[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]