[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PROMISES AND PERILS: THE POTENTIAL OF AUTOMOBILE TECHNOLOGIES
=======================================================================
VIRTUAL HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION AND COMMERCE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 18, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-32
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
48-264 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado FRED UPTON, Michigan
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 BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
Chair JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
Chair
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
KATHY CASTOR, Florida Ranking Member
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts FRED UPTON, Michigan
JERRY McNERNEY, California ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
TONY CARDENAS, California, Vice LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
Chair NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan GREG PENCE, Indiana
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
DARREN SOTO, Florida KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota (ex officio)
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
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. Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, opening statement............................ 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington, opening statement..................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Hon. Debbie Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Michigan, prepared statement................................ 87
Witnesses
Jason Levine, Executive Director, Center for Auto Safety......... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Answers to submitted questions............................... 157
Regunathan ``Raj'' Rajkumar, Ph.D., Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University............... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Greg Regan, President, Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO. 38
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Answers to submitted questions............................... 168
Submitted Material
Statement of the American Alliance for Vehicle Owners' Rights,
May 18, 2021, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky...................... 89
Letter of May 17, 2021, from the Alliance for Justice, et al., to
Ms. Schakowsky and Mr. Bilirakis, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky.. 94
Letter of May 17, 2021, from Ann Wilson, Senior Vice President,
Government Affairs, Motor & Equipment Manufacturers
Association, to Mr. Pallone, et al., submitted by Ms.
Schakowsky..................................................... 96
Letter of May 17, 2021, from Catherine Chase, President,
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, to Ms. Schakowsky and
Mr. Bilirakis, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky\1\
Statement of Thomas M. Kowalick, Chair, Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers, May 18, 2021, submitted by Ms.
Schakowsky..................................................... 99
Letter of May 17, 2021, from William Wallace, Manager, Safety
Policy, and Christopher Harto, Senior Sustainability Analyst,
Consumer Reports, to Ms. Schakowsky and Mr. Bilirakis,
submitted by Ms. Schakowsky.................................... 111
Letter of May 18, 2021, from Jonathan Bergner, Vice President,
Public Policy and Federal Affairs, National Association of
Mutual Insurance Companies, to Ms. Schakowsky and Mr.
Bilirakis, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky......................... 115
Letter of May 18, 2021, from Greg Regan, President,
Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO, to Ms. Schakowsky
and Mr. Bilirakis, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky................. 135
----------
\1\ The letter has been retained in committee files and is available at
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20210518/112637/HHRG-117-IF17-
20210518-SD006.pdf.
Report of the Federal Trade Commission, ``Nixing the Fix: An FTC
Report to Congress on Repair Restrictions,'' May 2021,
submitted by Ms. Schakowsky\2\
Press release of April 27, 2021, ``Auto Innovators Announces
Driver Monitoring Safety Principles,'' Alliance for Automotive
Innovation, submitted by Mrs. Rodgers.......................... 141
Fact sheet, ``Policy Roadmap to Advance Automated Vehicle
Innovation,'' Alliance for Automotive Innovation, submitted by
Mrs. Rodgers................................................... 142
Fact sheet, ``America Loses Too Many Lives on Our Roads,'' Self-
Driving Coalition for Safer Streets, submitted by Mrs. Rodgers. 143
Article of May 4, 2021, ``Hyperdrive Daily: China Ramps Up its
Autonomous Vehicle Development,'' by Nicholas Albanese,
Bloomberg, submitted by Mrs. Rodgers........................... 144
Statement of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, ``The
Automated Future-What is at Stake?,'' submitted by Mrs. Rodgers 147
Press release of April 20, 2021, ``Auto Innovators Releases Plan
to Advance Safety at the Speed of Innovation,'' Alliance for
Automotive Innovation, submitted by Mrs. Rodgers............... 151
Letter of May 18, 2021, from the U.S. Chamber Technology
Engagement Center to Ms. Schakowsky and Mr. Bilirakis,
submitted by Mrs. Rodgers...................................... 152
Fact sheet, ``U.S. Must Maintain Global Leadership on AVs,''
Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets, submitted by Mrs.
Rodgers........................................................ 154
Letter of May 11, 2021, from Mark A. Riccobono, President,
National Federation of the Blind, to Hon. Maria Cantwell and
Hon. Roger Wicker, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, submitted by Mrs. Rodgers...................... 155
----------
\2\ The report has been retained in committee files and is available at
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20210518/112637/HHRG-117-IF17-
20210518-SD013.pdf.
PROMISES AND PERILS: THE POTENTIAL OF AUTOMOBILE TECHNOLOGIES
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:34 a.m., via
Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Jan Schakowsky
(chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Schakowsky, Rush, Castor,
Trahan, McNerney, Cardenas, Kelly, Soto, Rice, Craig, Fletcher,
Pallone (ex officio), Bilirakis (subcommittee ranking member),
Upton, Latta, Guthrie, Bucshon, Dunn, Lesko, Pence, Armstrong,
and Rodgers (ex officio).
Also present: Representatives Eshoo, Doyle, and Joyce.
Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; Lisa
Goldman, Senior Counsel; Waverly Gordon, General Counsel;
Jessica Grandberry, Staff Assistant; Daniel Greene,
Professional Staff Member; Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff
Director; Perry Hamilton, Clerk; Alex Hoehn-Saric, Chief
Counsel, Communications and Consumer Protection; James Johnson,
Policy Coordinator; Ed Kaczmarski, Policy Analyst; Zach Kahan,
Deputy Director, Outreach and Member Service; Mackenzie Kuhl,
Digital Assistant; Phil Murphy, Policy Coordinator; Tim
Robinson, Chief Counsel; Chloe Rodriguez, Clerk; Andrew
Souvall, Director of Communications, Outreach, and Member
Services; Sydney Terry, Policy Coordinator; Sarah Burke,
Minority Deputy Staff Director; Michael Cameron, Minority
Policy Analyst, Consumer Protection and Commerce, Energy,
Environment; William Clutterbuck, Minority Staff Assistant/
Policy Analyst; Theresa Gambo, Minority Financial and Office
Administrator; Nate Hodson, Minority Staff Director; Tim Kurth,
Minority Chief Counsel, Consumer Protection and Commerce; and
Brannon Rains, Minority Professional Staff Member, Consumer
Protection and Commerce.
Ms. Schakowsky. The Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and
Commerce will now come to order. Due to--today we will hold a
hearing entitled ``Promises and Perils: The Potential of
Automobile Technologies.''
Due to the COVID-19 health emergency today, the hearing--
today's hearing is going to be held remotely. All Members and
witnesses will participate via conference.
As part of our hearing, microphones will be set on mute for
the purpose of eliminating inadvertent background noise.
Members are--and witnesses will need to unmute your own
microphone each time that you wish to speak.
Additionally, Members will need to be visible on the screen
in order to be recognized.
Documents for the record can be sent to Ed Kaczmarski at
the email that we provided to the staff. All documents will be
entered into the record at the end of--the conclusion of the
hearing.
So the--we will begin with opening statements, and the
Chair will now recognize herself for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAN SCHAKOWSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
So good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us. Today
this subcommittee will hear about the potentials for automobile
technologies to improve lives and enhance safety.
Let me state up front: Innovation and revolutionary
transportation technologies do not have to come at the expense
of our workers or the domestic manufacturing. Hundreds of
thousands of Americans are gainfully employed in the automobile
manufacturing sector, and more than 4 million Americans work as
drivers. As we head into the next era of automobile technology,
including autonomous vehicles, we must ensure economic security
for the--for this critical workforce and their families.
We also must ensure that these vehicles are safe and
accessible to improve mobility.
Twenty-twenty was the worst year in a generation for
automobile fatalities and injuries, despite the dramatic
decrease in the number of cars that are--actually have been on
the road, due to--and I think that that is likely due to the
fact that drivers have been more reckless as the roads have
been more open.
Crash avoidance systems, lane departure warnings, and other
advanced driver assistance systems could save tens of thousands
of lives every year. However, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration has not established safety standards for
these technologies. Given the increase in deaths and a--I
think, at this point, a deregulatory approach is really
unwarranted.
The Federal Government needs to create standards to ensure
the safe deployment of technologies that are available now and
in the future. Standards will create certainty that is needed
to accelerate innovation. I am sure we will hear this morning
about the need to compete with China, but we must not do so
in--at the expense of the safety of Americans and the American
workforce.
So I want to thank all of the witnesses that are here
today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Schakowsky follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jan Schakowsky
Good morning and thank you for joining us.
Today, this subcommittee will hear about the potential for
automobile technologies to improve lives and enhance safety.
Let me state up front: Innovation and revolutionary
transportation technologies do not have to come at the expense
of our workers or domestic manufacturing.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans are gainfully employed
in the automobile manufacturing sector. And more than 4 million
Americans work as drivers. As we head into the next era of
automobile technologies-including autonomous vehicles-we must
ensure economic security for this critical workforce and their
families.
We also must ensure that these vehicles are safe and
accessible to improve mobility.
2020 was the worst year in a generation for automobile
fatalities and injuries despite dramatic decreases in the
number of cars on the roads, likely due to more reckless
driving on more open roads.
Crash avoidance systems, lane departure warnings, and other
advanced driver assistance systems could save tens of thousands
of lives per year. However, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration has not established safety standards for these
technologies.
Given the increase in deaths, a deregulatory approach is
unwarranted. The Federal Government needs to create standards
to ensure the safe deployment of technologies available now and
in the future.
Standards will create the certainty needed to accelerate
innovation. I am sure we will hear about our need to compete
with China, but we mustn't do so at the expense of the safety
of Americans or the American workforce.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here today and I yield
the balance of my time to my friend and colleague
Representative Dingell.
Ms. Schakowsky. And my intention has been to yield to my
colleague and friend, Congresswoman Dingell. Is she there?
Do we have you, Debbie?
[Pause.]
Ms. Schakowsky. It looks like we don't. So, instead, I am
going to yield back, and the Chair now recognizes Mr.
Bilirakis, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Consumer
Protection and Commerce, for his 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
Mr. Bilirakis, it is yours.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GUS M. BILIRAKIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate it very
much. And good morning to everyone. Thank you for holding this
important hearing, Madam Chair. And I want to thank today's
panel for their testimonies. I am eager to hear their
perspectives on this issue.
As you all know, I am from the State of Florida, and many
of my colleagues would associate that with the NASA program.
The goals set by our space program and its partnership with
innovative businesses has had a transformational impact on our
economy and our daily lives. It has led to many benefits, from
image sensors and mobile phones to hearing aids and improved
radial tires. I feel similarly about the topic of the hearing
today, automobile technologies, as well as a conversation about
the future of autonomous vehicles.
It is important to say ``the future of'' because there is
an assumption among many that these vehicles are already being
sold commercially today, when they certainly are not.
Driverless vehicles now are still in a very early testing--the
very early testing stages, and still have a long way to go.
However, by designing our own moonshot framework for AVs, we
can set the industry on the path to a fully autonomous vehicle
that is currently still many years away.
But the importance of achieving that goal and so many
advancements will be borne along the way that will make the
current generations of--generation of cars safer and force us
to rethink how vehicle designs should evolve. The U.S. must
seek that--the highest form of autonomy, so we can reap all
those benefits. Without that, many of the innovations won't be
developed by us, and our economy and society will be at a loss,
in my opinion. We will lose the race to other countries around
the world.
Additionally, the sad context here is that nearly 40,000
people die each year in traffic accidents, and in almost every
case the denominator is the same: human error. The preventable
loss of life on our roads is tragic and unacceptable.
The AV ecosystem will also go beyond increasing the safety
of our roads. It has the potential to transform the lives of
seniors and those living with disabilities in my district in
Florida and around the Nation. Every advancement will connect
these communities that feel isolated and cut off from everyday
routines many take for granted. That means the benefits go
beyond safety. It really means opportunity and accessibility.
We have already seen real examples of how our future could
be impacted. During the pandemic, AVs transported COVID-19
tests to and from the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida.
This was occurring at a crucial time and demonstrates the real-
world impact we should be embracing.
Again, I do want to be clear: Fully autonomous vehicles are
not currently sold on our market today, and they won't be
tomorrow. But we must develop a framework path forward so they
are safely tested and deployed and, in doing so, educate the
public during this transition period of what is occurring in
these adaptive technologies.
For that reason, I wanted to specifically call out and
thank Professor Rajkumar, from Carnegie Mellon University in
Pittsburgh, who is with us today. The professor is a respected
authority on the topic and can communicate the facts and myths
of this future technology. This objective of informing and
educating the public on this issue also led me to introduce--
and I will later this week, actually--the Raising Objectivity
standards in Advertising Driving Systems, or the ROADS Act. If
you could take a look at that bill, I would appreciate it very
much, once I introduce. Or, if you have any interest, please
contact my office.
This bill will look at ways to most effectively communicate
about the capabilities and limitations of advanced driver
assistance systems by examining how manufacturers advertise,
disclose, label, and name their vehicles--driving systems. It
really is common sense. Current vehicle descriptions, such as
``autopilot,'' can mislead consumers into thinking their cars
have self-driving capabilities when they do not, much the
same--the same way that the public had to understand how
antilock brakes work.
They need to understand the benefits and limitations of the
current generation of technologies----
Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Bilirakis, you are going to need to
wind up. You are way over time.
Mr. Bilirakis. Let's say 10 more seconds?
Ms. Schakowsky. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK. Again, I am hopeful today serves as a
path to move forward with several priorities that this
committee has in the automotive space. It will be such a shame
if we miss the opportunity to pass bipartisan legislation that
can be included in broader efforts moving us--moving forward.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bilirakis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis
Good morning everyone. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding
this important hearing and thank you to today's panel for your
testimony. I am eager to hear your perspectives.
You all know I am from Florida, and many of my colleagues
would associate that with the NASA program. The goals set by
our space program and the partnership with businesses to serve
those needs has had a transformational impact on our economy
and our daily lives. It has led to many benefits from image
sensors in mobile phones, to hearing aids, and improved radial
tires.
I feel much the same way about the topic of the hearing
today. When we think about automotive technologies, the
conversation is really about the future of autonomous vehicles.
It is important to say ``the future of'' because there is
an assumption that these vehicles are already being sold today.
They most certainly are not.
However, by designing our own moonshot framework for AVs,
we can set the industry on the path to a fully autonomous
vehicle that is still many years away. The importance of that
goal though is so many advancements will be borne along the way
that will make current generation cars safer and force us to
rethink how vehicle designs should evolve.
The U.S. must seek that highest form of autonomy so we can
reap all those benefits along the way. Without that, many of
the innovations won't be developed by us and our economy and
society will be at a loss. Nearly 40,000 people die each year
in traffic accidents, and in almost every case, the denominator
is the same--human error. The preventable loss of life on our
roads is tragic and unacceptable.
The AV ecosystem will also go beyond increasing the safety
of our roads. It has the potential to transform the lives of
seniors and those living with disabilities. Every advancement
will connect these communities that feel cut off from everyday
routines many take for granted. That means the benefits go
beyond safety, it really means opportunity and accessibility.
We have already seen real examples of how our future could be
impacted. During the pandemic, AVs transported COVID-19 tests
at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. This was occurring
at a crucial time and demonstrates the real-world impact we
should be embracing.
Again, I do want to be clear. Fully autonomous vehicles are
not in our market today, and they won't be tomorrow. We must
develop a framework, so they are safely tested and deployed,
and in doing so educate the public during this transition
period of what is occurring in these adaptive technologies. For
that reason, I wanted to specifically call out Professor
Rajkumar (Raj-Koo-Mar) from Carnegie Mellon University who is
with us today. The professor is a respected authority on the
topic and deals with the facts and myths of this future
technology.
I believe so much in being objective with the public on
this that it led me to introduce [H.R. XXXX], the ``Raising
Objectivity standards in Advertising Driving Systems'' or the
``ROADS Act.'' H.R. [XXXX] would look at ways to
mosteffectively communicate how to educate consumers about the
capabilities and limitations of advanced driver-assistance
systems by examining how manufacturers advertise, disclose,
label, and name their vehicles' driving systems.
Current vehicle descriptions such as ``autopilot'' can
mislead consumers into thinking their cars have self-driving
capabilities which they do not. Much to the way the public had
to understand how antilock brakes work, they need to understand
the benefits and limitations of the current generation of
technologies, and that certainly begins with properly
describing them.
I am hopeful today serves to move forward with several
priorities that this committee has in the automotive space. It
will be such a shame if we miss the opportunity to pass
bipartisan legislation that can be included in broader efforts
moving this Congress.
Thank you again, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Bilirakis. So, anyway, thank you very much, Madam
Chair, I appreciate it. Thanks for holding this very important
hearing, and I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back. And now I call
on the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for his 5-
minute 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 more than
42,000 people died in the U.S. as a result of auto accidents,
and nearly 4.8 million were injured. And these deaths and
injuries are preventable, and demand action from Congress and
Federal regulators. And we are prepared to meet this challenge
with a bold vision for safety innovation that will save lives,
boost domestic manufacturing, strengthen our industrial base,
protect and create new jobs, and grow wages.
So last--in the last session of the House we passed the
Moving Forward Act. That included important auto safety reforms
that mandate proven safety technologies that could save 20,000
lives per year. The legislation included the Five Stars for
Smart Cars Act, which would have modernized the five-star
safety rating and provided consumers with meaningful
information about the safety of vehicles. It also included
provisions that would have mandated crash avoidance systems and
drunk driving prevention technologies. It would have also put
an end to children dying in hot cars, prevented carbon monoxide
poisoning, and dangerous roll-aways of keyless ignition
vehicles, and, finally, address glaring limousine safety
issues.
And so this is our vision to end the epidemic of automobile
crashes and save American lives. And by putting Americans'
safety first, we are also putting American workers, the
industrial base, and our economy first. An investment in safety
is an investment in domestic manufacturing.
Auto manufacturing is still the largest domestic
manufacturing sector. But like many manufacturing sectors, our
auto industry faces steady headwinds. Domestic auto production
has decreased by 11 percent since 1994. And during that same
period, nearly a fifth of all vehicle and parts manufacturing
jobs were lost, and real wages decreased by 22 percent. And
this hollowing out of America's industrial might threatens our
economic security and harms our ability to compete
internationally. If this century is to be another American
century, the United States must harness innovation, strengthen
the industrial base, and invest in the American worker.
So that is why I am so pleased that the Biden
administration has released a transformative proposal, the
American Jobs Plan, to upgrade our Nation's infrastructure,
revitalize manufacturing, and shore up supply chains. Cutting-
edge technologies like autonomous vehicles hold the promise of
improving safety, expanding mobility, and strengthening our
economy.
And fortunately, we hold a competitive edge in developing
and deploying AVs. According to KPMG, the United States ranks
higher in preparedness for AVs than Japan, Germany, and China.
We have to preserve and expand this advantage by making sure
that the United States, not countries like China, write the
rules of the road for this technology. But we must chart a
course that balances deployment with our fundamental American
values, and those are safety, workforce protections, and
environmental stewardship.
We can't save lives if AVs does not operate safely or
adhere to State and local laws. We can't create jobs and grow
wages if we don't address how AVs may displace workers. And we
can't meet our climate goals if AVs lead to more congestion or
undermine our bedrock environmental laws. So Congress can
bridge these gaps by creating a national road map for AVs that
establishes robust workforce protections for those whose
livelihoods may be harmed by the deployment of AVs, ensures
that these technologies are developed and manufactured in the
U.S., and protects the environment, Americans' rights, and
safety.
So I think we have to act thoughtfully to address all these
issues. That is why we are having this hearing today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Last year, more than 42,000 people died in the United
States as a result of automobile accidents and nearly 4.8
million were injured. These deaths and injuries are preventable
and demand action from Congress and Federal regulators.
We are prepared to meet this challenge with a bold vision
for safety and innovation that will save lives, boost domestic
manufacturing, strengthen our industrial base, protect and
create new jobs, and grow wages.
In the last session of the House we passed The Moving
Forward Act. That included important auto safety reforms that
mandate proven safety technologies that could save 20,000 lives
per year.
The legislation included the Five Stars for Smart Cars Act,
which would have modernized the five-star safety rating and
provided consumers with meaningful information about the safety
of vehicles. It also included provisions that would have
mandated crash avoidance systems and drunk driving prevention
technology. It would have also put an end to children dying in
hot cars, prevented carbon monoxide poisoning and dangerous
rollaways of keyless ignition vehicles, and finally addressed
glaring limousine safety issues.
This is our vision to end the epidemic of automobile
crashes and save Americans' lives. And by putting Americans'
safety first, we're also putting American workers, the
industrial base, and our economy first. An investment in safety
is an investment in domestic manufacturing.
Auto manufacturing is still the largest domestic
manufacturing sector. But like many manufacturing sectors, our
auto industry faces steady headwinds. Domestic auto production
has decreased by 11 percent since 1994. During that same
period, nearly a fifth of all vehicle and parts manufacturing
jobs were lost and real wages decreased by 22 percent.
This hollowing out of America's industrial might threatens
our economic security and harms our ability to compete
internationally. If this century is to be another American
century, the United States must harness innovation, strengthen
the industrial base, and invest in the American worker.
That's why I'm so pleased that the Biden administration has
released a transformative proposal--the American Jobs Plan--to
upgrade our Nation's infrastructure, revitalize manufacturing,
and shore up supply chains.
Cutting edge technologies like autonomous vehicles (AVs)
hold the promise of improving safety, expanding mobility, and
strengthening our economy. Fortunately, we hold a competitive
edge in developing and deploying AVs. According to KPMG, the
United States ranks higher in preparedness for AVs than Japan,
Germany, and China.
We must preserve and expand this advantage by making sure
that the United States--not countries like China--writes the
rules of the road for this technology. But we must chart a
course that balances deployment with our fundamental American
values: safety, workforce protections, and environmental
stewardship.
We cannot save lives if AVs do not operate safely or adhere
to State and local laws. We cannot create jobs and grow wages
if we don't address how AVs may displace workers. We cannot
meet our climate goals if AVs lead to more congestion or
undermine our bedrock environmental laws.
Congress can bridge these gaps by creating a national
roadmap for AVs that establishes robust workforce protections
for those whose livelihoods may be harmed by the deployment of
AVs, ensures that these technologies are developed and
manufactured in the United States, and protects the environment
and Americans' rights and safety.
We have to act thoughtfully to address all these issues,
and that's why we're having this hearing today.
Thank you.
Mr. Pallone. And I wanted to yield a minute and a half now
to Representative Doyle.
Mr. Doyle. Well, thank you, Chairman Pallone, for yielding
to me. And thank you, Chair Schakowsky, for holding this
important hearing.
I would like to welcome Professor Rajkumar from Carnegie
Mellon University in my hometown of Pittsburgh. He directs
Mobility 21 and the Metro 21 Smart Cities Institute at CMU. Raj
is also a pioneer and leading researcher in the development of
AV technologies. His work and that of others at CMU has led
Pittsburgh to become a world leader in AV research and
development, and it is the reason that I care so deeply about
this technology and, as the hearing title alludes to, the
promise and perils that it portends.
We, as a government, need to help guide the development and
adoption of this technology. Americans need to have faith in
the safety and efficacy of AVs. They need to know that someone
is accountable when they fail. And we need to have a plan for
how this technology is going to increase, and not detract, from
equity in our society for workers and for marginalized
communities. It is critical that we bring folks to the table
and have these important discussions because, if we can't
figure out a path forward, someone else will.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this time. Thank you, Chair
Schakowsky, for this hearing. I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. And I yield back, as well, Madam Chair.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back, and the Chair
now recognizes Mrs. Rodgers, ranking member of the full
committee, for 5 minutes for her opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I speak on
AVs, I would like to appeal to all the members of this
committee to support full, in-person hearings. I heard the
Chair say at the beginning, ``Due to the COVID-19 health
emergency, this hearing is being held remotely.''
Madam Chair, the CDC guidance allows for in-person
hearings. It is time. The Senate is holding in-person hearings.
I am a proud member of this committee. We often say we all know
that it is the best committee on Capitol Hill. And I speak for
many of my colleagues who are eager to do the people's work
again together, face to face, not through a computer screen or
muted.
Virtual hearings are taking a toll on this committee's
important work and further breaking down our effectiveness.
Let's come together. Let's reopen E&C to legislate and plow the
hard ground necessary to get things done on behalf of the
people that we have the honor to represent in the People's
House.
Now, turning back to today's hearing, this is a critical
time for us to be discussing the advancement of autonomous
technologies that will bring more efficient movement of people
and goods, further reduce carbon emissions, save lives--
currently, 37,000 people, on average, die on our roadways, most
due to human error--and improve mobility for so many.
The surface transportation bill expires this year, and
discussions on its reauthorization are currently underway.
At the same time, U.S. leadership in innovation and next-
generation technologies is being challenged by adversaries like
the China--Chinese Communist Party. To win the future and beat
China, the Energy and Commerce Committee must again move
bipartisan legislation. We must act now to ensure the U.S.
continues to lead in technologies like AVs. If we fail to act
as we did last Congress, not only do we risk ceding global
leadership to China, but here in Congress we risk ceding this
committee's stewardship of these matters. Our fellow committees
will not hesitate to legislate on next-generation technologies
and creep in on our jurisdiction.
So how should we think about these challenges before us?
Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote, ``Do not follow where the
path may lead. Go instead where there is no path, and leave a
trail.'' Now, he was not talking about autonomous vehicles when
he wrote that. Yet it is a fitting way to think about the
future, and the future of these technologies, and the
opportunity that we have on this committee to lead with unique
solutions.
As with any new technology, businesses of all sizes and
sectors will be disrupted and forced to adjust. The workforce
will need to be retrained to prepare and adapt.
At the same time, we are already seeing the benefits
associated with AVs. During COVID we have witnessed how AVs can
be used to deliver critical food, medical supplies, virus
tests, and other needed provisions. During this time many of us
have also experienced some degree of restrictions as to where
we can go and what we can do.
Sadly, for many of our senior citizens and those with
disabilities, these are the kinds of restrictions that they
live with every single day. But AV technology has the power to
tremendously improve their access and mobility. The idea that
someone with a disability could one day be able to get into a
car and go wherever they need to go is revolutionary. Many of
these adjustments will be challenging, but they will be more
challenging if the U.S. is not forging the path and leading the
way. If we do not lead, we will empower our adversaries to
chart the future for AVs, artificial intelligence, and other
critical and emerging technologies this committee has
championed.
China is moving forward with ambitious plans to lead the
development and deployment of AVs. Their authoritarian regime
is already providing a roadmap. We cannot trust the CCP to set
the standards for this industry, and we certainly cannot trust
them to protect intellectual property and individual rights.
The standards and regulatory framework must be led by the
United States.
America values the importance of safety of our citizens.
China does not. We value our workforce and free market
economies. China does not. We value civil society groups and
their right to speak freely. China does not. We uphold Western
values like liberty, individualism, and human rights. And we
culture--and we cultivate innovation, entrepreneurship, and
competition from the ground up. China does not.
To win the future, the United States of America must lead
on AVs. We must chart the path so that all of these
considerations can be part of the road we design and not
determined by our adversary that does not respect our ideals
and values.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Good morning.
Before I speak on AVs, I would like to appeal to all
members of this committee to support full in-person hearings.
It's time. The CDC guidance allows for it. The Senate is
holding in-person hearings. Other committees in the House have
been in-person in some capacity. It's time for us to also lead
the way.
I speak for many of my colleagues who are eager to do the
People's work again--together face to face not through a
computer screen or muted. Please, let's come together and
reopen E&C to legislate and plow the hard ground to get things
done.
Now, turning back to today's hearing. This is a critical
time to be discussing the advancement of automotive
technologies. The surface transportation bill expires this
year, and discussions on its reauthorization are currently
underway. At the same time, U.S. leadership in innovation and
next generation technologies is being challenged by adversaries
like the Chinese Communist Party.
To win the future and beat China, the Energy and Commerce
Committee must again move bipartisan legislation--we must act
now to ensure the U.S. continues to lead in technologies like
AVs.
If we fail to act as we did last Congress, not only do we
risk ceding global leadership to China, but here in Congress we
risk ceding this committee's stewardship of these matters. Our
fellow committees will not hesitate to legislate on next
generation technologies and creep in on our jurisdiction. So
how should we think about these challenges before us?
Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote, ``Do not follow where the
path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a
trail.'' He was not talking about autonomous vehicles when he
wrote that, yet it is a fitting way to think about the future
of these technologies and the opportunity we have on this
committee to lead with unique solutions.
As with any new technology, businesses of all sizes and
sectors will be disrupted and forced to adjust. The workforce
will need to be re-trained to prepare and adapt for future
opportunities. At the same time, we are already seeing the
benefits associated with AVs. During the COVID-19 pandemic,
we've witnessed how AVs can be used to deliver critical food,
medical supplies, virus tests, and other needed provisions.
During this time, many of us have also experienced some
degree of restrictions for where we can go and what we can do.
Sadly, for many of our senior citizens and those with
disabilities, these are the kinds of restrictions they live
with every single day but AV technology has the power to
tremendously improve their access and mobility. The idea that
someone with a disability could one day be able to get into a
car and go wherever they need to go is revolutionary. Many of
these adjustments will be challenging, but they will be more
challenging if the U.S. is not forging the path and leading the
way.
If we do not lead, we will empower our adversaries to chart
the future for AVs, artificial intelligence, and other critical
and emerging technologies this committeehas championed. China
is moving ahead with ambitious plans to lead the development
and deployment of AVs. Their authoritarian regime is already
providing a roadmap to deploy AVs throughout China.
We cannot trust the CCP to set the standards for this
industry and we certainly cannot trust them to protect
intellectual property. The standards and regulatory framework
must be lead by the U.S. America values the importance of the
safety of our citizens--China does not. We value our workforce
and free market economics--China does not. We value civil
society groups, and their right to speak freely--China does
not. We uphold Western values like liberty, individualism, and
human rights and we cultivate innovation, entrepreneurship, and
competition from the ground up--China does not.
To win the future, the U.S. must lead on AVs. We must chart
the path so all of these considerations can be part of a road
we design, not determined by an adversary that does not respect
our ideals and values. I look forward to the discussion today.
With that I yield back, Thank you.
Mrs. Rodgers. I look forward to this discussion today, and
with that I yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentlewoman----
[Audio malfunction.]
Ms. Schakowsky. I think that is me. No? OK.
The gentlewoman 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 now I would like to introduce our witnesses for today's
hearing.
We have--Jason Levine is the director of--is the executive
director of the Center for Auto Safety.
Raj--I will get this right--Raj Rajkumin--Raj Rajkumar is
the George Westinghouse professor in the Department of Electric
and Computer Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University.
And Greg Regan is the president of the Transportation Trade
Department of the AFL-CIO.
So we want to thank our witnesses for joining us today. We
look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Levine, you are recognized now for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JASON LEVINE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR AUTO
SAFETY; RAGUNATHAN ``RAJ'' RAJKUMAR, Ph.D., DEPARTMENT OF
ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING, CARNEGIE MELLON
UNIVERSITY; AND GREG REGAN, PRESIDENT, TRANSPORTATION TRADES
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO
STATEMENT OF JASON LEVINE
Mr. Levine. Thank you, and good morning. Good morning,
Chairman Pallone, Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking Member
McMorris Rodgers, and Ranking Member Bilirakis. And thank you
for holding this important hearing today.
My name is Jason Levine, and I am the executive director of
the Center for Auto Safety. Since 1970 the center has been the
Nation's premier, member-supported, independent, nonprofit
consumer advocacy organization dedicated to improving vehicle
safety, quality, and fuel economy for all drivers, passengers,
and pedestrians.
The topic of today's hearing is ``Promises and Perils: the
Potential of Automobile Technologies.''
For 51 years the Center for Auto Safety has urged using
proven vehicle safety technology to protect everyone inside and
outside vehicles. The promise of such technology in combination
with smarter infrastructure and a dedication to consumer rights
is a safer world for all, starting right now.
The perils are our continued acceptance of 115 deaths a day
every year, the equivalent of everyone in a sold-out Washington
Nationals Park being killed.
A lot has changed in the 2 years since I last had the honor
of appearing before this subcommittee. Obviously, the last time
we met in person, and today we are connected virtually. Sadly,
however, far too much has remained the same. Since May 2019, an
estimated 80,000 lives have been lost due to vehicle crashes in
the United States. Last year, an estimated 42,060 lives were
taken, representing an incredible 8 percent increase from the
previous year, and the greatest year-over-year increase since
1924.
There are still an estimated 5,000 deaths involving heavy
trucks, annually killing both truck drivers and other road
users, such as 6-month-old Leo Wallace of South Bend, Indiana,
who was killed last week in a rear-end collision.
The fatality rate in rural communities remains twice as
high as in America's urban areas. Pedestrians, bicyclists, and
other vulnerable road users now number over 7,000 deaths
annually, including the death in November of Larry Willis, the
president of TTD.
Greg, our condolences go out to you and everyone in the TTD
family.
This ongoing public health crisis is, in large part, due to
our vehicle safety policy remaining in pit row, while the rest
of the world laps us by focusing on using available safety
technology. Taylor Grace Warner died at 17 months old when her
parents' seatbacks collapsed in a crash. Sammy Cohen Eckstein
was run over at age 12 in the street outside his home by a
speeding van. Jewel Brangman died at age 26, as a passenger,
when a defective recalled airbag deployed shrapnel in her face.
These victims and many thousands like them derive no
benefit from counting the number of state-funded companies
exposing Chinese citizens to the risks of automated vehicle
technology. Their families took no comfort from discussions
about the need to protect AV manufacturers from liability, even
after Elaine Herzberg, a pedestrian, was killed by an automated
test vehicle in Arizona. Conversations about limiting common-
law liability make no one's funeral less awful.
But there is a better way. We recommend a four-pronged
approach to seize on the potential of existing and yet-to-come
vehicle technologies: Federal Government involvement, data
collection, gated certification, and requiring standards for
proven advanced driver assistance systems.
However, instead of a debate about solutions to an actual
crisis, crash victims and their families must suffer through
another round of Chicken Little commentary decrying that, if we
do not immediately put all our eggs in the driverless vehicle
basket, the U.S. will lose out in the race to be first to
transportation and environmental nirvana.
Yet few AV proponents who claim to be motivated by vehicle
safety mention that the 29 countries making up the European
Union experienced record-low vehicle-related deaths just last
year, without a single driverless vehicle on the road. The EU,
despite a larger population, and an almost identical number of
vehicles and land size, had fewer than 19,000 crash deaths last
year, a total that is less than half of the U.S. death toll.
This disparity is unacceptable.
The United States remains home to the greatest vehicle
innovators in the world. The time is now to use proven safety
innovations in a way that can save lives immediately. We want
to thank this committee for your ongoing focus on vehicle
safety, an issue that impacts every single American.
On behalf of our members, the Center for Auto Safety stands
ready to assist however we can. We have provided more details
in our written submission, and I look forward to your questions
today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Levine follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you for your testimony. And now,
Professor Rajkumar--I am sorry, say it for me. ``Raj-coo-mar,''
is that correct?
OK, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RAGUNATHAN ``RAJ'' RAJKUMAR, Ph.D.
Dr. Rajkumar. Thank you, Congressman Doyle, for your kind
introduction. I am grateful to Chairman Schakowsky, Ranking
Member Bilirakis, Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Rodgers, and
members of this committee for the opportunity to testify on a
topic vital to American competitiveness and our standard of
living: by ensuring the safe and responsible development of
self-driving vehicle technology.
I am Raj Rajkumar, an academic researcher and educator of
autonomous vehicle AV technology. AV innovations will be
accompanied by large-scale economic opportunities, immense
social benefits, and significant perils. Those perils include
not advancing innovation that will ensure the safety of the
technology, and falling behind in the global technology race
that will define competitiveness in the massive transportation
industry and beyond.
Beginning in the 1980s, investments across eight Federal
agencies advanced various aspects of AV technology. Scientists
like me, working on AVs, share a passion for the mission to
save 42,000 lives lost in the U.S. alone per year and to reduce
the vast human and economic toll of automotive crashes.
When vehicles can drive themselves, transportation deserts
can be eliminated. The elderly and differently abled
individuals will gain personal mobility and independence.
The historical milestone that demonstrated the practical
feasibility of AV technology was triggered by the 2007 DARPA
Urban Challenge. Subsequent investments of more than $10
billion globally have accelerated innovation and applications.
Underlying this history of innovation are the best American
traditions of partnership among government, industry, academia,
and the communities that worked together to incubate this
technology. As we plan ahead to address the challenges,
opportunities, and deployment of AVs, the full might of the
unique American innovation ecosystem must be brought to bear.
The AV market size is estimated at about $7 trillion per
year. This market is not monolithic and comprises multiple
distinct segments. With the same market in mind, Chinese
companies are catching up with us and are now surging ahead,
aided in part by their relatively lax regulations. China can
also apply its global leadership in 5G technologies to leverage
the large volumes of information for use in AVs. Unless we take
quick and corrective action to outinnovate them, China can
secure a dominant position in both these important economic
sectors.
How do we navigate the perils and realize the promise of
AVs?
One, advance a new generation of collaborative research.
Focused investments in basic research are needed to, A, verify,
validate, and demonstrate the safety of AV technologies; B,
enable connectivity; and C, designing smart infrastructure.
Two, accelerate investment and deployment in the
infrastructure of the future. We must deploy smart physical
infrastructure, 5G networks, edge computing, and vehicle-to-
everything communications.
Number three, actively engage on workforce issues. An all-
of-nation commitment must include an up-front, holistic
approach to meet job and workforce needs. Workforce
organizations should be engaging directly in university AV
research. If the technology is not developed or deployed here,
it will happen elsewhere anyway.
Four, actively manage the transition from driver-assist
features to automated driving systems. Robust driver monitoring
mechanisms will help prevent deaths from impaired driving.
NHTSA must also educate the public about the deep chasm between
advanced driver assistance systems and full autonomy and take
action against misleading claims.
Five, the regulatory framework must advance safety and
accelerated innovation. Create a clear and uniform national
approach to on-road testing. Recognize the distinctions between
AV market segments. Keep regulations adaptive and agile.
Encourage collaboration among jurisdictions and create a
national roundtable of stakeholders.
In conclusion, the emergence of AV technology is an
exemplary American innovation success story. However,
significant but addressable technical and policy challenges
remain. We must commit to an all-of-nation initiative to ensure
AV technology does not join the list of innovations which are
invented here in the U.S. but end up generating jobs and wealth
only far beyond our shores.
Thank you. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Rajkumar follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Professor Rajkumar.
And now I welcome Mr. Regan for your 5 minutes of
testimony.
STATEMENT OF GREG REGAN
Mr. Regan. Thank you. On behalf of the Transportation
Trades Department, our 33 affiliated unions, and millions of
frontline workers, I want to thank Chair Schakowsky and Ranking
Member Bilirakis for inviting me to testify today.
Although they are not an affiliate of TTD, we have worked
closely with the Teamsters on automated vehicle policy, and I
share a document, and--I have shared a document with the
committee that outlines our shared principles and request that
it be submitted for the record along with my written testimony.
While the concept of fully automated vehicles may be new,
innovation and change have always been hallmarks of the
transportation industry. Transportation workers have lived
through generations of new breakthroughs. Time and again, the
skills frontline workers bring to their jobs, their
adaptability in the face of accelerated innovation, and the
benefits they receive from union representation have proven
invaluable in implementing new technologies and serving the
American public.
While the projections on how automation will impact jobs
are not uniform, we know that--with certainty, that millions
will see their jobs altered or eliminated. In commercial
driving alone, reports suggest that as many as 3 million
workers may be displaced or have their jobs fundamentally
changed by automation. As we enter a new era of technology-
enabled change in our system of mobility, policymakers must not
allow the lure of that new, shiny object to obscure the facts
and substitute sound policy with hastily developed legislation.
We must also not let fears of being outclassed in AV
technology by other countries drive us towards rash public
policies that grow wealth only for a handful of tech companies
and their investors. Instead, we must balance a legitimate
desire to lead the world in transportation innovation with
safety and the needs of American workers to care for their
families and to live and retire with economic security and
dignity, something that is not possible if we do not reject the
hands-off, deregulatory approach to AVs we have seen in recent
years.
Frontline transportation employees are already seeing a
growing number of automated vehicle pilot projects on our roads
and in our public transportation systems. They know that,
without good training opportunities, they will be left without
the skills they need to manage these new technologies. And that
is the best-case scenario. At worst, they risk having their
jobs eliminated altogether.
Proponents of automation suggest that the labor market is
``well equipped to reabsorb displaced workers,'' and they tout
creation of new jobs in the AV and tech industry. Yet those
proponents gloss over two key questions.
First, will mid-career workers who are displaced by
automation be reabsorbed into jobs with similar incomes and
workplace protections? Negative shocks to the economy can cause
significant, long-term damage to the earning potential of
working families. One study suggests that workers' earnings may
be depressed by 10 percent or more, even more than a decade
after workers are displaced.
Second, how confident are any of you that the new jobs
created by automation will be realized back home in your
districts and not just in a handful of communities where the
tech sector is concentrated?
We believe the antidote for significant economic harm and
job impacts caused by the automation is a holistic approach by
Congress that attacks the issues from multiple fronts,
including mandating workforce impact statements when these new
technologies are procured with Federal dollars; creating career
ladder and apprenticeship programs; mitigating job losses and
wage degradation via the employee protections, job retention,
just transition, vehicle taxation regimes, and wage
supplements; and boosting the right to form and join unions and
bargain collectively as a strategy to ensure workers have a
voice in decisions around widespread deployment of AVs.
We also urge Congress to continue the carve-out for
vehicles over 10,000 pounds. Heavy commercial motor vehicles
come with unique operational challenges that will complicate
the introduction of AVs into that space. Frontline commercial
vehicle operators do not just drive, they have specific
training to react to an array of challenges that an AV is ill-
equipped to handle without a human on board.
At the same time, vehicles under 10,000 pounds being used
for commercial or passenger service should have strict
safeguards in place based on explicit, enforceable Federal
regulations. The presence of a trained human driver to quickly
assume control of the vehicle, for example, must be mandated
for any such service.
Lawmakers must also make--take clear steps to ensure that
jobs created in AV manufacturing are good jobs, here in the
U.S. Government assistance for the development and procurement
of AV technologies must come with strong Buy America policies
and procurement standards. These requirements will help ensure
that the development and use of AVs also produce broad
community benefits and leads to good, middle-class, domestic
manufacturing and supply chain jobs.
While ensuring a safe framework for the deployment of
automated vehicles is a critical task before this committee, I
would remind you that your work must be part of a larger
package that takes full stock of the disruptive nature of this
tech. We have seen the impacts of automation in other sectors,
as well as the consequences for workers and consumers when
public policy fails to protect the public interest. I urge you
to give our safety and workforce proposals the full weight they
deserve and to work closely with your colleagues across other
committees in the development of comprehensive policy that
protects our transportation system and country from the
premature and irresponsible deployment of AV technology.
Please reject the AV lobby's poorly veiled attempts to
sidestep all of the tough questions surrounding AV deployment.
The broad-based set of principles and proposals developed by
transportation labor that I have shared with you today takes on
the toughest questions and offers a responsible path forward.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Regan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Regan. So we have concluded
witness opening statements. At this time we will move to Member
questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes to ask a question,
including getting the answer, of our witnesses. And I will
start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
Before I do, I just wanted to say to Mrs. Rodgers that I
look forward--hopefully, when we come back after 3 weeks--that
we will be able to have in-person meetings, and I too look
forward to that time.
So let me begin my questions with Mr. Regan. OK, so as I
mentioned in my short opening statement, 4 four million people
in the United States of America make their living by driving.
We are talking about 2.7 million truck drivers, nearly 600,000
school bus drivers, taxi drivers, and chauffeurs, over 150,000
bus and transit drivers.
So what I wanted to ask you, Mr. Regan, can the United
States reap the economic benefit of AVs without considering the
workforce protections for those who may lose their jobs?
And the question is, how can we do that?
Mr. Regan. I don't believe we can realize the benefits
unless we look at it--address workforce conditions up front.
Frankly, the proposals we have adopted here are not ones
that are designed to stand in the way of technology being
developed. They are designed to make sure that policy that is
being developed right now will benefit the most people moving
forward, will make sure that careers and jobs are able to grow
along with the tech as we adapt it into our mobility systems.
So I think that is the key to success.
And the key to truly leading when it comes to AV technology
is making sure we are developing the right policy, and policy
that, frankly, can be the leader in the world that will bring
the workforce along with the tech.
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, I certainly think that the people
that you represent need to be part of the solution and
certainly can't be left on the sidelines.
There is no question that driving--the driving profession,
if you will--is a dangerous job. What existing technologies
could make our roads safer and better for the workers, and for
the passengers?
And how do you ensure that we deploy those technologies as
soon as possible?
Mr. Regan. Sure, and I would defer to Jason on some of
these, as well.
But if you look at automated braking technology, the
sensors that are in a lot of vehicles that are being deployed
right now, all of these are a form of automation or a form of
technology that could be beneficial if widely deployed and
actually provide a great number of safety benefits and ones
that enhance the ability of an operator--of a human operator--
to do their job safely and effectively, or just drive their
vehicle safely and effectively. So all of these can actually
enhance safety and should be adopted widely.
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, let me turn to Mr. Levine.
If an AV hits--oh, let me see, hang on.
If an AV were to hit and kill a pedestrian or runs a red
light, who is responsible? Is it the manufacturer, or the AV--
of the AV, one of the vehicle suppliers, the passenger? Who is
to be charged for that?
Mr. Levine. Sure, thank you so much for the question. And,
you know, I think, as others have already noted, there are
currently no truly driverless vehicles on our roads. And so
right now, the responsibility for those actions go to the
driver of the vehicle. And so I think what is important to
think about is, when we talk about AVs, that should be the
same. Except now the question is, who is the driver?
Ms. Schakowsky. Well----
Mr. Levine. And the AV--you know, when we are talking about
a driverless vehicle, that means it was created by a
manufacturer who wrote computer code and totally and completely
controls that vehicle. Now, right now, that is regulated at a
State level. Right? State and localities determine exactly how
that liability and how that responsibility will be apportioned,
which is why it is really important that we maintain that
ability at the local level, to make sure we have oversight over
the responsibility, if a vehicle operator--a computer, in this
case--runs a red light and kills someone or injures someone,
that entity who created that code is who needs to be held
responsible.
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, so let me follow up on that. How
has--on there--how have Americans' access to the courts
actually helped improve safety?
And do AVs pose a different challenge to consumers?
Mr. Levine. Sure, I see there is only a little time left.
Can I answer that question?
Ms. Schakowsky. Yes.
Mr. Levine. OK. So, quickly, Americans' access to courts
have, literally, saved thousands, if not tens of thousands, of
lives. And we say that because defects that were found--one
perfect example is the General Motors ignition switch defect,
which killed over 174 people and injured many more, was only
brought to light because of a civil action that someone brought
after there was a death. And that is what uncovered it. That is
what led to the recall. That is what led to the fix. So that is
really an important history that goes backwards.
Going forwards, that same--those same issues remain vitally
important. And so, if we have a circumstance where Americans
are interacting with autonomous vehicles from a legal
standpoint, where they lose their right to bring an action
should something go wrong, that not only injures that person
financially, but their injury may not be able to open up what
might be a problem and help everyone else if they are denied
access to the courts. And so that is something we are going
to----
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Levine. I appreciate that.
And now the Chair will recognize Mr. Bilirakis, subcommittee
ranking member, for his 5 minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it very
much. The first question is for Professor Rajkumar.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, I am alarmed by
some manufacturers that potentially mislead consumers by
advertising automated capabilities not currently on the market.
My draft legislation was circulated with stakeholders on this
topic. And while I am pleased that NHTSA took note of it and
announced a campaign yesterday to educate drivers, I still
believe it is important we legislate on this topic, since we
have seen that, every time there is a related accident, it sets
back our progress and the efforts to actually test and develop
AVs.
So the question. We hear about the Society of Automotive
Engineers, SAE, level of autonomy. Can you tell us what SAE-
level vehicles are on the road today, and how many years away
are we from level 5 autonomy that many opponents of AVs are
most concerned about?
Dr. Rajkumar. Thank you, Ranking Member Bilirakis.
Number one, the Society for Automotive Engineers has
defined multiple levels of automation. It has become sort of an
industry standard, going from level 0, with no automation at
all, to level 5, which is complete automation, where the
passengers do not do anything at all. All the technologies out
there today on the market correspond to level 2, which
basically means that the vehicle can drive itself under some
well-defined conditions like highways with well-defined lane
markers. But the operator of the driver must be paying
attention at all times so, if the self-driving software
misbehaves, it is the responsibility of the driver to intervene
and take over.
So pretty much all technologies out there today are level
2. And then, going up to level 3, level 4, level 5, they begin
incrementally much--more and more complex. And in my estimate,
level 5 autonomy is many years away--at least 5 years, if not
much longer.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK, thank you. How does misrepresenting the
autonomous capabilities of vehicles damage consumer confidence
in the safety and mobility benefits these currently present?
And how do you suggest we ensure that manufacturers
accurately reflect actual capabilities and limitations of their
vehicles' automated driver assistance systems?
I think this is very important. If you could answer that,
sir, I would appreciate it.
Dr. Rajkumar. Sure. There is at least one car company out
there which seems to have mislabeled--it is really not
marketing correctly, truthfully, its vehicle capabilities. And
such misrepresentations cause two sorts of problems.
One is that there are customers who actually believe that
misleading information and possibly could end up either dying
or causing problems to other people on the road.
A second category of people who are allowed to benefit from
this technology do not believe these misleading statements and,
therefore, their trust in these systems is actually going to go
down, so that is a disservice to the rest of the industry.
In terms of making sure that information is not misleading,
enforcement agencies, including NHTSA--false advertising laws
that the Federal Trade Commission can enforce, that they just
basically make--must take concrete action to prevent such
misinformation being used, either in the selling of the product
or through their base marketing.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, sir. I am turning on another
issue again, Professor Rajkumar, on the related issue of
updating the new car assessment program. I am interested in
your familiarity with crash testing of anthropomorphic test
vehicles--actually, devices, so these dummies that we are
talking about, commonly known as test dummies, and have--how
those can factor in. I have seen recent reports where gender is
not reflected during these crash safety tests. I believe that
the physiological differences between a man and a woman must be
considered to rectify gaps that may exist within the safety
standards.
So can you tell me if you conducted research on this
matter, and, if so, what has that research shown?
And then I have a short question for Mr. Levine, if I have
time. Well, let me go ahead and give it, and if I don't have
time, Madam Chair, that is fine.
Can you briefly answer what you believe is a sensible
balance with regard to these crash dummies? Because, again, we
have been hearing these reports. It is very dangerous for
female drivers, and it is just not fair.
So, Mr. Rajkumar, can you briefly answer that question?
And then also, Mr. Levine, if possible, if I am permitted,
Madam Chair. I know I am already over, I apologize.
Dr. Rajkumar. I am not an active researcher in crash test
dummies. But that being said, I do know that the industry, both
NHTSA and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, they use
male version of these dummies, which are 5 foot and 9 inches
tall, the median height of the American male. So that allows
them to basically standardize across all tests across different
cars and such.
But it turns out that American women, for example, are--the
average height is 5 feet, 4 inches. So testing on a 5-foot, 9-
inch dummy is not the same as the effect on a 5-foot, 4-inches
person. It turns out that I am 5 foot 5 inches, so this really
does not reflect on me as well. So, really, the study has to be
conducted to understand the effects of shorter people and
females as well.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. I guess, Madam Chair, I probably
need to yield back. I appreciate it very much.
Ms. Schakowsky. Yes. And you can submit a question to--for
the record.
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Schakowsky. Is Chairman Pallone here?
It is your 5 minutes to ask your questions. Thank you.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The auto industry claims that AVs have the potential to
eliminate virtually all human-caused crashes, but then they
oppose efforts to establish safety standards that would ensure
that AVs perform safely. Instead, they want a hands-off
approach to self-driving cars, quick deployment with no new
safety standards. And so I wanted to ask in that regard, if I
could start with Mr. Levine.
Do you believe that the auto industry can be trusted to
police itself and ensure AVs perform safely?
Mr. Levine. No.
Mr. Pallone. OK.
Mr. Levine. I do not. That----
Mr. Pallone. How will--OK, go ahead, I am sorry.
Mr. Levine. Oh, no, I was just going to say, I mean, there
is a--unfortunately, a many-decades-long history of the
industry failing to do exactly that. And, you know, you can go
back to before our founding in 1970 to find evidence of that.
In fact, that is why we were founded.
Mr. Pallone. All right, thanks. Now, how will
implementation and safety standards applicable to self-driving
cars help us reach the potential benefits of AVs, if you would?
Mr. Levine. Sure. There is--in two ways, actually. You
know, in--to accelerate the success of automated technology
will require an entire new set of layers of standards. And
whether we are calling them voluntary or calling them
mandatory, the reality is eventually they are going to need to
be mandatory, and they are going to need to be part and parcel
of our new vehicles. And they are going to need to be built for
trust. They are going to need to be built so everyone knows how
they work, whether they are working, when they are not working.
But I would also say, on the road to autonomy, we are going
to need--and we can achieve far more safety gains than we are
currently getting out of existing technologies that will
eventually become part of autonomous technology.
So safety standards can help us get to AVs but can also
help us protect lives now.
Mr. Pallone. All right. So I want to go to Mr. Regan and
talk about workforce and safety, if you will. So, Mr. Regan,
what policies can Congress include in an AV bill to strengthen
American jobs, enhance U.S. competitiveness--we keep talking
about China--and also boost domestic manufacturing?
Mr. Regan. Sure, I--thank you for the question. I know
that, frankly, one of the talking points we hear is we are
going to lose to China. Well, if we don't have, you know,
strong Buy American policies attached to this if we are using
Federal dollars, then we are going to lose all of that
manufacturing to China, regardless of how we deploy it here.
We do need to make sure that we have built-in workplace
protections at the front end of all this so that we are growing
the workforce along with the technology as it is deployed. We
have laid out all of these in the document that we have
submitted for the record today. And frankly, if you do it based
on maintaining collective bargaining agreements using transit
worker protections, there is a lot of ways that we can ensure
that working people benefit as much as those who are using the
systems.
Mr. Pallone. All right. And I want to go to back to Mr.
Levine again about advanced driver assistance.
The wide-scale deployment of advanced driver assistance
systems like automatic emergency brakes, lane departure
warnings, and blind-spot detection are building blocks of AV
and could save 20,000 lives a year. But as we work on a
framework for deployment of AVs, should we also consider
policies to expand the deployment of advanced driver assistance
systems?
Mr. Levine. Thank you so much for the question. And the
answer is categorically, 100 percent yes.
I mean, if you look at the main significant difference
between our death rates and the European death rates I
mentioned earlier, there are about 20,000 deaths. That is the
number you just mentioned. Now, is it one for one? No, that is
not exactly how it works. But one thing that Europe has done
is--really consistently have implemented a lot of these ADAS
systems that we haven't. By next year they are going to be
required on all new vehicles in Europe, and they have been
rapidly adopting them, whereas here they remain luxury items,
they remain completely unregulated. We are not even sure
whether they work, how they work, and manufacturers can call
them whatever they want.
So we need to accelerate not only getting them into cars
but making sure that we have got standards around them, that
they succeed in protecting people on our roads.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you so much.
Oh, did anyone else want to say anything?
No, all right. Thank you.
And thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. I did just want to mention that we heard
from Debbie Dingell. There was no way to overcome the
technology problems that she faced, so she will be presenting
her questions and her comments for--and opening statement for
the record.
And now I welcome our ranking number, Mrs. Rodgers, for 5
minutes of questions.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I begin my
questions, I would like to offer for the record a letter from
the National Federation for the Blind to Senators Cantwell and
Wicker in support of the autonomous vehicles legislation, in
this case attaching a version to the Senate's Endless Frontiers
Act, which is supposed to focus on U.S. leadership versus
China.
Sadly, the amendment was withdrawn, as Senator Thune cited,
``due to intense lobbying pressure from the trial lawyers and
the Teamsters.''
Ms. Schakowsky. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
Professor Rajkumar, I believe lost in this tug of war on
auto issues among companies and safety advocates and labor
unions and trial lawyers is the greater opportunity that will
be available years down the road for seniors and those with
disabilities. Can you tell me about the mobility benefits
autonomous vehicle technology will provide for the more
vulnerable in our society?
Dr. Rajkumar. Oh, sure. There are more than 6 million
legally blind people in the country, more than a million
physically disabled people in the country, none of whom can
actually drive like you or me. So these are people, millions
who actually are literally stuck at home. And to go from any
point A to point B, they need to depend on somebody else. With
autonomy these people will gain mobility and independence and a
much better quality of living.
And the same concept applies to elderly people. Since women
tend to outlive men, it applies more to women than to men. When
an elderly person's faculties begin to decline, they may end up
losing their driver's license. And even though they have been
an independent spirit their entire life, now they do not have a
license. It is an empty nest. They basically get stuck at home
all by themselves, and records indicate that both mental and
physical health begin to decline very rapidly. So we can--with
autonomy we can actually give them a better quality of life.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
Mr. Regan, while we do not have jurisdiction over labor or
trucking issues, we do appreciate you being here today to speak
to workforce issues. I just wanted to know, given other topics
are covered in your testimony relative to autonomous vehicles,
specifically in regard to the Tesla accident, do you mind just
stating for the record that the AFL-CIO agrees with us that
Tesla does not currently sell an autonomous vehicle?
Mr. Regan. Well, sure. It depends on how you define
``autonomous vehicle.'' It is not a fully autonomous vehicle,
no.
Mrs. Rodgers. Right, right. There's five levels. Theirs is
a level 2, so we have a long ways to go.
Since public transportation options and assistance can be
limited depending upon where you live, do you agree that these
technologies can fill a gap in areas where organized labor is
not serving those in need?
Mr. Regan. We have always looked for opportunities to
expand mobility options for people in all communities. We think
that there are other ways to do that, frankly: more investing
in public transit, for instance.
And frankly, what public transit offers right now for--
whether it be paratransit for people that are in need of
special assistance--a lot of that, as we start developing
technology and moving forward, needs to be replicated in the
right way to make sure that that--those people are not left
behind, that we have the same access to transit that everybody
else has, and----
Mrs. Rodgers. OK.
Mr. Regan [continuing]. The pathway to the middle class
there, as well.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. To all the witnesses, I mentioned
in my opening statement America still leads the world in the
innovation of advanced technologies. However, just like the
lessons we learned from ceding leadership on telecommunications
networking equipment, we risk our auto and tech companies being
marginalized or acquired by Chinese competitors if we fail to
enact our own roadmap to develop and test AVs, getting to that
place where we have full autonomous vehicles. We are not there
yet.
While we will always have outliers in this discussion for
their own several interests, I hope our auto and tech
companies, our workforce, and our safety advocates can see the
benefit of the U.S. developing this technology, setting up
supply chains, and designing the rules and standards creating
new jobs.
Do you all agree that China will seize our inability to
lead on this technology, yes or no?
Professor Rajkumar, would you answer?
Dr. Rajkumar. Yes.
Mrs. Rodgers. Mr. Regan, would you answer?
Mr. Regan. No, not necessarily. I think it depends on how
you define ``lead.''
Mrs. Rodgers. OK. And I am looking for the third here.
Oh, Mr. Levine. Yes, please.
Mr. Levine. No, because I don't think that they are
leading. We are leading, and I believe we will continue to lead
if we choose to do so.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Well, I will just underscore we need a
national framework. We need to take action to make sure that we
do this right.
With that, I yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentlewoman yields back, and now I
recognize Mr. Rush.
Are you here from----
Mr. Rush. I am here, Madam Chair.
Ms. Schakowsky. Go ahead.
Mr. Rush. Madam Chair, I thank you so much for this
hearing. My first question is directed to Mr. Levine.
As you know, Mr. Levine, I, along with my good friend from
Indiana, Dr. Bucshon, recently introduced a bill that will
require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to
``evaluate the performance of crash avoidance systems, and
detecting and classifying pedestrians, bicyclists, and other
vulnerable road users, including those with different skin
tones.''
The genesis of this bill came out of a recent Georgia Tech
study that found that crash avoidance systems currently on the
market have trouble recognizing individuals with darker skin
tones. And I am grateful to you and the Center for Auto Safety
for your support of our bill.
Can you please discuss why this legislation and the
performance evaluation it mandates are so important?
Mr. Levine. Thank you so much for the question,
Congressman. And thank you for introducing the bill.
The value of making sure that crash avoidance systems work
is really inarguable. The idea, both for vehicles today--you
know, when we talk about automatic emergency braking and
forward collision warning and all these different acronyms that
people throw around, the value in them is only if they work,
only if they detect other vehicles and, of course, other
vulnerable road users, pedestrians, bicyclists, particularly,
making sure they detect every one of every--you know, of every
possible skin color, and whether they are--again, they are a
bicyclist or a pedestrian.
And most importantly this is something that will help save
lives now and help build AVs in the future, because these AVs
are going to be dependent upon crash avoidance technology. So
this is really an important step in making sure we get the
right technology on the road for everyone's safety.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Levine, I have a second question, and I thank
you for your answer to my first question.
Does the Georgia Tech study have any more information as to
the safety of AVs? And if so, give us some ideas about what
those implications are.
Mr. Levine. Well, you know, I mean, AVs, if I understand
the question correctly, I mean, AVs can prevent, in the long
run, if they work properly, a lot of the current crash
circumstances. But we have a long way to go to make sure that
they are working correctly. As was discussed previously, there
is some technology out there right now, particularly from
Tesla, that claims it is autonomous but is not. There is an
unregulated sort of moment that we are living in, with respect
to how this technology is described and deployed.
So in the long run, for us to get from where we are now to
where we want to go and eliminate, or at least mitigate, the
vast majority of these 42,000 deaths a year, we are going to
need careful, iterative steps to make sure the technology
works----
Mr. Rush. Mr. Levine, I have another question. As you know,
even pedestrians may lose their right to seek justice and, of
course, if there is a continued proliferation of forced
arbitration clauses. These clauses often emerge in terms-of-
service agreements that waive a consumer's right to sue in
court, participate in a class action, or appeal the
arbitrator's decision.
Does forced arbitration clauses relating to AVs pose a
danger to pedestrians? And if so, why?
Mr. Levine. They pose a real threat, and the threat is
this. As we discussed earlier, the ability to make sure you are
holding any manufacturer--AV or otherwise--responsible for
something defective, for a defective vehicle, is critical to
safety. It is a backstop to our entire system.
And so, if you are a pedestrian who has entered into an
agreement unknowingly when you downloaded an app to order a
pizza, maybe, and you get hit by a pizza delivery vehicle, and
you said, ``Well, I am going to do everything, from a legal
standpoint, through binding arbitration,'' you have now lost
your ability to go to court. That sounds outlandish, but it is
not actually that far from where we are, in terms of binding
arbitration, removing our ability to hold manufacturers
accountable.
And so that is something that we don't want to see in an AV
context.
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. And now, Mr. Upton, it is your
turn for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And I think we all
agree--I know we all agree that, if we don't lead, if America
doesn't lead in AV technology, we run a lot of risks. And we
saw this last week with Colonial Pipeline. We also run the risk
of cybersecurity threats from abroad.
So I would just note to my colleagues that I introduced the
GUARD Act last week that is going to require the Secretary of
Transportation, in consultation with other appropriate Federal
agencies, to conduct a study, report to us on the state of
cybersecurity regarding motor vehicles.
And I wonder, Professor Rajkumar, if you could talk a
little bit about what is Carnegie Mellon doing to address
cyber, and what do you think the Secretary should focus on in
the report, as authorized, if my legislation moves forward?
[Pause.]
Mr. Upton. You have to unmute yourself.
Dr. Rajkumar. Thank you, Congressman. Cybersecurity is a
critical issue for AVs, in particular, and vehicles in general.
If my bank account gets hacked, I may end up losing some money.
But if my vehicle gets hacked, and the vehicle runs into
something, I can lose my life. So it is actually a big
imbalance out there. So I really think that cybersecurity, as
applied to physical destruction of life and property, should
really be cyber physical security.
At Carnegie Mellon we have an institute called CyLab that I
am part of as well. ``Cy'' stands for cybersecurity and
privacy, in this case. We are looking at so many different
functions--detecting security intrusions, how to design systems
from scratch to be secure, how to take an existing system, make
it more robust, from a security perspective--and when we map
that to vehicles, we go across multiple hardware subsystems
when computers talk to each other within the vehicle and with
the environment as well. So we are looking at that whole
spectrum of technology. So it is imperative that we make this
vehicle secure.
Mr. Upton. So there has been pretty big investments made
by--you know, I am from Michigan, the auto State. The President
is there, actually today, looking at the new Ford 150 electric
vehicle. But GM just announced more than $2 billion investment
in a company called Factory ZERO in Hamtramck, Michigan. It is
going to create a couple of thousand jobs, all on the AV
industry.
You know, one of the things that we are all concerned about
is DoD--DOT, rather, Department of Transportation--needs to
modernize the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, FMVSS, to
account for AVs. What can we do in the interim to help with
funding and development to make sure that those--that
technology, in fact, is born here in the U.S.?
Dr. Rajkumar. I see multiple components forming a holistic
picture, Congressman.
Number one, we still have a need for basic research, so
targeted research programs at the Federal level would go a long
way.
Number two, the U.S. DOT, it has a program called Automated
Driving System Demonstration Grants. We need more of that to,
basically, deploy these technologies in the real world, and
get--collect data, and then obtain feedback.
Number three, we need to engage workforce and understand
their concerns so that retraining programs can be put in place
so that their skills can be upgraded.
So all of that needs to happen.
With respect to FMVSS, Vehicle Safety Standards, we have
some very outdated regulations on the books. You cannot remove
your side mirrors, for example, and replace them with small
cameras with displays inside on the doors. If you remove those
side mirrors, the aerodynamics of the vehicle will go up,
mileage will go up, and costs will actually come down, cost of
ownership will come down. But meanwhile, nobody has ownership
of that particular regulation and, therefore, it is on the
books. Even though the technology is there, it cannot be
deployed today.
So we should be revisiting these regulations on a complete
scale.
Mr. Upton. So it would make some sense, then, to have some
commonsense regulations that would be able to account for some
of those things that weren't done when those regulations were
promulgated through OMB.
Dr. Rajkumar. Absolutely, yes. Many of them are outdated,
and it is hard to change that. So going forward, when we put in
regulations for AVs, it is important that the regulations are
not set in stone. They need to be revisited every so often, at
least once a year.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. And next up, Congresswoman Castor, you are
recognized for 5 minutes for questions.
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Chair Schakowsky, and thank
you to our witnesses for being here today.
You know, together with the Biden administration, as we
bounce back from COVID, we are pressing ahead on jobs in clean
energy and cost-saving energy efficiency in ways that we reduce
pollution, as well, to create these win-wins. In fact, when it
comes to autos, the House Select Committee on the Climate
Crisis, our big Climate Crisis Action Plan, we recommended
providing incentives for the purchase of electric vehicles and
incentives for EV charging infrastructure, with very
significant Buy American, Build It in America complementary
policies.
And what followed on? President Biden's American Jobs Plan.
He does propose to invest $174 billion in vehicle
electrification, and there is an exciting announcement coming
today out of Dearborn, Michigan, with Ford and the United Auto
Workers that we are all going to be watching.
Mr. Regan, how will such investments boost domestic
manufacturing, help us expand domestic jobs, and ensure all
workers in the industry earn fair wages and high-quality
benefits while we boost American competitiveness?
Mr. Regan. Thank you, Congresswoman. Really, the way--if
you look at the American Jobs Plan, the reason why it will
create so many jobs and be such an economic benefit is because
of the labor standards that are attached to all of those
investments. Buy America, 13C, Davis-Bacon, all of these labor
protections that have been proven to provide middle-class jobs
are embedded in that proposal. And we expect Congress will make
sure it is written in the right way to do it, to create those
jobs.
Ms. Castor. Yes, we have got to make sure that the United
States outpaces our international competitors in the global
race for electric vehicles.
And the race is on. In 2018 Chinese production accounted
for more than half of all lithium battery cell manufacturing
capacity and nearly half of global EV sales. So this--I mean,
the race is on, and we better get our act together here with
very substantive policies.
Mr. Regan, can we win the global race to EVs without a
comprehensive Federal approach that supports electric vehicles
and high-quality jobs, manufacturing, and deployment? What do
you think?
Mr. Regan. No, we can't. We need those policies. We need
the investments.
And also, I would add, we need the investment in the
workforce as well. We need training requirements. We need to
make sure that the people are growing, their careers are
growing at the same time that the technology is growing. That
is true for EVs, it is true for AVs. And we have an opportunity
here to really become a leader not only in the manufacture of
these vehicles and the deployment of vehicles but also in the
policies that will redefine how we interact, how these policies
and how these vehicles are being built out, and expanding
workforce opportunities.
Ms. Castor. Exactly. And so would you recommend that any
Member of Congress who wants the United States to outcompete
China support the American Jobs Plan?
Dr. Rajkumar. A hundred percent, yes.
Ms. Castor. We have to do it. As the economy heals and
interest rates remain low, this is the perfect time to invest
in our workforce, electric vehicles. We have got to outcompete
our global competitors.
And by the way, these cars are really fun to drive. So this
is going to be an exciting time and an exciting announcement
today.
Also, fuel economy and tailpipe emissions standards have
played a critical role in reducing pollution, but these
standards are only effective if they are enforced. Thankfully,
when two major German automakers installed the so-called defeat
devices to cheat emissions tests, consumers who had purchased
those cars under false pretenses had the right to hold the
manufacturers accountable by participating in a class action
lawsuit that awarded billions of dollars in compensation.
Mr. Levine, automated vehicles, as they are deployed--a
number of Members have raised this today--how do we ensure that
consumers are still able to seek legal recourse if they violate
the fuel economy and tailpipe pollution standards? What do you
recommend?
Mr. Levine. Sure. Thank you so much for the question. I
mean, a core way of achieving the accountability is not
changing the system in a way that all of a sudden changes how
we hold manufacturers accountable. Right now, if a manufacturer
of a vehicle is doing something that is cheating intentionally
or putting a defect on the marketplace, they can be taken to
court. They can be held accountable by both regulators and by
individual citizens, either banding together or one on one.
Let's not change that. Let's not remove that backstop that
helps protect all of us, whether it be from an emissions
cheating scandal or a defective ignition switch.
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
[Pause.]
Ms. Schakowsky. Oh, I am so sorry, Mr. Latta, I just
introduced you as someone who has a little bit of interest in
this topic, but I was on mute. So now you have 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. I thank my friend and--for
holding today's hearing. I really appreciate it. Thanks to our
witnesses for being with us today.
It is hard to believe it has been two Congresses ago that
this committee and subcommittee passed out the AV legislation
unanimously, and it passed the House on a voice vote. And I
think that we are falling behind the rest of the world, and I
am glad we are having this hearing. We need to spotlight this.
And, you know, if I could just go back to the legislation
that we had, I think we had over 300 staff meetings, and
meeting with everyone on the issue to make sure that we came up
with a good piece of legislation, from preemption to safety.
And I remember saying it over and over and over, we wanted
safety first, safety last, safety always, cybersecurity, and we
wanted privacy. We wanted to make sure, of course, that the
vehicles that were coming out would be as safe or safer than
anything that was on the road.
And then, you know, talking about our senior citizens, give
them more mobility, making sure that those with disabilities
had more mobility. And so we wanted to make sure that happened.
We also looked at, you know, saving energy, and working
with smart cities like Columbus, Ohio. So it is getting out
there and testing.
And then, you know, it has been brought up, unfortunately,
you know, we have had 42,000 deaths in the last year on the
road, 94 percent being human error. And, you know, then it was
increased. It was 37,000 when we were talking about this
legislation two Congresses ago.
So, Mr.--or Dr. Rajkumar, if I could start with you, first
question: Are we falling behind China right now in AV
technology?
Dr. Rajkumar. Congressman, I believe yes. Yes, we are.
After the 2007 DARPA Urban Challenge, China launched a sequence
of annual competitions. Initially, basically, they had vehicles
that were really veering this way, that way, and then next year
they improved. Now, basically, they are pretty much catching up
with us.
Baidu, the big company in China, has announced--has
reported in Bloomberg that they will have more than 2,000
autonomous vehicles across multiple Chinese cities in the next
couple of years. And meanwhile, the longest video on YouTube
that showcases a completely driverless vehicle without anybody
inside them is for 2 hours, driving across a Chinese city in
light traffic, Sunday morning traffic. But it is the longest
driverless trip I have seen anywhere, including U.S. companies
and such. And that is from a company that is operating in
China.
And meanwhile, they have these advantages of a relatively
lax regulatory environment, where they don't--they can stifle--
muffle disagreements. And they tap into the resources available
in China in terms of talent and money. They also operate
offices in the U.S., so they tap into American talent, as well.
So I think we should be very concerned. They already have
80 percent of electric vehicle manufacturing capability, I
believe, more than the U.S. and Europe combined. And if we end
up losing the manufacturing capability and we end up losing the
IP, the intellectual innovation part with autonomous vehicle
software and sensing--they have sensor manufacturing companies
there as well--we could end up losing the whole enchilada.
Mr. Latta. Well, and, you know, we already know that--as
you mentioned is not only what they are doing in China, but
they are testing in the United States right now.
Let me ask you. You talk about safety being paramount.
Would you want to talk about--a little bit about that?
And I would like to--if you could, make it a shorter
answer, because I got about a minute and 12 seconds left.
Dr. Rajkumar. Sure. Without safe technologies, customers
will not trust or buy these vehicles. So the companies are
incentivized to basically make sure that this technology is
reliable and safe.
Mr. Latta. Well, and also, you also mentioned that, you
know, that this should be adaptive and agile. Could you touch
on that?
Dr. Rajkumar. Yes, the technology is maturing rapidly,
evolving across multiple different segments and multiple
different geographic regions. Whatever regulations that we put
in place today will end up being outdated a few months from
now, a year from now. So it is important that any framework
that we put in place is revisited every so often, once a year.
Mr. Latta. And you also talk about encouraging
collaboration, and that is something I--we worked on in the
last--you know, two Congresses ago, making sure we had
everybody involved. Do you want to just quickly talk on
collaboration?
Dr. Rajkumar. Yes, I find that--the American innovation
ecosystem to be very unique. It comes about because of Federal
investments in basic research, industry participation, and
groundbreaking creative ideas from universities working with
communities and organizations. So that, I think, is the magic
sauce that we have in the U.S., where we became the innovation
capital of the world, and we need to push that advantage that
we have.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
And Madam Chair, my time has expired, and thank you for
today's hearing. I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. Next up is Congresswoman Trahan.
And you are recognized for 5 minutes for questions.
Mrs. Trahan. Thank you, Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking
Member Bilirakis.
I am the daughter of a union ironworker, and like several
of my colleagues I am concerned that market forces will likely
lead to an uptake in self-driving cars for ride hailing,
transit, and delivery. And this means that not only are the
livelihoods of displaced workers at stake, but their physical
health and safety as well, as they look to be the first major
subset of the population to work in and around level 3, 4, and
5 vehicles.
This workforce will be at the front lines when these
vehicles make mistakes. And AVs will make mistakes. They
already have. Mistakes are part of the process for developing
innovative technologies. Mr. Levine, if a worker is killed or
injured by a defective AV car or truck, what recourse will they
have against the manufacturer?
Can they bring an effective case if they are forced to
proceed in a private arbitration with little access to
discovery or to information from similar incidents that might
have occurred?
Mr. Levine. Well, as a general--thank you so much for the
question. As a general matter, no. I mean, to the extent that
an employee or a contract worker or, really, any individual has
been bound from--prevented from using all of the access to all
the different tools that the American court system provides,
then no, they are unlikely to be able to seek justice. They are
unlikely to be able to hold the manufacturer accountable. And,
perhaps most importantly, whatever they do determine will be
done in secret, so the rest of the public won't learn what
happened and if there is a real widespread problem.
Mrs. Trahan. Understood. And I am wondering if you could
just expound a little bit on how these forced nonpublic
arbitrations would affect public safety.
Mr. Levine. Well, again, as a general matter, there is only
one party that seeks binding arbitration in a consumer-
manufacturer context. That is going to be the manufacturer.
Consumers are never out there looking for binding arbitration
agreements that they want to be able to sign. They are
generally forced upon them.
And when we enter into them on our phone for an app, we
don't think very much about it often. But when we are talking
about a vehicle, whether you are in the vehicle or you are hit
by the vehicle or you have to use it for work, it dramatically
changes your opportunity, again, if something goes wrong, to
hold that manufacturer responsible, and perhaps, again, even
more importantly--remember, binding arbitration disputes are
almost always settled in private, in secret, and do not get
made public. And this is a major problem, historically, that
has little to do with AVs, but there is no reason to expand
this problem to the autonomous vehicle environment, which we
all want to get to.
Mrs. Trahan. Yes, no. Thank you.
Similarly, this same frontline workforce will be highly
surveilled. Working alongside AVs means being constantly
surrounded by cameras and having your every move tracked. Mr.
Regan, heavy-duty truck driving is already a highly surveilled
occupation. Can you speak to the impact this has on workers,
and ways Congress can create policies that balance a worker's
right to privacy with the fact that AV technology needs large
quantities of image data to work effectively?
[Pause.]
Mrs. Trahan. Did we lose Mr. Regan?
Mr. Regan. I am sorry, my Webex just suddenly froze out on
me. But can you repeat the question?
Mrs. Trahan. You bet. You bet. I am--given just the high
level of surveillance, I am wondering--you know, heavy-duty
trucking is already highly surveilled, and I am wondering if
you could just tell us a little bit about the impact this has
on workers, and ways that, you know, Congress can create
policies that balance a worker's right to privacy with the fact
that, you know, AV technology needs large quantities of image
data to work effectively.
Mr. Regan. Sure. I think you can look to, frankly, look to
the aviation sector for guidance on how to balance worker
privacy with the necessary safety constraints that are inherent
in some of the monitoring equipment in an aircraft. We have
struck that balance before. We can certainly do it here.
Mrs. Trahan. Great. Well, certainly I join so many of my
colleagues in my excitement about the potential of a world with
self-driving cars, and I believe in the ingenuity of our
engineers and our computer scientists. I believe our brightest
minds can develop world-changing technology while remaining
committed to the safety of those working on our front lines of
this grand experiment.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Mr. Guthrie, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Madam Chair. And first I need to
point out that Mr. Levine appears to have Willie the Wildcat
behind him, which is a really good move, since Willie is a
constituent of our chair. So that was a good move this morning.
I have questions for Dr. Raj Rajkumar.
In your testimony you discuss the regulatory challenges
that are preventing us from deploying autonomous vehicles.
While these deserve our attention, I would like to shift focus
to some of the technical challenges that remain ahead. As you
know, we are also in a global race to 5G. How important of a
role do you see 5G playing in the deployment of autonomous
vehicles?
Dr. Rajkumar. Thank you, Congressman. Autonomous vehicles
collect a massive amount of information from different sensors,
multiple cameras, radars, and lidars. We are talking a massive
amount of information.
With the 5G connectivity, a good portion of that
information can be transmitted to the cloud, to a central
computer somewhere, which can collect all this information from
multiple AVs and then extract very useful information--what the
weather conditions are, different roads, what the road
conditions are like, wet, icy, slippery, and so on. It can get
the traffic snags like accidents, debris on the road, the
presence of potholes and such, and it can feed back that
information back to the AVs. And now the AVs can basically
react to that information that cannot be sensed by their
sensors. Now they basically navigate those obstacles by taking
detours and such, and therefore they are more safe--they are
safer and more reliable.
Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you, and----
Dr. Rajkumar. So----
Mr. Guthrie. Now, next, during today's hearing we have
heard a lot about potential safety benefits that autonomous
vehicles can bring to our Nation's highways. And Dr. Rajkumar,
what are the safety implications of allowing a country like
China to beat the U.S. to automotive innovation and AV
deployment?
And how can we assure Americans that this technology will
provide improved mobility and quality of life, ultimately
ensuring more widespread adoption?
Dr. Rajkumar. Sure. In terms of deaths, the World Health
Organization reported that there may be about 250,000
automotive deaths in China. So they are motivated to save
lives, number one.
In my testimony I say that the market size is estimated
about $7 trillion a year--with a T. They understand that as
well. So while they are investing intensely into the space,
they are encouraging their companies to forge ahead. And when
they get the manufacturing base in-house and they basically get
the intellectual meat, the cream of the crop in terms of the
core innovations, so that can become an unbeatable combination,
particularly when combined with 5G.
So it is important that we invest--we outinnovate them.
That is the only way that we can actually get ahead. And
therefore we maintain our national security as well as economic
competitiveness, retain our jobs in terms of maintaining
control of domestic supply chain and such.
Mr. Guthrie. OK, thanks. And how can we ensure that rural
America is going to benefit from AV technology?
Dr. Rajkumar. If there is a crash, an automotive crash in
the rural areas, it is likely that emergency vehicles will not
reach you necessarily on time. So the fatality rate in rural
accidents is much higher than in urban areas. And if you are
disabled or legally blind or living alone by yourself and you
are old, you get stuck at home. So autonomous vehicles can give
you both mobility, independence, a better quality of life,
access to opportunities and employment. So all of that will be
enabled in rural areas.
Luckily, rural areas also have open skies and such, and
therefore, autonomous vehicles likely will drive better also.
Mr. Guthrie. All right, thanks. And then to also Dr.
Rajkumar, during the 115th Congress I introduced the SHARES
Act, which eventually became part of the SELF DRIVE Act. The
SHARES Act set up an advisory council to bring industry experts
together to develop an information-sharing framework to advance
the safety of AV. How important is it for us to be sure we are
bringing experts and relevant stakeholders together to tackle
emerging issues?
Dr. Rajkumar. I believe there should be advisory boards
that advise the U.S. DOT, in particular, that brings together
participants from industry, participants from academia, from
stakeholder organizations, bike organizations, pedestrian
organizations, people with disabilities and such. So it is
important that all of us together communicate with each other
our concerns and come up with a solution that works for
everybody, including the regulatory framework.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much, and my time has expired,
and I yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. I thank the gentleman. And now, Mr.
McNerney, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chair, and I thank the
witnesses. Your testimony has been very informative.
The ransomware attacks at the Colonial Pipeline and the
massive hack detected by SolarWinds are wake-up calls about the
increasing cyber threats we now face. AVs are, effectively,
computers on wheels and can be hacked.
Mr. Levine, in your testimony you noted that AV legislation
must include cybersecurity standards. Following up on Mr.
Upton's question, why is it necessary that this legislation
include such standards?
Mr. Levine. Thank you so much for the question. And as
Congressman Upton noted, you know, I mean, the Colonial
Pipeline is a perfect example of how important cybersecurity is
in our transportation sector. But we don't have to go outside
of vehicles themselves. I mean, there have been reports, since
we have made computers part and parcel of our vehicles, of
vehicles being hacked. There was a news report last week of a
Tesla being hacked via a drone.
Now, we are not yet at the point where they are always able
to take over operational control, but we are probably not that
far away. So the immediate importance of setting up
cybersecurity standards that allow for us to know what is
happening and allow for a sharing of information that shares
threats amongst both government and the manufacturers will
allow us to be more protected in these vehicles, going forward.
It is a critical part of the conversation. Thank you for
raising it.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Well, AVs are likely to
communicate with smart infrastructure like tolls and traffic
lights. Are you concerned that the potential cyber
vulnerabilities of AVs could pose cybersecurity risks to a
city's smart infrastructure?
Mr. Levine. It is certainly a concern. I mean, any time
anything is online, there is a risk associated with it, from a
cybersecurity perspective. That said, this is the way we are
going to achieve the tremendous benefits that AV proponents are
discussing.
And so it is probably not a question of if there is going
to be a connection between infrastructure and vehicles. It is a
question of how can we be sure to protect it as well as
possible and make sure that, if there is a hack, if there is a
vulnerability, it can be closed as quickly as possible and
mitigated.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. It is my understanding that NHTSA
can currently use recall authority to remove vehicles with
cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Is NHTSA's recall authority
sufficient?
Mr. Levine. Well, the authority is probably sufficient, but
remember, a recall is only happening after the problem has been
discovered. The reason standards are useful is they try and
prevent the problem from happening in the first place and
create a more effective mechanism, ideally, for limiting the
scope of the problem.
But yes, I mean, NHTSA can certainly recall something that
has an issue, but there is a larger question of can we prevent
or limit that issue before it gets a recall.
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you. Well, in your written
testimony you noted the importance that an AV law does not
preempt protections provided by State and local rules of the
road regarding operations of vehicles on the street. Why is
that something you believe is important?
Mr. Levine. Well, right now, remember, the way we think
about who is in charge of our local roads, our local
communities. They determine the rules of the road, who gets on
the road, who gets driver's licenses, speed limits, that sort
of idea. And that is not just important for local control; that
is important for oversight and accountability.
And so, if we decide that that should all be preempted at a
Federal level, we are removing not only the opportunity for
local communities to have oversight into what is going on on
their roads, but we are also taking away a legal oversight
mechanism that holds manufacturers--and anyone, quite frankly,
any operator of a vehicle, a person or a computer--responsible.
And so, again, that--the importance of the oversight can't
be overstated.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. That makes that clear.
Mr. Regan, I serve as the cochair of the Artificial
Intelligence Caucus. One of the issues that I am most concerned
about is the impact of AI and automation on the workforce. And
thank you for the set of recommendations you gave in your oral
testimony for how to avoid large-scale job displacements due to
AI and automation.
What challenges are workers whose jobs are displaced as a
result of AI likely to face in finding--transitioning to new
jobs?
Mr. Regan. Thank you for the question. I mean, especially
if you have people that are in the--you know, midcareer, and
all of a sudden have their jobs--they lose their jobs, I mean,
the challenges of finding something and adapting to a new
economy is going to be very difficult, especially if they don't
have the built-in workforce training opportunities that we are
calling for here to make sure that they can smoothly
transition, along with the technology, to adapt to a--to the
new economy.
Mr. McNerney. So this is going to require investment from
the Government and from the beneficiaries of the technology, is
what I would guess.
Mr. Regan. Absolutely. I think this needs to be a
comprehensive effort to make sure that the workforce is brought
along as well--along with the technology.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I yield back.
[Pause.]
Mr. Dunn. Madam Chair?
Ms. Schakowsky. Yes, I got it.
So, Mr. Dunn, you have a very sparkly State behind you, and
you are welcome now to take your 5 minutes for questioning.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will try to address
this background in between meetings.
Some critics of autonomous vehicles legislation claim that
exempted vehicles are not as safe as others currently on the
road. And that is why I recently introduced the H.R. 1334, Safe
Alternative Vehicle Endorsement, or SAVE, Act. This legislation
would reclassify a vehicle's exemption--note the word
``exemption''--as an alternate safety endorsement. My intent is
simply to better reflect that any endorsement granted by NHTSA
meets or exceeds Federal vehicle safety standards.
So my first question is to the entire panel, and a simple
yes or no will suffice, I think you would agree. Under current
law, would you agree that, in order for a vehicle to receive
such an exemption, the vehicle must have an overall safety
level equal to that of the overall safety level of nonexempt
vehicles?
Let's start--Mr. Regan?
Mr. Regan. Yes.
Mr. Dunn. Great. Mr. Levine?
Mr. Levine. That is the current standard. But remember, the
Ford Pinto met all the Federal standards.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Dunn. Yes, I was around for the Ford Pinto.
Dr. Rajkumar?
Dr. Rajkumar. Yes.
Mr. Dunn. Yes, OK, great.
So, Professor Rajkumar, can you briefly explain why the
exemption process is critical for the development of autonomous
vehicles now, right now?
And what exemptions are necessary to allow manufacturers
the flexibility to develop safer vehicles?
Dr. Rajkumar. AV technology is very complex and needs to be
tested extensively to demonstrate safety. I can take a couple
of approaches. You can simulate, but simulation only goes so
far. You can test for certain conditions, but the real world is
much more complex than what simulations can produce. So these
vehicles have to be tested in the real world. So having a
mechanism that enables testing under well-defined conditions so
that it does not hurt the public but enables the technology to
mature is hypercritical.
Mr. Dunn. Well, thank you very much for that. Would you
say, Professor, that an auto manufacturer must meet the same
level of safety in order to receive what would today be called
an exemption?
Dr. Rajkumar. Well, absolutely. They could go through a
very detailed process to, basically, get their exemption
application granted.
Mr. Dunn. So in that--because you said that, now is it not
more appropriate to describe and title what we are now calling
an exemption what it truly is, which is an alternate type of
safety endorsement?
Dr. Rajkumar. Very much so, because the car maker, in this
case, has to demonstrate to an enforcement agency like NHTSA
that their technology is safe because of the following reasons,
and they should identify where they are going to be testing the
vehicles, they need to be identifying who is involved, who is
in the vehicle, who can be around, who is not, and such. They
define their entire process.
And meanwhile, NHTSA will very likely require them to share
a lot more information. They will retain the right to maintain
tight oversight of that vehicle and then impose an expiry
duration, after which--car makers to come back and say, ``This
is what happened, and therefore please continue my exemption.''
Mr. Dunn. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Levine, would you be in favor of changing the title
``exemption'' to ``alternate safety endorsement''?
Mr. Levine. Well, thank you for the question. I am not sure
that what we title it is as important as what the outcome is.
And----
Mr. Dunn. So I think you are right, the outcome, but we are
talking--the outcome is the same. So--but the title is intended
to get away from the term ``exemption,'' which causes fear.
That was my intention right there.
Mr. Levine. So--and I think that that is fair. I mean, the
concern would, of course, be, you know, there is this current
process, which we call the ``exemption process,'' but the
current process exists. There has been, I believe, two or three
manufacturers who have submitted applications, one of which was
approved, one of which was withdrawn. And so there is an
existing process that is supposed to look at this information.
I think the most important piece is, is enough data being
acquired and submitted to allow NHTSA to make a reasonable
determination as to the safety of the vehicle that may not meet
the traditional standards? And that is the most important
question before us. And that is the one I think we are all
hoping to find a way to solve.
Mr. Dunn. And I would--I think we would all agree with you
on that. I mean, it is a new and evolving area. Thank you very
much for your answers and your time, gentlemen.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK, next we have my colleague and friend
from Illinois, Congresswoman Kelly, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Chair Schakowsky and the witnesses,
for testifying today.
One thing we can all agree on is the desire to protect and
create good-paying jobs that provide families with financial
security. For decades, automobile manufacturing has supplied
just that kind of employment. While that sector has faced its
fair share of challenges due to automation and globalization, I
am hopeful that the design, engineering, and manufacturing of
autonomous vehicles will occur in the United States.
Mr. Regan, over 32,000 of my constituents are employed in
the manufacturing industry, many in the automobile
manufacturing sector. How can we ensure that Federal support
for AVs also supports American workers and domestic
manufacturing?
Mr. Regan. Thank you for the question. You know, this--it
is not going to happen by accident. It is not just going to
magically develop here. We are going to need strong Buy America
procurements. We are going to need community benefits
agreements, U.S. employment plan restrictions, all these things
that we have outlined here that are really important.
And I would add--earlier the Ranking Member Rodgers made a
point about the Thune amendment being withdrawn because of
Teamsters and trial lawyers. I would say it was withdrawn
because it did absolutely nothing to address manufacturing
domestically. It laid out findings that we need to be able to
produce these here in the United States but had zero policy
that would actually accomplish that goal.
Ms. Kelly. Is there a danger, Mr. Regan, if we permit the
wide-scale development of AVs without any insurances that the
vehicles are designed, engineered, and manufactured in the
United States?
Mr. Regan. Yes, I think the danger of falling behind China,
as I know that--has been raised many times here, would exactly
be realized at that point. If we aren't making sure that it is
going to be developed and built here, it is going to go
overseas and we are not going to realize the benefits,
economically, of these in the United States.
Ms. Kelly. And how do you suggest we prevent a regulatory
environment in which companies designing, engineering, and
manufacturing AVs overseas reap the economic benefits? How do
we prevent?
Mr. Regan. Well, I think what we have laid out here--it is
the responsibility right now of policymakers to build a
framework that is going to ensure that we reap the benefits. I
think a failure to address the manufacturing, safety, workforce
issues that are very complicated and, frankly, are all going to
be impacted by AVs, any policy that doesn't address all of
those is, frankly, a failure of legislating, and any regulation
that is adopted because of it would be a failure of regulation
if it doesn't address all these issues.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Professor, in your testimony you mention that there is more
research needed into cybersecurity and cyber physical security
around AVs. What role can the Federal Government play, and how
mature are the current industry standards actually--how mature
are they in auto cybersecurity?
Dr. Rajkumar. Thank you, Congresswoman. We still need some
fundamental breakthroughs, because cyber physical security
spans all layers of the system, all the way from you playing
your music on your Bluetooth device all the way down to the
wire that basically carries information back and forth between
computers.
The industry is very sensitive to potential attacks, which
will make them extremely liable for things that go wrong. But
they do have the need, the necessity to make money now. So they
are taking, basically, near-term solutions to address this
problem.
But really, to come up with a fundamental framework that
addresses the issue or the longer term, that calls for
investments in basic research at the Federal level, and it
really needs to be coordinated across multiple agencies,
including the DOT, as well as basic research agencies like the
National Science Foundation.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Mr. Levine, are industry standards sufficient to protect
vehicles from cybersecurity threats?
Mr. Levine. That is highly unlikely. Thank you so much for
the question. It is highly unlikely that industry standards,
all by themselves, are going to be sufficient. And we know that
because they are not sufficient in almost any other category
either.
There is certainly a role to be played by industry
standards. There is certainly a role to be played by public-
private partnerships when we talk about cybersecurity, whether
you are talking about ISACs or other collaborations, but there
needs to be a significant involvement from the Federal
Government, and DOT should look to how it deals with cyber in
the aviation space as a model.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much.
And lastly, Mr. Regan, what safety lessons can we learn
from the aviation and transit sectors, which have long adopted
automation to improve safety?
Mr. Regan. Thank you. Aviation is a really good example
because the FAA has often been referred to as the tombstone
agency, where regulations are written in blood. Every time
there is a major accident, you know, most of the good safety
policy that has come out, good safety regulations, are because
of a catastrophic crash. We have an opportunity right now to
prevent that from happening when it comes to AVs if we are
addressing this at the early part instead of waiting until
there is a catastrophe.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much, and I yield back.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. And now 5 minutes go to
Congresswoman Lesko.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you to the
witnesses today.
I really do believe that the future of vehicle safety and
autonomous vehicles is something we can work together on, as
Republicans and Democrats. I am happy to cosponsor a bill with
Congressman McNerney on--Impaired Driving Safety Act. And I
think autonomous vehicles may be part of the solution.
In the past 5 years, the State of Arizona has become the
world leader in autonomous vehicle technology. Arizona welcomed
testing and pilot programs in our State. In fact, I rode in an
autonomous shuttle launched in my hometown of Peoria, Arizona,
just last spring, and it drove us around a shopping area in
Peoria called P83.
Autonomous, long-haul trucking companies have also found a
welcome home in Arizona. And in March, Arizona Governor Doug
Ducey signed into law legislation that updates our State's
safety framework for autonomous vehicles. We know that
approximately 94 percent of vehicle accidents are caused by
human error, including impaired driving. My district is home to
thousands of senior citizens who can no longer drive and need
to get to their doctors and stores. I think autonomous vehicles
can be part of the future to solve that problem for senior
citizens, those that are disabled, and, of course, will
definitely cut down on impaired driving accidents.
Mr. Rajkumar, my first question is for you. In your
opinion, what are the hurdles remaining for the automobile
vehicle industry to overcome, to continue the development of
this technology as we shift from driver assist functions to
fully autonomous systems?
Dr. Rajkumar. Congresswoman, thank you for the question.
The basic technology for doing that is available or can be made
available fairly quickly. There are so-called driver monitoring
systems, where a camera can be mounted above the steering
wheel, say, looking at the driver's face, and then monitor
whether the driver's eyes are closed or not, that the head is
drooping or not.
And therefore the technology is there to detect whether the
driver is opiated, drowsy, or drunk. And whether the vehicle is
driving itself or not, even with the level 2 systems and beyond
as well, you can monitor. And if things are not looking good,
the vehicle can take action, generate alerts, and if they are
not being responded to, slow down, turn the flashers on, pull
over, and stop.
Mrs. Lesko. Yes, that is very interesting that--you know,
of course, with the introduction--there is drunk driving and
then, of course, with the introduction of more legalization of
marijuana, that is causing a problem as well. So I could see
how that would be very beneficial.
I have another question for you, sir. You mentioned in your
written testimony that China's ability to catch up with our
advances in autonomous vehicles has been aided in part by their
regulatory environment. What actions should Congress take to
both address consumer safety and maintain American leadership
and innovation in autonomous vehicles?
Dr. Rajkumar. Oh, sure. China, being an aristocratic
regime, they can turn many different knobs different ways or
just completely shut them down at will. We, being a democratic
republic nation, we cannot do that. We will not do that. Our
value systems are fundamentally different.
So the way we basically beat them, I believe, is by
outinnovating with the most talented, innovative workforce in
the entire world. So that is how we need to make it happen. We
have done that through public-private partnerships with the
gems of the Nation in higher education contributing with their
creativity--and startups. So that is the way to make it happen.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, and Members and Madam Chair, I do
think this is part of our future. Of course, we need to proceed
cautiously and make sure that the vehicles are safe. But as I
am growing older, I look forward to the use of autonomous
vehicles so that I don't have to rely on other ways to get to
the doctor or, you know, to the shopping center, because I know
this is a huge problem in my district. I have been working for
years on how we transport around senior citizens that don't
have access to vehicles.
And so, with that, I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. I thank the gentlewoman, and I look forward
to working with you on this.
And now, Mr. Soto, the floor is yours for questions for 5
minutes.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate this
great hearing today on autonomous vehicles. We can boost
innovation, protect safety, and retrain American workers for
our 21st century transportation system.
You know, autonomous vehicles have an incredible effect
across the Nation, but we are doing research already in what
would otherwise seem like an unlikely place. In Auburndale,
Florida, right next to the new Florida Polytechnic University,
we have a 475-acre facility built amid both pasturelands and
orange groves. The project, SunTrax, in conjunction with the
Florida Department of Transportation and Florida Turnpike, has
already completed phase one, a two-and-a-quarter-mile oval
testing track.
We are also developing phase two, in-field testing elements
to create obstacles and barriers for testing autonomous
vehicles. And soon phase three, to be able to simulate rain,
smoke, fog, and other environmental challenges. Plans call for
several testing environments.
We are seeing, right in central Florida, testing for the
vehicles of the future. But we know those can be 5 to 10 to 20
years off. We also know that, if we aren't careful, we could
see a disruption of many jobs in our current economy, which is
why our Artificial Intelligence Jobs Act, our AI Jobs Act, is a
blueprint to make sure that we are retraining those for the
future.
But advanced driver assistance systems are already here:
autonomous emergency brakes, blind spot detection, and lane
delay. These technologies can save more lives at a time when we
desperately need them. Unfortunately, in central Florida we
still have the highest pedestrian death rate in the Nation: 740
pedestrian deaths from 2010 to 2019.
Florida also, sadly, still tops the list of dangerous--most
dangerous places for pedestrians, according to the 2021
Dangerous by Design, by Smart Growth America and National
Complete Streets Coalition.
These new autonomous systems are available now. What is the
solution? The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
must develop performance and safety standards for both--for the
advanced driver assistance systems in the near term, and
autonomous vehicles in the long term, as well as protecting
drivers with access to the courts for legal remedies arising
from product liability, negligence, or other liability.
Then we need to pass the American Jobs Act, upgrade our
crumbling highways, roads, and bridges, add new sidewalks,
pedestrian bridges, and trails at commuter rail, high-speed
rail, and add electric vehicles and charging stations to combat
climate change.
In fact, today President Biden is in Dearborn, Michigan,
visiting the Ford Rouge Electric Vehicle Center, where they are
working on an F-150 with zero emissions and built by union
workers.
Mr. Regan, we know that, as we prepare for these 21st
century jobs, advanced electric, semiautonomous, and eventually
autonomous vehicles are key for competitive manufacturing. What
workforce training should we invest in to help these workers
who may face economic disruption?
Mr. Regan. Thank you. Yes, workforce training, I think, is
a key part of this. It is going to have to come so they can
transition to the new jobs that are created in agencies,
transit agencies, that are deploying this technology, making
sure that people have a career or a ladder of opportunity to
advance their careers.
And I think it is going to have to take--frankly, be
flexible about how people are able to take advantage of it and
pursue the career opportunities that they desire.
Mr. Soto. And, Mr. Regan, how will the American Jobs Plan
help with workers displaced by new technology like autonomous
vehicles and a decline in oil jobs due to electric vehicles?
Mr. Regan. The American Jobs Plan is--has built into it
labor protections that are key to making sure that workers are
brought along and that the investments we make as a country are
going to build our economy from the bottom up and make sure
that working people have their fair share in all of this.
So whether it be Buy America policies, 13C, Davis-Bacon,
any number of labor protections to make sure that the
investments are done in a way that advance middle-class jobs
and encourage the ability of people to form and join unions.
Mr. Soto. Well, thank you so much. We know in this
committee we need to be forward looking, and having a Federal
regulatory regime for both advanced driver assistance systems,
which are coming online and helping save lives now, as well as
autonomous vehicles.
And my time is expired.
Ms. Schakowsky. Yes, I thank the gentleman. And now I
recognize for 5 minutes Mr. Pence.
Mr. Pence. Thank you, Chairwoman Schakowsky and Ranking
Member Bilirakis, for holding this hearing. And thank you to
the witnesses for appearing before us today.
As the crossroads of America, Indiana is uniquely
positioned to play a central role in the development,
deployment, and manufacturing of autonomous vehicles.
Congressional action, or its inaction, will set the stage for
our position globally and opportunities locally for advanced
transportation technologies.
Just last summer the Indiana Department of Transportation
announced a test bed initiative for partially autonomous trucks
along Interstate 70, which runs through Greenfield across to
Richmond in my district. Real-world opportunities like this are
crucial to inform the continuing policy discussion for AV
standards across the country. Whether it is the workers at the
Honda manufacturing plant in Greensburg, or researchers and
engineers at Cummins Technical Center in Columbus, autonomous
vehicles have the potential to expand opportunities for
Hoosiers [audio malfunction].
Ms. Schakowsky. Oops, we seem to have lost Mr. Pence. Shall
we proceed? Let's wait a second and see if he can get back.
We will come back to him if he gets back, and right now I
will recognize Congresswoman Fletcher for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Schakowsky,
and thanks to you and Ranking Member Bilirakis for convening
today's hearing on this important topic. These issues matter to
the people I represent in the Houston area.
From 2001 to 2016, our region had more than 3,000 fatal
crashes from drunk and drugged driving alone. Automobile
technologies like advanced driver assistance systems and
autonomous vehicles have great power to make our roads safer,
and I appreciate the time our witnesses have taken today in
detailing how we can best do that.
But, as we also know, this technology brings with it new
concerns and new complications. Just last month we saw a fiery
crash of a vehicle that killed two people that investigators
believe no person was driving. And there is a major and ongoing
investigation and a lot of questions about exactly what
happened. And that is a huge concern, going forward.
So I have heard a few negative comments in this hearing
from some of my colleagues about trial lawyers. And, as a
former practicing courtroom lawyer, I really think that these
comments are misplaced. There simply isn't time now to go into
all of the reasons and ways that our legal system and our
courtroom system protects consumers and all Americans through
the courts. But access to the courtroom is important, and even
a cursory review of the history of consumer and worker
protection in this country will show that.
Now, that said, some of my colleagues have already raised
the potential for mandatory arbitration of disputes relating to
autonomous vehicles. And that is--I think that is really an
important thing to circle back to. While I certainly believe
there are certain circumstances where arbitration of disputes
can be useful for the parties, where they agree to do so once a
dispute has arisen in this context, as with, generally, you
know, most consumer matters, arbitration moves disputes out of
the public view. It is often confidential. It provides no
meaningful opportunity to appeal the result, all of which are
hugely problematic in contexts like these and especially with
these emerging technologies.
So my first question is directed to you, Mr. Levine. Are
you concerned that there will be less information available
publicly about safety issues if AV companies are allowed to
force claims to arbitration?
What kind of impact will that have on safety and creating a
legal record for these new technologies?
Mr. Levine. Sure. Thank you so much for the question. And
the idea that we are going to have this transformational new
technology, which is going to replace the 280 million currently
human-driven vehicles on our roads, and--but it is all going to
be done behind closed doors, should really scare everyone.
And we see that already, in AV manufacturers disclosing
very little information to the Federal Government right now, as
they are currently testing on our roads. Very little useful
information is being disclosed now, and that is before there is
widespread deployment and, hopefully, long before we get to
widespread problems and defects that may result in injuries, in
crashes, or deaths.
So if there is a circumstance where the people who are
using vehicles or who are injured by them or just financially
injured by them cannot make that made public, cannot hold
people accountable--manufacturers accountable, I should say--
that is going to really blunt the opportunity to fix those
problems, not just for the injured party but for everyone else.
We have got to get this stuff out into the light.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. And as a followup to that, you
know, in 2017 the Texas legislature passed a bill in our Senate
that places the liability of vehicle operation on the owner of
the vehicle, not the manufacturer, even when the owner has no
control over how the system operates, no insight into where and
when it might fail, and no ability to update the system or keep
up with the latest rules of the road.
So, you know, in thinking about this and looking into the
future, do you think it is fair to hold owners of cars liable
for a crash that may be caused by the company that built the
vehicle and the technology that drives it?
I mean, how do we address that concern?
Mr. Levine. You know, it just--it is fundamentally unfair
to posit a circumstance where you have no control over the
vehicle, what it does, how it operates, whether it operates
safely, but you are responsible for it. This is not a
circumstance where you chose to loan the vehicle to an
irresponsible driver. You purchased it on the--in this
theoretical context, on the idea that it is a perfect driver,
it is a perfect robot that will never cause a problem and that,
if it does have a problem, you are responsible for it.
Manufacturers need to be held responsible, not just for
their claims but for what they actually put on the road.
Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thanks so much. And I have a few more
questions, but I am running out of time, so I will submit them
for the record. And thank you so much for your testimony today.
And Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Is--did I see Mr. Pence back?
Mr. Pence. I am back, Madam Chair. Do you hear me?
Ms. Schakowsky. OK, yes, I can hear you. You just
disappeared on us.
Mr. Pence. Yes.
Ms. Schakowsky. So----
Mr. Pence. Thank you very much for your patience here. I am
just going to go straight to my question to Professor Rajkumar.
Let me ask you this, Professor. Your testimony highlights
the many benefits that would come from continued U.S.
leadership in autonomous vehicle industry. Workers in my
district representing different parts of the autonomous
vehicles value chain stand to benefit from American leadership.
I introduced a bipartisan H.R. 2907, the Global Investment
in American Jobs Act, which would ensure the United States
remains the premiere global destination for investment,
innovation, jobs, and manufacturing in emerging technologies
like self-driving vehicles, which, in this world of driver
shortages, is very important.
My question is, can you expand on what long-term job
creation would look like across the ``stack'' of technologies,
particularly how it would affect my manufacturing district?
[Pause.]
Ms. Schakowsky. Professor, you are muted. We are not
hearing you.
Dr. Rajkumar. Oh, sorry about that. Thanks, Congressman.
I see the AV market being comprised of multiple segments:
robo-taxis, individually owned consumer vehicles, delivery
vehicles. You have semi trucks and transit buses.
In terms of human involvement, I think transit vehicle
drivers and semi truck drivers, basically, do a lot more than
driving. So I think it will be a long time before they can be
completely replaced. It would be a very long time. And
meanwhile, I think robo-taxis, to make money to sustain the
business, they will have to become completely autonomous, level
4-plus, and that may take some time to happen. So it is not
clear what the business viability looks in the near term. It is
not clear.
Meanwhile, for individually owned personal vehicles,
technologies like ADAS level 3 and beyond can start taking off
the burden of driving very long distances, being stuck in
traffic jams and the like. So I think that sector ends up being
the biggest winner in the near term. And over the long term, as
the technology matures and becomes more reliable and safe,
basically, that can disseminate across the other market
segments.
For--I guess we sell about 17 million cars in the U.S.
every year. Imagine more and more technology going in--sensors,
computers, communications equipment into these cars. So all of
that ought to be--really be manufactured and assembled in the
U.S. in your district and beyond.
Mr. Pence. All right, thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Yes, thank you. So we are going to go to
Congresswoman Rice, and then come back to Mr. Armstrong. OK?
Miss Rice. Thank you, Madam Chair----
Ms. Schakowsky. You are recognized----
Miss Rice. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to--I
haven't spoken to Representative Dingell, but I would like to
think that I would, in my remarks, be echoing what Debbie
Dingell, Representative Debbie Dingell from Michigan, would be
speaking about in terms of her bill, the HALT Drunk Driving
Act. I am proud to be a colead on this bipartisan bill with her
and Representative McKinley, and I hope to see it signed into
law, because drunk driving accidents continue to plague our
Nation.
It is estimated that drunk driving accidents cause over
10,000 deaths a year, 29 fatalities a day, and societal losses
exceeding $44 billion every year. Most importantly, you know,
before coming to Congress I spent my whole life as a
prosecutor, and I have seen the havoc that is wreaked in
communities and among broken families. And it is just a
terrible, preventable crime.
We do have--the technologies that can passively detect
whether a driver is intoxicated and trigger the vehicle to
automatically mitigate the risks are on the horizon. And the
HALT Act would require all passenger vehicles to be equipped
with this technology.
Mr. Levine, are you optimistic about the promises of drunk
driving prevention technology?
Mr. Levine. Yes. Thank you so much for the question, and
thank you so much for pushing this issue forward. There is
tremendous potential right now, not 10, 20, 30 years from now,
right now to help prevent not only drunk driving, but drunk,
drugged, distracted, and drowsy driving with technology that
exists right now. And we need to get it into vehicles as
quickly as possible to limit, mitigate, and eventually,
eliminate these tragedies.
Miss Rice. So I am--thank you for saying that, because we
are hearing a lot today about the promise of autonomous
vehicles and how AVs on the road could lower drunk driving
crashes, obviously. But you know, still, that is still a ways
away. And I don't want us to kind of be thinking, OK, that is
where we have to focus on, is what--how the deployment of AVs
can lessen the occurrence of drunk driving fatalities and
crashes, when we have that technology now.
But now also, Mr. Levine, with you, you know, I am
concerned, you know, with the proliferation of marijuana
legalization. It is a lot more tricky to detect an impaired
driver from drugs versus an intoxicated driver from alcohol. So
what are your thoughts about that, in terms of what is the
latest technology, and what--with the AV--deployment of AV, how
would that affect the impaired drugged driver?
Mr. Levine. Sure, and there is--obviously, there are
different chemical characteristics of a--of someone with
alcohol in their system or someone with other substances in
their system. That is the idea of technology like driver
monitoring systems, is to try and get after the behavior that
leads to crashes and injuries and deaths. And so maybe that is
a drowsy driver. Maybe it is a driver who has had too much--you
know, who has had too much to drink or who is on drugs. There's
a lot of different possibilities that lead to behavior that is
dangerous. It could be a completely sober driver who is texting
while driving. Many of these behaviors, in terms of how we
actually operate behind the wheel, are similar.
And so the idea of driver monitoring systems is to try and
attack the behavior that leads to the crash. And eventually,
hopefully, we get to a place where we can detect what we need
to detect. But until we get there, attacking the behavior that
can stop the crash is our best opportunity, and we can, again,
do it with technology that exists right now. We don't need to
wait.
Miss Rice. Thank you.
Very quickly, Mr. Regan, many of your members have fallen
victim to drunk drivers. How do you feel about the deployment
of the, you know, drunk driving prevention technology to
protect our Nation's--not only our Nation's truck drivers, but
our transit workers, as well.
Mr. Regan. Well, thank you. I think that it is important. I
think it would be--provide great benefit. Anything to increase
safety is, in my view, a benefit. And I think that is an
example of new technology that can assist human operators and
that can be deployed throughout our system to make sure that we
are augmenting the safety of the human-operated crafts and
making sure that we are not just jumping headlong into an
automated future without any real safeguards.
Miss Rice. I want to thank all the witnesses for coming
today, and I yield back the balance of my time, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. And the gentlelady yields back. And Mr.
Armstrong, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to just
say I am going to go off of what Congressman Fletcher had said
earlier about trial lawyers and all of that.
I think the one thing that we forget in this dichotomy,
whether it is autonomous or not, is every State in the country
requires liability insurance. And how we deal with these things
moving forward, and how insurance companies deal with these
things moving forward as we deploy whatever vehicles, including
the last testimony, I--is going to be very, very important,
which will be, I think, a little different than some of the
other forced arbitration and different conversations we have.
Because I have a very distinct idea that both insurance
companies and insurance defense lawyers are going to have
something to say about how this moves forward.
And as somebody who has spent my practicing legal career
dealing with the DOT and spending a lot of time with NHTSA, I
think one of our conversations we have to have on our end is
Congress has never been really good at adapting to quick
responses in technology. The Music Modernization Act, right
before I got to Congress, comes to mind. We still haven't
figured out how to deal with privacy in the digital age. The
Federal regulatory agencies aren't a lot better. We have no--we
still aren't anywhere on AI, facial recognition, geofence
warrants, and those things.
So, Dr. Rajkumar, your testimony suggests an AV regulatory
environment that continually adapts to real-world testing and
deployment, which I think sounds fantastic. I am skeptical that
we are capable of that at the Federal level. So what policies
would you suggest that would allow our Government to adapt to
these rapid advancements in the field?
Dr. Rajkumar. Thank you, Congressman. I believe we are
going back about 5 years. The Secretary of the U.S. DOT did
propose to have an annual revisit of AV-related guidance on a
regulatory perspective. So I do agree that it is an aggressive
schedule for a Federal agency, but it has been talked about
before. I believe it is feasible. I think it is necessary to
not just ensure the safety of the public, which is why the
regulations are in place, but to adapt to the changing--the
maturation of the technology, so--which is why that agility is
required.
I would also add two more elements in here, which Mr.
Levine states in his written testimony too. The NHTSA budget
needs to be reinforced, increased, because our responsibilities
are becoming larger with the same amount of resources, number
one.
Number two, the technology in the AV space is complicated.
We need to figure out ways and means to get appropriate
expertise into agencies like NHTSA and the U.S. DOT.
Mr. Armstrong. Yes, and I guess my concern is we are really
good at regulating what is--what already exists. We are very
bad at crafting regulation for what might exist in 6 months, 8
months, 15 months. So which--and part of your testimony called
for tailored regulatory framework in AV markets. Like, you
state that a vehicle with a license operator would be regulated
differently. Can you define the market segments, and how you
would approach regulations like that and in the segments?
Dr. Rajkumar. Sure. For example, if you take robo-taxis
from a strictly business financial perspective, if there is a
human operator on board, you would very likely be better off
just buying a normal vehicle, hiring a human driver to operate
the vehicle, and you are done, right?
If--instead, if you basically have to put an assistant on
board, the vehicle drives itself most of the time, but the
equipment is very expensive sensing and computers, you only
added to your overhead, and the revenue still remains the same.
But if you take an individually owned consumer vehicle,
that is a person in the car who is going from point A to point
B. The vehicle belongs to that person. And if the vehicle has
enough capabilities, it drives itself most of the time, and
when it requires assistance, it calls upon the licensed
operator in the car to basically help out the vehicle, take it
out of its current fix, and then move to the destination, so
that basically--it really does not cost anybody anything but
adds convenience and, hopefully, safety to the vehicle owner.
So I think there are distinct segments. The same regulatory
parameters should not apply.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you.
And with that I would just add that one--as we start going
down this road, we also have to recognize that how we deal with
local and State DOTs and enforcements--there was just talk
about marijuana versus impaired versus alcohol-related. Those
are all really interesting conversations. I am just telling you
being an impaired driver and being a tired driver are treated
very differently in every court system across the State. And
there is probably nothing litigated both in the civil and
criminal matter more than driving crime. So, with that, I yield
back.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back. And I believe--
Mr. Cardenas, are you here?--is next.
No? So we have--yes. I am going to call now on Mr. Bucshon.
Then that would be the last of the members of the subcommittee,
and we can go to the people who have waived on.
Mr. Cardenas, you have 5 minutes.
No, I am sorry, I meant to say Mr. Bucshon, sorry.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Madam----
Ms. Schakowsky. You have five, sorry.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate
that. No, you are fine. Thank you.
Professor Rajkumar, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 2997, the
Crash Avoidance System Evaluation Act, a bill that I am proud
to work with, with my friend Bobby Rush. The bill would require
the Department of Transportation to conduct a study on the
performance of crash avoidance systems to detect and classify
vulnerable road users, pedestrians, and the like, including
those with darker skin tones. This has apparently been an
issue.
In your testimony you state that stacking safety systems is
paramount in achieving good outcomes for road users. Are there
any emerging technologies that you have encountered in your
research that you would think would be useful in addressing the
concern of crash avoidance systems not detecting individuals of
various skin tones, in addition to the things we know: cameras,
radar, and lidar?
[Pause.]
Mr. Bucshon. I think you might be muted.
Dr. Rajkumar. Yes, sorry about that.
Ms. Schakowsky. Oh, yes, OK, go ahead.
Dr. Rajkumar. It depends upon the sensing mode within the
vehicle. If only cameras are used to look at pedestrians and
the AI data being used to train that pedestrian detection
system has only people of a certain skin color and does not
represent the entire distribution of people in the population,
you run into these biases. When you feed in biased input data,
bias outcomes result. The algorithm itself is completely
agnostic to this, it is really about getting the data sets
right, if you will. So that is a key point that many companies
in the domain are being very sensitive to these days.
Number two, when you use lidars or radar, they really do
not care about skin color, or the detectors--there is an
obstacle there. And this could be a human, so they would be
completely independent of the skin color, if you will. So the
safety, therefore, depends upon the combination of sensors
being used.
Mr. Bucshon. OK, great. So what you are saying, the sensors
that are being used are probably acceptable, but that it is
very important to make sure that the data that is--that they
are--that is downloaded to them, or that they are adjusted for,
is the critical piece here.
Dr. Rajkumar. Absolutely, yes.
Mr. Bucshon. Great. And how can Congress ensure that these
concerns are properly investigated, while not stifling
innovation of this emerging technology?
I mean, how can we avoid stepping in the way? Is there
anything that we are doing that could prevent this type of
development?
Dr. Rajkumar. Sure. Many States across the country have a
permit process through which AV testing companies can get a
permit to test AVs in those respective States.
Imagine a driver's test that all of us went through. So
that test could actually involve injecting appropriate inputs
of this kind and seeing how the vehicle reacts.
Mr. Bucshon. OK, great. And that is why Congressman Rush
and myself are proposing this legislation, to make sure that
the DOT, you know, investigates this performance to detect and
classify vulnerable road users and making sure that people are
testing and are putting this information properly in their
systems.
Also to you, the Chinese Communist Party has now developed
a pathway for the development of autonomous vehicles. And
according to a recent Bloomberg article, the China tech giant
Baidu is--has set a goal to deploy 3,000 robo-taxis in 30
Chinese cities by the end of 2023. If Congress continues to
delay in passing AV legislation and we cede our leadership in
this space, how perilous do you think these consequences could
be for the U.S.?
Dr. Rajkumar. I think this is the biggest peril that we
currently face in the domain. We need to absolutely make sure
that what AVs are on American streets are safe. At the same
time, if China ends up taking the leadership in this massive
market, they could locally transform their transportation
industry, locally. They would also start exporting. They have
incredible manufacturing power, lots of factories and such, so
they could end up taking a big slice of that $7 trillion market
here.
It would be a huge loss, would be an unfortunate outcome
for the U.S., where--the technology was, literally, invented
here, the mission was carried out to fruition here, but the
wealth and the jobs go to a country like China.
Mr. Bucshon. Yes, I think the--I mean, the moral to that
story is the United States Congress and the United States
Government needs to get past our differences and get this
process moving along.
With that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. The gentleman yields back. And now I note
that Mr. Cardenas, from the subcommittee, has returned.
And I recognize you for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you to
you and the ranking member for having this important hearing in
full view of the public. And I appreciate all of the witnesses
bringing your perspectives and expertise on this matter.
The first thing I want to point out is that we, obviously,
are looking at a shift in what kind of jobs will be out there,
especially with autonomous vehicles. If we get to the point
where we can actually have 100 percent autonomous, where we
don't necessarily need a human being at the wheel, so to speak,
that means that jobs shift and what the future jobs look like
is going to be incredibly different than what it looks today.
Mr. Regan, when and if that takes place, especially when it
hits momentum and moves en masse, would we see a shifting of
skill sets in the people--for example, bus drivers and truck
drivers and delivery truck drivers, et cetera--would we see a
shift in the need within our societies for those kinds of jobs
shifting away to other kinds of jobs?
Mr. Regan. That is certainly possible, yes. And, you know,
whether they are able to shift their skill set is depending on
the policies that are going to be written by Congress, making
sure that they have the resources to transition along with the
technology in our systems.
Mr. Cardenas. Is there any place on the planet where we
have seen shifts like this, where the government and the
private sector got together, for example, when it comes to
training programs to retool, so to speak, so that people can
continue to have that ability to put in an honest day's work
and yet get compensated when they are trying to shift from
maybe a job that they had for 2 or 20 years and now they need
to shift and have a different skill set? Is there examples on
the planet where government and private industry have come
together to do that?
Mr. Regan. We have seen--well, here in the U.S., TAA, Trade
Adjustment Assistance, is an example of that. And frankly,
there are some flaws in that program. I know a lot of people
rely on it, but that was an example of us trying to address a
problem after the fact.
And what I am trying to impose during our--during this
hearing today is that we have an opportunity now, you all have
an opportunity to address this problem on the front end and
make sure that we are building up the capacity to advance our
workforce early rather than trying to deal with the problem
down the line when it is a crisis right in our face.
Mr. Cardenas. So, Mr. Regan, the Federal Government could
and perhaps should have a role in that. And not that the
Federal Government should be, for example, practicing those
kinds of on-the-ground efforts, but maybe with local
governments, with private industry to look into the future, to
see what private industry says, the kinds of jobs that they
need and are ready to pay people to do, yet at the same time,
for example, community colleges or trade associations, et
cetera, could--is that the kind of effort that maybe we should
get in front of?
Mr. Regan. Yes, of course. And, you know, apprenticeship
programs, you know, ladders of opportunity within agencies,
whether it be public or private companies, all of those should
be addressed, and we need to make sure that we are encouraging
that from a Federal perspective.
Mr. Cardenas. Well, I had an issue getting on this--I
almost called it a Zoom--this Cisco Webex event earlier today,
and I had a tech staff who was very capable, much more capable
than me, even though I am an electrical engineer. Go figure. It
took me close to, you know, 12, 15 minutes to finally get back
on track.
When somebody is driving a vehicle, especially if you have
vehicles coming in the opposite direction at 60 and 70 miles an
hour, you don't get 12 minutes. You don't even get 1.2 seconds
if that goes off the rails. So are we there yet, in having
autonomous vehicles on the streets of America, where we can
actually trust that mistakes are not going to be made and lives
will not be lost based on a technical glitch?
[Pause.]
Mr. Cardenas. Who would like to answer that?
Mr. Regan. I would say no, but I refer to Jason----
Mr. Levine. Yes, I would agree with Greg. No, we are not
currently there. And in fact, when we have got manufacturers
suggesting that we are, we have seen what has happened with a
number of crashes involving vehicles that are, you know,
supposedly autonomous, and they are not.
So we want to get there, certainly, but we are a long way
from there. And let's get a lot of this better technology in
sooner.
Mr. Cardenas. Yes. And the fact of the matter is we are in
the United States of America, where, thank God, people have
incredible rights, civil rights, et cetera, where in other
countries, perhaps, they don't have the checks and balances to
make sure that, oops, we kind of let the cat out of the bag and
a few people got killed, and so what, let's just, in the name
of progress, let's just continue to allow those kinds of
catastrophes to happen.
So I believe that we can do it carefully in the United
States. I believe in our institutions and our research to be
able to do it right, respecting the individuals on the streets
of America. So I look forward to the United States continuing
to put a lot of energy and effort into making sure that we do
not fall behind, but we do it responsibly.
And with that, my time has expired. Thank you, Madam
Chairwoman, I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
And now it is such an honor for me to recognize
Congresswoman Eshoo, the chairman of the wonderful Health
Subcommittee that I regularly waive onto, and to welcome you to
waive on here today. So you have 5 minutes for questions.
Ms. Eshoo. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for your warm
welcome. I certainly appreciate the--you extending your
legislative courtesy to me for me to participate at your
subcommittee today. And thank you to the witnesses.
My congressional district covers most of Silicon Valley,
and I have seen the rapid growth of the AV industry firsthand.
In fact, I rode in a self-driving car in my district before
this subcommittee ever had its first hearing on AV legislation,
nearly 4 years ago. This technology is likely to disrupt
industries such as ride-sharing, delivery, long-haul trucking,
and public transit. Because the vast majority of crashes are
caused by humans, by human error, it may also save lives. And I
think that we are all focused on that as well.
Of course, there are risks as well. Federal standards are
necessary to establish minimum safety baselines to ensure
consumer confidence. And testing data will be needed to
evaluate whether AVs live up to their promise of reducing
crashes. This is going to require legislation, and I look
forward to working with my colleagues to develop that
legislation.
To Professor Rajkumar, in your testimony you note that the
AV market has six distinct segments and that regulation should
recognize these distinctions. Aside from exemption caps, what
distinctions should the regulatory framework make between
different kinds of AVs?
And then I have a question for Mr. Levine.
Dr. Rajkumar. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
In terms of the segments, for example, for individually
owned--the consumer vehicles, since that is a licensed driver
in the car, the contours of operation can be broader than a
ride-sharing taxi where there is no human operator on board. So
that would be one distinction.
And meanwhile, if you go to the trucking industry--of
course, lots of Silicon Valley companies working in that
space--you could mandate that autonomous operations for semi
trucks could only happen on highways, where there are no
pedestrians, and only on good weather days, where the lighting
conditions, road conditions, weather conditions are good. So it
is really not about the exemption count, it is about the
operating design domain, if you will.
Ms. Eshoo. I see. Thank you very much.
To Mr. Levine--I hope I am pronouncing that correctly. Is
it ``Le-vine'' or ``Le-veen''?
Mr. Levine. It is ``Le-veen,'' but it's OK, Congresswoman.
Ms. Eshoo. OK. We certainly agree that safety has to be at
the forefront of AV policy. But no vehicle, whether it is
traditional or self-driving, can prevent every crash. We go
into this understanding it.
As the technology develops, the question will not be
whether AVs are safe but how safe they are. At least in my
view, that will be the case. How safe do AVs need to be before
they are safe enough to allow on public roads?
Mr. Levine. Wow, that is a great question. And it, I think,
is one that the entire community, when we talk about vehicles,
struggles with. But if we make it just a little bit broader, I
think the larger question is, how do we think about our entire
auto vehicle infrastructure? How do we reduce the risk of the
crashes, of the millions of crashes and injuries and 42,000
deaths every year?
And so, when we are going to measure autonomous vehicle
safety, obviously, we are going to want them to be safer than
our current drivers, which are--the average driver, you know,
only has--experiences a death just over 1 time for every 100
million vehicle miles traveled. That means most drivers don't
ever experience a crash death. So we are going to need to see,
I think, for public to trust AVs, far significantly safer
vehicle travel, with all of our infrastructure combined----
Ms. Eshoo. How close would you estimate we are to making
that determination right now?
Mr. Levine. Well, you know, I mean, based on what we see,
the statements coming from the companies themselves, we are
pretty far away from a circumstance where you could be
comfortable putting your 6-year-old in the back of a vehicle
and sending them on their way to school. We are really far away
from that.
Ms. Eshoo. OK, thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
Pleasure to join your wonderful subcommittee, and I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, thank you for coming. Now I want to
yield to Mr. Joyce, who has waived on as well.
And you have been very patient, and the floor is yours for
5 minutes.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member. Thank
you for allowing me to waive on to this important hearing
today.
Dr. Rajkumar, while there are clear safety benefits from
highly automated passenger cars, we also expect to see safety
benefits in a variety of other applications. Many of these
solutions are years down the road and will require a stable
regulatory framework.
Dr. Rajkumar, how important is it that the Federal
Government creates such a framework?
Dr. Rajkumar. I think it is extremely important, if 50
States in the U.S.--basically, each has its own regulatory
framework. Now the developers of the technology, be it a big
company or a startup company, cannot deal with that
heterogeneity.
What should happen instead is that there is a national
framework that is enforced by NHTSA/the U.S. DOT, and therefore
the technology developers need to develop towards that one
single standard and then test against that standard. I think
that is at the core of what needs to be done.
The U.S. DOT had taken a similar position earlier, where
the individual States had jurisdiction over licensing,
insurance, and the like. But in this particular case, the
driver is really not a human but computer software, and
therefore the right to regulate that particular aspect of
vehicles lies at the Federal level.
That being said, the U.S. DOT has been taking the following
position, where it lets individual States experiment with
different processes to help incubate and make sure local
companies and technologies try out different processes. But the
Federal Government has retained the right to preempt all those
regulations at a future point in time, when the processes are
well understood, the technology has been proven itself to be
safe.
So that, I think, is the right framework to go forward
with, a single national framework.
Mr. Joyce. If the Federal AV framework currently lacks
clear testing requirements and guidelines, do you think
drafting these for autonomous vehicle framework--that the
principles needed to be included should be outlined in advance?
Dr. Rajkumar. The----
Mr. Joyce. This is, again, for Dr. Rajkumar.
Dr. Rajkumar. Yes, the guidelines need to be stated, but I
think they need to be drafted with input from the vehicle
makers, with the researchers who understand that the pitfalls
of the technology, with community organizations, with the
workforce, and such.
And the more--and then the other important aspect is that
any regulations that we put in place today, if they are set in
concrete, they will become outdated a year from now, 18 months
from now. So it is important that the regulatory framework gets
revisited every so often, like, every once a year.
Mr. Joyce. We hear about concerns with driverless cars on
the roadways, that some manufacturers have made claims about
the current existence already of self-driving cars. To me, this
sounds like level 5 automated technology, which, according to
NHTSA, is an automated driving system.
On these vehicles, can they do all of the driving in all of
the circumstances on the road?
Dr. Rajkumar. Currently, there are no fully autonomous
vehicles on the entire planet, period. The only vehicles that
consumers can buy today corresponds to level 2, which is far
below level 5. In level 2 features, the operator in the vehicle
must be paying attention to the vehicle at all times. You all
know, if the vehicle is driving itself, it could do something
really crazy, something dangerous at any point in time, and it
becomes the responsibility of the operator to step in when the
vehicle does something bad.
So there is a huge chasm between level 2 functionality and
level 5. We are many years away from level 5.
Mr. Joyce. Earlier in this hearing, Ranking Member
Bilirakis mentioned that it is important, worth repeating this.
Dr. Rajkumar, should the NHTSA hold automakers responsible
for misleading claims that create fear among the public about
this technology?
Clearly, you have stated to us there is a significant
difference between level 5 and level 2. Should there be
accountability for misleading claims?
Dr. Rajkumar. I think that NHTSA must take on two roles.
Number one, educate the public about what--the capabilities
and the limitations of driving technology, self-driving
technology, today.
Number two, it needs to take a very strong and compelling
action against any company out there which misrepresents the
capabilities of their level 2 functions.
And meanwhile, I think, arguing on the side of NHTSA, we
need to give them the appropriate resources and human
expertise, so they can actually manage this process as well.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you for your answer. My time has expired.
Again, thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to
participate.
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, I am happy to have you. Thank you
very much.
And now, last but not least, I am going to call on a man
who I know just loves to wait for things, because he is such a
patient individual.
And so, Mr. Doyle, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate
your courtesy.
You know, it is critical that, as we work to advance
development and adoption of technologies that can change the
way we live and work, like autonomous vehicles, that we bring
folks to the table to discuss the impact that these new
technologies will have so that we can affirmatively guide the
development of this technology in a way that enhances our
values, our communities, our workers, and our economy.
Professor Rajkumar, a few years ago we heard from
luminaries--or charlatans--in Silicon Valley talking about
innovations in AVs and how we were right around the corner from
a revolution that would make drivers obsolete. Well, that
doesn't seem to have happened. Instead, it seems that we have
seen a range of new safety technologies be deployed that can
increase road safety. And I think those folks back then scared
a lot of people.
So tell me, how do you see this technology evolving?
And do you see it as a sudden shift to driverless cars or a
more gradual transition, one that we have the opportunity to
help guide, to ensure that these innovations enhance our values
of inclusion and equity, as opposed to detracting from them?
Dr. Rajkumar. Thank you, Congressman Doyle. Autonomous--
driving, as an activity, is the most complex activity that we
adults engage in on a regular basis. But if you close your eyes
for a couple of seconds on the highway, one could actually end
up getting killed. And meanwhile, autonomous vehicles are
deemed to be one of the grandest engineering challenges of this
century. So when you, basically, juxtapose those two things
together, it is very natural that it is going to take quite
some time for the technology to evolve and mature that we can
trust our lives with it at any time.
But meanwhile, as you pointed out, there are multiple
intermediate milestones, like level 2 and level 3, which will
actually help mitigate, compensate for human error and
therefore reduce the number of fatalities and injuries. But the
process is long. We have gone through this cycle of hype, as
you pointed out, and then we went through this trough of
disillusionment about a year or so back.
So we need to go past that disillusionment, understand that
China is investing significantly in the space, enabling and
facilitating their companies to grow more, take a bigger--a big
share of this huge market space, and therefore, we need to wear
the reality goggles, invest in basic research, enable private-
public partnerships, and then help out deployments and testing
from a regulatory perspective. And that is how we continue to
sustain and extend the edge that we created in this space.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. Professor, do you believe that strong
Federal safety standards are critical for the development and
adoption of autonomous vehicles, that--you know, for Americans
to adopt this technology, they need to feel confident that the
technology works?
Dr. Rajkumar. Absolutely. So, if anything, any accident,
crash, or fatality related to autonomous features get covered
significantly, the media--it becomes top-page news, if you
will. So we hold computers and software to a very high
standard. So therefore they need to be significantly better
than human performance in driving. We humans cause fatalities
once every 80 million miles or so. So computers need to be
better.
So importing a high bar is necessary to earn the trust of
the consumers, safeguard the reputation of the technology, and
that is an incremental, evolving process that the Federal
Government needs to support on ongoing basis.
Mr. Doyle. And finally, let me ask you, do you believe the
companies that deploy autonomous vehicles need to be
accountable for the systems they create, if they fail and
result in harm?
It seems like, all too often, folks describe machine
learning systems as black boxes that aren't accountable and
that aren't sort of verifiable in what they do and how they do
it. Do you think that we need to hold AV systems to a higher
standard?
Dr. Rajkumar. Yes, of course. Three words of caution to
consumers: number one, understand the limitations of the system
that they are buying, they are not fully autonomous; number
two, be careful about what you agree to--the agreement that the
car maker presents to you--it very likely says that you are
responsible, even if their software does something wrong,
right; number three, delve deeper, watch videos, look at the
literature, read testimonies from my colleagues like Greg and
Mr. Levine, and get yourself educated. We currently do not have
fully autonomous cars and will not for some more time.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much, Professor.
Madam Chair, thank you so much for your courtesy, and I
yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. I thank the gentleman for yielding back,
and I thank him for sticking around and participating in this
hearing today.
So we have reached the end of the questioners. And I would
like to really thank our witnesses, Mr. Levine, Mr. Regan, and
Professor Rajkumar, for being here today.
I want to let you know--and I also want to say a special
thank you to Representative Lesko for staying throughout the
entire hearing.
We--Mr. Bilirakis should be happy that we had almost
perfect attendance today at our hearing, plus three individuals
who wanted just to come and sign on. And the witnesses should
know that, as well, because I think this is--shows the interest
in your areas of expertise and the help that we are going to
need from you, going forward.
Before we adjourn, I do want to have--request unanimous
consent to enter the following documents into the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Ms. Schakowsky. And I want to just remind--even though they
are not here--remind all Members that, pursuant to the
committee rules, they have 10 business days to submit
additional questions for the record to be answered by our
witnesses who have appeared here today. And I ask the witnesses
to respond as promptly as possible to any questions that you
may receive.
At this time I will read the list. But if the witnesses
are--want to go, then I would excuse you, and thank you once
again. But here is the list. If you want to stay and hear it,
you have got it.
So letters for the record: a letter from AAVOR; a letter
from the Center for Justice and Democracy; a letter from the
Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association; a letter from
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety; a letter from the
Institute of Electric and Electron Engineers Standards--OK--
Association; a letter from Consumer Reports; a letter from
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies; a letter
from the Transportation Trade Department of the AFL-CIO; a
report from the Federal Trade Commission; an article from Auto
Innovations; one-pager from Alliance for Automotive Innovation;
one-pager from Self-Driving Coalition entitled ``America Loses
Too Many Lives on Our Roads;'' an article from Bloomberg; an
article entitled ``The Automatic Future-What is at Stake?;''
``Auto Innovation Plan to Add''--oh boy, I am sorry--``Advance
Safety at the Speed of Innovation;'' a letter from the Chamber
of Commerce Technology Engagement Center; one-pager from Self-
Driving Coalition entitled ``U.S. Must Maintain Global
Leadership in AVs;'' and finally, a letter from the National
Federation for the Blind.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety letter and the
Federal Trade Commission report have been retained in committee files
and are available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=112637.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I--you can leave now. At this time the subcommittee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Debbie Dingell
Thank you for yielding, Chair Schakowsky.
Two of the major automotive safety challenges before this
committee are autonomous vehicles (AVs) and curbing drunk
driving.
Chair Schakowsky, I commend your leadership, and I am
grateful to partner with you on important legislation to ensure
the United States remains the global automotive leader on AV
technology that will both keep us on the forefront of
innovation and safety. But as we make this transformational
shift, we also need to ensure the workforce concerns are
thoughtfully addressed.
The Energy and Commerce Committee has done some good
bipartisan work in the past, but it was frustrating we were not
able to advance a bill in the 116th Congress. To my colleagues:
We must redouble our efforts in the long bipartisan tradition
of this committee and finally move meaningful AV legislation to
the President's desk.
Here is the hard truth: AVs are here and every day we do
not have a Federal framework in place for the safe deployment
of AVs we risk falling behind the rest of the world.
Now is the time for us to roll up our sleeves, come
together, and work in good faith to find a common path forward.
We must not fear compromise.
To our witnesses here today and all the stakeholders we are
engaged with, I urge you all to work constructively with this
committee with the urgency that this issue demands.
We have a real opportunity to advance AV legislation this
year. Let's seize it.
In addition to AV legislation, Congress must address the
number one cause of death on America's roadways: drunk driving.
I have authored the bipartisan HALT Drunk Driving Act to do
just this, as well as honor the Abbas family from my district
who died tragically at the hands of a drunk driver.
I look forward to hearing the testimony from each of the
witnesses today.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]