of streets safely 
for all users, managing more than 400,000 parking spaces, and 
regulating taxies, scooters, and other micromobility.
    San Francisco is home to several of the world's leading AV 
companies. These companies hope to provide robo-taxi service in 
fleets of AVs, and we see today close to 200 AVs testing on our 
streets. Companies come to San Francisco to challenge their 
technology on our complex roadways that have diverse terrain 
that reflects dense urban neighborhoods and more suburban 
areas, like many of your districts.
    We interact with these leading companies regularly to make 
sure they understand our priorities as we steward the 
tremendous taxpayer investment in the streets and services we 
operate, and we share what we learn with States and other 
cities.
    We face many challenges in San Francisco and chief among 
them is road safety. Every year, 500 people are hospitalized, 
and 30 people die in collisions on our streets. The people who 
are most vulnerable in crashes are older adults and people with 
disabilities.
    Like many of my peers, I get a text message every time 
somebody is injured or killed in a crash, and that happens at 
least twice a day. I agree with the other speakers that I am 
hopeful that AVs can help us end this human suffering as soon 
as the technology has proven that it is ready.
    As Chair Pallone pointed out, the National Transportation 
Safety Board report on the Uber fatality in Tempe, Arizona, 
recently found that the AV that killed Elaine Herzberg did not 
accurately classify her as a pedestrian and, thus, failed to 
predict her path and avoid her. Even though the vehicle 
perceived her in plenty of time to stop, these classification 
and prediction failures contributed to her death.
    AVs in San Francisco face a much more chaotic environment 
than they do in Tempe. We cannot just hope that the industry 
can dramatically reduce road injuries. We need the industry to 
prove that AVs can perceive, classify, and predict the path of 
every person on a street full of pedestrians and cyclists 
before they are allowed to deploy at scale.
    The AV driving behavior we witness on our streets every day 
appears to be very cautious, but we can't yet tell if that 
behavior reflects good driving or is simply that the technology 
is having trouble with critical perception and processing tasks 
at a high enough speed to operate safely.
    We think there are two essential elements for Federal AV 
legislation that put safety as the top priority. First, 
Congress should require companies to include event data 
recorders in all AVs that preserve all information from sensors 
before a collision. This information will help us understand 
what kinds of circumstances challenge the capabilities of AV 
technology.
    Second, Congress should ensure that every safety incident 
involving an AV is documented in a national database that is 
available to researchers and the public. A national database 
will ensure that we have the tools to measure whether AVs 
actually are driving more safely than humans.
    These two steps should help NHTSA move quickly to develop 
automated driving safety standards and build a foundation for 
assessing when the industry is ready to scale up production and 
put more AVs on our Nation's roadways.
    There is also one thing that is important to exclude from 
AV legislation: any change to the existing Federal preemption 
language. Current law preempts State and local governments from 
enacting laws that conflict with an existing Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard. The industry wants to flip this rule 
on its head so State and local governments are preempted, even 
when the Federal Government has not enacted a safety standard.
    Given that it may take NHTSA many years to develop 
automated driving safety standards, it would be irresponsible 
for Congress to interfere with the ability of State and local 
governments to protect the public from the risks we learn of 
through our existing testing processes.
    We are still in the early stages of learning how this 
technology can function to increase safety on city streets. At 
this stage, I think innovation in the private sector is best 
met by innovation in the public sector. We all learn more as 
States try different strategies to safely incorporate vehicles 
in the stream of traffic. This is not a time for stifling local 
innovation.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tumlin follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
    And we have concluded witness opening statements, and at 
this time, we will move to member questions. Each member will 
have 5 minutes to ask questions of our witnesses. And I will 
begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
    There are now no existing safety standard regulations--I am 
going to start over.
    There are no existing safety standards regulating the 
sophisticated software and systems that will be controlling an 
autonomous vehicle. Although the Department of Transportation 
and NHTSA have been working on guidance and beginning the 
process on some rulemaking, their focus has been primarily on 
eliminating regulatory barriers.
    So I wanted to ask Ms. Chase: Do you share my belief that 
NHTSA needs more encouragement from Congress to focus on safety 
during these early days of testing and deploying--and 
deployment?
    Ms. Chase. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for the question. 
Yes, we most certainly agree with you. In fact, you know better 
than anyone else that even when Congress directs the Department 
of Transportation to issue a rulemaking, such as the rearview 
camera rule, it takes about ten years--we started that battle 
ten years, soup to nuts, and then we wound up even having to 
sue the administration to release the rule because it was 
caught up in the OMB.
    So we most certainly need more authority for NHTSA, and 
that includes imminent hazard authority, which is lacking right 
now, so that when there are problems on the road, NHTSA can act 
with accuracy and deliberacy to get these vehicles off the 
road.
    Additionally, NHTSA needs the ability to issue criminal 
hazard--criminal penalties when needed when executives have--
knowingly know that there are problems with the product that 
they are putting on the road.
    Thirdly, NHTSA needs to remove--Congress needs to direct 
NHTSA to remove the civil penalty cap that currently exists for 
penalties.
    So NHTSA needs more--to do more, but it needs Congress to 
tell it to do more, because it is not acting on its own. And 
there is tremendous frustration among the safety community that 
they continue to issue these voluntary guidelines. We are now 
at 4.0. If they started back at the time when they started 
doing the voluntary guidelines with rulemakings, we would be on 
the path to having, you know, minimum performance standards for 
some of these technologies, but that hasn't happened.
    So the frustration that was expressed in this room should 
be, in part, directed toward the regulatory body that is 
issued--that is charged with making our roads safer for 
everyone, and we encourage Congress to move forward with 
legislation that includes regulations so that these 
technologies are put on the roads safely.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
    Mr. Hinkle, why does the deployment of autonomous vehicles 
pose different challenges to consumers' access to the courts 
than traditional vehicles?
    Mr. Hinkle. Thank you, Chairwoman. Automated vehicles raise 
a number of unique issues regarding the way we consider the 
liability framework regarding how these crashes are going to be 
investigated and handled.
    One of the most important, though, is that by the removal 
of the human driver from the equation and replacing it with a 
manufacturer's developed and automated driving system, you have 
a corporate entity that is now in tight relationships with 
things like the ride handling companies or the others that are 
going to be utilizing their vehicles in order to deploy this 
technology.
    Mr. Hinkle. That raises significant changes to the way 
forced arbitration is currently employed across the country 
today. Right now, if I am in an Uber or a Lyft vehicle and I am 
going down the road and that Uber driver runs a red light and 
causes a collision, I can still have recourse against that 
individual driver, but Uber has repeatedly raised their forced 
arbitration clause to try to shut off the ability to even ask 
the question whether they bear some responsibility in this 
situation.
    So we saw this most recently in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania, 
Uber raised their forced arbitration clause to prevent an 
individual who is seriously injured from even asking the 
question whether they should be responsible for these 
situations.
    It is not that we know for sure definitely that Uber should 
or should not in these situations. That is a contested open 
question. I think that there is a lot of different lawyers on 
both sides who have very strong arguments regarding that, but 
Uber didn't want to answer the question. They don't want to 
know what the law is. They just want it to go away. And so they 
have invoked their forced arbitration clause and try to make it 
go away, just like they invoke their forced arbitration clause 
against all of the drivers out in California to try to hold 
them accountable under a similar framework out there.
    In California, they successfully invoked their forced 
arbitration clause. When those drivers lined up to say, all 
right, you want to do arbitration, let's go to arbitration, 
they didn't pay the arbitration fee. They don't want to go to 
arbitration. They don't want to go to court. They don't want to 
know what the rules are. They don't want to know anything.
    Forced arbitration is used as a get-out-of-jail-free card. 
It is a way that we don't know what the law is regarding 
automated driving and automated vehicles, and that is one of 
the most significant changes that I think is present in the 
automated vehicle space.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
    Five minutes goes pretty fast. I yield back.
    And now I recognize our ranking member on the subcommittee, 
Ms. Rodgers, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Before I begin my questions, I would first like to offer a 
letter for the record from Senator Thune and Senator Peters, 
who have been champions of autonomous vehicle legislation in 
the Senate and are committed to finding a bipartisan path 
forward.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mrs. Rodgers. I would also like to offer a letter for the 
record from the Coalition for Future Mobility, signed by 44 
companies and organizations, encouraging us to move self-
driving legislation forward.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
    My first question is for the panel. And as the Chair just 
said, 5 minutes goes by quickly, so I am going to ask you to 
answer yes or no and do it as quickly as you can. Just yes or 
no would be great.
    Do you agree that autonomous vehicles hold the promise to 
save lives and improve mobility for people with disabilities 
and our seniors?
    And I will start with you, Ms. Chase.
    Ms. Chase. Yes, with proper regulatory guidelines.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
    Mr. Bozzella. Yes.
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes.
    Mr. Hinkle. Yes, they hold that promise.
    Mr. Riccobono. Yes, absolutely.
    Mr. Tumlin. Yes, the promise.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
    Mr. Bozzella, if Congress fails to act, do we risk losing 
out on safety and mobility benefits you all just agreed will 
come with autonomous vehicles and risk seeing them go to 
another country?
    Mr. Bozzella. Yes, I think that is exactly right. First and 
foremost, we risk the safety benefits, and that would be 
tragic, given the numbers we have been talking about at this 
subcommittee. I think also we do risk losing our lead with 
regard to innovation. And when we lose our lead with regard to 
innovation, we lose the ability to set the running rules for 
these technologies going forward. We want to have leadership 
both in--with regard to innovation and with regard to setting 
the rules that I think this panel all agree need to develop.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Right. Thank you.
    Mr. Shapiro, there is a clear global race to AVs. To win 
the future and unleash innovation here at home, do you agree 
that Congress must establish a Federal framework for the safe 
development and deployment ofautonomous vehicles?
    Mr. Shapiro. Absolutely I do, because we are competing with 
China and other countries. China, which has a very different 
view of civil liberties than we do, we are competing with them 
for artificial intelligence. And this is about artificial 
intelligence, in part, and robotics, and this is essentially a 
robot. And right now, they are producing a million engineers a 
year. They don't care about privacy, and they don't care about 
the rights that we care about as Americans, and they have a 
really good strategy. And we are fighting about things like 
protecting trial lawyers and other things, while they are 
getting ahead of us, and I don't think this is a healthy way to 
approach this issue. I think we should be focusing on safety, 
empowerment and, also competitiveness, and those are the things 
which could guide us as we go forward.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
    Mr. Riccobono, thank you for being here. In your testimony, 
you made clear that for Americans to realize the benefits of 
this technology, Congress must be proactive and expeditious in 
paving the way forAVs. Can you please explain what this 
technology means to you and your community?
    Mr. Riccobono. Well, in brief, this technology really holds 
the promise to give blind people, again, access to a system of 
mobility that we just have not had before. And it is really 
important for Congress to act for some of the same reasons that 
have just been articulated. Our Nation, because of the work of 
people with disabilities, in cooperation with the leaders of 
our Nation, has set a tone that people with disabilities are to 
participate fully and have the right to be in the world. Other 
nations do not hold that same belief. And if we do not marry 
accessibility and inclusion with the technology and innovation 
framework, we will lose that competitive advantage that we have 
built into the United States democracy.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you very much.
    And to the Chair, I want you to know I am committed to 
finding a bipartisan path forward here. I believe it is so 
important that we lead. You know, I have been visiting high 
schools in eastern Washington this last year and talking to 
them about autonomous vehicles.
    I have a son with special needs, and I think about his 
future and how this will just change it. You know, I have 
been--Brian and I have thought, well, we need to find Cole a 
place near Gonzaga University so he will have young people, 
that he could have friends and able to get around. Autonomous 
vehicles will change his life.
    My dad, 82 years old, took me to the airport the other day 
and says, Cathy, I probably shouldn't be driving. I was like, 
huh, OK, you know. But he lives independent right now. He is 
president of the Sinto Senior Center, and he lives--he rents a 
house right next door, and he can walk to the senior center 
where his life, his friends, and his activities day in and day 
out are. But a driverless car would mean that he could live 
independent more.
    I think about congestion, what it would mean to just the 
movement of people and goods, and I think about 37,000 
individuals who lost their lives last year on our roads. This 
is a huge opportunity for us.
    And I will yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
    Let me just say I agree with you when we talk about the 
promise but, you know, and we have to work together to get it 
right.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Yes.
    Ms. Schakowsky. And to make sure that safety is protected 
and the rights of consumers are protected.
    And now let me recognize the chairman of the full 
committee, Mr. Pallone.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    States and localities play an important role in protecting 
consumers. Cities can establish speed limits, restrict trucks 
from entering residential areas, and prohibit oversized 
vehicles from going into tunnels and under bridges. Localities 
need to know that when a fire truck or ambulance is speeding to 
an accident, vehicles, including self-driving vehicles, will 
get out of the way. And if the self-driving vehicle violates 
traffic laws, police have to be able to pull them over.
    So let me start with Mr. Tumlin. In your written testimony, 
you state that it would be irresponsible for Congress to 
interfere with the ability of State and local officials to 
protect the public from risks we learn of through the testing 
process. Could you explain what authority States and localities 
need to protect residents during the early stages of AV 
deployment? Quickly, of course, since we got a lot.
    Mr. Tumlin. We need all of the authorities that we have 
now, and we are concerned that the preemption language in the 
proposed legislation takes away the authority and power that we 
have now to keep our streets safe.
    Mr. Pallone. OK. Ms. Chase, under current law, State and 
local governments are only prohibited from setting safety 
standards if those laws or regulations conflict with Federal 
standards. Has this regulatory framework impeded automakers' 
ability to develop and deploy innovative technologies, and 
could we expect that to happen in the future?
    Ms. Chase. I would say that it is not impeding anything, 
especially considering what has been shared today, and that in 
the absence of Federal regulation, it is, in fact, the duty of 
States and localities to protect their citizens in the void of 
Federal regulation.
    Mr. Pallone. OK. And NHTSA requires manufacturers to report 
information regarding potential defects, and it collects data 
regarding accidents from a variety of sources, and this 
information is critical to identifying systematic problems with 
vehicles. In the context of AVs, NHTSA will need to collect 
performance and accident data to develop motor vehicle safety 
standards and ensure the safety of vehicles and pedestrians. 
Let me go back to the two of you.
    Mr. Tumlin, what information would be useful for State and 
local governments, and how could this information be used to 
further safety goals?
    Mr. Tumlin. We would like all of the sensor data that 
occurs both before and immediately following a collision, as 
well as disengagements, when the human driver is forced to take 
over when the AV system fails. Having all of that and storing 
it in a national database will allow us to analyze that 
information and help us and the industry learn and improve.
    Mr. Pallone. OK. And then, Ms. Chase, what information do 
you believe NHTSA needs to collect in order for the agency to 
promulgate safety standards?
    Ms. Chase. I agree with what Mr. Tumlin said. Additionally, 
I think that there should be a national consumer database so 
that people can look up, like they can now on the NHTSA 
website, and see how cars are performing. I think this should 
be attributable to autonomous vehicles as well, so you can see 
what the capabilities and limitations, especially if there are 
exemptions, how the car performs, so that consumers can be 
educated, especially when autonomous vehicles down the road 
become secondhand vehicles. I don't think people are thinking 
about that enough. And there won't be, you know, paper manuals, 
and then there will be over-the-air updates. So I think it is 
essential for consumers to be able to access this information 
online.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you.
    I thank the panel.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
    And now I recognize the vice chair of--the ranking member 
of the full committee, Mr. Walden, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Walden. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And, Chair Schakowsky, before I begin my questions, I would 
like to first offer for the record a letter from Argo AI, 
supporting a federal framework for self-driving vehicles.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Without objection----
    Mr. Walden. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Schakowsky [continue]. So ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Walden. Mr. Bozzella, The American Association for 
Justice claims in their testimony today that your members 
almost never voluntary embrace safety technology, which seems 
to suggest your efforts to advance this lifesaving technology 
is not at all about safety. So, I assume your family members, 
your friends, your employees all drive cars and you want them 
to be safe too. How would you respond to this claim?
    Mr. Bozzella. There is no question that safety is first and 
foremost in everything we do in this space, and I am very proud 
of the safety record of this industry. It starts with the 
research, development, data, and insight that are provided to 
NHTSA that are the foundation for Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards that are established. It goes to voluntary 
commitments to improve safety that go back to the 1940s with 
headlamp innovations that were groundbreaking in their time. 
Think about front-crash compatibility. That is a voluntary 
agreement. Think about out-of-position side airbag testing. 
That was a voluntary commitment. Think about the work that we 
have done with regard to rear seat reminders for heatstroke 
victims. That is a voluntary commitment. And think about 
automatic emergency braking, a groundbreaking voluntary 
commitment.
    Why is that important? Because that technology is a 
building block technology for the technologies you will see 
inautomated vehicles. In 2016, 20 companies made a commitment 
to have that equipment standard in vehicles by 2022. Four 
companies have already achieved that. We are ahead of the game.
    Mr. Walden. I just want to ask you something else. As I 
listen to all this--and I dealt with this as chairman of the 
committee when we passed the bill--we're going to have 
autonomous vehicles. Right? Somebody is going to develop them. 
The question is whether we develop them here or not. Right? And 
so, I mean, that is the way I look at this.
    And so, Mr. Shapiro, I want to go to you. The Advocates for 
Highway and Auto Safety suggest in their testimony today that 
those of us who want the U.S. to win the global race to AVs, to 
ensure Americans enjoy the vast safety and mobility benefits 
are fear-inducing and misleading, but this race is real and we 
are falling behind. In Ms. Chase's testimony, she claims Japan 
has not begun to address the highest levels of automation but 
that, I don't think, is quite the case. Toyota's LQ, a Level 4 
vehicle that was developed in partnership with the Toyota 
Research Institute here in the U.S., will be made available for 
public rides in the fall, not here in the U.S. but Japan.
    So, Mr. Shapiro, anyone that knows anything about the 
innovation business knows that certainty is paramount, right? 
And if we fail to enact Federal framework that provides a 
viable path to commercialization, do we risk investments in 
this technology going abroad?
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes, we do take that risk, and those that 
provide the certainty in the environment will get the 
investment. So it is incumbent upon the U.S. to be a leader, 
because we have the fundamental technologies here. We have the 
auto infrastructure. We have Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3. Plus, we 
have all the great Silicon Valley startups and others, and they 
are modeling around the country. We are doing a lot of the 
right things. We do need Congress to pass this legislation.
    But I think we also have to keep in mind--and there are 
some great proposals here, and in a perfect world, we would go 
for many of them. But we can't--we are not going to be perfect. 
We can't make the perfect the enemy of the amazing and the 
great, and we are on the verge of getting the amazing and the 
great. And if we put all these proposals that have put it there 
and we require them to be put in every car, the car is going to 
cost six figures at a minimum. We just can't get there.
    The way technology diffuses is, at the very beginning, it 
is really expensive, and when you get economies to scale, you 
can get it cheaper and cheaper. And that is one of the reason 
we would like to see that 2,500 exemption expanded so companies 
can actually start making it so it is cheaper for everyone to 
have access.
    Mr. Walden. And, Chair Schakowsky, I would like to offer 
for the record Toyota's press release about the LQ, which I 
think would be helpful. I think you have that as well.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
    The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Walden. I was just offering something.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Oh, I am sorry. What did you ask for?
    Mr. Walden. I was having it entered in the record. It was a 
unanimous consent.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Without objection, so ordered. Sorry.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Walden. No, it is fine.
    Mr. Riccobono, I am excited about the vast mobility 
benefits self-driving cars promise to deliver to the American 
people. Can you explain how transformational you believe this 
technology will be for your community?
    Mr. Riccobono. Yes, thank you for the question. You know, 
again, blind people and people with disabilities have to go 
through extraordinary efforts to get to the basic places they 
want to go, whether it is employment, whether it is medical 
appointment, whether it is an emergency run often to the drug 
store when your child is sick.
    Having access to easy, affordable, reliable transportation 
will transform the opportunities that people with disabilities 
have to participate fully in society, and eliminate a lot of 
the artificial barriers, the costs of being a person with a 
disability in America today, the unfair costs.
    And so this technology and the promise in building 
accessibility in from the beginning does really have the power 
to empower the lives of people with disabilities and help us 
get to our dreams.
    Mr. Walden. Thank you.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. And I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman does yield back.
    And now I recognize Congresswoman Castor for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Castor. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I want to continue our discussion about safety standards, 
because safety standards save lives. But current safety 
standards were adopted with the underlying assumption that a 
human, not a computer, is operating the vehicle. As a result, 
innovative autonomous vehicles, including vehicles without a 
steering wheel or without pedals, for example, cannot comply 
with several safety standards.
    Under current law, the national highway safety--National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration may permit a manufacturer 
to deploy 2,500 noncompliant vehicles per year by granting an 
exemption. The AV industry is advocating to eliminate or 
increase the cap on the number of AVs permitted to be 
commercially deployed under exemption.
    Ms. Chase, do you support these proposals?
    Ms. Chase. I do not support that. In fact, I don't 
understand why companies aren't availing themselves of the 
current exemption process. In fact, just yesterday, Nuro was 
granted an exemption. Now, I don't agree with all of the 
underlying reasons for the granting of the process, but the 
process exists. And if companies are confident with their 
product, why aren't they applying? I know that GM has applied. 
So far, there has been no action taken on it, but let's work 
within the process that exists right now. And then if that is 
not working, I think we can move ahead. It seems to me that the 
end-around of the exemption process is motivated by corporate 
profit.
    Ms. Castor. So to grant an exemption, the Secretary must 
determine that the AV provides a level of safety comparable to 
traditional vehicles, but traditional vehicles are operated by 
humans and not computers. Let's talk about the criteria, then, 
for those exemptions.
    Ms. Chase, should NHTSA evaluate the automatic--automated 
driving system, the sophisticated software, and the systems 
that control the autonomous vehicles when making a 
determination on whether to grant or deny the exemption?
    Ms. Chase. Thank you for the question. NHTSA most certainly 
should be evaluating. In fact, I included, as part of my 
written testimony, some pictures of the crashes that have 
occurred so far with Level 2 vehicles, mostly Tesla--and I am 
not beating up on Tesla, this is just factual--of the crashes 
that have happened. And absent--you know, they range from in 
California to Connecticut. All over the country this is 
happening right now, playing out without regulations.
    So I think that it is incumbent upon NHTSA to do its duty. 
It is a regulatory body. In fact, that is its mission and its 
charge, to issue regulations immediately.
    Ms. Castor. So, Mr. Bozzella, that is fairly fundamental. 
Certainly, you would agree with that, that basic kind of 
criteria.
    Mr. Bozzella. There is no question about it. Really, the 
bill that you have passed does the things we need to do. What 
it does is it creates a regulatory process. And if you think 
about what NHTSA needs in order to rewrite the motor vehicle 
safety standards that you rightly point out are based on hands 
and feet and eyes, what they need is data. And the way they get 
that data is by safely engaging a regulatory process.
    Frankly, exemption is a misnomer. It is an application that 
is approved by NHTSA on a case-by-case basis, looking at data 
and making a determination about safety. What that does is it 
provides NHTSA with the data they need to revise those rules 
going forward. It is critically important, and I think the 
action that you have taken in expanding that program, more 
exemptions provide more data. More data provides the ability 
for the rulemaker to make good rules.
    Ms. Castor. I am quite excited about the potential for 
innovation with AVs, but I am more excited about the innovation 
for electric vehicles. According to reports, many AVs will be 
fully or partially electric. Many engineers say that the 
autonomous technology fits better, innovates better with 
electric motors. We definitely want America and American 
workers to have the competitive edge as these develop.
    How many of your member companies, Mr. Bozzella, plan to 
have electric autonomous vehicles, and will AVs help us 
transition to a fully electric fleet?
    Mr. Bozzella. I do think what you are seeing is the trend 
you have described. You are seeing many of these automated 
vehicle platforms also evolving on electric vehicle platforms, 
and I think you have also rightly pointed out why that is. Many 
of these vehicles will be fleet vehicles. Fleet vehicles and 
EVs are a nice match. While EVs might be a little bit more 
expensive with regard to initial purchase price, they are less 
expensive to operate on an ongoing basis and over the lifetime 
of the vehicle. So there is a nice synergy between those two 
technologies, and I think that that is an important aspect of 
how AVs can support environmental progress.
    Ms. Castor. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
    I now recognize Mr. Upton for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Upton. Thank you, Madam Chair. I too have a letter I am 
going to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record from 
Ford, if I might.
    And thank you all for your testimony today.
    I guess I want to start off by saying, Mr. Bozzella, you 
talked about, in your testimony, you risk--we risk this country 
losing the lead.
    Mr. Shapiro, you said that we are behind China, Japan, 
Canada, and a number of other countries.
    You know, we passed a bill. Every member of this committee 
in the last Congress voted for the bill. We passed it on the 
House floor. Even some people who always vote no on whatever 
you might name voted for the bill, and it got stalled in the 
Senate.
    What are these other countries doing--China, Japan, 
Canada--that we aren't doing here? Why are they ahead of us? Is 
it only because wehave not passed legislation? What are some of 
the steps that they have done that we have failed to address?
    And I just might add, in some of the testimony that we have 
had, I do believe, going back to the question that Ms. Castor 
had about having enough data, I think it is important that we 
have a national database. So we want accountability. We want to 
measure exactly what we are doing. I think maybe if we can 
enhance that, use that as an improvement, a constructive 
improvement on where we were before, that that would be a good 
thing.
    But what is it that we need to do to catch up and pass 
these other countries, otherwise, knowing that we lose not only 
the jobs, but we also lose the safety that folks would 
otherwise have?
    Mr. Bozzella.
    Mr. Bozzella. Thank you for the question, Mr. Upton. So, 
first, set the Federal framework. Let's get that right.
    Mr. Upton. So is Canada and China, have they done that?
    Mr. Bozzella. I think--by the way, I do think we do have a 
lead right now. I am not quite sure I would suggest we have 
relinquished that lead yet. My concern is we are likely to 
stall if congressional action doesn't go forward, and the 
reason for that is two things need to happen.
    We need to have a robust regulatory process that 
transitions us to new rules, and without an expanded exemption 
process, we don't get there. The second thing we need to do is 
we do need to make sure that we get the right operating lanes 
between what is the sole purview of the Federal Government and 
is what is rightly the space of the State and local 
governments. And I think State and local governments do have a 
role in reducing barriers to AV deployment and they do have a 
role in encouraging public awareness and public acceptance. And 
so what this bill does rightly is make progress in both of 
those critical areas.
    Mr. Upton. Mr. Shapiro.
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes, I want to clarify. When I was talking 
about us falling behind, I was talking the bigger context of 
artificial intelligence, 5G, robotics, and all this is tied 
into self-driving.
    So when you look at what some of these other countries, 
especially China, are doing, they do have a national strategy. 
It is a national goal. I think what we lack is a national goal. 
I would encourage any administration, Democrat or Republican, 
to stand up and say we have a goal of having X percent of fewer 
deaths by X year, and that is where we could all work towards 
the same goal.
    Right now, we're not working towards the same goal. We have 
different goals, different purposes, and an unclear set of--
sense of urgency, and we need to have that sense of urgency to 
meet these goals. And the fact is that there is so many things 
that fall off from that in terms of economy. It is, of course, 
about saving lives and reducing injuries and empowering people, 
but it is also about our economy and our way of life, frankly.
    So all these things are tied together very dramatically. 
And what China is doing is actually they have made self-driving 
vehicles a national priority. They are establishing technology 
standards. They have industry guidelines for self-driving 
vehicles. They are tying some of this into the Olympics. They 
have mass production of self-driving buses with Baidu. They are 
starting production of self-driving passenger cars this year, 
and Beijing has a very large demonstration area for self-
driving vehicles. And this is what the Chinese Government is 
focused on. They have made the goal. I mean, they are doing 
what we should be doing.
    But I think we could do it better because we have the 
technology. And if we could keep it and can keep it here and 
lay out the framework and the guidelines as laid out in this 
legislation, we will be on the long way to getting there.
    Mr. Upton. Yes. I just might add--thank you.
    Before I ask my next question, if I have enough time, I 
just might mention that at one point, I chaired the Oversight 
Subcommittee. And under Chairman Billy Tauzin, one of the 
things that we did way back when was we passed the TREAD Act. 
And we had it--and, Mr. Bozzella, you had a different hat on 
then. You weren't with Ford or Firestone, but we actually 
rolled a tire down this dais, and we passed major bipartisan 
legislation, and we included criminal sanctions on individuals 
in the automotive industry when they knew of a defect that was 
actually going to lead to a tragic end.
    As I recall, some 80 folks died because of that Firestone 
tire; but we identified it, we corrected it. It was very hard 
to get the criminal sanctions through the Senate, but we got it 
done and the President signed it into law.
    So, in my view, we can look back at that. And when there is 
an issue, Mr. Hinkle, we can look at that legislation and find 
out who is responsible. But at the same time, today, we can't 
accept 50,000 people dying every year because of inaction on 
our part, when it can be tens of thousands of people less. If 
not now, when? If not us, who?
    I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
    And now I recognize Congresswoman Kelly for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Chairwoman Schakowsky and Ranking 
Member McMorris Rodgers, for holding this hearing. I am hopeful 
that this committee will continue its leadership on autonomous 
vehicles and pass a comprehensive bill this Congress.
    The current NHTSA exemption for self-driving vehicles is 
5,000 vehicles over 2 years. I have heard manufacturers say 
that they need to test self-driving vehicles in several markets 
with different weather, topography, and operating conditions to 
really get good data. The current draft text works its way up 
to 100,000 cars over a few years after passage.
    Ms. Chase, if there were any issues with these vehicles, 
NHTSA still has the authority to recall them. Is that correct?
    Ms. Chase. That is correct, but they also can test 
unlimitedly right now. There is a big difference between 
testing and selling and deploying. They can test in these 
conditions right now.
    Ms. Kelly. OK. Ms. Chase and Mr. Bozzella, does this 
incremental approach to 100,000 vehicles able to provide 
security to drivers and give manufacturers certainty for 
investment in this technology?
    Ms. Chase. No, it does not.
    Mr. Bozzella. I believe it does, absolutely. It is integral 
to the rulemaking process. This is the preeminent safety 
regulator regulating.
    Ms. Kelly. Well, do the numbers in the staff draft, 25,000 
after one year of enactment, 50,000 the next, and 100,000 the 
following year, seem appropriate to you both?
    Ms. Chase. I think it is really important to think about, 
it is just not that number in toto; it is that number for each 
manufacturer. We are talking about a lot of vehicles right now 
that are going to be exempt from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards. I don't want to be on the roads with cars that are 
exempt from these safety standards. In fact, we offer that 
there should be many more safety standards. And I am not 
talking about an owner's regulation. We are talking about 
minimum performance standards. If a company cannot comply with 
a minimum performance standard, then the vehicle should not be 
on the roads.
    Mr. Bozzella. The exemption process is the path, the 
bridge, to modernized motor vehicle safety standards. That is 
what we are talking about here. The need to expand the 
exemptions, yes, speaks to some degree to dealing with or 
providing vehicles in different conditions, but really, more 
importantly, it is to provide NHTSA with important data. And, 
by the way, this process has been used before. There are 
current applications with regard to AVs, but it has also been 
used to introduce other groundbreaking technology into the 
marketplace, for example, hybrid electric vehicles. And So this 
is a well-trod path that the responsible regulator is making 
sure that we are assuring safety as we introduce these 
technologies into the marketplace.
    Ms. Kelly. OK. These new vehicles are relying on a lot of 
technology that uses cameras and sensors to detect cars 
traveling at high speeds and pedestrians crossing the street. 
Anything that compromises these systems is a grave threat. As 
chair of the Tech Accountability Caucus, I believe 
cybersecurity must be central to any bill that we advance to 
ensure consumer safety.
    Mr. Shapiro, there have been dramatic demonstrations of 
hackers being able to take over a vehicle from hacking the 
entertainment system. From a technical perspective, how 
important is segmentation between critical safety systems and 
other car systems?
    Mr. Shapiro. That is a great question. Thank you. 
Obviously, cyber threats are continuing. They are always 
changing. So putting something in a fix and saying this is the 
way it must be, is a very dangerous thing. And I think what the 
industry is doing is trying to step up in a number of ways. 
Automakers created the Automotive Information Sharing and 
Analysis Center to focus on best practices. Our organization, 
through CSDE, is leading the effort on IoT baseline security 
with NIST. This is the Center to Secure the Digital Economy. It 
is a coalition with the USTelecom and 13 other major technology 
companies and 20 trade associations. It is folks in Internet of 
Things, cybersecurity, because this is part--a self-driving car 
is part of the Internet of Things.
    So it is incumbent upon us as industry to step forward and 
keep addressing these things. But I am not going to kid you 
here; this is going to be a constantly changing situation. As 
these thieves or these disrupters get smarter, we build smarter 
mousetraps, but we have to stay current. So our goal is to 
focus on the action, rather than specify certain--obviously, 
focus on best practices, but always keep changing and growing 
them.
    Ms. Kelly. Ms. Chase, in your testimony, you talk about 
safety upgrades and over-the-air updates. How do you believe 
that vehicle lifecycle should be addressed, and how should 
Congress address not only product upgrades, but also security 
vulnerability patching?
    Ms. Chase. I would offer that Congress should direct NHTSA 
to issue minimum performance standards on these subject 
matters. There will be over-the-air updates, we know that, and 
they are vulnerable to cyber attacks and even on a less 
sophisticated, you know, manner. So NHTSA needs to do its job 
and regulate in this area.
    Ms. Kelly. Mr. Bozzella, any thoughts on cybersecurity?
    Mr. Bozzella. It is critically important. I appreciate your 
question and your leadership on this.
    I think Gary touched on a couple of things. We do have, 
right now, a process to share information about vulnerabilities 
and threats. That is critically important. That is job one. Job 
two, establish best practices. Make sure cybersecurity is 
designed in to vehicle systems.
    I would also note that ISO and SAE are working on an 
industry standard on cybersecurity focused on practices and 
process, which is an approach that is, I think, more effective 
than identifying a specific vulnerability and regulating around 
that. We need to keep the process moving and lead moving up as 
opposed to driving down to the lowest common denominator.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you. I am out of time.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Now I want to recognize someone who has a 
long history of supporting autonomous vehicles, my friend, Mr. 
Latta.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you very 
much for holding today's hearing. It is very, very important.
    Mr. Shapiro, if I might start with you, Nuro recently 
received an exemption from NHTSA. The word "exemption" seems to 
be misleading because it implies something has been waived. In 
fact, the opposite is true when it comes to safety, because 
developers must prove their vehicle meets or exceeds the safety 
of a nonexempt vehicle. And in the last Congress, during these 
hearings, I always said safety first, safety last, safety 
always.
    Would you explain what barriers currently exist to gaining 
an exemption and how Congress must act to address them?
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, the exemption process obviously has 
limits. One of the limits is, is that we would like to see it 
expanded so that everyone can apply for exemptions, just not 
Tier 1 auto companies. There is a lot of new players in this 
space, and we think they should be welcome. I mean, the 
challenge we face with any innovation, it has been my history, 
is that you have existing companies create regulatory--they use 
government to create barriers, just the way trial lawyers are 
trying to create a barrier to this change by making it sound 
like they are trying to protect consumers.
    So in terms of the exemption process, the limitation on the 
number is a barrier. It is obviously the 10-year process of 
changing a rule at NHTSA is way too long when we don't need 
some of the things, obviously, because they are built around 
someone physically driving a car. So we need exemptions to move 
forward, but exemptions can't be a roadblock.
    I think the other thing about exemptions to consider is--
and some of the discussion here--is if you are going for zero 
deaths, you will never get there at least in our lifetime, 
because that is not reality. The reality is we are going to 
experience incidents with self-driving cars even in the future. 
Not everything can possibly be anticipated. And the only way to 
view that healthily is to view that against the number of 
deaths--of lives we are actually saving.
    And when we reach a hundred lives saved for every death or 
more than that, it just makes common sense to say let's save a 
hundred lives, even though we know there is risks here, just 
the way we all drive cars, even though there is over 30,000 
deaths a year. So the exemption process is important. It is 
important for commercialization, it is important for certainty, 
but the bar has to be one which is balancing all the different 
interests involved.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
    And, Madam Chair, I would also ask unanimous consent to 
submit a letter of support for legislative efforts on self-
drive legislation from Nuro.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Without objection----
    Mr. Latta. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Schakowsky [continue]. So ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Riccobono, if I could ask you a question, I personally 
understand the benefits self-drive is going to have for those 
who are visually impaired. My mom was told, when she was young, 
that she would be blind by the time she was 25. Fortunately, 
she never became totally blind, but she had a severe vision 
problem her entire life and she gave up even driving when I was 
16. And so she became dependent for the next 45 years of her 
life on my dad, my sister, and me to make sure she could get 
places.
    For manufacturers to develop a car that is fully 
accessible, they would have to be granted exemptions by NHTSA. 
Would you please tell us why it is important for manufacturers 
to have flexibility to be able to build an AV that is 
operational for blind Americans?
    Mr. Riccobono. Yes, I appreciate the question. You know, 
accessibility and innovation go hand in hand, and I think one 
of our priorities and concerns in this process is that the 
exemption process allow companies to innovate accessibility 
solutions, especially working with people with disabilities.
    We know from our experience in so many other areas that 
including accessibility from the very beginning actually helps 
products be better for everyone. And when companies are allowed 
to innovate and compete around accessibility beyond what we can 
imagine from a standard today, we actually get better products 
for everyone, and that include people with disabilities and 
don't exclude people unnecessarily. So we think that it is 
important because it promotes innovation and it shows that we 
as a Nation value the participation of everybody.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you.
    Mr. Shapiro, I have about 30 seconds left. As the 
Republican leader on the Comm and Tech Subcommittee, one of our 
focuses has been on making sure we can secure our supply chain 
by removing vulnerable equipment from networks, commonly 
referred to as rip and replace. I am concerned we could face a 
similar situation in the United States in the lead on 
development of AVs. Chinese technology could dominate the world 
marketplace, and we would wonder why this would happen. In 
China, companies are always operating AV cars on the roads and 
collecting American's data. How can we and should we ensure the 
security of self-driving cars on our roadways?
    Mr. Shapiro. I think because of the tire situation and the 
coronavirus, that companies themselves are naturally looking at 
alternative sources of supply chains. The Huawei situation, 
which I think you are referring to, has definitely been an eye 
opener for a lot of people. As a national strategy, that is a 
bigger discussion in terms of what we do to ensure that we 
protect our most vulnerable sources of supply, especially with 
those with military application, which clearly these do. So we 
have to approach that more strategically and figure out what it 
is we really need and what we should be doing here or with our 
allies.
    Mr. Latta. I thank you.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. I now recognize Mr. Veasey for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Well, I think it has been well covered now that tens of 
thousands of people a year are, you know, sadly, killed in 
automobile accidents, and all of us want to do what we can to 
try to make that. I am sure everybody in this room has been 
affected by someone losing their life or being seriously 
injured in an automobile accident. However, NHTSA, it is hard 
to imagine that they can be an effective regulator of this 
innovation and of autonomous vehicles without appropriate 
resources and expertise.
    And so I wanted to ask Mr. Bozzella a question today. How 
do you think these resource constraints inhibit NHTSA from 
facilitating the safe deployment of autonomous vehicles?
    Mr. Bozzella. Yes, thank you for the question. I want to--
before we get right to the resources, I think we have to talk 
about authorities first. NHTSA does have significant 
authorities to investigate, to recall when necessary, to 
conduct investigations with vehicles that are on the road 
today, whether they are on the road through the FMVSS process 
or through the exemption process.
    I also want to point out that the tort system that has been 
described to you by Mr. Hinkle is in strong effect in this case 
and nothing in the bill that you have passed would affect that. 
And so we do have a strong foundation.
    With regard to resources, frankly, I respectfully would 
suggest that I would ask Congress that question. Do you believe 
that the agency is properly resourced? We are the regulated 
industry. We work with NHTSA all the time. It is important that 
they are able to do their job and, you know, it really, 
frankly, it is a question for you as to whether you think the 
resources are appropriately deployed.
    Mr. Veasey. Yes. Ms. Chase, you have any opinions on that?
    Ms. Chase. Yes. NHTSA gets one percent of the U.S. 
Department of Transportation budget, but 99--approximately, 99 
percent of fatalities are happening on our roads. So I think 
there is a gross miscalculation there on the resources that are 
being dedicated to NHTSA.
    And, in fact, yesterday, the President submitted his 
proposal--budget proposal, which reduces NHTSA's O&R budget by 
$55 million, which is a quarter percent of the budget. So that 
is going in the absolute wrong direction. We should be 
empowering and giving more resources to this agency. As cars 
get more complicated on our highways, they need more 
sophistication. They need the ability to address these more 
sophisticated vehicles.
    Mr. Veasey. Yes. And just speaking of that, obviously, I 
think that is pretty obvious that, you know, since Mr. Ford 
started rolling vehicles out off his assembly line near 
Debbie's district, that a lot has changed with these vehicles. 
These are not the same vehicles as the ones that were built 
back in the day. They are highly--they are much smarter. They 
are highly computerized. I mean, even now, if you try to do a 
lane change without turning on your turn signal, it will make 
the car feel very uneven. I mean, it is absolutely incredible 
the innovation that is going into cars.
    Ms. Chase, do you think that NHTSA has the personnel on 
staff that can effectively make sure these vehicles are 
operating safely?
    Ms. Chase. I think that NHTSA needs additional personnel to 
address these sophisticated systems. As evidenced by what is 
happening on our roads, before I mentioned that, you know, 
crashes are happening with these Level 2 vehicles right now. 
Well, there are not regulations and there are no minimum 
performance standards for these sophisticated technologies, 
like automatic emergency braking, lane departure warning, which 
you just mentioned. If there are minimum performance standards, 
then consumers would know how they are going to perform.
    Mr. Veasey. In addition to having the proper personnel, do 
they have enough personnel? Do you think that they actually 
need more numbers as well as more talented people or--I don't 
want to say more talented people--but the right sort of talent 
to be able to regulate this and make sure that they are 
operating safely?
    Ms. Chase. They need more resources and they need more 
expertise.
    Mr. Veasey. Yes. Thank you very much.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. I now recognize Mr. Bucshon for 5 minutes 
of questioning.
    Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    I am proud of our bipartisan commitment to promote the safe 
and innovative development of autonomous vehicles. As discussed 
in Congressman Rush's and my op-ed recently in The Hill, we 
must ensure that the United States is leading on the autonomous 
vehicles and not be left in the dust. I would like unanimous 
consent to introduce a copy of that op-ed into the record.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Bucshon. The United States has dropped to fourth on the 
KPMG Autonomous Vehicles Readiness Index, and China has set a 
target for ten percent of all new vehicles to be fully 
autonomous by 2030. The time is now. We must enact commonsense, 
bipartisan, bicameral legislation to provide much needed 
Federal safety--a much-needed Federal safety framework for 
autonomous vehicles.
    I do want to thank Mr. Rush for his leadership and for 
helping the American people understand the important role 
autonomous vehicles can have towards eliminating human error, 
spurring economic growth, and promoting greater independence to 
those who currently are unable to drive.
    And with that, I would like to yield my time to Mr. Rush at 
this point.
    Mr. Rush. I want to thank my friend, Mr. Bucshon, for 
yielding. And thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member 
McMorris Rodgers, for holding this hearing.
    AVs present an important and significant opportunity for 
many segments of our society and they hold a promise to make 
life easier and more accessible for the elderly, the disabled, 
and those who are unable to drive. They offer an opportunity 
for those who may be in what I call transit deserts which lack 
reliable and accessible transportation options, and they offer 
the immediate promise of new jobs across our Nation.
    Most importantly, though, they offer a paradigm shift in 
road safety. It has been stated earlier by many on this--in 
this hearing that NHTSA has found that human error is involved 
in 94 to 96 percent of all accidents. AV has presented an 
opportunity to mitigate this risk and increase the safety of 
all road users. In fact, NHTSA has gone so far as to say that, 
and I quote, the safety benefits of automatic vehicles are 
paramount, end of quote.
    In terms of jobs, estimates suggest that AVs have the 
potential to create over a hundred thousand jobs, and those 
jobs will stimulate our economy at every level. And, as has 
been stated by Mr. Bucshon and many others, investing in the AV 
industry will show our global competitors that our Nation does 
not intend to cede the competitive advantage that we have long 
held.
    Madam Chairman, I am--Chairwoman, I am so pleased that we 
are proceeding in a bipartisan and bicameral fashion to address 
this important issue, and hopefully within a short period of 
time, we will be successful in sending legislation to the 
President's desk.
    And with that, Madam Chair----
    Mr. Bucshon. Madam Chair, I have one quick question to ask, 
so----
    Mr. Rush [continue]. I yield back to Mr. Bucshon.
    Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Congressman Rush.
    In 2016, the Obama administration issued the first Federal 
policy on autonomous vehicles, which made clear the current 
division of regulatory responsibilities work. NHTSA regulates 
safety, and States continue their traditional role of traffic 
laws, insurance and the like.
    Mr. Shapiro, can you please explain why it is so important 
for us to make clear those roles remain for this new 
technology?
    Mr. Shapiro. So we could move legislation forward and have 
some certainty with the law that the country could follow for 
manufacturers and consumers, and consumers can benefit, so 
lives can be saved and injuries can be reduced and people could 
be empowered, and so we could actually go to a greener society. 
So that is what I think we have to--I mean, if I had to do it 
all over again, I am not sure I would keep that, but I am 
realistic. And I think it is--you know, this legislation--and I 
just want to say, I think I speak on behalf of most Americans, 
it is gratifying to see bipartisan action on something as 
important as this. This is not what Americans usually see, 
because it is not controversial, but this is--it is important 
that we go forward as a Nation and as a country to preserve the 
lives and help and empower our citizens.
    So there is an existing legal standard. We are not looking 
to change that balance. It would tie us up for another 10 or 15 
years, and we wouldn't get anywhere.
    Mr. Bucshon. Thank you very much.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The Chair recognizes Ms. Congresswoman 
Blunt Rochester. Where did she go?
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Soto for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman.
    First of all, it always amazes me how forward looking and 
into the future we get to be in this committee, looking at 10, 
20, 30 years or further down the line. I am reminded of the 
movie, ``Minority Report," where all these autonomous vehicles 
are buzzing by and no one has to drive anymore and everybody, 
regardless of their age, their youthfulness, their 
disabilities, are able to have freedom of movement. And it is 
something that I think is coming quicker than we think, but 
with it comes challenges.
    One of the bills that I filed was the AI JOBS Act, knowing 
that, as we develop more autonomous vehicles and other 
artificial intelligence, that we need to be better prepared for 
the job losses that will happen, knowing that other jobs will 
happen because of the AI revolution. And we saw in the past 
with the advent of the internet that we weren't as good on a 
Federal level to be proactive to help folks.
    So one thing as we are going forward, Madam Chairwoman, to 
keep in mind is in this theme of making sure we are better 
preparing folks, much like in your example, of after NAFTA as 
well.
    In our district, we have SunTrax right by it in Florida 
Polytechnic University and, of course, they are developing a 
lot of the technologies. But right now, I want to talk a little 
bit about how we navigate the liability issues that I know the 
Senate has been grappling with. There was an attempt to put an 
arbitration clause in there. Generally, when we are talking 
about common carriers and other types of vehicles, it is strict 
liability, and these are the types of issues we are going to 
have to work with.
    So I first want to start with Mr. Daniel Hinkle. How do we 
navigate this liability issue to protect consumer rights in 
balancing out with ensuring innovation?
    Mr. Hinkle. Thank you very much for the question, 
Congressman. The liability issue, as we have testified here 
today, as I have written in my oral testimony, the most 
important thing to focus on for the committee as we are going 
forward is the ability to continue to hold companies publicly 
accountable for the harms that they cause.
    I want to clarify. To the extent that automated driving 
improves safety in the United States, we are entirely in 
support of that. That is one of the things that we have fought 
for as automotive vehicle safety. Our members have been 
fighting for that for over 50 years, and that is one of or top 
priorities. But in order to ensure automotive vehicle safety, 
we need to have public accountability, and as I mentioned in my 
testimony, that involves no preemption. It means prohibiting 
the use of forced arbitration clauses, and identifying that the 
manufacturer of the automated driving system is responsible for 
following the rules of the road, that they are taking on the 
responsibilities of the driver, that they have promised that 
they will drive safely, and they should be held accountable to 
that promise.
    Mr. Soto. And we also have other scenarios in society where 
things are automated. What would be some other examples that 
are already in law?
    Mr. Hinkle. I am sorry. Could you----
    Mr. Soto. Of liability for other automated functions that 
already exist.
    Mr. Hinkle. Well, this is--I mean, that is one of the 
things that is interesting about this, and Mr. Shapiro has 
raised multiple times. This is one of the cutting edge 
technologies. This is where artifical intelligence and robotics 
are really first hitting society today. And as Mr. Shapiro has 
pointed out, this is a very complicated, new, emerging area 
that involves a lot of different areas.
    And so thinking through the liability implications of 
robots being introduced in society where you have a corporation 
that is governing their control, that maintains operational 
responsibility for the way those things are being used in 
society, it is very important that they are held publicly 
accountable for the harms that they cause.
    Mr. Soto. And next turn to Mr. Bozzella. What is sort of 
the balance that you are hoping is struck?
    Mr. Bozzella. Yes, I think the balance is already struck. 
You have--and the balance is important, and I think you have 
used the right word. You have an agency, NHTSA, that has 
significant enforcement and investigation and recall authority, 
and that is also supported by product liability and tort--and 
the tort system. That is really important. I agree with Mr. 
Hinkle on that, and nothing in this bill changes that. The bill 
you have already passed supports that. So you have gotten that 
balance right already.
    Mr. Soto. And, Mr. Shapiro, your name was invoked. So I 
will give you a chance to be--also to comment on this balance.
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes. I don't think we should use the advent of 
this amazing technology which will save lives and empower 
people and reduce injuries to add a new feature to our 
existing, to our liability laws as to get rid of arbitration 
when it is working so well in so many different ways.
    Our Nation pay as lawyer tax. We are at a competitive 
disadvantage versus every other developed country because we 
have literally tens of thousands of lawyers, we are 
overlawyered, and we are encouraging them to file lawsuits. So 
I think by changing the legislation, as been proposed by Mr. 
Hinkle, what we are doing is we are trying to ensure the trial 
lawyers still could keep their jobs.
    And I am very respectful of the fact that you raised and, 
Chairman Schakowsky, you raised this not only in this hearing 
but a prior hearing about jobs. We have an obligation as an 
industry to make sure Americans are trained in new jobs, the 
jobs we need, and we are stepping up. We are doing that. Our 
association is committed to over two million reskilled American 
workers and we are focusing on that, because it is very 
important. We are looking at everything from apprenticeship 
programs to training, and jobs are important. I just don't 
think they necessarily should be legal jobs.
    Mr. Soto. Sure. And we know jobs are important, as are 
making sure victims of injury have some rights to be able to 
seek recompense, and that is the balance we are looking to 
strike here.
    Thank you so much. And I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. I now recognize Mr. Carter for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Madam Chair, I would look to offer these letters for the 
record from Cruise and Intel supporting our legislative effort 
to enable the development and deployment of self-driving 
vehicles in the U.S.
    Unanimous consent. So moved.
    Thank all of you all for being here. This is a very 
important subject.
    She will be OK.
    Very important subject. And I want to just start off by 
sharing with you, last Congress, one of our colleagues, who is 
no longer in Congress now, but Representative Greg Harper from 
Mississippi, along with Ms. Dingell and Mr. Rush, introduced 
H.R. 3414, which established an advisory council to bring 
experts together to help advance mobility for the disabled 
community and--the disability community. And that--this 
technology is so transformative and so innovative, that we are 
excited about what it could bring.
    I wanted to ask you, Mr. Riccobono, just very briefly, can 
you explain how self-driving cars will restore independence to 
the blind community?
    Mr. Riccobono. Well, thank you for the question. Blind 
people obviously aren't in a driving class today, and so 
getting around is one of the chief barriers we face, especially 
in employment. And if you think about the discussion that we 
have had a little bit here today about employment, autonomous 
vehicles, amongst other things, has the opportunity to really 
empower blind people and others with disabilities to have 
better access to jobs. A lot of times we are limited on the 
employment opportunities for many reasons, but one is access to 
those jobs based on proximity to our homes. So I think that is 
a significant factor in quality of life and the opportunities 
that this technology can create.
    Mr. Carter. And create--and please correct me if I am 
wrong, but that also helps our economy as well.
    Mr. Riccobono. Helps our economy because we are putting 
more people to work. You know, even in this time when the 
unemployment rate is so low, you still have a lot of people 
with disabilities who are seeking employment who don't have 
jobs for a variety of reasons. So the more people putting into 
the economy, the more people that don't have to rely on the 
public supports that are available. Blind people, we want to 
work, and we want to get to our jobs safely, effectively, 
easily and in an affordable manner.
    Mr. Carter. And that is a great point. Thank you for making 
that.
    Let me ask you now, what do you see the role of the 
disability organizations playing on this advisory council? What 
would be your main priorities?
    Mr. Riccobono. Well, the main priorities, again, people 
with disabilities need to inform what accessibility looks like 
in these vehicles. I think that is really key. And we need to 
make sure that, in addition to adding our perspective, user 
perspective to the technology, which will make it better for 
everybody, also making sure that we don't create regulatory 
frameworks that have unintended consequences of shutting out 
people with disabilities or creating schemes that really 
prevent people from--with disabilities from having equal access 
to these platforms.
    Mr. Carter. Great points. Thank you very much for that.
    Mr. Bozzella, let me go to you and ask you this question: 
One of the pieces of legislation that I have been working on as 
a healthcare professional is nonemergency medical transport. 
That is very important, and it is important obviously in our 
urban areas, but particularly important in our rural areas. My 
district is a very rural district, so I am very interested in 
this. And as I say, as a healthcare professional, I have 
witnessed just how important preventive medicine is, and this 
will give us an opportunity to address that.
    Can you tell me, how do you think this legislation and, 
specifically, autonomous vehicles, will impact and benefit 
nonemergency medical transport?
    Mr. Bozzella. Yes. Thank you for the question. I think 
absolutely it will have a positive effect on that type of 
transportation. Really what you have is an opportunity here, 
through a whole array of different uses of the technology, to 
move people to medical appointments, to the hospital for 
preventative care and the like. And that is one of the great 
opportunities here in both urban and rural environments.
    Mr. Carter. So there we have it, just two great examples. 
That helps our economy. I mean, as we practice more 
preventative medicine--and that is essentially preventative 
medicine--as we employ more people, this is going to pay off in 
so many different ways. It is exciting to think about the 
future of this and what we will be able to do.
    I do want to get a plug in. My bill is H.R. 3935. It has 
moved through the Health Subcommittee, and it is my hope that 
it is going to continue to move on, and setting the policies 
for the AV rollouts will help this. There is no question about 
it.
    How close are we, Mr. Bozzella, how close are we to getting 
this to reality?
    Mr. Bozzella. Well, what you are seeing now is--and 
others--Ms. Chase and others have made this point. What you are 
seeing is the building blocks for this technology in the 
marketplace today making--you know, making roads safer today.
    Now, the vehicles on the road today are all Level 1 and 2. 
I don't believe there is a single Level 3 vehicle in the 
marketplace today, so the vehicles in the marketplace today 
require constant vigilant driver attention. The transition to 
these higher technologies will really depend on use cases.
    I do think, in the near term, you will see first mile/last 
mile people transportation and package transportation. The Nuro 
grant of their petition suggests that that is the type of near-
term application you would see.
    I would want to make one more point in that, in the Level 3 
area, for example, I do think you will see that type of driver 
support technology, especially across the country and in rural 
areas, really supporting more opportunities for mobility.
    Mr. Carter. I couldn't agree with you more. I bought my 
wife a new car for Christmas, and I should get an attaboy for 
that, but anyway I did, and it is like driving a spaceship. It 
is amazing; it is.
    Well, thank you all very much.
    Madam Chair, I want to remind you that, by unanimous 
consent, you did approve these two letters earlier, and thank 
you.
    Ms. Schakowsky. I did. They are on the record.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Carter. I yield.
    Ms. Schakowsky. OK. I now recognize for 5 minutes Mr. 
McNerney.
    Mr. McNerney. I thank the Chair. And I thank the witnesses' 
excellent testimony. I really appreciate it.
    Ms. Chase, in your testimony, you call on NHTSA to 
establish a cybersecurity standard to protect against potential 
hacks. What do you think such a standard would look like?
    Ms. Chase. Well, honestly, I am not a cyber expert, but 
what we would like to do is to require NHTSA to move forward 
with the minimum performance standard and get experts in this 
field working on it. So I think that let's leave it up to the 
experts to determine it.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, it is my understanding that NHTSA can 
currently use its recall authority to remove vehicles with 
cybersecurity vulnerabilities from our Nation's highways. Is 
the recall authority sufficient? Are recalls alone an effective 
way to manage cybersecurity risks?
    Ms. Chase. No, I don't think it is an effective way to 
manage it. That is being responsive. We should be proactive. In 
addition to having the minimum performance standard, as I just 
mentioned, I think that NHTSA should be granted imminent hazard 
authority. So if there is a problem on our roadways, it doesn't 
have to wait for the recall process, but they can say, pull 
these cars off the roads right now because they have been 
hacked.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, should cybersecurity protections apply 
to all vehicles or just AVs?
    Ms. Chase. They should absolutely apply to all vehicles. As 
the Congressman just mentioned, there are cars on the roads 
that are Level 2 right now and have very sophisticated systems 
that are hackable, and I don't see why we would want to 
delegate--relegate, rather, these protections, these cyber 
protections, just to your Level 4 or Level 5 vehicles. Let's 
make all cars as safe as we can make them.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Mr. Tumlin, AVs could interconnect with smart 
infrastructure like tolls and traffic lights. Are you concerned 
about the potential cyber vulnerabilities in AVs could pose in 
that situation?
    Mr. Tumlin. I am.
    Mr. McNerney. Any comment about how to protect against 
that?
    Mr. Tumlin. So not only am I concerned about the ability 
for AVs to be weaponized, but also what happens when AVs 
experience a disruption and I have 6,000 of them on my street, 
and they all suddenly come to a stop, shutting down all traffic 
in San Francisco. So we have many, many levels of detailed 
concerns, including the ways in which they interact with our 
municipally operated systems like traffic signals.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Again, Ms. Chase, for the foreseeable future, AVs will rely 
both on drivers to operate vehicles, depending on the 
situation. What role would drivers or occupants of AV have when 
it comes to ensuring that the vehicles they are operating are 
safe?
    Ms. Chase. One of the challenges right now is, with your 
Level 2 vehicles that are on the roads, that people are 
becoming overreliant upon the technology, and that has been 
evidenced in the number of crashes. The human brain is such 
that when someone thinks that it is--that a task is being taken 
care of, it looks to do something else, like look on your 
phone, read a book, take a nap.
    So, in this interim process, before we get to Level 4, 
Level 5 vehicles, when there are cars on the roads that are 
reliant upon the human driver, it is essential that there be 
reminder systems and that the person, the driver, stay engaged 
fully in the driving process.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    It has been said that airline safety rules had been written 
by the blood of the victims of airline crashes. Is that going 
to be necessary with AVs or is there a safer, more--a way to 
get there through technology?
    Ms. Chase. I would offer there is a safer way to get there, 
and we really are trying to prevent motor vehicle crashes. I 
understand that motor vehicle crashes--that humans are 
responsible for large amounts of motor vehicle crashes. Given. 
However, who is making the autonomous vehicles? Humans. So 
let's not replace one human mistake with another.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Mr. Shapiro, do you see AV technology being deployed 
incrementally or do you think it is going to be happening in 
leaps and bounds? You know, currently, we see driver assistance 
being improved and so on with different levels. Do you see this 
as happening quickly or through just a series of incremental 
steps?
    Mr. Shapiro. Well, the American public has already voted 
with their dollars that they want to see this technology 
deployed. They are buying systems increasingly that, as we get 
closer and closer to Level 2, Level 3, and soon Level 4, so 
Americans want this technology. They want to be safe. They want 
their kids safe and their families safe.
    You know, you are seeing increasing numbers of lane 
departure technology out there, automatic braking systems. We 
are seeing all these things which are making us safer. We 
expect to see the death rates going down, and this is more of a 
marketplace phenomena. It is because consumers want it.
    There is some debate, even among car makers and others, if 
we get to a really great Level 4, will consumers want Level 5? 
And that remains to be seen. I believe, given the amount of 
time that stressed out people in the Washington area waste in 
cars, that they will welcome Level 5, and you can do a lot of 
other things. You can learn another language. You could 
interrelate. You could do other things other than drive and 
have to use that focused attention on the highway.
    So I think Level 5 is the inevitable future. It may differ 
demographically by age and maybe rural versus suburban or 
urban; it remains to be seen. But we are--I think it is 
important we have that progress going forward to gain for Level 
5, because that will truly provide the greatest safety for our 
citizens.
    Mr. McNerney. All right. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
    And now I recognize Mr. Gianforte for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gianforte. I want to thank the Chair and ranking member 
for holding this important hearing today. And thank you to the 
panelists for being here, for your testimony. This is an 
important topic.
    Before I begin, Chair Schakowsky, I would like to offer 
this letter for the record from Aurora, supporting our 
legislative effort to enable the development and deployment of 
self-driving vehicles here in the U.S.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Gianforte. Thank you.
    Fully autonomous cars are still several years out from 
driving on our roads; however, auto and tech industries are 
making great strides in turning science fiction into reality. 
It is no longer a question of if these cars will become into 
being; it is just a matter of when.
    The self-driving car industry is growing in Montana, 
powered by our photonics industry. Last year, Aurora purchased 
Blackmore, an industry leader in LIDAR technology, and opened 
its fourth office in Bozeman, Montana. Aurora supports many 
high-paying jobs in Montana. And recently--recently, the 
company began work on Level 4 trucking because of the LIDAR 
technology developed in Montana.
    As we move forward, it is important that this committee 
continues its constructive bipartisan approach to self-driving 
vehicles. We must ensure a bipartisan package addresses the 
growing patchwork of State and local regulations, while 
emphasizing safety on our roads. It is also important to have a 
level playing field to create competition and spur innovation.
    In 1997, my wife Susan and I started a little business in 
our home. We had an idea that the internet might actually 
remove geography as a constraint in where you locate a 
business, even in Montana. We were right. Our company grew from 
a home--a room in our home to one of the State's largest 
employers, with 1,100 employees, and, probably, we provided a 
wage that was three times the State average.
    Ours is just one example of how a level playing field 
created more high-paying American jobs with increased 
opportunity and greater prosperity.
    Unfortunately, it is not the case with autonomous vehicle 
space today. Currently, established car companies, like Ford, 
GM, and Toyota, are able to test their prototypes on public 
roads. They can do so without following all the safety 
regulations, if they register--if they register with NHTSA and 
agree not to sell or lease their vehicle for the general 
public. This allows car companies to test new concepts and 
features for the next generation of vehicles.
    Unfortunately, for new startup manufacturers, the same 
rules don't apply. They must apply for an exemption to the 
safety standards in order to test on public roads. This 
effectively shuts out new ideas that could further enhance 
viability and improve safety of self-driving vehicles.
    Last Congress, my colleagues, Ms. Walters and Ms. Matsui, 
introduced H.R. 3405, the MORE Act, which was eventually rolled 
into the SELF DRIVE Act, and passed by this committee and the 
House unanimously. The MORE Act created a level playing field 
between tech companies, new entrants, and legacy automakers 
developing autonomous vehicle technology. I am pleased to see 
this critical provision included in the ongoing bipartisan, 
bicameral discussions in this Congress, and I am committed to 
ensuring that any autonomous vehicle legislation includes these 
provisions.
    Mr. Shapiro, can you explain why this provision is so 
important to the tech industry?
    Mr. Shapiro. I don't think I could explain it better than 
you did, but you are right; we are a country that relies upon 
innovation. It is in our DNA. It is who we are. It is the new 
player coming in and making it better. Sometimes in big 
companies, it is more difficult to be innovative, but I give 
credit to the big Detroit companies and others as they have 
recognized that this is the future, and they have acted, unlike 
any other industry faced with a past threat, and they are 
innovating. They are hiring people. They are doing this well.
    And what we have is this great, in a sense, competition in 
the country, and cooperation, competition among many different 
companies, many different areas, and I think we are on the 
right path. But I think the level playing field concept that 
you talk about is so critical to getting what is best for the 
American public to make sure that the systems are the best. It 
is a matter of competitiveness, a matter of safety, and it is a 
matter of empowerment.
    Mr. Gianforte. Yes. And I would agree. You look at any 
industry where we have innovation, it tends to be the upstarts 
that are willing to challenge the status quo that tend to have 
the breakthroughs that allow us to advance, and the incumbents 
don't necessarily reinvent themselves as fast as the upstarts 
do.
    Mr. Shapiro. And that is what makes America great, and that 
is what fueled our economy, is innovation.
    Mr. Gianforte. Yes. Mr. Bozzella, can you explain how 
encouraging market competition, as this provision does, will 
help us deliver the best technology that we can produce?
    Mr. Bozzella. Yes. Congressman, I agree with you; we do 
need, to solve this problem, we need the best minds. We need 
partnerships. We need engagements across the board. And what 
you are seeing is partnerships between established automotive 
innovators as well as the startup companies working together. 
That is the playing field we need; everybody together trying to 
move these technologies into the marketplace.
    Mr. Gianforte. OK. Thank you. I would like to thank the 
Chair and ranking member again for this important hearing, and 
I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
    And now I invite Mr. Ca AE1rdenas for his 5 minutes.
    Mr. Ca AE1rdenas. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and 
Ranking Member, for having this important hearing.
    I just want to remind everybody that, in 2018, over 6,000 
pedestrians and over 850 bicyclists were killed in traffic 
crashes. Also, in March of 2018, an Uber self-driving test 
vehicle struck and killed a pedestrian. The NTSB, the National 
Transportation Safety Board, found that the vehicle was 
incapable of correctly classifying and predicting the path of 
pedestrians not near a crosswalk, a critical limitation that 
ultimately took the life of Elaine Herzberg.
    So my first question is to Mr. Tumlin. What safeguards 
should be in place to ensure that AVs eliminate pedestrian 
fatalities and injuries?
    Mr. Tumlin. So, first of all, I would like to say that I 
think everyone in this chamber believes in promoting 
innovation, safety, and Federal leadership, but that we need 
the Federal Government to lead with wisdom. And the current 
regulations--the current legislation wants to preempt the 
ability of the State and local governments to innovate, while 
avoiding doing the most important work that the Federal 
Government needs to do, which is to allocate sufficient 
resources to NHTSA to do their job. And so that is my answer to 
your question, is creating enough resources, enough talent at 
NHTSA in order to ensure that there are the correct standards 
for collecting that information.
    Mr. Ca AE1rdenas. Well, what is interesting, we have a 
constant battle in elected office in this country where some 
people just want to grind down government activity down to 
zero. And what you just described is trying to make sure that 
we have the proper balance, whether it be Federal Government, 
State government, et cetera. And what is unfortunate is every 
elected official, everybody running for office in America talks 
about safety first but, at the same time, making sure that we 
have the proper guardrails for innovation to continue and 
flourish, and that is where government, in my opinion, does 
have a proper place. And, unfortunately, you pointed out that 
giving NHTSA the proper amount of resources so they can do 
their job.
    Again, to me, do their job is not getting in the way of 
innovation, but making sure that we don't have people--
organizations running amuck thinking, just because there is a 
loophole in the law, they can just take it to the extreme, and 
therein lies, unfortunately, we could have fatalities, not just 
one, but more than one. And that is where I come from as a 
policymaker and also somebody who is a former engineer myself 
and someone who learned a lot of about R&D and the value of 
R&D.
    But it is one thing to have R&D in the lab and it is 
another thing to have R&D unbeknownst to the people on the 
streets of America that R&D is going on right in front of their 
face.
    I am now a grandfather. My grandkids, every time I bring 
them out of their car, whether we are in a parking lot or near 
a street, my heightened awareness and understanding that that 
little child could bolt out in front of a vehicle at any given 
time could happen at any moment, and for a vehicle to be able 
to have that kind of heightened awareness or what have you, I 
think is--I don't think we are there yet.
    I hope that we get there as quickly as possible, because 
autonomous vehicles are, in fact, here. They are improving, 
thank God, but at the same time, I think it is important for us 
to understand is what is the role of government in this.
    Do you have an opinion on that, Mr. Tumlin?
    Mr. Tumlin. I feel that the role of Federal Government is 
obviously around regulating the vehicle itself and establishing 
the necessary data protocols, learning from the work that the 
urban mobility foundation is doing in order to establish 
national protocols in collaboration with industry, collecting 
that information, analyzing it through the National 
Transportation Safety Institutes. And while it is doing that 
essential work, continuing to allow the innovation that is 
already occurring at the States, in the absence of a Federal 
response, letting that work continue until the Federal 
Government completes its essential homework.
    Mr. Ca AE1rdenas. Well, that last part where you said where 
the Federal Government completes its essential homework, 
therein lies the rub between the politics and the policy and 
the getting out of the way and things of that nature.
    It is unfortunate that we do need to have concurrent 
activity going on. We need to have responsible activity. And 
one of the problems that we have is that too many people, when 
they are talking about innovation, and especially in an open 
space like we are talking about today, the patience 
unfortunately isn't there. So I think it is important for us to 
understand that every entity has its role. Private industry has 
its role. Science has its role. Public safety should always be 
first. And government does have a role as well, so--looking 
that I do not have any more balance of my time, I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
    And now I recognize Mr. Guthrie for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate 
it.
    Mr. Bozzella, I want to make sure this technology will not 
only benefit people in urban areas, in cities, but also 
throughout rural America. I know your members are probably 
thinking about applications in rural America, and how can we 
ensure that rural communities are not forgotten as this 
technology is deployed?
    Mr. Bozzella. Congressman, a couple things. One is, let's 
pass the bill, because what the bill does is allows companies, 
through this regulatory process that you are establishing, to 
be able to deploy vehicles across the country and to be able to 
deploy them safely across the country on a case-by-case basis. 
So that is first.
    Second, what this bill does is it allows for innovation to 
flourish, and it allows companies to develop technologies for 
different use cases. Yes, urban transportation, but also, yes, 
rural transportation, moving people to healthcare appointments, 
providing options to get--travel long distance to work. These 
technologies, whether they are Level 3 technologies with some 
driver engagement from time to time, or whether they are fully 
automated Level 5 technologies, would provide, I believe, 
significant opportunities for mobility in rural areas.
    Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thank you.
    And you want to say something, Mr. Shapiro, I think?
    Mr. Shapiro. I think--thank you, Congressman Guthrie. It 
will help rural communities, I believe, because as you see the 
technology advancing, the cause will become cheaper. It will be 
a shared model. So if you live in rural America, you may not 
need to own a car, because you could summon one and be assured 
of service, which you may not get today.
    So it will empower people at all levels, I believe. It may 
take more time. I mean, it is tougher perhaps to get a car to 
go over a lengthy dirt road or something like that, but 
definitely rural America is underserved today. And what we have 
seen, even with Uber and Lyft developing, is we have seen more 
options for people who live in rural America. And I think we 
will see the same expansion with these type of vehicles.
    Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thank you.
    And last Congress, I introduced H.R. 3430, the SHARES Act, 
which eventually became part of the SELF DRIVE Act. And the 
SHARES Act set up an advisory council to bring industry experts 
together to develop an information-sharing framework, to 
advance the safety of autonomous vehicle technology. And I am 
pleased to see the bicameral, bipartisan effort focus on this 
issue this Congress.
    So, Mr. Shapiro, how important is it for us to be sure we 
are bringing experts and relevant stakeholders together to 
tackle emerging issues?
    Mr. Shapiro. I think that is very important. I think 
everyone should be at the table. And I think, as long as we 
agree upon the goals, we will move the Nation forward. It is 
agreeing upon those goals that is very important, and I think 
we already have the basis of the goals that we have in this 
legislation, we have in this hearing.
    We want a safer, empowered America. We want a competitive 
America. So how do we get there? We lay out the goals, and we 
get everyone around the table with a stake, and we make sure 
everyone is pulling the same direction. And that is what I 
think policy should move forward on.
    Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Riccobono, talking about America being competitive 
and being part of this, if the U.S. does not develop or win the 
global race to autonomous vehicles, do you worry that mobility 
benefits will go elsewhere and that your community will not 
benefit from this technology?
    Mr. Riccobono. I do worry about that because, again, the 
United States is a leader in terms of full participation of 
people with disabilities, and part of that is making sure that 
people with disabilities are part of the design process, and we 
just don't see that happening and driven by people with 
disabilities in other countries. In this Nation, the National 
Federation of the Blind, as this country's membership and civil 
rights organization, we are involved at every level of 
technology development.
    If other nations are leading the way on that, I am very 
skeptical what kind of participation, if any, from real people 
with disabilities will be involved, and I think then we lose 
the innovation that comes from accessibility and being part of 
the process.
    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much.
    And that concludes my questions, but, Chair Schakowsky, I 
would like to offer a letter for the record from Securing 
America's Future Energy in support of the Federal legislation 
on self-driving vehicles.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Every time I think I am going to introduce 
you, so--but I want to give 5 minutes to Congresswoman Blunt 
Rochester.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much, Chairwoman 
Schakowsky, and thank you for your patience. I have been up and 
down stairs for different hearings. Thank you so much as well 
for Ms. Rodgers and both of your leadership on these issues.
    Mr. Shapiro actually has said a few things that really 
stick with me about the lack of national goals, the fact that 
we need a sense of urgency in this country, and also, that we 
need to bring people around the table. And so I just want to 
share that I was fortunate recently to launch a bipartisan 
Future of Work Caucus here in Congress, because this issue 
touches every single Member of Congress in every single--from 
precision agriculture, to telemedicine, to autonomous vehicles. 
And whether it is getting to work or whether it is creating 
jobs, this is a very, very important hearing.
    And so autonomous vehicles will start a mobility revelation 
in the United States. Self-driving cars will alter 
transportation paradigms so radically that they will surely 
reshape the design of American communities, whether rural, 
suburban, or urban.
    In addition to these radical changes to transportation, we 
hope to see opportunities for independence for individuals who 
have disabilities, individuals who are seniors, and those who 
have visual impairment. We also hope to see more jobs. We hope 
to see a cleaner environment, and also safety--safety and 
saving lives for our country.
    With estimates of 1 in 4 to 1 in 5 adults living with 
disabilities, we must be sure to put accessibility concerns to 
the forefront of our efforts so that we can benefit--those who 
can benefit most from self-driving cars can meaningfully 
participate in this mobility revolution.
    I want to start off following up with Mr. Bozzella's 
answer, and I am going to go toMr. Riccobono. How important is 
it for NHTSA and Congress to set accessibility standards for 
self-driving cars? And in setting these standards for self-
driving cars, what specific issues should NHTSA and Congress 
consider?
    Mr. Shapiro. So accessibility is extremely important. What 
the industry has done going back over the last year or so is we 
have held a series of workshops on accessibility with members 
of the disability community, with Mark and others, to make sure 
that we understand what the needs are for those communities. 
That is first and foremost; let's make sure the innovators 
understand what those needs are, and from there, that informs 
our research and development process, and it informs 
discussions with the public and with the regulators.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. And, Mr. Riccobono?
    Mr. Riccobono. What I would add to that is it really 
touches all aspects of these vehicles. So first, obviously, is 
the operation. If you are a blind person in one of these 
vehicles, you need to know what the car is doing, and if 
individuals in these vehicles have the potential to do anything 
to control the car, blind people need access to that.
    Second is just the basic interior controls of the vehicle. 
You know, I want to be able to turn on the radio or change the 
air-conditioning, so those things need to be accessible.
    A third is just general external alerts and navigation. I 
think blind people have a lot to contribute to these vehicles. 
We have been using GPS as consumers more extensively and for 
longer than, well, most people. So I think being able to query 
all of those things that are available.
    The last thing is just locating autonomous vehicles, which 
I think is maybe going to be an issue for everybody. You know, 
if you go to the Nationals game and you are coming out looking 
for your autonomous vehicle, and they are all--well, it is the 
same thing that happens with Uber and Lyft. Everybody is 
looking for a black Prius. So how do you identify and locate 
your vehicle? And I think that is a place where accessibility 
will actually enhance the usability for everybody.
    So it is really dynamic, and I think, as long as 
accessibility is a priority, we can get to all those areas, and 
certainly we will probably discover others as we get down the 
road.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you.
    I know that in the previous Congress, in the 115th, there 
was talk and proposals of advisory committees and councils, and 
I would assume that you would like to see this as well, that we 
should consider an advisory council? And that is just a yes-or-
no question.
    Mr. Riccobono. Yes.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. OK. And then, lastly, I just want to 
hit on one thing you mentioned, basically about universal 
design. I keep trying to share that with members and witnesses, 
because curb cuts don't just help wheelchairs; they help baby 
strollers. Closed captioning, while it helps individuals, you 
know, who maybe cannot hear, but it also helps at a football 
game if you are, you know, somewhere where you can't really 
read it. And I think that we want to make sure that, regardless 
of auditory, visual, or other needs or impairments, that these 
systems are communicating emergencies to passengers as well, 
not just where is my car, but is there danger.
    And so we will follow up with additional questions for you, 
but I want to just thank the leadership of Ms. Rodgers and Ms. 
Schakowsky for this really important and revolutionary hearing.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. I thank the gentlelady.
    And now I recognize Congressman Long.
    Oh, wait. I am sorry. You waived on.
    Congresswoman Dingell, who I think has a slight interest in 
this issue, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I thank you for 
holding the hearing, and I do care greatly about this.
    I thank all the panel for being here, and I want to start 
with a yes-or-no question for all of you.
    So everyone knows I am proud of the work that we did in a 
bipartisan fashion in 2017 through the passage of the SELF 
DRIVE Act. It wasn't easy to find consensus, but when we 
couldn't get it done in the last Congress--that Senate again--
the Committee restarted this year with a bipartisan, bicameral 
process to find common ground and solicit comment from all 
stakeholders, including everybody here today, and we really 
care about it. Committee leadership has released several staff 
drafts for comment, and more are coming.
    My question is this: Will each of you commit to work with 
the committee openly, transparently, and in good faith to get a 
bill that can be signed into law this year? Just yes or no, 
starting with Ms. Chase.
    Ms. Chase. Yes.
    Mr. Bozzella. Yes.
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes, and we will keep our word.
    Mr. Hinkle. Yes.
    Mr. Riccobono. Yes.
    Mr. Tumlin. Yes.
    Ms. Schakowsky. OK. We will refrain from editorial 
comments, because I am going to take everybody's yes as a 
positive yes.
    The next question I will request is a yes or no again. Do 
you believe Congress needs to act to ensure the safe deployment 
of AVs or is the status quo acceptable? Yes or no. Ms. Chase.
    Ms. Chase. Yes.
    Mr. Bozzella. Yes.
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes, but with balancing the lives saved 
against the--you can't get perfection.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Bozzella, you think status quo is OK?
    Mr. Bozzella. Oh, I am sorry. I thought the question was 
does Congress need to act? My answer is Congress needs to act, 
so if the question----
    Mrs. Dingell. For safety, then.
    Mr. Bozzella [continue]. Is status quo, no.
    Mr. Hinkle. Yes, Congress needs to act.
    Mr. Riccobono. Yes, Congress needs to act.
    Mr. Tumlin. Yes, Congress needs to act, but not preempt.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. If Congress does not act this 
year, do we run the risk that China, Europe and the rest of the 
world will end up writing the rules for governing AVs and that 
the United States will be left behind? Ms. Chase?
    Ms. Chase. Based on my knowledge, no.
    Mr. Bozzella. I believe so, yes.
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes.
    Mr. Hinkle. I don't know.
    Mr. Riccobono. Not my area of expertise.
    Mr. Tumlin. No.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
    I do believe, just in case you missed it, that we need to 
do something this year, and I don't want to lose--they are 
going to be developed, whether we like it or not, and I would 
like to see us do it here with all of you to ensure we don't 
cede the development of this technology to the rest of the 
world.
    These questions are for Mr. Bozzella and Mr. Shapiro. Your 
membership is comprised of global companies who compete in the 
international marketplace. What will happen if Congress does 
not pass an AV bill? Will your member companies think twice 
about investing in AV development in the United States if we do 
not have clear rules of the road in place compared to the rest 
of the world?
    Mr. Bozzella. My concern is, if we don't act, if Congress 
does not act, the pace of innovation will slow, and where 
innovation happens is where the rules are going to be set. And 
so I do--I am concerned that if we have an extended period 
where the rules of the road between State and Federal are 
confused and where there isn't a process to get vehicles into 
the marketplace with giving the agency data, that we will fall 
behind.
    Mr. Shapiro. All our companies are American companies. 
Eighty percent of them are small businesses, and 100 percent of 
them would like to see the U.S. Congress act on this 
legislation and do the right thing so they can invest here. But 
if Congress doesn't, then, for the larger companies, money will 
go where there is more certainty.
    Mrs. Dingell. So, Mr. Bozzella, I think there is concern 
about safety and concern about the industry tackling the issue 
of safety when it comes to AVs. Can you tell us how the 
companies are approaching designing these brand-new systems 
with safety in mind, and how can legislation assure that that 
is happening?
    Mr. Bozzella. So safety is first and foremost in everything 
the innovators are doing. It starts with designing 
cybersecurity into the driving systems. It continues with 
building on the success of technologies in the marketplace 
today, like automatic emergency braking, lane keep assist, and 
adaptive cruise control. And, really, what happens now is, when 
Congress completes this work, what we will have is a robust 
regulatory process that allows us to go to the regulator and 
make the case that safety is first and foremost in the work 
that we are doing, and it is up to the regulator to make that 
determination.
    I would make one other point with regard to the 
legislation. There is a public assurance process in your bill, 
and that is a great thing.
    Mrs. Dingell. I am running out of time, so I am going to 
submit questions for all of you that I have, but I will going 
to ask one more question so all of you can answer one more 
question.
    Last week, NHTSA granted an exemption petition to Nuro for 
the operations of a low-speed driverless vehicle that will not 
have a steering wheel, mirrors, or a windshield. No more than 
5,000 vehicles can be deployed during the 2-year period of 
exemption, and NHTSA conditioned the exemption by requiring 
mandatory reporting of information about the operation of the 
unit, as well as mandating proactive outreach to the 
communities where it is deployed.
    This question is for all of you: What does the Nuro case 
tell us about how NHTSA views these technologies, and why does 
it highlight the need for Congress to act to supplement and 
enhance its authority to the area, or, Ms. Chase, are you not 
worried? And then we will quickly go because we are really out 
of time. Maybe I should do it for the record.
    Ms. Chase. Should I answer?
    Yes, I am----
    Mrs. Dingell. The chairwoman----
    Ms. Chase [continue]. Concerned about the Nuro exemption.
    Mr. Bozzella. I think what the Nuro exemption tells us is 
that NHTSA is focused on making sure that they are getting the 
data they need to continue to evaluate the systems and that the 
public is engaged in the process.
    Mr. Shapiro. I think it is a great start in the right 
direction. This is a low-risk move. It is a very slow vehicle, 
and--but I would like to see faster movement and more 
exemptions.
    Mr. Hinkle. I think that the NHTSA followed its regulatory 
process, as best as I was able to understand the opinion that 
they came out with in this case. We are concerned about the 
public accountability if they--if these systems are--do cause 
harm, based on some of the things that they weren't able to 
address in their regulatory process.
    Mr. Riccobono. And, real quick, I am not familiar with this 
case, but I think that it is worth asking the question of 
whether and how accessibility was addressed within that 
framework.
    Mr. Tumlin. It demonstrates that NHTSA already has the 
authority that it needs to do its job but is underresourced in 
order to be able to do so.
    Mrs. Dingell. I agree with that too, by the way.
    I will have more questions for the record, Madam Chair, if 
that is all right. Thank you.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
    I welcome the two individuals who have waived onto the 
subcommittee, but I am going to first recognize Mr. O'Halleran, 
who is on the subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. O'Halleran. I want to thank the chairwoman and ranking 
member for holding this important and very timely hearing today 
about the future of self-driving cars and the impacts to our 
communities and economy but, most importantly, to the safety of 
our American citizens and our children.
    As a former law enforcement officer, I agree with my 
colleagues that safety should come first, foremost, and at the 
top of the list. There is no question about that.
    The next one down, or maybe even before it, is 
transparency. We don't know if we are going to have a safe 
vehicle until the transparency is at the appropriate level.
    That safety should come first--I am sorry. Tragically, in 
2018, a self-driving vehicle killed a pedestrian in Tempe, 
Arizona. The National Transportation Safety Boards found that, 
at the time, the vehicle did not have the necessary mechanics 
in place to maintain the driver's engagement, and whatever 
happens in the future future, the immediate future is going to 
say something about there has to be an attentive driver in this 
process.
    We must continue to learn from past experiences to ensure 
safety truly complements innovation in legislation for the 
vehicles of the future.
    Question, Ms. Chase: Over 1,000 self-driving cars are being 
tested in the U.S. today, including some in my district. What 
lessons has the industry learned from this particular crash and 
any of the other crashes similar to it that would help us out?
    Ms. Chase. My concern is that the industry hasn't learned 
enough from that crash and that they are being bullish in terms 
of getting these cars on the roads via massive exemptions from 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. There is a big 
difference between a Federal regulatory framework as being--as 
has been espoused, and regulation.
    The industry can go ahead right now and put together a 
regulatory framework. There is nothing stopping them from doing 
that. They can do a voluntary framework, but what we need 
Congress to do is to require NHTSA, the regulator, the cop on 
the beat, to issue regulations so that the public is protected 
from when these vehicles are being put on the roads before they 
are ready to do so, to be honest.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you.
    Congress also has an opportunity to foster innovation in 
technologies that have life-changing impacts for many 
Americans. We are seeing unmatched growth in the older adult 
population in Arizona, particularly high amount, actually. 
Self-driving cars will allow independence for seniors and 
people with disabilities.
    This question is to both Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Riccobono. Did 
I get that right----
    Mr. Riccobono. Yes.
    Mr. O'Halleran [continue]. Or was I close? Yes. OK. Good.
    Please elaborate in how self-driving cars are safe and user 
friendly for older Americans and those with disabilities.
    Mr. Shapiro. Go ahead.
    Mr. Riccobono. Well, I don't think we know if they are safe 
yet until we know that they are accessible and usable, so that 
is number one. But, number two, we all know the stories. We 
have relatives, friends who continue to drive traditional 
vehicles when they shouldn't, and that is because we have set 
up a society that relies so heavily on driving for independence 
and access to so much.
    We can eliminate that by making sure that with autonomous 
vehicles that are accessible to all, that we aren't putting 
individuals on the road who should not be driving, but yet we 
continue to give them the freedom and independence that comes 
from having access to those aspects of society and goods and 
services that they need to get to, whether it is medical or 
recreational, and that has tremendous benefits for everybody.
    Mr. Shapiro. I share those views, but I would also add that 
a number of years ago, there was a proposal for Congress that 
every device be regulated for accessibility. We asked that 
changes be made in that proposal. It became into law, and what 
it did is it forced us into a relationship with the disability 
community. And we had--until this day, have phenomenal 
productive dialogues. And had we gone with the proposal as 
written, we would not be where we are today with all these 
devices that do amazing things from smart loudspeakers to 
telephones that are usable by the disabled in so many different 
ways.
    I think the same thing can happen with automobiles. It is 
important that we get there. And it is important we measure our 
progress, not by the tragedy of one accident in Arizona or a 
few more that occurred or are likely to occur, but by the lives 
we will be saving every step of the way as we move forward on 
this. And that is--it is a rational way of approaching it, even 
though every death is a tragedy. We have to focus on the 
savings and we have to focus on the empowerment of the disabled 
and the elderly.
    And you stated a fact. We are getting older, and let's be 
honest, you don't drive as well when you are older.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Well, thank you. I look forward to 
continuing to see the rapid growth of this exciting technology, 
but it is only going to be as rapid as the honesty of the 
industry is with Congress so that we can understand things 
together in a timely fashion.
    And I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. I thank the gentleman.
    And now I recognize Mr. Long for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Long. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you all 
for being here today.
    I have had the privilege, honor, whatever, I guess, of 
riding in an autonomous vehicle, which I would recommend to 
everyone. It can be very disconcerting and exhilarating at the 
same time.
    For Mr. Bozzella, in the Energy and Commerce Committee, we 
are familiar with the cases in which free flow of interstate 
commerce should be leveraged for the benefit of the country as 
a whole. And would you explain for the subcommittee why 
continuing the national safety framework for self-driving cars 
is so important and what could happen to the industry if each 
State comes up with their own unique ways of regulating the 
design, construction, and performance of self-driving cars?
    Mr. Bozzella. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I 
think this is really essential, because getting the balance 
right between the importance of roles of State and local 
government and the important role of the Federal Government, 
will either--if we get it right, will encourage innovation and 
will encourage more safety sooner. And the way to think about 
it is design, construction, and performance really should 
happen at the Federal level, because you don't want vehicles 
that are unable to move from one State to another State. What 
you do want is the design, the construction, and the 
performance to be developed once nationally in a safe way with 
regard to how NHTSA sees the world.
    With regard to State and local government, if the State and 
local government chooses to limit the operation of those 
vehicles to a certain time of day or to a certain region or to 
a certain traffic pattern, the State and local governments is 
OK to do that. So the idea here is, let's make sure that 
development of the vehicle is focused once at the Federal 
level, and traffic enforcement and those types of things happen 
at the State level.
    Mr. Long. OK. It is pretty amazing to ride in one and to 
enter interstates and the on-ramps and off-ramps and watch the 
screen and see the people on the sidewalk and everything that 
they do have to be apprised of and to watch out for.
    Mr. Shapiro, we are in a global race to deliver the safety 
and mobility benefits of self-driving cars to our people. That 
race clearly includes China. As you heard Lady Rodgers say, 
China is here. They are using our roads trying their 
technology. They are using our people to enhance the 
capability. To beat China and win this global race, do you 
believe Congress must act and act fast?
    Mr. Shapiro. Yes. I believe congressional action on this 
legislation will enhance our competitiveness as a country in 
this area and set a strong precedent for other areas as well.
    Mr. Long. OK. Thank you.
    And, Madam Chair Schakowsky, I would like to offer this 
letter for the record from Honda, supporting our legislative 
efforts to enable development and deployment of self-driving 
vehicles in the U.S.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Ms. Schakowsky. And you yield back your time?
    OK. And----
    Mr. Long. Yes. Yes, I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. And now, last but not least, Mr. Bilirakis, 
for 5 minutes, is recognized.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for giving 
me the opportunity to waive onto this committee as well.
    Last Congress, my good friend, Ms. Dingell, who was just 
here, and I introduced H.R. 3413, the ACCESS Act, which was 
eventually rolled into the SELF DRIVE Act, and passed on a 
truly bipartisan basis by this committee and the House by 
unanimous vote. The ACCESS Act established an advisory council 
to bring experts together to help advance mobility for senior 
citizens and those underserved by traditional public 
transportation.
    Particularly in my home State of Florida, senior citizens 
play an enormous role, and we are no stranger to some of the 
daily challenges they face.
    I am grateful to hear that my provisions in the ACCESS Act 
are part of the ongoing negotiations. I remain hopeful that we 
can get this done in a truly bipartisan, bicameral fashion.
    Chair Schakowsky, I would like to offer this letter--I have 
it in here a letter from the American Highway User Alliance, 
supporting our legislative efforts to enable the development 
and deployment of self-driving vehicles in the U.S.
    So I would like----
    Ms. Schakowsky. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you so much.
    I have a question for Mr. Riccobono. I am so thankful, 
again, for your attendance today and your voice for the 
mobility community at NFB.
    Do you foresee--the question is: Do you foresee, sir, this 
technology improving mobility for our seniors much in the same 
way that it does for your particular community?
    Mr. Riccobono. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 
Absolutely. Again, the possibilities of this technology has 
crossed over to so many areas, not just disability, but 
distracted driving, all sorts of other areas where having a 
human in the loop of the driving process creates difficulties. 
And I think that this technology has the power to, not just 
empower the people, but really create economic connections that 
we really can't easily anticipate today and societal benefits 
that are really going to be unanticipated.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
    As a followup, your testimony mentions the need for 
nonvisual accessibility designs, and I know you elaborated on 
that in the questioning. My bill would establish the advisory 
council at NHTSA to provide guidance specific for these types 
of issues. Can you elaborate on the need for both technical 
guidance as well as best practices to incorporate the mobility 
community?
    Mr. Riccobono. Yes. So, on the technical piece, you know, 
we--so often in design, what we see is that people create 
design structures, interfaces that require vision, and we know 
that that is just not going to work for blind people. And so 
blind people need to be included in that because, especially 
today, the go-to design that people think of for blind people 
is you should talk to things.
    Well, if you have ever tried to talk to your iPhone or your 
Android, you know why you don't want to rely on that for your 
car, at least if you want to get somewhere quickly. So we need 
multiple interfaces, but that is just not enough. We need to 
make sure that the schemes for regulating these vehicles and 
use of these vehicles don't also keep individuals or classes of 
individuals out because of the way they are designed.
    So having people with disabilities, elected leaders of 
people with disabilities to represent the voice and the 
experience of that community, as well as seniors and others, is 
critical to getting the design right. And, finally, the 
innovation that comes from having all those people involved is 
really huge and, I think, will benefit everybody.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Very good.
    Mr. Bozzella and Shapiro--I guess I have a few seconds--
what do you think this technology will mean for the senior 
community?
    Mr. Bozzella. I think it will be very significant and 
transformational. The opportunity to extend the ability to be 
mobile and do that safely will be significant, I believe.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. And, again, you know, we don't 
have the public transportation like we should in our area, 
particularly in the State of Florida, so that I think it would 
be very beneficial if we do it right.
    And, Mr. Shapiro, would you like to comment on that?
    Mr. Shapiro. I agree; it will be transformational for many 
seniors. It will actually cut down on accidents just by taking 
a certain percent of the population that perhaps should not be 
driving out of the pool. I mean those that really should not be 
driving and may still be, because they need their independence, 
and we have to respect the fact that that is what seniors want. 
This is what is empowering about it, and I think it will be 
transformational.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back.
    Before I can adjourn the committee, I want to put into the 
record. I will be seeking unanimous consent to insert letters, 
testimony, and other information into the record, and that 
includes: letter from the Center for Auto Safety; a statement 
from the American--what does that say--Property Casualty 
Insurance Association; letter from the San Francisco Municipal 
Transportation Agency; letter from the Disability Rights 
Education and Defense Fund; letter from the National Safety 
Council; letter from the National Association of Manufacturers; 
letter from the Disability Rights, Education, and Defense Fund; 
a Report from the Union of Concerned Scientists called 
``Maximizing the Benefits of Self-Driving Vehicles''; a Report 
from the Union of Concerned Scientists called ``Where Are Self-
Driving Cars Taking Us''; letter from TechNet; letter from the 
Self-Driving Coalition; letter from Privacy for Cars; letter 
from the Consumer Federation of America; letter from the United 
States Vehicle Data Access Coalition; letter from the National 
Association of Mutual Insurance Companies; letter from--what is 
that--Nuro; Letter from L. A. DOT; letter from Uber; letter 
from Continental; letter from the Motor Equipment Manufacturers 
Association; letter from the Senate to DOT about autonomous 
vehicles; letter from the New York City Department of 
Transportation; letter from the Association of American 
Railroads; letter from the National Automobile Dealers 
Association.
    And I do ask unanimous consent.
    Hearing no objection, so approved.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Ms. Schakowsky. And now I would like to thank all of our 
witnesses for their participation in today's hearing. You can 
see how important it is to so many of our Members of Congress 
who did show up to this hearing and even waive on.
    I remind members that, pursuant to committee rules, they 
have ten business days to submit additional questions for the 
record to be answered by the witnesses who have appeared. I ask 
each witness, because I think there will be questions, to 
respond as promptly as possible to any questions that you may 
receive.
    [The information follows:]
    Ms. Schakowsky. And at this time, I----
    Mrs. Rodgers. Can I speak?
    Ms. Schakowsky. If you would like to say a word.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Sure. Well, I might just say, I asked some 
car manufacturers recently, so when am I going to be able to 
buy one of these self-driving cars? And the response was, Well, 
maybe your kids, maybe your grandkids.
    So we still have a long ways to go, but having this hearing 
today and getting this discussion going, I think is really 
important, and I am hopeful for some bipartisan legislation.
    Ms. Schakowsky. I couldn't agree more.
    And at this time, then, the subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:56 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]

               Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta

    Thank you, Ranking Member Rodgers, for yielding, and thank 
you to Chairwoman Schakowsky for holding this important 
hearing.
    Self-driving cars are the way of the future and will 
revolutionize our nation's roadways. Three years ago, as 
Chairman of this subcommittee, I began the process to legislate 
on self-driving cars. We took over 300 meetings before drafting 
a bill that found the right balance of encouraging innovation 
and implementing federal guidance where appropriate. Congress' 
role isn't just to ensure the United States is a leader in the 
development of autonomous vehicles--Congress must act to 
provide Americans with safer vehicles so that we can better 
prevent accidents and loss of life on our roads.
    Self-driving cars will make Americans safer and give 
mobility and independence to seniors and individuals with 
disabilities. These are just a few of the reasons why the SELF 
DRIVE Act was so significant, and why it was passed out of the 
House in 2017.
    I am pleased to see this Committee continuing to focus on 
this critical issue and urge the Chairwoman to swiftly consider 
bipartisan AV legislation.
    Before yielding back, I would like to offer for the record 
a letter from C--TEC supporting our bipartisan efforts to 
advance self-driving vehicle legislation.
    Thank you.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                
                                [all]