>> speaking at his weekly briefing house speaker john bennett accused the administration of what he called remarkable evidence in the benghazi and irs cases. see this event in its entirety, and other briefings, anytime at our website, c-span.org. here are some of his remarks.

>> i am concerned that the bipartisan group has been unable to wrap up their work, and i know that there are some very difficult issues that have come up. but i continue to believe that the house needs to deal with this. the house needs to work. how we get there we are still dealing with. >> in light of what's happened benghazi and the iris, do you still trust president obama? >> it's not about trusting someone. our job here is to get to the truth and were going to get to the truth. i know what you're up to. i'm not taking the bait. [laughter] >> what was your reaction when the president said -- [inaudible] >> well, you know, it's easy to make statements, but it's just not

the fact is that his treasury department needs to pay the bills. the debt limit has to be dealt with. it should be dealt with in a responsible way. he can't continue to increase the debt limit without doing something about what's driving the increase in the debt limit, and that is out of control spending. >> republicans have mentioned sometime they want to -- windy think republicans may come up with an alternative? >> we offered an alternative during the consideration of obamacare, seven or eight, maybe nine different pieces that would include things like allowing people to bite insurance across state lines, dealing with the problem of those with preexisting conditions by expanding the risk pool's that are out there, things like, one of the big drivers of the health care cost, that's reforming medical malpractice.

which yes, it causes a lot of doctors decrease in premiums but more significantly there are reports that up to 25% of the tests that are ordered are ordered, the only reason, to cover some doctors back from the threat of a lawsuit. these are the kinds of things that i would expect, continue to believe will be our type of replacement legislation. >> tuesday, the senate commerce committee look into new automotive technologies coming in from heads of national highway traffic safety administration and the alliance of automobile manufacturers. this is an hour and 45 minutes. >> mr. strickland, i apologize. >> no apologies, sir. this is your forum. >> john thune was here on time. hasim otahee

good values. [laughter] we have good values in west virginia but evidently did a couple of them passed me right by. so i apologize. the story of modern america would be difficult to tell without the automobile. ever since the model t for short off the assembly -- should be line, you cannot roll off an assembly. the car and its driver have shaped our history, our lives, and our imagination. it was the automobile, after all, that brought forth detroit's rise and the golden age of manufacturing. it gave americans a newfound sense of independence and freedom. it changed, quite literally, our country's landscape. the car has been a defining ingredient in modern american culture. the automobile has also been central to the story of america's innovation in public safety standards. seatbelts, brake lights, and airbags have saved innumerable lives that were once needlessly lost. today, the cars on our roads are

safer than ever, but we still have a long way to go. more than 30,000 lives are lost each year -- i can remember when that was 50,000. i can remember it was 50,000 but that's an awful lot of lost lives. each year on our highways and roads. most crashes, frankly, are caused by driver error. automakers, regulators, and researchers must continue their pursuit of safer vehicles and fewer fatalities, especially at the hands of driver distraction, impairment, or poor judgment. in recent years, we have seen advances in vehicle technology that show great potential not only to save the lives of many more but also to revolutionize how we have come to understand the relationship between the driver and his or her car. driver-assist technology has already found its way into some of today's cars.

electronic -- and they will get to florida in due time. electronic stability control, for example, prevents rollover accidents and is now installed in all new cars, saving hundreds of lives per year. the latest sensors, cameras, and software are doing even more to assist drivers. they can warn the person behind the wheel of an imminent crash. if the driver doesn't respond, the car will stop itself. they can warn drivers if the vehicle is drifting into another lane, and can even automatically bring the car back to its proper place. another system knows when the driver's eyes wander off the road, and can alert him back to the task at hand. the power of technology is already saving lives. but looking ahead a bit farther down the road, the car's future is even more incredible. advanced technologies currently under research and development could radically challenge our notion of what it means to be behind the wheel.

one of these technologies enables vehicles to communicate with each other and with the road, warning drivers of dangers ahead that they have no way to see. another technology, of course, is one all of us have heard about, the self-driving car that could take you safely from point a to point b with no human involvement. there is much to be excited about as these technologies further develop. but there are risks as well as important questions we have to ask some of them this day and discussed them. one growing technology raises concerns for me and that is automaker soon be engaged in the race of sorts as you can add more and communication devices and features into the cars dashboard. all in the name of allowing drivers to remain connected. i am not convinced so many of these devices are necessary, and i fear they serve only to

further d we can discuss that. even those technologies with great potential safety benefits come with their risks. as our cars become more computerized and electronics-based, can the industry make sure they are reliable and prevent failures? and as our cars become more connected, to the internet, to wireless networks, with each other, and with our infrastructure, are they at risk of catastrophic cyberattacks? in other words, at some 14 year old in indonesia figure out how to do this and just shut your car down, shut a whole bunch of cars down? because everything is now wired up. this is one of the results of the internet. you connect things enough you can cause things to stop happening. that potential will at some point include automobiles. and as our cars become more computerized and more electronic-based can industry

make sure that they are reliable and prevent failures? and as our cars become more connected, i did that, so we have so much change in automobiles and it's such a rapid clip. it's like the people are competing with each other to titillate, tantalize, and it sells, it works. this isn't of particular interest to anybody but i'm a great fan of johannes sebastian bach, and i listen to my drive to work. i listen to him when i go home. but in order to listen to him i've got to push all kinds of things. and if you've been in traffic recently in washington, d.c., you do that for a second and just moved half a lane over. you didn't mean to but you just have because you've got to this and you've got to do that, and you've got to do that. and you know, so, and that's a simple one. i think this hearing could

provide us with an overview of what the future holds for our cars and will give us information for future image oversight as we move forward. if they deliver as promised the technologies were discussing today have the potential to revolutionize transportation and bring about dramatic improvements in safety. and i thank you and i turn to my distinguished ranking member, senator thune. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will be lot watching for you, listening to bach. >> watch for him when he -- >> i do want to thank you, thank you for all in this hearing as the committee examined the front of technologies that are emerging in the marketplace. working their way through the product development pipeline. these technologies which include driver assistance systems, vehicle to vehicle communication and autonomous self drive cars offer the promise of many future benefits. advanced driver assistance technologies such as adaptive

cruise control, collision avoidance and lane keeping systems appear to ffer obvious addition these technologies many of which are being developed domestically represent innovations that will help to drive the tech and manufacturing sectors and benefit our economy. it's very welcome news to hear reports travel has become safer. according to the agency, the tally an entry rates reached a new low rates compared to 10 years ago. i hope we improve in these areas. one such advancement is the department of transportation's intelligence transportation systems program, better known as its. in 1999 the federal communications commission allocates spectrum and a 5.9 gigahertz band so that vehicles can someday communicate wirelessly with each other and with their surroundings. this connected vehicle technology holds tremendous potential to make driving much, much safer.

last year, congress tried to the national telecommunications and information administration to study whether wireless wi-fi devices could share the same 5.9 gigahertz spectrum band as the ideas technology. expanding wi-fi use in the five gigahertz range is becoming more important as otherwise has become extremely congested. advocates of connected vehicles, however, have raised concerns that wi-fi use in a 5.9 band was editor with its which could in turn and danger drivers. some people characterize this has to technologies pitted against each other. i choose to see this as an opportunity. connected vehicle technology and increased wi-fi bandwidth will each have significant benefits for the public. the best possible public policy outcome is if the indians can find one for both to coexist in the 5.9 gigahertz band. the ntia and the sec are currently examining whether such spectrum sharing can be accomplished. we should avoid letting heated rhetoric over this debate while we await the findings of

technical experts. americans have long marveled at the notion of an autonomous vehicle, a car that can drive itself. anyone has seen the youtube video of steve mahan, a blind man using google stoked i think our two governments daily air drum suburbs of morgan hill, california, to sell potential life-changing these technologies may be. the self driving cars offer a glimpse into the future. mr. chairman, be the next hearing on the subject should take place at a test track in west virginia or south dakota so we can more directly export to vehicle technology of google and others which undoubtedly will build upon today's discussion. i'm pleased we're joined today by nhtsa doug ridder mr. strickland. nhtsa must partner with industry to make the high-tech cars of the future a reality. in the nhtsa reauthorization passed last year as part of map-21 congress directed to establish a new cause for electronics and emerging

technologies to improve the agency's expertise in the areas of being discussed at today's hearing. i'm particularly interested to learn more about nhtsa's plan for tackling its mission to ensure safety while also ensuring that innovation is not stifle. the potential benefits that these advanced motor vehicle technologies are remarkable. they should enable advanced safety features, new information services, greater energy efficiency, and reduced insurance risks and provide a growing market in our economy. however, with these advancements congress, regulators and others must grapple with forward-looking questions that will shape the motor vehicle technology landscape in the coming years. what changes to the federal motor vehicle safety standards, if any, are necessary to ensure that automobile manufacturers can safely adapt, adopt i should say new technologies and bring them to market. to the motor vehicle technologies currently in the pipeline present other risks that we should be aware of including driver distraction, cybersecurity, and privacy risk?

how our product developers working to identify these risks in order to engineer mitigating solutions? does nhtsa have the necessary expertise in order to perform properly its mission in this area? i know the committee looks for to hearing from the witnesses on these issues today, and i want to thank you for being here, for sharing your testimony. and again thank you, mr. chairman, for calling this hearing. >> thank you, senator thune. the honorable david strickland, administrator of the national highway traffic safety administration, very glad you're here. you have a large job. there's a whole slew of issues in the som sum of which we have mentioned, and many of which we haven't. so we'll be interested in your testimony and then we want to question you about it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before begin my remarks i like to introduce, nhtsa has a new deputy administrator, the president appointed him and the president appointed him

undersecretary of foreign investment, david friedman, behind my left. >> he raised his right hand. [laughter] >> again, thank you for the opportunity. this is a real opportunity for the agency to talk about a very exciting time in the automobile industry. we have been focused on crashworthiness for over 40 years, frankly since we've been in the business since 1966. these technologies that you both alluded to in your opening statement really is the new north star for the agency. as opposed to protecting people from a crash, how can we keep the gresham ever happening? that such an important opportunity for us to make that critical disruptive change to make sure we get well below 30,000, 20,010,000 lives possibly in the future. so we feel at the national highway traffic safety administration that the future for the automobile is extremely bright. increasingly a cars capabilities are determined more by

electronics than by mechanical linkages. this is bringing countless innovations that improve driver cup of -- comfort, and advanced safety. according to early estimates, there are over 34,000 counties on america's roadways in 2012 and i believe that advanced technologies that we're discussing today could reduce these numbers significantly. traditionally we have improved survivability by advancing the vehicles crash worthiness through the seatbelts and airbags. occupants more likely to survive a crash than they were 20 or 30 years ago. today, we have exciting prospect for advancing safety through a new crashed with the technology suites that could prevent a crash from occurring in the first place. auto manufacturers are equipping vehicles with lasers and cameras in various sensors that enable features unimaginable just a few years ago and nhtsa has been evaluating these technologies. we have great et cetera our

efforts to complete research on the connected vehicles program. vehicle to vehicle communications are designed to give drivers situational awareness to improve safety decision-making on the road. the vtb program depends on digital sort range communication technology o operating on the fc license spectrum. this spectrum is uniquely capable of supporting safety applications that require nearly instantaneous information relay. of the spectrum is allocated, the department has conducted significant research developing the concept supporting consensus dana and working with manufacturers on the to be technology. last august the secretary wants to the connected vehicle safety program in ann arbor, michigan. this safety by the -- operating in day-to-day driving, enabling us to collect real-world data that cannot be duplicated in the lab.

it represents the largest test ever of connected vehicles in a real-world environment. this project will collect data that we need to make the decision on how to proceed. as the transportation research board noted electronic systems have become critical to the functioning of the modern automobile. nhtsa recognizes the cybersecurity challenge and has established the electronic system safety research division to focus on these efforts. this division will oversee research focus on evaluating the safety of electronic control systems in five key areas. one, functional safety design, strategies is a second, software reliability, diagnostic notification strategies, and finally human factors consideration. we will examine and apply lessons learned from other industries such as the aviation and medical industries where the loss of life is a primary concern and electronic system goes. recently traditional and nontraditional auto companies have projects that develop self driving cars.

surprisingly people find this intriguing. automated driving is an exciting frontier for the industry and we've identified three key areas for preliminary research. human factors and research and human vehicle interface, initial system performance requirement, and the electronic control system. our research will inform the agency for policy decisions and assist in developing an overall set of requirements and standards for automated vehicles. the promise of advanced vehicles is very exciting. while there certainly is risk with any emerging technology, i firmly believe that when this risk is properly identified, understood, and mitigated, it will help minimize those risks and reap potential benefits. there are lots of exciting innovations coming from and nhtsa is working very hard as it is done in the past and will continue to do so in the future to ensure all the vehicles on the nation's roadways are safe and reliable. thank you again for this opportunity to spot and i'm happy to take your questions at

this time. >> thank you, administer strickland, very much. three years ago you and secretary lahood sat at this, that same table, for hearing examining some unintended acceleration of toyota vehicles, and nhtsa's investigation into those incidents. at that time i was concerned about nhtsa's capacity to investigate electronic issues. two years later, the national academies of science released a study demonstrating nearly the same concern. and today we're discussing explosive growth of electronics in vehicles. so my first question to you would be, how well are you prepared for this? i mean, your testimony was sort of general, an ubr

but i need to know how good, how you realistically assess yourself and your staff in terms of the numbers of people assigned, assuming the cars are going to be this, adding things. make it more attractive. though safety will continue to be the main factor. >> mr. chairman, the secretary and i are very satisfied with the staff that we have on hand to deal with this issue. our budget request has given us an opportunity for the adequate resources on hand and we have the adequate talent on hand right now but as i mentioned in my testimony, we have a nude electronics office with an our team which is specifically focused on dealing with all issues regarding electronic. we have about 12 full-time employees with electrical engine backgrounds in the type of software background to do with these issues and we're adding more every single day. so in terms of our game plan i will submit a more detailed

answer for the record, with a game plan for the electronics research office is doing. but we really do have a very solid game plan and how we're going to be dealing with all these issues, including a process different look at electronics reliability. looking at how vehicles feel safe when the electrons to fill and those countermeasures. and in addition as we did during the toyota investigation, we will always leverage the expertise of our sister agencies across government such as nasa or the federal aviation administration which assist us in this task. >> i'm well over my time so i will yield to my superior. i'm not satisfied with the answer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to follow up on, and ask you, mr. strickland, with all these cutting-edge automotive technologies, i'm curious to hear what changes, if

any, you think may be necessary to the federal motor vehicle safety standards to ensure that we bring these technologies to market safely? >> well, at this point we are, a full policy analysis on look at the current federal motor vehicle safety standards. there's something scored from policy aspect you have to consider such as those standards that deal with the driving position presume that there is a driver that concept engaging management vehicles. so those standards will have to be addressed concerned that you may sometimes singers with technology where the driver maybe not necessarily fully within the loop for her to come. but in addition to that we are looking at comparing ourselves are working with the industry and look at the research and development so that when we approach commercialization that we'll be ready, if needed, to have additional federal motor vehicle safety standards onboard to make sure that we have the certainty that we're not introducing technology that may

pose a non-readable risk to safety. but that very preliminary, we are in the research and policy face at this point in making those evaluations. >> and i think the vehicle safety standards also help shape the automotive design process and can create incentives and disincentives for firms to invest in new technologies, which is i think especially true for those technologies that have the obvious safety benefits but which may not conform to the existing standards. in your opinion are the current standards flexible enough to foster new innovation what the same time allowing it to meet its safety vehicle mandate? >> at this point we believe we have the flexibility, but as i said we are looking at this from, with a very sharp pencil if you will. the one thing you have to think about from the federal motor vehicle safety standards are written over 30 years ago, but we do believe that there is current flexibility in terms of dealing with how the particular safety systems that the

standards actually involved, and what you are thinking more application to particular technologies when you think about rake application and think about directional control and thinking about human machine interface. all these things are captured by the standards right now. the thing that we want to make sure it would have the correct pathway to encourage the innovation in a safeway, one thing but the testing, development. the last thing you want to do is to chill innovation but it should not compromise the safe safety. >> mr. chairman, i'm happy to yield to some of our other colleagues and come back to questions later. >> senator nelson? >> thank you, mr. chairman here and again, another alum to the commerce committee makes good. >> thank you. great to see again. >> welcome. the chairman in his opening comments made reference to a kid in indonesia suddenly

interfering. let's take that a step further. cybersecurity implications. tell us about that. >> well, there's several. the chairman made a very excellent point looking at the dances in the connectivity of vehicles and the opportunity for mischief that can go well beyond pure mission. that can mean an impact on life possibly if it is something severe happens. this is what we do know. at this point right now there has never been an unauthorized accessing of a vehicle that is currently on the road today. from our research at this point you would actually come a person would need physical access to a vehicle in order to get control of a particular vehicle functions. however, recognizing the future there will be opportunities where there will be a chance for software linkages and internet downloads into vehicles. for that we have a very rigorous program looking at cybersecurity issues in terms of reliability, looking at the proper standards

of encryption and that we sort of deal with certificate packages and all those other issues, that we don't want to behind the eight ball on this and we are relying upon franklin on the work that we been doing, with the automakers but also frankly in the other parts of the industry, faa, et cetera, to be up to look to help us gain i guess a pathway forward as a sort of think about the cybersecurity issues. >> does it involve an allocation of heart of the spectrum -- part of the spectrum that if you deny that spectrum that you can help yourself from a cybersecurity attack? >> well, clearly one of the issues that are involved with a vehicle to vehicle program is the security protocol in dealing with this. and that's fully part of the spectrum working very hard with the manufactures consortium on these issues and moving forward. the question regards to how much spectrum will be used to be able

to help deal with the cybersecurity issues, i have to get back to on that but is fully part of our analysis going towards the agency decision. but in any case with the individual manufacturers, their decisions on how these, how controlled vehicle mechanisms using soft but where i'm a that's responsible of the manufactures and ensure that mr. bainwol can talk about specifically but for us went to lay down a process to make sure that there is proper encryption then for every vehicle to fight off such an attack. >> have you ever requested assistance from nasa? >> absolutely. frankly, one of our best collaborative relationships emil frankel since i've been in office for sure, is how the national team helped us in the toyota investigation. >> tell us about it. >> certainly we recognize that frankly that we need to have an outside their fire of the work that nixon had done preliminary

on that. we thought that nafta having the ultimate expertise in dealing with software issues and would spend testing about the types of things they do, failure mode analysis, we brought them in. they worked shoulder to shoulder with the nhtsa engineers and with to you. authority, they look at head over 300,000 lines of code. their expertise verified what nhtsa have contended all along, that there were no issues regarding software, electronics and the unintended acceleration issues but it was down to the panel issues identified by nhtsa. that work could not have been done without the assistance of nasa. >> final question. are you working on a technology that will not allow someone to text while driving? >> sir, that is frankly one of mine most focus areas. thonhing that we frankly

are interested in asking the committee supports help on is the opportunity pulled together stakeholders across the industries involved in this space. not only the automakers and as but also the handset suppliers and the wireless communication countries. because we believe, frankly, while we are very bullish on the program on distracted driving we think that a technical solution where you can identify the car, can identify a drivers phone from a passenger's phone, and a lot of drivers phone unless it is connected to vehicle, frankly, is the long range shot to make sure we didn't distracted driving but i am very fixated on that. but hope is we can pull these stakeholders together in a public-private way for us to work on this technology in a voluntary and collaborative way and i think, but we would love to have the support of this committee and pulling that together so we can work together on this. >> thank you, senator nelson. senator johnson? >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. strickland per minute to the committee, new to this issue so i will be asking some pretty basic questions. you mentioned the highway safety act, 1970, so it's 40 years old? >> there's the original act of 1966 and was a update in 1970 which created nhtsa. it changed from national traffic safety bureau and nhtsa in 1970. >> can you tell me which of the safety improvements we all enjoy today, airbags, having of those are market driven, voluntary versus what are imposed by the highway safety act? >> basically the highway safety act create a bassist in the that a number of those technologies and innovations they can within the automotive fleet as innovations by the manufacturers. and as we learn over time following data and effectiveness they eventually evolved into regulatory standards. in terms of the actual ones that were called up sunday by the safety act there's a frontal crash stand and those types of

things which were initially laid out. talk about things such as airbags and seatbelts. seagulls were part of the original act, clearly there's been involved in overtime -- evolved over time during the interlocutors were we had a regulation which changed, but the ridgeback built a foundation and a process for the agency to look at technologies which have promised to reduce traffic injuries and save lives, and that foundation allowed us to pull these additional innovations over the years into the record the regime of nhtsa. >> so what happens, it may be is driven by the, innovations are driven by the auto companies onu like what you see, and in overtime that becomes a standard that is imposed? >> rss was, yes or we were a data driven basic process agency. we set performance standards for vehicles. we don't want to ever pick to sign stands because you may stifle innovation and for close an opportune in the future but a

classic example in terms of process is the mandate of the electronics ability control system, which was an innovation that was put into vehicle starting in 1990, and as we got more data over time on the effectiveness of these particular technologies were able to improve the cost and benefits for us to move to a regulation, ultimately mandating them to be in every vehicle starting in 2012. but that particular regulation -- is a classic example of how you build upon dad and science in or to make the ultimate regular system that you should cost and the benefits of the action. >> have you ever done a study in terms of what has been transformed over time from voluntary, mandatory and with the cost of those mandatory safety standards are critical? >> in terms of every rulemaking we have to do that we are all the guys to show the cost of benefits and we can definitely do a comparative analysis for you overtime to be able to show movement of those

technologies that were voluntarily included into vehicle package, ultimately became regulation. but the flipside of making something a regulation and standardized across the fleet is you get learning coming you decrease costs, which makes those technologies much more affordable, which then ultimately you are democratizing safety and that's the benefit of being able to build rules on the basbasis of a sound data, sound science. >> so has your agency ever undertaken a study to say that they are one of you might've conducted the study, this is what the cost of the mandate and safety requirement our? >> what we would do, and are composed -- proposed rulemaking, we would do an analysis -- >> i'm just asking just in general. for a standard consumer. are we talking added $5000 to a standard car, all the safety i don't? >> what we do in terms of looking at the overall cost, i think every decision that we make clearly made at a

particular cost t of a vehicle t there's also ways in terms of finding the tipping point of those particular benefits of whether or not you're being pricing out a particular segment of the buying public from individual to do. we can talk, do something more in general to talk about sort of the history of our world and have it done this but i think the wise decision-making of the agency over the years we have test individual mobility affordable and at the same that we've raised the margin of safety to the point where we have decrease loss of life by 25% over the past decade or so. >> inquiring mind like mine which is want to know what the total cost per vehicle would be. you get something like that i would be interesting in hearing. one government imposed standard is mileage standards, which at the same time then reduces vehicle weight. could you speak in terms of the offset of that and really what is, what is the criteria in terms of the weight? i've heard things like in a crash, just 10% reduction,

differential in terms of vehicle weight increases the chance of a tally by 10 times. is that the basic rule of thumb? is the active? >> either group of engineers, and a new deputy administrator, that was one of these areas of expertise in his old job so i will let those guys give you more more detailed answer your we will say the one thing that we did in finalizing the rules for 2017-2025 in partnership with epa was that we want to have most aggressive standard possible while making sure that we had been if it's at what cost in making sure there's going to be no impact on safety. the work that we differ not only that will but also the rule proceeding 2012-2016, we accomplish that. we would more than happy to talk about the size and weight issues, we had a symposium earlier this week for today's talking about sizing issues as go towards the midterm review.

but our first priority is safety. will not compromise safety. we were very happy to have a safety neutral set of fuel economy standards, and under the industry is very focused on that as well but we will get back to you in more detail on the record on those issues. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. senator pryor. >> thank you, mr. chairman. administer strickland, it's always good to see you. >> great seeing you again, sir. sorry that you change subcommittees on the. you jumped to the other tribe. >> i should get. let me follow up on one of senator johnson's questions there just in general. what we're talking about today is advanced technology in vehicles. is that right now being driven by the industry, the auto industry, or is it being driven by your agency? >> the industry, i have to say that while we are very private and what we did at nhtsa, the hard work of the automakers to improve vehicle safety frankly

is, has driven the universe forward in terms of what the expectation is what the manufactures will often do, clearly we set the floor in front of federal motor vehicle safety standards and innovate and goes well beyond that. we actually also quit another incentive using the new car program, the five star safety rating which is also a market incentive to go beyond the federal motor vehicle safety stand the but it's the automakers that anything such as crash and braking systems which were setting right now, that the citizens are on cars right now, adaptive cruise control, link eating. so it's that innovation to give us the opportunity to look at effectiveness and hopefully find a margin forward for the technology national problems that may be ripe to be put throughout the entire fleet. >> let me follow up on that but in your opening remarks you mentioned once fully implemented vehicle-to-vehicle technology could potentially address about 80% of the crash involving not in her drivers. so can you give us an estimate

of the timeline on which you think this technology will be implemented on a mass scale? not just with the very highest in the cars, you know. >> senator, the ages will be begged decision vision on how we're going to proceed on vehicle-to-vehicle based upon the data we received from the safety pilot and other research that we're doing. if, actually underscore if, the agency decides to go for na rulemaking posture to mandate v-to-v, it will take some time for the vehicle fleet to turn over and have the technology into vehicle. the other partner with looking at is a provision of aftermarket beacon to people can with these beacons in the car and receive benefits immediately. by turning over the fleet takes decades. the average life of a car not as well over 12-15 years something about having the fleet turnover enough time to get that into vehicle will take some time. >> so let me ask another

question, a little more specific about five gigahertz band. the sec you know recently has talked about unlicensed use of five gigahertz band, et cetera. can you tell us how you're working with the sec -- fcc to make sure eve evan is on the sae page and what the future of five gigahertz maybe? >> we provided the department provided comments to ntia i believe earlier this week about the work forward in terms of their testing evaluation of compatibility of sharing the spectrum. i will say that the deputy secretary in his statement during a roundtable last week voiced i guess the questions we have at department of transportation, that the sec submission its notice of proposed rulemaking before the ntia has had an opportunity to do the technical work. we felt that frankly that these processes that ntia process should have been informed before the fcc went forward.

we made note of that on the comment. >> so in other words, don't want to put words in your mouth, there may be concerned that some of this new technology in vehicles may have interference issues with wi-fi and other things? >> the concern that we have is that for us as the allocated to use of a particular spectrum, it is incumbent upon any other unlicensed user to not interfere with a department of transportation 5.9 gigahertz. it is a safety function. it has a safety opportunity to dress up to 80% of crashes of unimpaired and drivers. we are making sure the process does follow in the correct order. which is that we get the technical work done to see whether or not there is an interference issue before we go forward to the next process for the fcc to issue a rule which may possibly preclude the notion of technology spent and is ntia do that work for you? >> they're working on the. that is the process right now. >> you know how long it will take and?

>> i will have to get back to you on that. i'm not sure of the timeline. >> mr. chairman, 10-q. >> thank you, senator pryor. listen, go around once again. let me just put it plunge lee -- bluntly. we talk about making cars into virtual offices because they're connected to everything. including through the internet, to the world. i want you to explain to me competitive want you to say i will send you an answer, a written answer on that, but i want you to explain to me as best you can what is the tipping point when distractions that may have to do with, you know, my music or somebody's business or internet capacity for all that, being wired up, all the things that happen when you fulfill modern dreams, of what a car should be. at a certain point that begins

to work absolutely at the uncertain and certain terms against the interest of safety. it is an incredible fact. i would like you to give me a sense of where your sense of that tipping point could be. or if you accept the concept. your job is safety. your job is not trinkets. >> absolutely right. there is, sir, there isn't a question tipping point. there's an applet first valley. the first thing the english into behind the wheel of a car is drive. everything else is insular. not even answer the, frankly disposable. but there is a point to the work that we've done at nhtsa for human factor research and other research that is given as a zone of safety, what is an amount that could be handled behind the wheel? that informed our integral guidelines that were released a

couple of weeks ago which gives you the zone of safety of basically that, you know, anything with within the vehicle that can handle within two seconds for an individual action or up to 12 seconds for a back and forth continued action is safe. it is the equivalent of handling a radio into vehicle, which we've seen over the decades is a safe operation of an additional task into vehicle. in addition to that we have taken every hardluck at those additional things that we find it could be dangerous, such as a gps system that does not lock out when the vehicle is under way. you don't want people typing 21, 21 mcgillicuddy way doing 70 miles an hour down the way. suggested that system be locked out. we don't want social messaging to be happening under way. that should be locked out. and, frankly, it should be locked out by the vehicle is in part, not when the vehicle is moving five miles an hour, with the current standards allow for. we believe that we have found

the correct zone of safety for the human machine interface and visual manual distraction which we know is incredibly dangerous. so we are not playing the law. i think we've driven a bright line in the sand await we think the zone of safety are. and that goal, now the automakers can then innovate around the zone of safety but if they can do a particular task to provide information services within the zone of safety, that's a space for innovation but if they can commission be in the vehicle. that's where the line is. >> well, i'm trying to parse your words to see what your answer told me. do you think that, first of all i think it's a fact that increase in younger people are not buying cars? >> that is true spent and they're using other modes of transportation. that has some benefits to me,

safety for the future. they want to be wired up and moving off, connected to everything. explain to me why the concept of a wired up automobile, which can do any kind of transaction, and you say it ha has to be done ino seconds, i would actually question that because, remember we're talking a few years ago, if you spend three or four seconds, you've gone from and are on an highway, you've gone the length of two or three football fields. and in west virginia if you do that you have crashed seven times, just because of the hilly territory. so why, why do you have and accepting attitude, if you do, that we are coming upon for time when cars will have the ability for people to sit in cars and

have an office space? scares the heck out of me. >> well, sir, we are not accepting that a car is an office place while you are -- there are somethings that are not just a contest better within the zone of safety and we're happy to breach in more detail about our research that we have done at nhtsa that shows that we do complete a task safety within two seconds. that is solid foundational fact. we want to lock out anything that resembles you trying to input large amount of test, or even small amount of text. anything such as audio being read back to you, the ability to be able to enter an address using a voice as an opportunity those things have opportunities, their safe. but you're right, if you people that are interested in being able to surf the internet and are in integral guidelines are type large amounts of text, anything of that nature, you're

right, should be out of the vehicle and we encourage that automakers interlock or print with a particular practice. but we also, the recognition is this, that there's a large amount of information, and, frankly, drivers support, and those are good things. gps is such a system. that's a good thing. properly used. having people be able to receive messages transcribed, say a person receives a message and the car can speak it back to you, it's just like the radio. that something that possibly is a good consumer item for somebody to be able to use within the zone of vehicle. but your absolute right, 95% of what you're seeing in terms of the true social application of people texting and tweeting bouncing set back and forth, watching streaming video and all those things, it is not appropriate for the vehicle environment and we strongly would fight against that notion. at you can't send the sake of an antiseptic and private individual is also a realistic. and i think if we recognize those things that can be done

safely and being very strict about it, we encourage innovation, we encourage the opportunity for good information and service be provided to the driver, and we allow the opportunities for things that we don't anticipate to develop. and that's the vows were looking for and we feel very strongly about that. >> okay. senator thune. >> mr. chairman, i really don't have more questions but i do want to say that if we did have v-to-v connectivity that would probably listen to bach with you last night i just want to thank you, mr. strickland was something you help our office with, i want to say the batmobile which for those of you, the new vehicle technology, the breath alcohol testing mobile inc. and one of the great plains region, i think it will be very helpful initially of

improving public safety on our indian reservation in our state. to thank you for you help with that. >> thank you, mr. thing to do with one every we were focus on is improving vehicle safety, you know, in native reservation territories and lands because it is unfortunately, native americans are overrepresented in a very bad crash areas. lower seatbelt use, high or drunk driving is, i've crashed, more fatality number numbers but anything would into to help address those countermeasures is something were very strongly supportive of. we were happy to help you with that. spent appreciate that. thank you, mr. chairman. no further questions. >> thank you, senator thune. senator johnson? senator pryor? administrator strickland, thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for the opportunity. always appreciate it.

>> mr. mitch bainwol who is president and ceo of the alliance of automobile manufacturers, here in washington. mr. jeffrey owens, executive vice president and chief technology officer, delphi automotive. troy michigan. dr. peter sweatman, director of the university of michigan transportation research institute, and dr. john lee, emerson electric quality and productivity, professor of university wisconsin, at madison, wisconsin. why don't we start with you? >> [inaudible] >> mr. chairman, thank you much for the opportunity to be here today. to testify at a physics or nighttime. the cdc celebrated the reduction of traffic death as one of the 10 great achievement of the 20th century. since then death per mile

traveled are down another 25%. these gains result of many factors of an increase use of seatbelts and decreased incidence of drunk driving. as well as crashed technologies making the impact of accidents. moving forward progress will come from technology can reduce in driver error. given that more than 90% crashes result in human mistakes, the combination of emerging driver assist features come a connectivity and ultimately autonomous vehicles offer the promise of safety, a safer mobility, as well as less congestion, less fuel consumption, lower initial, lower insurance costs and higher productivity. we see a robust debate, most engineers agree with each other less often than lawyers, about when self driving cars will become a reality. that is the wrong question. it makes safety about the magic moment in the future rather than recognizing that technologies in the marketplace today already are providing benefits as it

sets the foundation for tomorrow. the premise of today's hearing is a technology which yield high mitchell safety benefits to american drivers. that has to question. one, what are the barriers inhibiting the rate of life-saving innovations, and what can you do to speed innovation in light of these barriers? ironically technology is not the biggest obstacle. rather the biggest hurdles are am one, consumer acceptance, too, product liability, three, connectivity, and four, fleet next concerns but our polling shows consumer strongly a quick technology with safety and is very promising but at least for now these pain consumers -- including four to three against the view that a ton as pickles are a good idea. the driving experience is deeply ingrained. liability is a huge problem especially aftermarket solutions become available. whatf the garagele if something inventor produces a flawed

system? if liability flows appropriate to the oem we see higher product costs, chilled innovation and problem reduction in manufacturing employment. connectivity is a critical ponca city progress as we discussed for full v-to-v connectivity, integrity and investment and infrastructure are vital. without a long-term drivers technologies can't realize their potential. finally, how we handle fleet next challenge is? would often focus on the length of the issues product cycle. the more sent back to the consumer cycle. 11 is the age of the average car in america. we only turn over the fleet, half the fleet and roughly a decade. dusted any given point in time a wide range of technologies on the road within crashed mitigation and different crashed prevent provo. so we have some recommendations. first, protect the spectrum to the most time since the recommendation is safety first future, is ensuring the 5.9 gigahertz radio frequency now

dedicated to v-to-v and v-to-i remains the available documentation. went to tons of metal are moving 100 feet per second indications must work instantly and accurately. the fcc a second thing to open up a portion of the spectrum as we discussed. the agency should adopt a duhon strategy until testing is complete and we're concerned the ntia report after the fcc is likely to reach judgment. second, invest in infrastructure robust and life-saving connectivity requires infrastructure build them that is costly to commit to the ghost of this will be a gradual process because of the cost but we need the vision and the motivation to be planning and implementing today. third, address consumer acceptance. we have to get ahead of public potential concerned before we deploy. we need to tackle a range of questions that are critical outside and inside the car including privacy, security and new technology. building consumer trust is impaired.

fourth, maintain vehicle affordability. policy should keep vehicles as affordable as possible by leveraging market forces and data drive technology. cars are lasting longer and new cars cost more than $30,000 a unit the we only replacement 6% of u.s. car parts annually. any policy that slows replacement cycle may compromise the greater good. finally, fifth, we need to preserve technology neutrality. we all recognize the challenges of distracted driving but the challenge has grown as connectivity has found its way into cars. and nhtsa guidelines are illustrative. government policy calls for restrictions of function as a built in system. without corresponding limitations of a portable device. the result, chilling innovation of the built-in system and incentivizing handheld use. so if the driver is looking for

guidance and can't plug in their own system, what do they do? oftentimes they pull other iphone or the android, and look down below the dash, they plug in the address they fiddle with the keys, and potentially suffer the consequence. we can't wish the real world away. a policy that isn't comprehensive, across technology and across devices produces unintended consequence. so to close, the future has never been brighter or safer. we stand ready to work with this committee to maximize innovation and to save lives, and we thank you for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you, sir. now mr. jeffrey owens. >> thank you chairman rockefeller, ranking member thune, and members of the commit on science commerce and transportation. as chief technology officer i'm responsible for delphi's innovation strategies as well as research and develop focused on staying green and connected. as a leading global supplier of

electronics and technologies for automotive, commercial vehicle and other market segments, delphi invest $1.6 billion annually in the global r&d initiatives and we will about 5000 people in the united states. if i could leave you with one message today, it would be this. the 11,000 lives could be saved annually without a technology mandate, without a broad new program and without regulatory requirements. every 30 seconds there's a vehicle related deaths somewhere in the world and that equates to about 120 million people who die each year. that's a tragedy and can be prevented. the world health organization projects traffic interest to be the fifth leading cause of death by 2030, even more than aids or cancer. logical deaths in the united states have declined with widespread adoption of passage safety technology such as seatbelts and airbags, progress towards for the death and injury reduction has stalled resulting in more than about 33,000 deaths annually in the united states, and 200,000 series injuries each

year on our road would. occasionally crashes continue to be the number one cause of death for people ages for to 34, and we noted over 90% of accidents are caused by driver error. although passive safety technologies like seatbelts have helped more people survive crashes, we think the next frontier of safety is to prevent the accident before they occur. active safety technologies are the key to reducing accidents, injuries, and death. government and industry groups to study the benefits of these technologies for over a decade. a study by the interest institute for highway safety states that 31% reduction in death is possible. once again that is more than 11,000 lives saved per year with full deployment of active safety systems across the vehicle fleet. i'm talking forward collision warning with collision imminent breaking, blind spot detection. the driving public wants vehicles with improved safety features, no doubt, safety

cells. but to acknowledge the inevitable and it's difficult for consumers to understand their value. a key consumer awareness to is the new car assessment program, or ncap from which includes the starting system of all new vehicle when the stickers. today, ncap is not structured to accommodate active safety vehicle options. .. >> we suggest that nhtsa focus on lane departure warning for

inclusion in the end cap five star certification. there's no need to mandate winners or choose technology winners here. a form that they can use and to which the market will respond. the sooner we increase consumer awareness, the sooner we can lower fatality rates. the convergence of connectivity and active safety technology is critical to allow safe connectivity and still allow drivers to keep their eyes on the road, their hands on the wheel and their mind on the mission of driving safely. the camera system combines radar sensing, vision sensing and data fusion in a single module helping make drivers aware of approaching vehicles while changing lanes by providing an alert when the vehicle's entered

the blind spot of a vehicle. it helps keeps drivers connected to the information they want. it helps insure the vehicle is never distracted even if the driver is. so in conclusion, we're at a critical point in the automotive industry. consumers are demanding this 24/7 connectivity, and this dynamic directly impacts safely on america's roads every day. we believe the safe foundation for driving is the robust deployment of active safety technologies. thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. >> thank you, sir. and now, mr. peter sweatman, director of university michigan transportation research institute. >> good afternoon, mr. chairman, ranking member and members of the committee. i'm honored to speak with you about a truly safe and efficient roadway transportation system. this system is of transformational importance for the citizens and economy of the united states. the university of michigan

transportation research institute is currently overseeing a model deployment in ann arbor, we heard earlier. we're testing nearly 3,000 cars, buses, transtransit buses and vehicles. this work is sponsored by the u.s. d.o.t. and is carried out in partnership with the intelligent transportation industry including automotive manufacturers. i know of no other technology that could have the same impact overall on safety. it has the potential to revolutionize our transportation system by drawing drivers' attention to risks more immediately and more reliably. pervasively, this will help us all to avoid crashes and to utilize roadways and energy sources much more efficiently. as we move beyond the research

phase, a national its strategy is needed to guide the deployment of the 5.9 gigahertz platform benefiting all road users. we need dedicated short-range communication at 5.9 for all classes of vehicle and at key infrastructure locations. despite the growing spectrum demand, sufficient bandwidth must be protected for exclusive use by vehicles and infrastructure. reliable and secure communication is nondwoacial. nonnegotiable. cybersecurity is one of the leading issues of our era, a comprehensive strategy involving industry and government must be be established and carried out. further, field testing of a new generation security system is needed to insure that the platform be remains secure while maintaining the privacy of all users. once these systems are developed, we need automotive

consumers to embrace them, and we need attractive aftermarket devices widely deployed. but clearly a further we've of technological development will occur in vehicle automation. then the benefits will reach well beyond safety. the scale of the transformation is important. the united states has the opportunity to leap ahead in mobility technology supporting an improved way of life and new mobility industries. an industrial ecosystem with new jobs will be created by the automotive and information technology industries, and there will be many winners across different businesses and consumers. so how do we prepare for and sustain this transformation? a critical requirement is for all vehicles manual or automated to be connected during a multidecade transition and

connected vehicles connect with drivers. the need for human machine interface technology to focus the drivers' attention is crucial. as we move forward, vigilant technology will draw attention to risky driving scenarios. even so, the driver will still need to take over in certain situations. here are four additional things that must occur. to start the united states must take the lead in standards development and decide where mandatory safety standards are needed and where open standards for needed for the nation's entrepreneurs. second, voluntary performance standards need to be solidified for the connected vehicle platform for vehicle sensors and controls. third, we need to start now with connected infrastructure. the operation of the roadway infrastructure will change dramatically as more automated vehicles are deployed and

coexist with conventional vehicles. automated cars someday will be capable of operating in narrower lanes much closer together and may park themselves without a driver. finally, national policy positions are needed on data ownership, access and privacy so that traffic system managers maximize the connected vehicle data. obviously, we'll face new risks with large-scale transformation of our grand transportation systems, but the rewards are huge including an expanded 21st century mobility economy with minimal safety and public health impact and sustainable energy use. testing and certification need to be taken to the next level, and responsibility for safety needs to be redefined so that liability concerns don't stall deployment. be in closing, the mobility technologies of the future will

emerge through a process built around connected vehicles, automated vehicles, smart infrastructure and improved driver interaction with the automobile. i do appreciated this opportunity very much and welcome your questions. thank you for your attention. >> is that it, sir? thank you very much. >> that is it, thank you. >> and then dr. john lee. university of wisconsin medicine. madison. >> chairman rockefeller, ranking member thune and the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. my comments address the human side of vehicle technology. to put vehicle technology in context, consider driving safety as an important health problem. approximately 34,000 americans died in motor vehicle crashes last year. these crashes are the most likely cause of death for those between 4 and 34 years of age and account for more than 30% of

teen deaths. the coming years will bring increasingly complex distractions and increasingly complex vehicles to drivers who may be unprepared for either. this technology can dramatically improve or degrade driving safety. vehicle technology affects driving safety because your car is essentially a computer. a typical luxury car requires over a hundred million lines of computer code, and 50% of warranty claims. we think of cars as mechanical systems, but they are actually rolling computers. these computers are changing what it means to drive. they already enable cars to take over many important driving operations with features such as adoptive cruise control, automatic parking and autonomous braking. enables drivers to hear text messages and choose from thousands of songs. from these changes a critical safety threat may emerge.tomang

driving much of the time, drivers have the freedom to focus on entertainment system, but the vehicle can then unexpectedly hand control back to the distracted driver. drivers are particularly error prone in such situations, changing vehicle technology may make such unexpected handoffs even more likely. moore's law suggests the capacity of -- [inaudible] this exponential increase means in 15 years we are likely to be discussing whether people should be allowed to drive because the autonomous vehicles may be so much less error-prone than people. until cars assume complete responsibility for driving, the critical challenge is to design vehicles so that drivers clearly understand what it can and can't do. this is particularly challenging because even small design change s can violate drivers' --

[inaudible] and confuse them. automatic and semiautomatic paper towel dispenceers can be confusing. some use motion -- others require that you press a button to trigger a molter. fruitlessly waiving at a dispenser before you require the button press can be embarrassing. such confusion in a car can be deadly. push button ignition systems can be confusing. when the car's stopped, you only need to push the button to turn off the engine, but the need to press and hold can confuse drivers and can have tragic consequences when the driver tries to stop an unintentionally accelerating vehicle. it represents an important challenge for increasingly automated vehicles. one benefit that technology may counterbalance the threat of

distractions. distraction represents a longstanding safety problem that the explosion of entertainment systems threaten to exacerbate. fortunately, other emerging technologies can detect distraction and direct drivers' attention to hazards. soon cars will be able to know when you look away from the road, when the car had brakes. over time the car can even help you appreciate and avoid risks on the road. the road ahead. as an engineer, i am very optimistic about the future of vehicle technology. as researcher focused on the psychology of human technology interaction, i see substantial challenges. i hesitate to offer recommendations, and so i draw upon the wisdom of the committee on electronic vehicle controls and unintended acceleration. i paraphrased several of their recommendations. be first be, assess whether electronic interfaces such as delay responses in emergency situations.

second, promote government and industry collaboration to create designs that communicate vehicle capability and status to drivers. third, identify when drivers' expectations of vehicle automation diverge from designers' intent. and, finally, establish electronic data orders and associated information infrastructure to catch design errors that will escape even the most thorough design process. thank you. >> thank you. senator johnson, you have been sitting there deep in thought and realizing. and -- and reading. and, therefore, i think it's important that you ask is the questions. >> i'm up for it, thanks. tell me how this technology's going to roll out. i mean, we obviously have got to do some infrastructure building. everybody -- this isn't going to be one car, i mean, the whole fleet. can somebody just describe, a, the total cost just of

infrastructure building? >> that is a profoundly tough question. even defining what "this" is, i think, is tricky. maybe a simple way to break this down begins to introduce the complexity and the evolution that we're about to go through. so in today's world if a driver needs to brake, he or she makes a choice to apply the brake. with assisted, with driver assists that are in the market right now, if the driver does not react in time, he may get a warning. and that's -- >> i've got -- [inaudible] >> so they've got that. and then the next wave which is also on the market is if you don't react in time, the car will actively engage for you. the next step really is when big data goes beyond what the car can see. so far we've been operating with what the driver can see and what

the car can see with a suite of ensors. connectivity really is about seeing what we can't see and having every car within a mile radius or so benefiting from the probability of a challenge. they're all informed, big data informs everybody, distills it in some fashion so that it's actionable. and i think as administerrer strickland indicated, getting to a point where we have a connected fleet is a very wrong time away. the average age of the car is 11 years old, it's going to take forever to a point where this has permeated the stream. but the value of it is enormous, and unlike a situation like esc or automatic braking or automatic high beams where car makers innovate and then government responds and decides at some point perhaps it should permeate the fleet, the connected space is a joint

initiative where it doesn't go anywhere unless government and the private sector together come together to make it a reality. so the time is really, and the money, is a function of how much you're willing to spend and when you're willing to spend it. >> let's back up. i've got a ford taurus, i've had it brake for me. what about lane departure warning? how does that one work? what's it keying on? what's the sensor doing? >> i open you like your ford taurus, because we've got some product in there that's, hopefully, helping you. >> i do like it. i've got two of them. >> good. lane departure warning is looking at the lane boundaries with a vision system and determining when you cross or you're about to cross the boundary, and then the oe, the automatic manufacturing will typically decide what to do with that information. it can give you an alert, it can send an audible, it can shake your seat. >> what's it looking at? paint? is it looking at reflecters?

>> all that. with today's digital signal processers being as fast and affordable as they are, it will -- even if you don't have painted boundaries, it will define a lane boundary for you and let you know when you approaching that at a speed you shouldn't be. >> professor, i live in wisconsin, ande of those se they break down. we get snow and slush, so where does that system break down? what are the problems with that? >> well, the vision system will have problems in a heavy snow or heavy wet rain environment. the radar sensors that you have on your ford taurus sees through that. that's almost weather independent. so there are a variety of vulnerabilities to the technology, but radar is -- operates at virtually any environment. vision systems you can operate in most environments, even a snow-packed road you can define lane boundaries on. >> so are you thinking it's going to be minimal in terms of highway infrastructure spending on this? it's all going to be pretty much sensor with the vehicles? >> you'd have -- there are many

paths to get here. an infrastructure-based system is the compelling argument that gets you all the information that you could possibly have to insure a safe ride. you can do the individual car implementation as you have and get a lot of the way there without having any kind of infrastructure dependency. so you'd have an individual machine that could operate a higher degree of safety, less fatalities on the road today, for sure. >> dr. sweatman, you raised your hand there. >> thank you, senator. i think your question was kind of getting at the infrastructure cost side of it as well, and so we need to be very strategic about that. clearly, there could be a large cost if we deploy throughout the infrastructure. but if we target, if we think about intersections which is our main safety problem, if we were able to come up with a system where traffic control cabinets which have to be there were actually fitted with this wireless communication, then we'd start to see a much lower co kd of very strategic

approach with the infrastructure. on the vehicle side, vehicles, the vehicle connection as we talked about can do a heck of a lot by itself. and also it was originally conceived as being a low cost solution. so the wireless communication itself is affordable. so it was really the infrastructure where the cost started to come in. and we think we can be very strategic about how we roll it out. >> dr. lee, would you like to add manager? ? -- add something? >> yes, i'd like to adjust a quick point, and that is the time constant in the development in these different industries. if you take the iphone, for instance, the original iphone was just declared vintage. what is the age of a vintage car? maybe 60 years. so the difference between the fleet turnover in the automotive sector and the fleet turnover in the cell phone sector is dramatically different. and what i see because of that

is the influx of distractions maybe overwhelming the ability of the manufacturers to create vehicles that can counteract some of those effects and maintain safety. >> but just real quick if i may, mr. chairman -- >> with senator johnson, you are on a roll, sir. take all the time you want. [laughter] >> the strategic nature of the rollout, i think, is key to this. because what you want to do is, again, if you have infrastructure in place, you can add the cost very, in a low cost fashion. you start taking advantage of the opportunities and test it where you're not overloading the system. so is that pretty much how you'd see -- rather than all of a sudden trying to put something down every strip of every highway as well as go obsolete potentially when new technologies come onboard. is that how people are thinking this thing through? and is government not going to interfere? that'd be my biggest problem. and let me ask that question as long as the senate's

leeway here. what concerns you about government interference potentially in that strategic rollout? >> well, i think the rollout true the infrastructure, obviously, that's got to be local. we've got to lay that out throughout the country. so we need the capability incorporate it at the low cost possible with systems that are already being deployed. so i think the industries that are producing the traffic control signals, the intelligent transportation industries are very aware of this, and i think we'll be very ingenious in the way we can incorporate it. you know, and we can even target black spots. we know where the crash black spots are in every state, in every city. so we can do some targeting. >> okay. again, so what i'm looking for is who's talking to who, who has to talk, you know, which entities have to talk to each other and, again, what concerns you about government's involvement? i'm always concerned about government involvement. >> well, i would offer certainly

the subject of vehicle to vehicle is going to be infrastructure dependent, and as fast as we can cooperate on the standards and get that unified amongst the industry, i mean, that will be a pacing item for that. on the driver assistance systems, the product like you're experiencing there, the collision immeant braking and the lane departure warning, i think the key as i mentioned is to make that visible to the consumers that it's available, that it's there. that worked extremely well for the air bag rollout, that worked extremely well for stability control where the consumer saw that, saw the value of safety and brought that into the market faster than regulation required it. i think we have the same opportunity here. let the market work, let the market create the higher volumes, make people aware. as yourself, i would hope with your experience -- certainly mine -- i'll never have any wife or my kids in anything other than that if i have a choice, but only if i know what it does.

you have to experience be it to get the value of the technology. so i think we can let the market work, and i think nhtsa and the end cap system is a key ingredient to doing that. >> we do need to always be mindful of the cost. i can't afford the upgrade, not everybody can. do have to be careful in terms of cost benefit calculation on that as well. >> but there are two different activities here. one is the dreier which is market-driven, and the costs will come down over time, and there the individual will make the choice. when you get to the connected car, it is a different animal. that's where government has to get involved, and there's two responsibilities. one is to make sure the spectrum works because you can't have metal flying down the street at 100 feet a second and have the communications go faulty. and the second part of that a is infrastructure. and because it's government-funded, the rollout will in large part be dictated by government. so two different paths, they connect in terms of convergence. >> that one i'm skeptical of. [laughter] thank you, mr. chairman.

>> i'm very sad. [laughter] >> i'm kind of an old dog. >> no, i love it. i love it. your questions were great. let me just ask a couple. we had a whole series of hearings in the last several years having to do with television. and, you know, what i call the rapid dissension of content. be and so the question was it wasn't just, you know, violence but also unhealthy things that kids were seeing or watchers were seeing. but then we turned, with great satisfaction, to the ability of the parent to monitor what was going on and to be able to use the controls at that time available and now available to

allow their children not to see what they should not see. and i think that's, i think that's reasonable because just basic television today has, obviously, later in the night, but there's some really bad stuff on it. and it has consequences. but that isn't my point. my point is i don't think we ever really got a sense of confidence that the average parent -- whoever that would be throughout the country -- knew how to work the, you know, the promoter, the little machine that would set parameters. and if you can't have that, then everything else fails. now, does moving to what we're talking abouting, i will make a

terrible confession. and since my colleagues have basically disappeared -- c-span has not, so i'm in some trouble -- [laughter] but i got a new, much gadgettized car because i'm large, and the car is large, and it's a very happy coincidence. but we've just come out of winter, and i discovered that the air-conditioning just didn't seem to work. and i did what i remembered from previous iterations of automobiles what would happen to make the air-conditioning work. well, i had befallen, i think the classic american tradition, of failing to read the manual. and i think americans will go to almost any length to avoid manuals incliewlding, you know, diet -- including diet and all

the rest of it. we're just wonderful at avoiding things we ought to read. and then i discovered to my incredible embarrassment there was this little white button fairly low on the panel that was meant to look like a snowflake. i guess, therefore, i plying cool. [laughter] -- implying cool. that was not a judgment i made, but i was told to push it. i pushed it, and all of a sudden the air-conditioning came on. now, i think that is a very sad american story of which i am the villain. but i just raise the question of how sophisticated are people growing in technology in automobiles as they have to get in and get to work or get to some -- the dentist or whatever it is. and several people use the car, so who really reads the manual? are manuals read? are manuals read? i think there are substantial

portions of that car that i still can't work, but i don't need to. well, now we're coming to a point where i may need to, you know, over the next ten years a variety of things as you indicated happen. so i want to put that question to you. how reliable do you think drivers are these days in understanding some of the new electronics? whoever. >> mr. chairman, in ann arbor where we're testing 3,000 connected vehicles, and is secretary of transportation commented you're testing these with normal publish ganders. -- michiganders. there are no buttons on the

connected vehicle system. they're only getting information and in some cases warning when the need arises. so we're finding that the reaction from our ordinary michiganders is incredibly positive. they thank us for the systems that we've deployed, and we haven't come across any of those kinds of issues to do with confusion about the technology. so so far with connected vehicles, there's a lot going on in the background. but in the foreground, relatively little because these problems only cur infrequently. >> well, that's an extraordinary statement, and i have to accept it listening to it from you. but any comments from -- >> mr. chairman, i have a confession to make too. [laughter] >> good. >> i can't operate my tv very well. my kids make fun of me. but when i get in the car, i've found that the driver technologies are really intuitive, and i think that's

the trick. one of the reasons why apple so successful is that everything is very intuitive. and when you get in the car in today's world, even the guy who can't operate the tv and program it to record a show later on can get in the car, drive it and benefit from driver assist because with it really is incredibly simple, and it basically does it for you. so if i'm driving down the highway, this happens every morning, if i put my blinker on to the left, my blind spot chime is there for me and says there's something in the way, don't go. and i don't have to do anything, i just know it. if i'm going too fast, it will alert me that the distance between the car in front of me and my car is too close for the speed i'm going, and it will chime, and it basically says, wake up and be careful. if i set it on adaptive cruise control, it manages that distance precisely. so that's the trick. the engineering function and

challenge is to make it intuitive. people ought to be responsible to read the manuals, but when they don't, the system should work and, in fact, these technologies are doing that. >> you referred to the technology which means the ability to drive the car if you slip over into another lane to be forewarned about that. and i look forward to that very, very much. what about that part which is entertainment? >> the information in the car has an upside and a downside. the upside ultimately plays out in the context of connectivity and big data warning the car and all the cars in the ecosystem that there's a potential challenge. the challenge with information is managing it in the car. and the discussion i thought with administrator trick -- strickland was very instructive, but i think it missed a bit of

the point if i can take a minute here. 17% of crashes are distraction-related. that's about a million. 2% of those happen as a consequence of using the internal, built-in integrated system of the car. that's 2% of the 5.5 million crashes -- i'm sorry, 2% of the million. 98% are a function of distraction from some other cause. the guidelines that nhtsa issued deal with the 2% but do not touch the 98%. so i think what the administrator did today was really important and talk about the stakeholder briefing, the stakeholder meeting where he would bring together or propose bringing together manufacturers, software folks, oems, social media companies to deal with the issue of how you manage information in the car. because the guidelines deal with

2%, not 98%. and if we're serious about dealing with distraction in this country, we've got to focus where the real battle lies. >> i totally agree. dr. lee? >> yes. i'd like to go back to your original question and take a bit of a different perspective that some of the optimistic panelists here. i think your experience is more common than not. i think there's great potential for confusion with these new systems. i saw an article just the other day discussing a new vehicle that came out and had a larger expanded glove box that the author's arguing to accommodate the user's manual, it was so large. these cars are incredibly complicated, and there's some good data that suggests drivers don't always understand what these systems do. adaptive cruise control, for example. people think it has capabilities that it may not actually have. another example i think about goes back to my towel dispenser. such a simple thing. you put a little computer behind it, and now it becomes

mysterious. and we've got a car with 70-100 interconnected computers that is incredibly complicated and, in some cases, quite mysterious. for my be vehicle, for example, there's 165 different parameters that i can adjust, all keyed to my key fob so i get into the car, and the car's a different car for me. my wife gets in and 165 parameters change, and it's a different car for her. what happens if i drive her key fob? now i'm driving her car which might be quite different than her car. those sorts of confusion, i think, are new and didn't exist before the car became a computer. one more example going back to the confusion with the on/off switch. in the past starting your car, stopping your car, you did it with a key. you turned the key off and pulled it out. you couldn't pull it out before th off.

you can take the key fob, get out of the car, close the door, walk away and it's still running. and this has actually happened and poisoned with carbon monoxide the occupants of the house after they left the car in the garage running. >> interesting. >> so i think there is confusion. there's new potential for error. i don't want to be too negative because i think there's huge potential for safety, but there is a negative side, and we have to acknowledge that. >> i'll take both of your answers, but first i want to ask another question. i'm not sure to which extent -- well, first, my final question's going to be what do you think the role of nhtsa ought to be. i want each of you to answer that. but i'm not sure of the swiftness of the younger generation, whatever that means, declining to buy automobiles because of the cost and the

economy and efficiencies. you know, driving in washington almost any time of day makes you want to take amtrak right down 16th street. [laughter] and just bowl over everything in sight. i mean, it's so frustrating. and now, and then that makes sense because then you have to get big buses because you can put a lot more people on big buses and, therefore, take a lot of cars off the road. but a lot of those buses can't make turns without holding up traffic for 10 or 15 minutes as they try to wiggle a turn. in other words, it's all, it's all very, very complicated. america is in love with automobiles. that will never cease. i'm in love with automobiles. that will never cease. however, i don't want to die. i'm not technologically gifted as the staff behind me can very well tell you. but i'm very serious about my

work. and that's why i come back to the mission of nhtsa, that this hearing is, one, about what the car of the future's going to be like and, actually, i get the impression from several of you that the car that is coming about isn't going to come about for another maybe five or ten years, that we're not talking quite as quickly as we think we are. but i'm not sure that's correct. be -- so the role of plain safety, of when you put your hands on a steering wheel and it reads your blood alcohol content , the saving of -- i come from a coal state, but, you know, so what? i moon, i think that it's -- i mean, i think that it's very important to really crack down on carbon monoxide. and i don't think this country are survive unless we find a way to take 90% of the carbon

monoxide out of coal which we have found but decline to use or fund. so those are problems. so to me, basic safety is important. i love -- one of the reasons i really like my new car that's three years old is because it's big, and it's really fun, okay? but when you, when i get down to it, the -- what i really want to do is just drive, and i want to listen to my music. i mean, one -- it calms me down when i go to work, and it calms me down when i come back from work. and i like driving. i like driving a lot. so i'm not really into the gadgets, but then again i'm of another generation. so let me just simply lock you all off and say what do you think the role of nhtsa ought to be? please.

>> that's, that's the $64,000 question, right? i mean, that's what we're talking about. so, you know, the industry, the automobile manufacturers and suppliers, we're going to work very hard to take what is already the most complicated piece of electronics you own, your car, and work to make it simpler, work to make it more intuitive, more seamless. but just as you have your desires, the 25-year-olds and below have their desires, and they want to interface with that vehicle in an entirely different way. and yet the product hats to service all of those -- has to service all of those demographic, and that really is the is to provide -- the challenge, is to provide the technology that's less distracting that keeps the drive safer tomorrow than it is today. a lot of talk about autonomous vehicles today and driverless vehicles, and i think that may happen at some point in the far future but for a lot less money and a lot quicker application.

i'm not talking ten years. active safety technology can be applied today and have significant benefit to the statistics of both accidents and fatalities in the united states. and i think the technology's mature, i think nhtsa would recognize it as mature enough to consider that, and i really do think letting the market work here no mandates required, no regulation required, just let it be visible to the consumers now, immediately, and you'll see the market forces start to self-select because safety does sell. we have a lot of other things to work on. there's no doubt about it. and we're dedicated to solving those problems. we can make, we can get a lot of the benefit of an autonomous vehicle today in a semiautonomous mode in a couple of years if we have the fortitude to stay with it. >> yeah. would you, if it were a financial body, would you apply nhtsa to wall street in recent

years? >> i'm sorry? >> would you apply nhtsa were a financial body to wall street in recent years? in other words, let the market work and you're going to get all those hundreds of billions of dollars, and you can spend it on mortgages and low income housing or whatever, and not one dime got spent. people just lined their pockets. and i'm making no comparison between that and automobiles, but, you know, i just, i worry about that. i worry about safety. i don't want people to die. we have really twisted roads in west virginia, and actually so do a lot of most rural states. interstates are rarer. so i've -- i'm just trying to find something beside let the market work. when i hear let the market work, i start thinking about coal mines and, you know, all kinds of things, and i get very uncomfortable. >> can i add to this?

we are saying let the market work in one sense, but it's different than the wall street context. >> good. >> what we're really saying here is the marketplace for all sorts of reasons, for reasons of commitment to safety, for reasons that safety sells, for reasons of liability is producing today driver-assist technologies that will deal with the accident rate in west virginia. we are on the precipice of a golden age in safety. the news is good news. the longer-term question is when we get to the connective car. now, the role of nhtsa is to do exactly what they do. it's a relatively small agency of really grounded, committed public servants who focus be through data on safety issues. we work very closely with them in an appropriate way. there's no hide the ball. we share technologies. we do many studies together. the exercisein ann arbor on the connected car is a joint effort of suppliers, oems and future fr

safety. same thing with drunk driving. so in the anytime -- nhtsa engages with the industry, nhtsa also has regulatory authority and has a hammer which has been used. and at times that's appropriate. so we have, we have the right relationship. it is, we hope, data-driven, and i think we're on course to a great outcome. this is a good news hearing. the future promises really massive gains in safety if we, if we make the right public policy choices, especially on the spectrum issue. >> yeah. which, actually, brings us in. in other words be, we have congressional oversight. i'm also on the intelligence committee, and we're meant to have congressional oversight of intelligence. let me tell you, that's been about the most impossible job because government doesn't want to, doesn't want to turn thinking over. they all want to protect themselves.

and i don't think car companies are necessarily that way. and, in fact, when we had the so-called sudden, unintended stop crisis you remember with toyota and other companies, the work was quite good, i thought. the result was good, people changed habits, they got a culture of safety of a different can sort was developed. and be so i'm much, you know, i'm not unoptimistic about the automobile industry. i just want to be certain. and i've kept you all too long. dr. lee, you look like you need to say something. [laughter] >> i don't know whether i need to say it, but i will. i come from a different perspective, so weigh that accordingly, and you may want to discount it entirely. but i think one of the things that we see in the automotive industry is a dramatic change, a really dram things.

change is occurring at an exponential rate. and we project, as people, we project change linearly. so we're thinking in ten years these smart cars will be ten times were the, maybe 15 years, ten times later. but, in fact, in 15 years they'll be a thousand times better. dramatic, qualitatively than we might expect. so i think change is happening extremely quickly, and this is a very different environment than nhtsa grew up in where cars turned over every six years, now you're working in a computer industry where models are turning over every six months. so ten times difference. i think the vehicle in the car and how people treat cars is also changing dramatically. i think the generation that grew up with bruce springsteen and the romance of the road and using the car as a way to get away from the parents, that's changing. kids get away from the parents with their phones, with texting. cars are a distraction to them.

.. >> from the national academies, one of the things they came out about that i thought was really interesting, and that is the vehicle environment is changing qualitatively as i mentioned and, therefore, the regulatory environments may need to change accordingly. they suggested looking at other agencies like the faa or the fda as models for our nhtsa they want to adopt to this new and barbara. i think there may be a qualitative shift in the nature

of what nhtsa does. its business. i think one sort of concrete example that came out of that that i thought was very good, that's a in medical products. the fda has a system that provides, when there's an unattended event, of misuse or a malfunction in a medical product, gets sent back to the agency and then to the industry to enhance reliability. and i think that that source of mechanism is necessary. so in the future when cars become smarter, more capable, they will do things for the driver, they will surprise the driver. and increasingly, drivers will play in the car for doing something crazy. and that blame, as we saw with the toyota events, is difficult for nhtsa and industry to understand. there was a long period of failing to understand what was underlying those events.

that's injurious to the government. it's injurious to the manufactures, and it's worrying to the consumers. and so i think what we need is a better information infrastructure to help nhtsa identify and understand the inevitable failures that will come out of these computerized vehicles. >> all right. i want to end the hearing. if you've got something to say it's got to be so incredibly good. [laughter] >> no problem. >> all right. >> i think nhtsa has an incredibly important role because transportation has become a team sport. so there's convening as well as a regulatory role one of the very important issues it's going to need convening is, is liability and responsibility for crashes, because we will continue to have crushes for a very long time, is that shifting in some way? we've always said that is the

driver's responsibility. is there some shift? so i think that kind of question is something that nhtsa really needs to convene and make some policy guidance on, as we move forward, because that will become a very important issue. i hope i lived up to your expectations. [laughter] >> yes, you did. in fact, you all day. and i, i don't see all of the people sitting at this bias, but that doesn't matter. it's a hearing. everything is recorded and written down. and i think some very interesting and good ideas came out of all this. you are all very good witnesses. so having said that, i'd like to bang the gavel, it looks superficial to me, so i would just declare the hearing adjourned. and thank you. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]

>> today, house ways and means committee looks into revelations that the irs targeted conservative groups over their tax exempt status. the outgoing irs commission, steve miller, who resigned on wednesday will testify along with the ig. live coverage nine-piece turn on c-span2. >> a house foreign affairs subcommittee on africa's global health is examining u.s. efforts to combat malaria worldwide. you can see that hearing starting at 10 a.m. eastern today on our companion network c-span3. >> president obama met with defense secretary chuck hagel and joint chiefs chairman

general martin dempsey thursday, calling on them to leave no stone unturned in the effort to stop sex assaults in the military. this is 10 minutes. >> i appreciate all of you coming in just for a second. we have gathered here all the top people in not just our military but our entire national security operation. and i want to start off by thanking all the people sitting around this table and in this room for the extraordinary service that they've rendered this country. and i want to also remind everybody that we have folks active in theater right now, men and women in uniform, who are making heroic sacrifices on behalf of our security. and our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families because they are dealing with a whole lot to make sure that we are safe. we have focused this conversation, though, on

something that is at the core of our effectiveness as a military. i told all these people that one of the great honors of my life is serving as commander-in-chief to what i consider to be the best military in the history of the world. and i am in awe of the work that the vast majority of our men and women in uniform do. but the reason we are so good is not because of the fancy equipment. it's not because of our incredible weapon systems and technology. it's because of our people. and the capacity for our men and women in uniform to work as a team, a disciplined unit looking out for each other in the most severe of circumstances, is premised, as ray odierno said, on trust.

it comes down to do people trust each other and do they understand that they're all part of a single system that has to operate under whatever circumstances effectively. the issue of sexual assault in our armed forces undermines that trust. so not only is it a crime, not only is it shameful and disgraceful, but it also is going to make and has made the military less effective than it can be. and as such, it is dangerous to our national security. so this is not a sideshow. this is not sort of a second-order problem that we're experiencing. this goes to the heart and the core of who we are and how effective we're going to be. now, the good news is i am absolutely confident that everybody in this room and our leadership, starting with chuck

hagel and marty dempsey and the joint chiefs, as well as our top enlisted men and women, they care about this. and they're angry about it. and i heard directly from all of them that they're ashamed by some of what's happened. but it's not fixed yet, and that's clear. so even though i think there's a level of concern and interest that is appropriate, we haven't actually been able to ensure that our men and women in uniform are not experiencing this, and if they do experience it, that there's serious accountability. so what i've done is i've asked secretary of defense hagel and marty dempsey to help lead a process to continue to get at this. that starts with accountability,

and that means at every level. and that includes accountability not just for enforcing the law, but also training our personnel effectively, putting our best people on this challenge. i think secretary of the army mchugh made a very good point, which is i'm not sure we've incentivized some of our top people to understand this is as core to our mission as anything else. and we've got to reward them, not think of this as a sideline for anything else that they do, but incentivize ambitious folks in the ranks to make sure that they understand this is important. so that's part of accountability. empowering victims. we've got to create an environment in which victims feel that they're comfortable coming forward and they know people have their backs, and that they will work through this process in a way that keeps the focus on justice and make right

what's been wrong as opposed to suddenly they're on trial, it may weaken their position, it make compromise their ability to advance. that's going to be important. they've got to know that they should have no fear of retaliation, no fear of stigma, no damage to their careers, and certainly no protection for criminals. third thing is justice for the victims. when victims do come forward, they deserve justice. perpetrators have to experience consequences. and i'm pleased that secretary hagel has proposed reforms that would restrict the ability of commanders to overturn convictions after trial. those reforms have my full support. there are a range of ideas that are being proposed on capitol hill, and i know that chuck and marty are both engaged with those members of congress. but what i've said to them is i

want to leave no stone unturned and i want us to explore every good idea that's out there in order to fix this problem. and i'm pleased to say that secretary hagel is not only consulting with congress but is also looking at militaries around the world, the canadians or the israelis or others, that may have design systems that get at this to see if there are any lessons learned in terms of best practices. and vice president biden, who has been a champion for issues, around issues of domestic violence for 20 years or more, he made an important point, which is that we've got to make sure that advocates and professionals who are in the civilian system and have been working on this problem for a long time, that we're listening to them as well, that we don't

assume that the military has to completely recreate the wheel. and i think that's a very important point. so i want to thank all the work that congress is doing, especially our friends in the senate. all of us here are committed to working with them. the last point i'm going to make, and that is that there is no silver bullet to solving this problem. this is going to require a sustained effort over a long period of time. and that's why i'm very pleased to know that secretary hagel is going to be having weekly meetings on this. and i want us to make sure that we've got effective metrics and feedback loops, so that we are continually evaluating how well we're doing. and one point that was made around the table is that a sign that we're actually getting at this problem may initially be increased reporting rather than less reporting. we may see more reporting of

incidents, in part because even outside of our military, traditionally, these problems of sexual assault are vastly underreported. and so over the next several months and years, if i start seeing data that shows that in fact we are seeing more reports, that may actually indicate to me that people are becoming more confident about moving forward. on the other hand, i then want those trend lines to start going down because that indicates that we're also starting to fix the problem and we've highlighted it, and people who are engaged in despicable behavior, they get fully punished for it. so, again, i want to emphasize, everybody in this room has heard from me directly. they've heard from secretary hagel, and they've heard from marty dempsey.

they all understand this is a priority and we will not stop until we've seen this scourge, from what is the greatest military in the world, eliminated. thank you very much, everybody. >> next on c-span2 we are live at the capitol hill where the ways and means committee this morning hold a hearing investigating iran's internal report revealing that the agency targeted conservative groups -- irs internal report revealing that the agency targeted conservative groups. we'll hear from the acting commissioner steve miller who was asked to resign wednesday as well as the testimony this morning from the treasury department inspector general for tax administration. center of your screen that is steve miller who will testify.