c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. next, a discussion about self-driving cars and proposed legislation that would affect their use. hosted by the american association of state highway and transportation officials. this is an hour and a half. >> i don't know where kevin disappeared to. he's here. i saw him when i walked in. >> kev, he's here. i just met him. one of our panelists is out. before we get started, a couple of announcements. c-span has graciously decided that they're going to record this. so i was told to tell myself to

be on my best behavior. and so you all have that same command, be on your best behavior. or not. it might make for great television later on. and then during the q&a period, we're going to pass microphones along so that they can be picked up by c-span. so should we wait for kevin or should we just get started? >> i know he's here. >> do what? okay. well, unless i tell him to go first. >> true rules in this. especially if you're the moderator. okay. good morning. i'm john and i'm the commissioner of the state of transportation for tennessee. and we're happy to be here. the title, as you all know, of this is the state d.o.t.'s

harnessing connecting and autonomous vehicles. an interesting subject. i'm not sure we can harness all that stuff, but we can learn about it as we go forward. we all know, and we've been dealing with this year the -- and years past as the movement of technology in this direction, it has been phenomenal. we know that's what's happening with technology. we talk about it on our cell phones and the stuff that goes on. our children know more about this. i call my children and say, how do i do this? because they know. and mine are grown. i even hear that when parents of teenagers and even younger ask their 10-year-old child, how do i get on to this app or what do i do with this? here comes kevin. we're not going to say you were late walking in or anything. that's okay. so, we as d.o.t.s, those of us that are in that business, are

constantly sort of trying to figure out what our role is when it comes to this new technology and how important it is. and beyond just autonomous, the connected side is also an important, important part of what we do, the data being generated, how we -- what we do with that data, how we share that data, those types of issues are critically important. and so as we move forward, we see what happens -- i've got a picture and a lot of you probably have seen this by now, and i talk a little bit about it, but i've got a picture in my office of the -- of new york city on easter sunday morning, 1900, and the roads are crowded with vehicles and all of those vehicles are being pulled by horses except for one small motorized vehicle.

i've got another picture of a similar position, new york city, easter sunday morning, 1913, and -- did i say 1900 before? 1913. and every vehicle in the street has an engine, four wheels, a steering wheel, accelerator and a brake. i look at that picture every morning because it to me sort of tells me where we are today in this world. i think we're in 1901 or some number like that. if you think of the movement and how quick technology moved back then, and that movement went from truly a horse and buggy to motorized vehicles in 13 years. i think we're there. and we as transportation officials truly, truly have to be part of that cutting edge and be prepared for that. i mean, even back then, i think it's interesting as you look at the histories of most of the transportation departments across the state, that they all

got started in 1914, 1915. you know, because we all had our 100th year anniversary within the last two or three years. and, you know, nobody heard of a transportation department in 1901 or 1902. so i really believe in my heart and what's going on with technology is where we are today. it might even be quicker. you know, we saw -- i saw that california is going to in april allow cars to be driven with 50 companies that have been approved to -- without a driver in the driver's seat starting i think april 2nd. i also saw with humor on monday or tuesday that ford motor company and dominos have agreed to have autonomous delivered pizzas. their only concern was getting people off the couch out to the car to pick up -- to pick up the pizza and what they would be

wearing when that happened. so, you know, we're going to have to kind of go through that whole process and see what happens, but we've got a great panel today. we're going to have opening remarks by each one of them. then we will have lots of time, i think, for questions and answers. so we're just going to get started. our first panelist is -- we're going to start -- the ladies need to go first, as usual. so sherry pasco. sherry is the professional staff majority of the senate commerce committee. sherry advises committee chairman john thune, republican of south dakota, on automotive, cyber security technology and consumer protection policy and strategy and comes oversight and investigation of federal agencies and private sector companies. she has been integral in the development and negotiation and passage of the f.a.s.t. act and serves as a lead staffer for the

a.b. start act. she has previously worked under former ranking member k. bailey hutchinson and before coming to the u.s. senate, she worked at the university of michigan and at the university of -- in the uk. we don't pronounce that well here. i'll let you have the floor. do you want to do it up here or sit? >> i'll sit. is that okay? >> yeah. >> so thank you so much, commissioner, and thanks for inviting me to be here. and kind of provide an overview and an update on our committee's work on self-driving vehicles. so let me just move this forward. so i have the great honor of working for the senate commerce committee, which has a wonderful jurisdiction over a number of different issues from transportation to technology to

space and science, we even have jurisdiction over time, and so, you know, we are very well-positioned to, you know, respond to innovation unfolding kind of across a lot of sectors. and the chairman of the committee, john thune of south dakota, kind of consistently looks for ways to advance innovation, but in a safe and kind of responsible manner. so we believe that kind of automated vehicles or self-driving vehicles really hold tremendous promise to transform transportation in our country. i've worked on auto safety issues for the last decade and there is one number that everyone remembers, and that's 37,461. that's the number of lives that

were lost on u.s. highways in 2016. it's a number that, unfortunately, has been going up, and we believe that avs, you know, that don't get drunk, don't get distracted and, you know, they could have really a lot of potential to save thousands of lives. and we're watching kind of how manufacturers are beginning to test avs across the nation, and a number of them are asking for regulatory certainty so that when the time comes they will be able to deploy their vehicles. so, therefore, because of that in february of last year, chairman thune and senator peters of michigan announced publicly that they were going to work to draft legislation for the safe testing and deployment

of avs. we worked with more than 200 stakeholders to craft that legislation. we really wanted to make clear that everyone was at the table, and when you look at avs and the impact that they have on our society, that includes a lot of people. it's not just, you know, the auto manufacturers, it's also the tech companies and there are a lot of new entrants, states and cities are a really key partner, as well as, you know, insurance companies, environmental trades, unions, the trial bar, rental car companies. there are a whole lot of folks out there that are going to be impacted by avs in one way or another and we wanted to make sure that we incorporated all of their concerns in our legislation.

in the summer we we leased the tethe -- we released the text of our legislation. in the fall the congress committee unanimously approved it. it currently is awaiting full consideration by the senate. there are a couple of key points that i want to talk about about what our bill does. so one of the big priorities that we had or principles, so to speak, was that we wanted to make sure that safety continued to be a priority and set up kind of the near-term and long-term federal regulatory structure for avs. we kind of, just as with conventional standards, we felt like federal safety standards are important there, and they will continue to be important with respect to avs. we also wanted to kind of

promote continued innovation and update outmoded existed federal standards. so currently there is a body of federal regulations. federal motor vehicle safety standards. we use a lot of acronyms in the federal government, as i'm sure you do in state governments. it has taken me about ten years to learn all of them. and so there is all of these standards which, you know, are meant to govern the safety of a vehicle were written really without thinking about self-driving vehicles. and so, you know, in the interim, we are setting up a safety evaluation process where manufacturers will self-certify that they meet certain safety criteria. and we also want these standards updated and new standards set that govern kind of the safety

of these vehicles. and kind off of most interest to you all, we wanted to tackle re-enforcing separate federal and state rules. so over the past year, we worked very closely with the states and cities. i think ben was just saying we may have worked too closely, too many meetings, but we spent, you know, really, as many meetings as it took to craft, you know, the pre-emption section in our legislation. we're really thankful to all the parties involved and are particularly appreciative that the states and cities, you know, worked closely with us to craft that preemption.

and the principle that we started with was that, you know, legislation and pre-emption should be based on the existing relationship between federal and state regulators, but it should be kind of tweaked to make necessary updates that are posed by self-driving vehicles. so the federal government has historically regulated the vehicle and mote vehicle equipment. states have historically regulated kind of licensing, registration, titling, insurance. the construct within our bill retains that. so, you know, we believe that states and cities have kind of an important role to play with respect to overseeing avs, and kind of their authority over registration, taxation, insurance and even kind of enforcement of traffic laws and

traffic safety, which i know has been an issue, will continue with respect to avs. our bill does address a number of other things, but there is one other point i wanted to make, we called it the av s.t.a.r.t. act for a reason. it's the start. it is the first bill. it's definitely not the last. there are a number of issues that still will need to be addressed. and new issues that we're not aware of yet as kind of avs continue to be tested, continue to be deployed across the nation. so we're committed to staying involved and having kind of a good partnership with all of the stakeholders that we have worked with over the past year. and i hope that, you know, in the near term the senate will take up this bill and so that we

can conference it with the bill that has already passed the house and send something to the president's desk. so thank you so much for being here -- for having me. thank you. >> we thank her for being here, too, as well. it would be terrible to talk to an empty crowd. >> i know. >> next up is mr. foelten. finch served as a member of the president's transition team, focussing on transportation and infrastructure policy. and with the department of transportation as a special adviser to the secretary on transportation policy. he's served in the house of representatives under congressman jim mccreary and congressman john fleming, and in the senate for senator jeff sessions. in addition, he has worked in public affairs at vox global, devising and executing integrated policy and advocacy campaigns. he's a native of mobile,

alabama. a graduate of the university of alabama. and that's okay, i guess. [ laughter ] no one likes alabama except people from alabama, just so you know. just their football team. just their football team. a true southeastern conference fan right here. so he's, again, a native of mobile, alabama. i'll say that again. a graduate of the university of alabama. received his mba from the john hop kin hopkins university and most recently a resident of dallas, texas. finch, you've got the floor. >> good morning, everybody. cheri talking got me thinking about how her committee handles time and d.o.t.'s role. through our legacies working with the coast guard, with help control space traffic management and timing there. also, through our legacy roles with federal railroad, they actually control time zones because they were the first to cross the country, so they actually manage that. in addition, we're working more

and more with our partners in nasa and d.o.d. in commercial space and launch and reentry. everything going on with infrastructure, technology and innovation, pretty much we do space, time and everything that matters. so it's a wonderful work we get to do. you've all probably seen what we've talked about with our version 2.0, a vision for safety and everything that we've got going on with avs. i won't spend too much time on the slides and leave more for what we're doing with 3.0. it is worth going through this because we repeat again and zen what we've done with 2.0 is the foundation we built on for everything in 3.0. one of the keys here, we focus on levels three through five sae levels. these things are already deployed and on the road today. one of the things we also have been stressing again and again and i think the industry is hearing us now, the 12 airs

yeahs we're focussing on with our safety elements, we ask them to post voluntary self-safety assessments. these are unchanged. so in the way we have been talking about things, we heard many in industry saying, are y'all changing this again? is there a moving target we have to work towards? these aren't changing fundamentally. still getting feedback so there will be minor tweaks, but ultimately you can consider these unchanging for the time being. you all are very aware with the levels of automation. thinking through what this means, a lot of the conversations we're having on are level 4 automation because that's where the meat of the work is going to have to be done. certainly there is a lot of work on level 3 and some of the steps in between if and the transition of how we get from here to there. i like this slide a lot because it comes from the department of commerce so i can criticize it freely. this is part of a report they put out last year, and i think it's interesting because this is sort of their best guess at the pace of timing of things. this is not saying exactly when

the tojt will be available, this is more focused on when it will be available to the common person, at least somebody with a little bit of money. if you're looking at the higher levels of automation, part of our job is to make sure people are excited about the safety benefits of this technology, the mobility benefits of this technology, what it means that the united states leads in this technology. people quickly jump to 2045 and say, my god, the jobs are not going to be gone. good lord, i don't like the future of this. we have to play a role of the federal reserve where we take the punchbowl away and say, calm down a little bit. this is not what we're talking about. in the short-term, so many benefits come from these technologies, let's focus on that and building out from there. what can we gain? i like the slide in another way because it sort of shows with what we're talking about, there is in the near future you don't have to panic. a lot of the technologies that are going to be out there, the things that just prevent with you departing your lanes or being able to have brake assist,

so many of the technologies are ones that people are very comfortable with and they think about and don't start jumping to 2045. so yesterday we started talking more and more about what we're doing with 3.0. this is our intermobile approach trying to combine all the strength and efficiencies from all the different department regulated. he got phenomenal feedback in the morning in particular when we had the closed-door sessions. from first responders, we've never been talked to this way, this is the first time we felt we've been heard. i'm going to say that again and again because that was phenomenal feedback. we also heard from a number of state d.o.t.s they like the model of how we brought people in. teamsters sitting with the department of labor people and commerce people. disability working with our state d.o.t.s, tech companies. first responders talking to all of these groups. it was just great conversations

and we're going to have a report out from the six areas that we focused on, which included insurance and liability concerns which is very much a state issue. workforce and labor issues. cyber security. friends from dhs. sae members there. consumer and public education workshops. disability and accessibility concerns and public safety and first responders. so this really helped us bring in a lot of the different players in these areas. especially as we focused on the intermobile connections. there has been a lot of discussions about knrole of the light duty vehicle on the roads and what it means with technology. we need to make sure we're thinking around every corner and find every benefit we can. we're talking about 3.0 now. you have all probably seen the first four of the requests for public comment and for information that the department's put out. impacts to infrastructure. i'm sure you all will be talking with federal highways throughout the year with the national

dialogue they'll be holding. we have our federal transit request where we focus on what exact research needs to be done and what is the federal role in the research in this area. also comments on what barriers can inadvertently hinder transit. some of them are their requirements for disability concerns to have somebody in a bus that can help somebody with disabilities. if you say we don't need a driver, who does this job? very common sense when you look at it, but we need to make sure we're incorporating all that feedback. lastly, nhtsa, trying to make sure we get feedback for all concerns and responses on that. the secretary did announce yesterday the concerns with what we have with our pipelines and hazardous materials. when we're working with first responders, what do we need to make sure is able to be transmitted to our first responders if there is an incident involving a truck carrying hazardous materials? there is research being done now

so automatic messages can be sent to first responders so they know exactly what they're walking into, exactly how many people need to respond and if they need any special equipment. we have the federal railroad put out one -- about to put out one hopefully very soon, just trying to make sure we have ground-based information we're hearing a lot of things from our different partners so we need to get something on paper to make sure we're not in the way. and then with fmcsa, one of the most interesting ones, they're putting out a review. fmcsa is putting out a report that outlines 39 areas that there are potential overlaps and complications when you talk about the human and the machines. the roles they play. so that's just saying that there are regulations for heavy-duty trucks that typically refer to drivers and this assumption has always been that a driver would be a human.

secretary -- d.o.t.'s done work in the past responding publicly to a letter from google where we asserted that but needed to make sure we were asserting this in its full rights with all the authorities we have. with the restrictions of congress, we can't assert that in every mode of transportation, but where we can, we are. that also goes into some of the conversations. even though we can say the operator of a machine is a human, a lot of regulations say a person with commercial license has to do inspections. we still have to have our licensed professionals. that part won't changed. there is going to be a lot more conversations about this going forward. but one of the things that i thought was most important yesterday was when the secretary talked about all of our prns with how we're addressing these things through policies, regulations and our complimentary work with congress. we try very much to stay in line with what congress is doing and to communicate effectively there. obviously, safety is always going to be our top priority. if you lose track of that, you lose track of everything else.

we want to be flexible. we want to be as forward leaning as possible and seek to keep up with the pace of innovation. we want to be tech neutral and let the market decides winners. when regulations are needed we're going to be performance based and talking again about how the operator of a machine can be a computer or a human. so obviously you can see i'm trying to -- i have to do more work to make this more concise, but we are very much looking forward to work with our state and local partners to make sure we have an approach that doesn't hinder innovation, meaning somebody wouldn't be able to drive from washington to minnesota in an av. they have different standards, they aren't operable and some states would just ban it. we want to make sure they don't have to be completely identical, but we want them to be complimentary, and i think d.o.t. plays a role in working with our state and local partners to make sure everybody gets what they need. we're going to do our part.

as you can see there, i won't read this slide, but i think one of the things also very important for the secretary to clarify, we consider connected vehicles and autonomous vehicles completely complimentary. i think early on some of our language scared people with what we were thinking about with connected vehicles. if we have any more questions about that, we can talk that. we've made public statements about wanting to preserve that piece of the spectrum. we are tech neutral so that plays out in how we look at these issues. we're very supportive of connected vehicles and everything, all the benefits that they hold. lastly, we think that people will never give up their right to drive. we're not going to try to take away their ford mustang from them, prevent them from going on the open road. in chickasaw, alabama, some of the technologies aren't going to make it there for a long time. you're going to have to prepare for a world where the ideal is not there. so you have to prepare for vehicles that can travel around

the country without connectivity necessarily the entire time. so that is all i have to say. i'll be happy to answer questions later. thank you. >> thanks, finch. >> where was that? chickasaw, alabama? they may not like you said that. >> they love me in chickasaw. >> they like their mustang gt. >> of course. >> for sure. next, we have ben hush. he serves as the senior policy director for natural resources and infrastructure at the national conference of state legislatures. in this role, he leads ncsl's lobbying and advocacy work on transportation, environment, energy and agriculture issues before both congress and the administration. he joined ncsl in march of 2012 after nearly four years with the national association of state budget officers. has a master's degree in public policy from rutgers university and a bachelor of economics from wake forest university. ben?

>> so as an acc grad, i get to stay out of the whole s.e.c. conversation. first off, thank you very much for having me. i just wanted to say publicly, thank you for all of your help as we have been dealing with this issue for now probably more than a year. so thank you very much. if there is one thing i can leave you with today, it is that if you ever have a question or you're, you know, trying to figure out what other states, how other states have looked at this issue, if you google ncslab. the top result will be our public database that deals with both autonomous vehicles and connected vehicle legislation. if you go to that page, you'll see the number obviously will change, especially as states are in session now, but we're about 20-plus states, but i want to point out that some of that number includes some states that have appropriated funding for connected vehicle technology.

so it's not necessarily that we have 20 states that have different, you know, i won't say av testing results. before i kind of get into my comments, i want to maybe ask three questions, because i -- that really helps me kind of get a feel for the room. and you can say yes to all three questions. so the first one is how many folks are excited about avs. second question. how many folks are nervous about autonomous vehicles? third question, how many folks have ridden in an autonomous vehicle? that's very helpful. so why we're in -- not here in the room, the situation we face, cheri laid it out very well. historically the federal government has been responsible for the safety of the vehicle. states have been responsible -- state along with their local partners have been responsible for safe operation on roadways.

and that has been accomplished through the enactment of fmbss which has become my favorite acronym over the past year. we're essentially at this point in time where we have this new technology and technologies where we lack, you know, fmbss for autonomous vehicle technology and, you know, we very much agree that enactment of safety standards would provide regulatory certainty. it is important to our private industry partners that there be regulatory certainty. and so with that in mind, you know, it almost maybe forced congress to act to, you know, put in place a maybe temporary system. so that the dichotomy of the federal role and the state role

could be continued as this technology came on to the market. so with that in mind, there were really two key pieces that -- from ncsl and states' perspective that we were concerned with in both the senate bill and the house bill. the first one was how each bill addressed the issue of preemption. and we, ncsl along with aashto have publicly stated our support for the preemive provisions in the senate bill. we are extremely appreciative of their working with us to make sure it was crafted in a way that continued the current dichotomy and made sure that, you know, with the appropriate tweaks it was continued as the technology came on to the market. so i think the way i look at it is that the way the house bill addresses the preemption, it preempts states in all areas except for and then it lists a

number of them. they're the main ones you can think of, insurance, registration, licensing, so on and so forth, so it essentially takes the av regulatory field and puts a box around what states can do. the senate bill does it the opposite way. it looks at the regulatory field for avs and says these are the areas that the federal government is going to regulate. states are pre-empted on those areas, but anything else, states can deal with. so, you know, we view oh it from our perspective that the senate bill boxes in what the federal government can do, whereas the house bill boxes in what states can do. so we obviously, you know, are much more supportive of that. there are some other issues we have with the house bill as well, but i won't get into the weeds on that. the second area is ensuring that these vehicles are safe. we very much agree with the administration and cheri's comments about the importance of reducing fatalities on roadways,

i mean, i can't even really probably accurately put into words how important that is. but it's equally as important that to make sure that the environment that these vehicles operate on is safe as well. and that has historically been the states' role to make sure that the roadways are safer vehicles to operate on. so we see that as just as important. so with that in mind, the way the senate bill and through their requirements on the safety evaluation report or s.e.r. goes about requiring oems or a.d. s. tech companies to submit information about their vehicle, we see as a much more detailed requirement and will provide significantly more information to states and local governments about the safety of the vehicle itself so that states and local

governments can effectively design and provide a safe environment for these vehicles to operate in. and maybe just the last thing i'll mention is, you know, we hear kind of the concern about, you know, the potential for a patchwork to prevent this technology. we very much agree with that. you know, i don't want, you know, for it to be understood that our position is we want each state to have their own system. there are interstate commerce issues we want to overcome, but i think it's important to understand where we are with this technology right now and very much viewing it as still in the testing phase, which is important -- which is a reason that it is important that we get a bill from congress that

continues the historical dichotomy between federal and state roles right. so that's really kind of everything i wanted to mention. happy to answer any questions on any other specifics with the bills. but, again, thank you so much for aashto for having me and i look forward to your questions. >> thanks, ben. so, the last to speak is kevin mccardi. kevin is the assistant secretary for the national bipartisan organization representing mayors of more than 1,400 cities with a population of 30,000 or more. kevin is the conference's point person on transportation issues and supports the work of the mayors through the organization's transportation and communications committee. prior to joining the conference of mayors, kevin worked for other state and local government organizations and jurisdictions, including the city of seattle and national league of cities. kevin?

>> good morning. thank you so much. i wanted to just say it's a great place for me to be, having heard the presentations already, i can say, cheri, thank you for your great work in trying to figure this out. preemption is hard to do. we have preemption going on in a few other places and i'll talk about that in a minute. finch, i want to thank you. the department has a big task to as they say harmonize what we do today with what may be coming. no small matter. i was struck by the number of people who have ridden in avs and still anxious about them. i'm not sure what i should deduce about that. also, i want to thank ben for his leadership. he's really helped organize some of our state and local work. and particularly on a technical side and as a partner, i want to thank aashto for their great work. jim and young and king and others here who really try to help us figure this out. aashto is doing exactly what

it's supposed to be doing. i work for elected officials, as does ben. have your organization to really help us think through this issue, it's fair to say it's a tough one to think through because i don't think we have all the information before us. so let me just talk about a couple of things. number one, i want to put on the table the idea -- sometimes congress gets a little anxious because they think they're the only ones sometimes that care about technology. the truth is that technology gets deployed in all kinds of ways and often very localized examples and it moves its way up through the system. sometimes it happens in 20 or 30 m places. we're deplying small cell technologies in -- 5g technology. but you still have a debate in congress. we have 4gs of good partnership, all of a sudden comes the fifth and we lose our mind and say,

oh, no we have to pre-empt them because they're not doing what we want. it's become a currency sometimes in washington. it's something you can give to people that gives them some comfort. and also there are some reasons why it makes sense. in the past -- i've been around long enough to say we've worked together with the state and local community for a long time. preemption is tough to do but there are times the state and local community acknowledges there is preemption needed in some places. in avs, i don't think we're at that point yet. we're at the early stages of this. we put some mayors on a phone call the other day to talk about av technology. and we had an auto company representative, unnamed, who said, let me tell you why this legislation is important and why preemption is important. one of the mayors conducting the tests in his city said, you know, i'm not sure i'm feeling good about this legislation. we are doing a very successful test in my city right now.

i have zero confidence that when congress gets done the language you develop is going to make it any better for me and what i'm doing right now in my test. so it really speaks to the complexity of the preemption issue. we rightly have struggled, as we should, because as they say, preemption is not something that we should take lightly. and, quite frankly, if this issue was totally transparent, why is it that language in the house went in just a week before the bill went to the house floor, a day before the august recess? i don't know if you know much about washington, but the day before the august recess is something akin to being on a boat in the mediterranean for about three months. people just -- the whole system falls down for that three or four-week period and everybody comes back. then, of course, they put the bill on the floor in the house the day after labor day. which, as you might know,

washington needs at least a couple of days to recover, having been off for at least five or six weeks over the holiday. i put this out to say, if this is such a transparent active, that behavior doesn't follow. it was put on the consent calender, 2/3 majority, no discussion, no debate. we did a preemption of state and local law without any public deliberation on that. so just a remind toer to say -- people know this is complicated. and, of course, at the end of the day one of the great things about washington is two or three years from now when something goes bad, there won't be anybody to point to because no one put their name on it. they can say, i never knew that's what we were doing. so we still have time to get the preemption right. cheri, not the best place for you to be because you have to work through all these things. it's not an easy task. let me just give you a couple of thoughts, particularly about this issue.

why we're concerned. we're the owner-operators of the networks that will warehouse these systems. states tend to run the main large roads. we tend to run the smaller streets and roads and connections to homes. 80% of the road network is owned locally. so we're in this game whether people like it or not. we're also large-scale regulators and large-scale users. you know, auto companies rely on us to purchase a lot of fleets. we do that regularly. with taxpayer money. so we're a big part of the transportation network and the very people who are looking to deploy avs. the prnreason i say all that, w have a 100-year partnership. again, going back to the issue of preemption, it's not as if

we're somebody who is a stranger or out there in some other place, we've worked together closely over time. so i think we should continue to approach that all hands on deck, let's try to get this right for everybody. our citizens expect us to protect them. i think that's an important idea. a lot of us spend a lot of time, it's tough to figure it out, to be truthful, it's getting more complicated. if you look at all the data, what it tells us about the future, the country is still urban easing and it's urb urbaneasing faster than we think. our current economy is coming from metroplex? more goods and demands shipped through airports. more packed ports -- all of those thinks a-- things are coming. what that also means for us is that we're going to be pushing

more people through the same pipe. we won't be able to have as many solar drivers as we get close to more compact dense areas. we'll continue to do walking, biking transit. work at home. all of these pieces of a large complex evasion, quation, we ha push a lot more people, or put a lot more stuff into a five-pound bag. that's what we're looking at on the transportation side. if you're very well-aware of these issues. it's been a challenge. it continues to be a challenge. avs go right at the fact that we don't have a stable system we're dealing with. it's becoming more competitive. there are more people on the curve. one of the reasons new york cares so much about the av issue is in a given day when you go to an intersection in new york, there are 150 people on the curb. i mean, for some places that might be the day's use of a sidewalk.

but 150 in 30 seconds or 15 seconds and those numbers continue to grow. that's why people are anxious about this and why we have to get it right. the other point i would say, too, is -- it is tough to get preemption right, i think i've talked quite a bit about that. the other thing i would say, technology has really been a challenge for us in a lot of areas. i brought along an article which i thing is interesting. i'm not sure if you're aware with some of the business models for why we do things. those of you familiar with uber, you may remember when they originally started, they came into communities and pretended they didn't have ordinances and rules like taxi cabs and stuff like that. they started providing services and then wrote to the commerce and said, hey, your city council members and mayors are crazy, they shouldn't be telling us how to do these things. the headline of a politico article, uber, we're moving away

from antagonistic relationship with cities. i say that to say they selected a business model to say let's use technology to be disruptive and just pretend for a second that cab regulations and things like that don't matter that much. get a business started. once people figure out what we're doing, everyone will be for it. other industries have taken the view, look, we know we're going to need help to get this right, let's use federal preemption, instead of being lawless about it, let's be lawful and get the federal government to do some rules that allow us to do what we want. that's why you see a lot of companies, particularly those that have been in business for a long time adhere to the model of let's have legal certainty. prevention is t prevention -- preemption is the device they select. so that's why we're having this debate on preemption, and we will continue to have it for some time. let me leave you with a couple of quick things we hope to see

in the final bill, you know, and just reminders. one is that the legislation is an opportunity to empower cities and states. as i mentioned, this is our day job, unlike other people who just come in, do it and then move on to a different topic. we are in this business of transport. it's a very vital part of our life. that's how our economies function. we're in for 80% of the road network. state and locals are pushing about $200 billion a year in revenue in building and maintaining these networks. that's a lot of tax money that could be used for other things if people don't think we should do it. we can do a lot of things with money like that. not all of it is user fees, a lot of it is general taxes. this issue of all of a sudden that asset that we spent all that money to acquire basically owned locally and state wide and now subordinate to somebody else who may not be a company that does business in our community today. that's a tough thing to figure

out how to handle. we see some of it in communications, too, we have to get a permit to come and use somebody else's property. what kind of system are you guys running here? well, somebody paid for it for 100 years and maybe you ought to -- by the way, the people that own and operate those systems have to get permits, too. you don't even own anything, you're not even a taxpayer and showing up and saying we shouldn't have to pay, we shouldn't get permits. so there is this technology view of the world is getting a little tricky. so it stresses us to figure out what the answer is. i think some of you know what i'm saying. we also have to figure out how to share data because in the short term, we know that avs are inevitable. so for us learning as much as we can now and beginning to change, you know, we're like the titanic. it's really hard to turn our capital programs and move in different directions. if there are things we need to start doing now to help make avs more successful as an option in the future, we need to know what

that is. data is going to help us do that. there has been a little bit of a deficiency in the debate -- because companies are saying it's proprietary, we don't have to share it. this is all about our advantage over somebody else, but they're doing it in a public space, and so with rules and expectations by people, people who pay taxes locally don't expect to get run down by an av. i've just got to say, that's not why they're in the game. they help things to help augment their life and improve it, but they have reasonable expectations about how things are going to work. finally i would say this, states need to continue to safeguard operations, people. this is an important function that you have had for a long, long time. cities and counties rely on it. and we partner with you on it. and at the end of the day this is all about partnering to get to the very significant opportunities and advantages that this new technology will bring. so thank you so much.

>> thank you so much. being a former mayor, i understand some of the dilemmas that go in. and often times the cities are the last ones. and i appreciate ones. and i appreciate -- everybody's always passing things down, and sometimes cities take the brunt of it. and i guarantee you, if cities didn't build roads or pave roads and use that money for something else, they'd hear something about it, without a doubt. okay. so you all have a great opportunity here. you have four really bashful people who know a whole lot about what they're talking about. and this is a great opportunity to learn and to ask people that are involved in this at the top levels. so we're going to throw it open for questions. and we've got about 35 minutes. and this is your chance. and you don't want me to keep asking the questions. so i'm going to throw it out and we'll see who's got something to ask. right over here, my friend.

and look, we've got a little wand that you can talk into. what are those things that they -- >> i'm with bentley systems, i'll be a devil's advocate. i guess except for china and india, you know, who don't publish if publish fatality rates, 37,000 in 2016, you know, we're not going in the right direction. i didn't hear distracted driving mentioned once yesterday from our distinguished panels, which is a problem we all have. so i know we were -- if we had a king run in the country, we weren't decentralized, these would be easier answers. but as it's pointed out.

we've got to partners to deal with all these issues, and our fatalities. and that's based on specs that we've had for a long time. talk about how we're going to do a better job of this, how we're going to get this right and how we're going to get better. >> yeah, i mean, i think you're absolutely right that, you know, our country and our states are still -- they need to be continue to be involved in kind of the basics, making sure that people wear seat belts, making sure that people that are drunk don't get into cars and drive them. making sure that folks are aware of the dangers of texting and talking on their cell phones.

i think that the manufacturers have done a really good job of building safer vehicles and trying to enhance kind of occupant protection in the event of a crash. and i think that states have done a really good job on kind of education campaigns, enforcement of local traffic laws and kind of traffic safety laws. that needs to continue because we're not going to have 100% fleet of avs overnight. and so for my boss drunk driving is one of his biggest priorities. we are going to continue kind of finding solutions to combat drunk driving. but with all the focus that's been going on in these areas, i think we now have kind of an opportunity to look not just at

occupant protection, but actually crash avoidance. and that's kind of this new area that avs fit into. so trying to make sure that we eliminate the crash, or reduce the severity of the crash. and with 94% of traffic fatalities due to human error, you know, automated systems have like a huge potential to save lives. we're already seeing kind of safety benefits from level one, level two systems, you know, automatic emergency braking, lane tracking. these are systems that are starting to be introduced into cars. consumers, you know, like them. my mom just got a new suv, it's got lane tracking, she thinks it's like the best thing ever.

but she's terrified of avs. hey, that's an automated system, mom. but when people think about self-driving vehicles, they -- like you said, they're nervous. and so there's a tendency to say we need to throw away all the laws on our books and write new ones. actually, i think that when we've started to go through the process of looking at the federal laws, our laws are quite flexible and resilient. some states have found very similar things. we may need to tweak a few things here, a few things there to kind of update them, but the most important thing just making sure that everyone is kind of ready to keep pace with the changing technology and kind of greater transparency so that,

you know, everybody is able to make the decisions that they need to make. >> so much of what cheri i would echo. so i won't do that. when you look at 37,000 fatalities, alcohol speeding seat belt, distracted driving fatalities decreased. that doesn't mean we're done. this has been a major initiative of d.o.t. it means we need to make sure, as we talk about these things, we have to address them ntsa is doing a lot of work. the numbers we have don't fully capture all of the distracted driving related incidents and distracted pedestrian related incidents we face. it does have to be handled in many ways at the behavioral level and the educational level. because i don't think there's any law that you could pass or regulation you could pass that

would tell somebody they can't walk around and look at their phone as they're crossing the street. i don't see a world where that happens. much of it is on working with our state, local and industry partners to push these messages through. some have been very successful. and, again, not to repeat anything cheri said, but some of the industry estimates on even the level 2 automated driving system technologies indicate that we could see a 5,000 fatality reduction in 2025 just with the technologies we have today being integrated into the fleet. so we still have many concerns about some of the infotainment systems and some of the opportunities that are available with futuristic automated driving systems. but i think today, i think today i think we have an appropriate focus on the safety areas. >> anybody else want to comment? more questions. >> i just think i need to follow

up, with all due respect, i think that statement like we're seeing distracted driving fatalities go down, we have to be careful with that. that's an area where data can be perhaps misleading. i don't think we are able to capture data on distracted driving. >> yeah, i appreciate that. i've heard from public arguments. >> missouri d.o.t., particularly as legislative construct is building, i think the point made about data sharing is vitally important as owners and operators of systems at state and local level. a real opportunity here for us is as these vehicles would advance sensor systems that are traveling on these roads, that's a huge amount of data for situational awareness on the condition of the system itself. and we need to make sure that if

we're providing these opportunities for the oems to operate on the systems that data sharing is important. the quicker we can get to, on a reactive basis, modifications to improve conditions, with that situational awareness, the better off we all will be. something to consider that i haven't heard a lot of discussion on yet. so that, i think, is a fertile ground for all of us. >> so as an natural association we don't necessarily have a stated position on that. i will say when we see a state take up a bill on this issue, it is one of the most contentious arguments that happens. and especially contentious amongst the oems ads tech companies and the insurance companies. the insurance companies have significant -- are very interested in this technology. but don't have the historical data on this technology they do,

say, on how human drivers operate conventional motor vehicles. so it's one that is an interesting conversation to watch play out in individual states. >> yeah, i mean, i'll just add that data is probably the number one topic that we heard from from every single stakeholder that we met with. but the challenge has been that each of those stakeholders is asking for different sets of data, different purposes that they plan to use that data, and so kind of figuring out a pathway forward, or kind of a federal fameworamework that cov everybody is still evolving. what we have done in our legislation is the safety evaluation report is meant to provide greater public access to

data, where manufacturers are going to have to explain publicly and to all of you how their system works, how it -- what their cybersecurity protections are, you know, what data is recorded on the vehicle and we were careful not to preempt data sharing so that if you learn that x data is collected by that vehicle, you can go and request it. we've also set up a commission specifically on data ownership and data sharing. that commission is going to have three seats from state and local entities, it's actually the most number of seats that will be on this commission, and it's going to have folks from the insurance companies, rental car companies, fleet managers, and all of these folks are going to start to talk

about how do we -- what kind of data do we want? how do we get access to it? what are we going to use it for? and provide recommendations to the secretary as well to congress in anticipation that we can develop a federal framework for data sharing. but in the near term we think that this is kind of prime area where kind of some more discussion needs to occur. >> i was just going to talk about one of the initiatives the department of transportation is taking, or has been working on, back in december we had a summit similar to what we did yesterday on safety, data for automated vehicle safety. we laid out our principles for how we want to address these things and what we think the right approach is. some of them are start small, build trust, prove value and show that all partners can participate in voluntary data exchanges and everyone can be mutually beneficial. we worked with our partners in

the industry and with safety associations, and our state and local partners to identify the areas where -- that make the most sense to start to move this relationship and the prove the value. what we got was focus first, everybody dprois that using that as an example to show how this can work, and then focus on cybersecurity. and then even with scenario planning with how the vehicles will be tested is the third. now some of those will take longer than the others to work on. in fact, sae today is meeting on how they would talk through scenario planning and testing. first time they're meeting. they're working on it too. some of these are conversations that we've begun, and that are important. and frankly, if anybody hasn't seen it, if you go to transportation.gov/av, you can see our forward support and how we're addressing these issues. it starts by starting small and

proving value. there is value in data exchanges. >> i'm going to back up to the preemption discussion. we've got to have that discussion. and being from one of the states that have passed new bills autonomous vehicles and also platooning taking that major step and doing those kind of things and you've got to pay attention to what's happening in other states and you've got to say california as an example is obviously leading the country in new laws and new things that can happen when now we can -- on april the 2nd you can now have -- i know people are going to freak out when they see that happening, where no one's behind the driver's seat. being a mayor, and kevin, you representing them, and also ben, it trickles down. i know the states are moving quicker. the cities are moving quicker, and they're coming up with new ideas and new technologies. and we all know, you know, that

the federal government moves a lot slower than the states and the cities do as it gets bigger it moves slower. so, you know, what happens when states and cities have come up with good ideas and good proposals and all the sudden this preemption idea comes in, how does that affect all of you all? how do you use the data that's being collected currently from the states and from the cities to put in maybe use that data to help move a bill or a law around? kevin, i want to let you start with that. you're a little passionate about this. >> i agree. let me just say from a certain perspective, you know, technology also has made it possible for people to look at the whole country as one unit. and then take advantage of the economies very quickly because you can go onto a website and on your phone and aggregate a lot of people quickly and make some money. so some of this kind of debate is let's get this national thing worked out so we can get there

faster. and i guess i would just say, you know, let's -- we forget how big this country is and how big our economy is. the new york metropolitan area is equal to the output of mexico. now, if someone came in to me and said, hey, kevin, how would you like to have the sole proprietorship for a business in mexico? i'd say, hey, sign me up, that's a good deal. a lot of people, a lot of money. california is the sixth biggest economy in the world. this economy is close to what belgium is, switzerland is about what chicago metroplex is. these are whole countries. and to say we have to race out and get to 20% of the world economy in the u.s. immediately, you know, if you're air b&b or if you're uber or something, maybe that's how you think about the world. but this one has a little different problem. there will be wheels on the

streets in every community. it's not something that's going to be done on the web. these are real machines working their way down streets and looking at a policeman who all of a sudden overtakes a traffic signal and says, hey, guys, stop, you know, there are things in our system that we -- i have -- i'd say arlington is a great place. but we have this little circle thing that i can't figure out. and my wife and i -- >> he's a man after my own heart. >> we drive together and both of us after all our years of driving talk to each other how to get through it. now, listen, all the years of experience, two of us, by the way, my wife works for the county, it's actually her department that's been trying to figure out what to do, not everything is settled in the system. i think the idea that somehow av is going to come in and just blow through and get us to nirvana that quickly, we could

take more time on the front end to get this right. we have one advantage that preemption isn't going to change. in the world people want to deploy avs here in america because we have a different legal structure than they do in europe. in europe you can only do things that the government lets you do. america tends to be more on the other side which is you can do everything you're not prohibited from doing. that's why a lot of people look at america as a test bed because of that nature, for those of you from states, you know localities can't do anything unless legislature grants. but in other states, you're open to do whatever makes sense given your citizens. that's what, i think, america looks like. that's an enormous advantage whether we have federal preemption or not. people will be doing these deployments. we can't set up -- this is a major shift in how we might do transportation in the future.

we can't hide behind the argument that people didn't know what they were doing. that's not good enough. this needs more debate. our struggle with data is a good example. we can't even get a conversation going. i know they're going to do some things later and figure that out. we're trying to say up front isn't there some ways we can inform us so we can do a better job? at the end of the day that's what we're measured by, how good a job we do. you understand this. you know what's going on out there. if a road is blocked, pete, you're in the service business, and you understand, we get measured by that. i think this av thing has caused some anxiety for some good reason. >> ben, no one hates preemption more than the legislators. why don't you have a comment on that? >> i think it's important to understand that when we talk about preemption, we have to, you know, not only think about the future, but also the present. and states, you know, and will localities are already preempted

on vehicle safety of conventional vehicles. there's preemption that already exists. what we heard from finch and cheri is that in order to allow this technology to continue to advance, it's important to maintain that existing dichotomy. not so that, you know, we want to take something away from states, which -- and localities which is a great message to hear, but that so we can put in place to a certain extent a base level of regulatory certainty. so that this technology can advance. but at the same time we haven't done a full deep dive on, say, how the senate language or how the house language would preempt those states that have enacted bills because just from our resources standpoint until there's an actual law or it looks like a final version, just -- but there are many aspects of what states have done

wouldn't be preempted. on, you know, testing and registration requirements, you know, that's -- those are areas that both the house and senate say they're not trying to take away from states. there are certain aspects that get into the data conversation that might be preempted, but as we heard cheri say, kind of the importance of data sharing is not something they're trying to undo. and so, you know, from our -- from ncsl's perspective it is not only protecting the -- you know authority and rights of our members, but also, you know, when we hear from our members is that they are excited about the benefits of this technology, and, you know, they want to make sure that it can proceed as quickly, but also as safely as possible. and so it's kind of trying to manage, you know, those competing interests, if you will. and so that's why we think, you know, the senate bill does a

very laudable job of, you know, continuing the existing preemption system that we have, or i should say maybe structure rather than system for this, you know, new technology that is still very much in the testing phase and, you know, when it is kind of a deploy technology, i think, is still somewhat up in the air for discussion. >> finch, you want to add? we'll move down the line. >> i'm going to be a little cagey, because i don't think it would be good for my current employment opportunities if i got out in front of the secretary on any stance, or actually from the white house what it would be for any stance. >> we don't care about that. >> that doesn't bother us at all. >> so instead what i will do is i really agree with what ben said and like the way he put it. but i think our respect for the

states' role is apparent when you look at our drone pilot program that we put out there. so there was a lot of debate in congress should there be a federalist approach or preemptive approach on air space on drone integration. our approach was to say there's a lot of work we can do to test this out. we put out a pilot program to allow state and local partners to come together with industry and security, police and law enforcement agencies to put forth proposals for best time place and manner usage of drones in national air space systems. we got a great response from that. and we will be making selections in may on those. but our approach is, there's a lot of progress we can be made without making definitive yes, it's this, or no, it's that. there's a lot of work we can do to prove it out and show the common space in areas of agreement everyone has. maybe it's not a dramatic step that's taken, maybe it's an

iterative approach on how we can agree. >> so i think, you know, given that i work for the u.s. congress, we're always kind of tasked with thinking about federal leadership. and i think in the space of avs, one of the reasons that you've seen so much bipartisanship on this issue is obviously there's the safety benefits, the mobility benefits. but there's also a huge economic benefit. so as, you know, a number of other countries around the world are investing kind of significant attention and investment to the safe testing and deployment of avs, we need to make sure that the u.s. doesn't fall behind. this is going to be a multiple trillion dollar industry. it's not going to happen overnight. but we need to make sure that

right now the jobs and the testing and the investment is occurring in the u.s. but now that we've started to work on legislation, there's been a lot of legislation at the state level, other countries are paying attention and we need to make sure that, you know, that the u.s. remains a leader in innovation so that those jobs continue to occur here. i'll also say that, you know, absence of -- innovation, we're not kind of granting that authority. it already exists. so as long as -- as long as a vehicle complies with all the existing federal motor vehicle safety standards, they can sell it. and as i said earlier, they're a

little bit outdated. so it's not going to be that difficult for a manufacturer to do so. so because of that, you know, we wanted to actually set up, you know, some -- i'll say maybe safety guard rails for the testing and deployment of avs that will occur kind of across the nation. we all understand kind of how limited our states' resources are, and making sure that kind of safety of these vehicles, safety of these systems is considered on the front end will help you to kind of tackle some of the really difficult questions with respect to operation of these vehicles. so i don't -- as some folks have said, and i said earlier, the preemption on our bill

reenforces the existing roles of the federal government versus states and cities, and, you know, the senate happens to be the more deliberative body by its creation. we're a little slower. we had the luxury of going second on this legislation and we are going to continue to work with stakeholders and other offices in the senate to make sure that our bill is improved and that it advances. so we would definitely appreciate support for helping the committee advance this legislation. and if anybody ever has questions about the preemption, feel free to give me a call. >> other questions? >> yes, please. >> i know we talked a lot about the senate bill, and i want to point out ones aspect we have

considering concerns with the house bill. if you've read the legislation, the section on preemption where it carves out specific areas states can regulate, it ends that paragraph, if you will, with unless such a rule, law or regulation is an unreasonable restriction on automated vehicles, ads, technology. obviously that presents a huge issue for us because, of course, it begs the question of what is an unreasonable restriction? i know we've spent a lot of time talking about what we like about the senate bill. i just wanted to point that out on the preemption aspect of the house bill. >> we have time for a couple more. >> a lot of discussion about the data that you want to get into private companies like tncs and the other types of capacity. there's a tremendous amount of data that you have in all your cities, states, governments, the

round about, as we connect vehicles in the round abouts. i drove home from ashville last weekend not great smokies, and the reality is that that local climate area is something you'll have to inform these avs about. they cannot see what they cannot see. when they move into a fog environment or an environment like that, you need to be able to share that data with them. we have to start talking about what data cities and states can provide to the av community so that that's a proactive approach. then maybe you'll get some data from the avs. >> those little roundy things are called roundabouts. >> i'll say i think -- eliminating every signalized intersection in the city.

finally got d.o.t. to show up and make this a priority. so i will say to help, his college roommate was the former governor of the state -- there's 100% eligibility for roundabouts. i think the thing that's hard is when you get to washington, the debate sometimes gets into this patchwork argument, or willy nilliness. i work in communications. my favorite thing always is there is some place out there, i've never heard of. i know a lot of city names and county names. there's some place out there i've never heard of that is going to bring the entire national internet to a stand still. i keep saying, wow, how could this happen, this place i never heard of could be that important? these things get blown so out of proportion when they come into -- i don't hear people saying the mayor of chicago.

when you look at major markets, america runs pretty well most days. but we get hung up on somebody somewhere did something, and all the sudden we have to rush out and use the federal club to beat people in line. and people exploit these things so that they can get to the end point they're looking for. from my vantage point. we've got to clabt aollaborate stay together. we've got to work together as we've done in so many other areas over time to take full advantage of what this new technology means for our mobility, what it means for people who can no longer drive, people personally with disabilities. there are all so many opportunities. the short term, one of the big concerns we have, if i just give it to you, congestion is a growing problem. if you look at the data on how america is growing, we're becoming more urbanized, but it's differential. only certain urban areas within the country that are absorbing

the lion's share of the population, atlanta, dallas, these areas are more congested. they're at the front end of the debate how we operate autonomous vehicles as we try to figure out what another thousand cars every month means on the roads. that's the issue in the short term. we've got congestion issues right now we can barely manage with existing technology and avs not being able to see, blind avs running around, right? causes some people some concern. >> i'll give you the last question. >> thank you. so finch, it was great to hear you talk about the importance of the connected piece, and the av legislation, obviously, setting up guardrails, great, cheri to hear you talk about how we're going to bound this, for the next ten years, before we get to full level five av, we'll have a

mixed fleet environment. the communication component is key. there has been talk of reallocating spectrum, and so is there sort of a strategy that states or cities or others can be pursuing to make sure we're able to preserve that spectrum for its? >> i'm still writing my notes. we've been obviously communicating with the fcc and the ntia. we'd like to be able to communicate more our priorities and what we feel best use of this spectrum is. we have made public statements about our desire to preserve the spectrum for safety purposes and connectivity and all that. there are three studies proposed. fcc has to complete the first study before they can complete the second study in the series of three. the second study is done with d.o.t. a lot of this is going to focus on the best way you can use it is spectrum sharing, an option is the detect and vacate, is that an option? there are a lot of studies that we would like to see move

forward more quickly so that we can really get some of these hard answers and get some of that research out there for the best way to utilize the spectrum, proving value and proving that you will get these benefits is something we've been trying to show the fcc and trying to really emphasize. and ntia. i think it's a blanket. but that process, and i know that you and your organization have been trying to communicate too, but that process, i think, is fundamentally important from all levels to communicate that to the independent agencies, the control spectrum. >> i would make this -- this is a personal pet weapeeve of mine its. we used to have categories and we've mainstreamed. one of the best things you could do is to really work particularly in your urban areas to try to get technology out there now that's been proven. i look at what l.a. does and

what atlanta did with the olympics 20 years ago. there's a lot we can do with its with known technologies. that is part of a behavior and a mind-set that is going to allow us to make progress, i think, faster on the av side. i live in a county where i think the state owns all the roads in the next county and we own them in our county, which is an anonymous situation in most places. when we crossed the line, it took us ten years to figure out how to get the lights in sych. because we've been behind, that would be an area as you look at priorities over the next ten years, make that a higher priority, get people engaged on doing more in the its space. that is really going to help people to get to the point they need to get to faster as we avs

on board. >> that concludes, we're at the 10:00. please give your panelists a hand. so when do we start up next? 10:15? does anybody know? 10:00. 10:15, 10:15 back in this room. c-span's cities tour takes you to shawnee, oklahoma. it was settled by native american tribes. with the help of broad band cable partners, we'll explore

the literary season saturday at noon eastern on book tv, author carol sue humphrey, the american revolution and the press, the promise of independence. >> in the years between the french and indian war and the american revolution, the actual fighting started the newspapers, again, played an important part in letting people know what the arguments were, what the issues were, and also getting them involved in standing up against britain when they were mad about taxes or other issues. >> and then on sunday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv a visit to the citizen potawatomie nations cultural heritage center. >> this particular section of the museum we really highlight one particular removal, what we refer to as the trail of death. it happened the same year as the cherokee trail of tears and we

left our homelands within a few days of each other. this is a particularly heartbreaking and gut wrenching removal. our ancestors who were removed on this particular removal were ones who had refused to negotiate with the federal government. so agents called a treaty council and asked people to meet at what is today twin lakes, indiana. and our ancestors had to walk 660 miles from our homeland in northern indiana to a new reservation in kansas. >> watch c-span cities tour of shawnee, oklahoma started at noon eastern, and sunday at 2:00 p.m. on american history tv on c-span3, working with cable affiliates as we explore america. sunday, on c-span's q&a, politico magazine contributing

editor joshua zeitz talks about his book "building the great society" about the members of president johnson's staff who implemented the great society programs. >> exactly how an administration within the space of 4 1/2 years, 5 years, you know, built all of these programs after they passed congress and he signed them into law, which is where the story normally ends. how did they build medicare and medicaid from the ground up in one year. how did they create programs like head start or food stamps, the antecedents of food stamps and how did they do this while desegregating a third of the country, hospitals, nursing homes, schools, and also fighting a war in vietnam? >> q&a, sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. next, senate intelligence

committee vice chair mark warner talking about russian foreign policy and its attempt to spread disinformation to combat western democracies. his remarks are followed by a discussion on how to counter the threat with a former cia official and a russian journalist. hosted by the carnegie endowment for international peace, this is an hour and a half. good morning, everyone. my name is bill burns. i'm the president of the carnegie endowment. i'm very pleased to welcome all of you today to our launch of our new global russia project. our objective is to bring together carnegie's global network to take a fresh, sober look at the why and how of russia's increasing assertive foreign policy and the implications for us here in washington and around the world. as all of you know very well, this is not an academic issue. every single day, with every new