that's approximately 30 minutes. it could be longer and we do have a number of members who haven't had the opportunity to ask their questions. we will reconvene after a recess for votes that are now being taken.

i want to call the subcommittee to order and resume the hearing. while members are returning, and we certainly have one member here already, mr. auchincloss, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. and i appreciate the patience of our witnesses as we take a break to vote. i want to start by emphasizing points that have been made in different threads by both my colleagues and by some of our witnesses, which is, who needs

to be at the table as we roll out autonomous vehicle technology. with long haul trucking in particular, as mr. bloch, i think you emphasized really quite articulately, the teamsters need to be at the table, whether it's the hub model, whether it's a different model that ends up organizing architecture for an av long haul trucking system, unions, and in particular the teamsters, need to be at the table to make sure we are sustaining, reinforcing, and cultivating good union jobs as we roll out this technology. and then insofar as avs have a place in our cities and maybe they do, maybe they don't, i think we're going to explore that over the next decade, and cities, mayors, and governors really need to be the ones driving that ship because they know what's best for their constituents but insofar as we are rolling out av technology in our cities, i would encourage us all to organize around the premise of walkability.

what makes cities thriving places, what promotes public health, good environmental quality, what helps small businesses, what makes cities more liveable for citizens of all abilities and ages, is walkability, is the infrastructure and the ambiance that promotes walking and cycling. and we do not want an autonomous vehicle future to in any way undermine that. and it may not, it actually may promote it. and i think one way it could do that, as has been pointed out by one of our witnesses, is by reducing the need for parking which has really been a plague of american urban land use for the land 70 years. if we can drastically reduce the amount of parking that's required because of an autonomous fleet, ride share fleet, that would be a good thing, to promote cities' walkability, how they spend infrastructure dollars, how they repurpose public land. one institution that really has

not been brought up to date in this hearing as being an important stakeholder is the property and casualty insurance industry. i would encourage my colleagues and i as well as our witnesses from their varied perspectives to bring in the p&c industry in these conversations. the property and casualty insurance industry has a huge stake in making sure we do this well. they're on the hook for a lot of the safety considerations, financially. they've got tremendous data, sometimes over the course of a hundred years, and at population scale, about what kind of behaviors make for safe driving, what kinds of infrastructure and semiotics make for safe driving. and they really need to be part of this conversation. i would open it up to any of the witnesses to weigh in here about how they have worked with the p&c industry or how they propose we should work with the p&c industry to ensure a safe rollout of a 50 technology.

av technology. >> congressman, if i could respond to your question. >> sure. >> by no stretch of the imagination do i speak for th p&c industry but half of our board of directors is composed of people from the p&c industry, who are deeply devoted to making sure that autonomous vehicles, both cars and trucks, are developed and deployed in a safe way as possible. i also just wanted to comment on your remark about making sure that cities are walkable and bikable. we share that as well, and one of the positions that we have been advocating for are to make vehicles more absorbing, if there is a conflict or a crash

with a car or a truck, especially delivery trucks which are more ubiquitous in some of our neighborhoods, and bicyclists. and my last point on that is, again, the urge for automatic emergency braking, to require that as standard equipment in cars and not as an add-on in a luxury package or only in a high-end vehicle which not everyone can afford, because then it's an equity issue. i've family should be afforded the safest braking system. and that will be to tremendous value of all road users, especially vulnerable road users. thank you. >> thank you, mrs. chase. >> congressman, i can add on from an industry perspective, if that will be helpful. >> yes, very briefly, i'm over time. >> sure. one of the things we've done that is very, very important,

here in pennsylvania we are on a committee along with several other local firms that are walking on self-driving along with insurance companies, so absolutely they need to be at the table. >> madam chair, i yield back my time. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. van duyne. >> i've been called worse. ms. van duyne. >> i'm sorry, ms. van duyne. please forgive me. >> you're fine, you're fine. thank you very much, madam chairwoman. many states such as texas have been leading the charge to provide safe testing while also giving companies the flexibility to run product tests. as we continue to recover from the pandemic, employers struggle to find enough workers experienced slowed economic recovery and are faced with national supply chain disruptions. a regulatory framework is critical for workforce opportunity and domestic growth. the u.s. is home to a dynamic av

industry that provides job opportunities for americans across the country. a regulatory framework for deployment in the u.s. will ensure continued growth. a 2021 u.s. department of transportation found that level 4 and level 5 automation in the long haul trucking industry would raise annual earnings for all u.s. workers by between $203 and $267 per worker per year. the study additionally found that trucking automation would increase total u.s. employment by 26,000 to $35,000 per year on average over 30 years. so mr. bloch and mr. samuelsen, the trucking industry currently needs approximately 80,000 drivers. i have heard this from businesses across the country specifically within texas. this need is expected to double by 2030 and yet in your testimony, you stoke fear of massive job loss and a layoff.

and i've got to be honest with you, you are literally the only observation that i have heard that from and the country and i would be curious, what solutions do you propose to close these gaps, and if you do look toward the future and innovate through advancements in new technology. >> thank you for the question. and i actually -- we are not out running around screaming about a robot apocalypse coming to take jobs in the trucking industry. i don't see it. i actually agree -- >> i agree. >> thank you. i don't go for hyperbole. and quite honestly, we do believe that in some segments of the supply chain, we may see a net job increase. i think that our concerns are more around the quality of jobs. we are doing a big push around

our apprenticeship program here in california to train workers to take these jobs. the big concern is how long people stay in those jobs after we train them. and we don't want to invest a lot in california or anywhere in the country including texas in training workers if it's just going to be a revolving door. and so that's why i tried to tailor our comments to the quality of jobs that we're creating. and i appreciate you raising those issues in your question as well. >> thank you. does anyone else have a comment on how to bridge the gap or the need in the current glut that we've got if not through technology? okay, i'll go on to my next question. north texas is home to a growing av industry. it has more aviation jobs than anywhere in the country. auto pilot requires extensive

program. this increases the efficacy in the industry. why would autonomous technology not do the same thing for road transportation and would your members not benefit from safety and productivity in wage improvements? would your organization welcome the opportunity for folks to program and maintain these systems? >> hi, if i may, and thank you for the question, i have no comment because we're simply not in the trucking industry, where we are in the airlines and public transit and railroads. no trucking. so the question was posed as if somehow that we're opposed to the implementation of technology or the development of technology and the way that that can create jobs. it's simply not the case. what we -- so we're in favor of technology. we've embraced now waves of new technology and the jobs that

that brings into public transit. we just want that technology harnessed in a way that creates and sustains jobs, doesn't have an unnecessary impact on workers, and doesn't jeopardize worker safety or ider safety. so the comments i've made all day sort of connect with the question you're asking, which is that type of innovation is good and we embrace it. we just want good jobs. we don't want workers inadvertently displaced, where if another route was taken in implementing all this, they would be fine. we're good with innovation. we just want good union jobs across america and we want safe jobs. so we do have a disagreement with the use of av in public transit to replace bus operators. we believe it's dangerous. we believe automation should be under the control of a human operator at all times. so thank you. >> thank you. mr. bloch, did you have anything

to add? >> i would say very quickly, because you're out of time, yes. and if there are employers who are turning into this hearing who think there are jobs out there, please call us, please contact us, yes. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you very much. >> ms. bourdeaux, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairwoman norton. and thank you for holding today's hearing. it's clear from the testimony that we're going to see automated vehicle technology increasingly woven into our transportation systems. and it is now our job to ensure that we at all levels of government create safe, equitable and well-researched av policies that maximize the benefits of this technology while also protecting against the risks. my district is home to curiosity lab at peachtree corners which

is a one-of-a-kind living lab and is designed to provide a real world test environment to advance next generation intelligent mobility and smart city technology. during a conversation with the head of curiosity lab in november, he mentioned that vehicles are taking over smartphones as the most connected devices in the world. a key element of safety, of course, is ensuring that these highly connected technologically reliant vehicles will not be hacked or remotely controlled and one of the things that they are testing there is cybersecurity. so i just wanted to talk about that a little bit and starting with ms. chase, in your testimony you list cybersecurity standards. could you fill us in and talk a little bit about the current cybersecurity requirements for autonomous vehicles and are there additional standards or things we need to be thinking

about to ensure their safety? >> thank you, congressman. i greatly appreciate the question. and you're completely correct that [ inaudible ] cybersecurity and having a minimum standard is [ inaudible ]. i'm not going to claim to be a cyber expert by any stretch of the imagination so i can't get granular into the details of that other than to say we have deep concerns because we have already seen hacking and weaponizing some vehicles that have advanced technologies in them to the detriment of pedestrians and road users. so it's a concern of ours. and the tenets was really a collaborative process as i mentioned earlier with approximately 60 stakeholders representing a myriad of organizations. and we listened to everyone and we created this living document, if you will, that we hope the committee and the subcommittee will use as a foundation to -- for future legislation.

>> thank you. mr. wolf, do you have any thoughts on this? i know you talked about a similar issue earlier. >> absolutely, congresswoman, thank you so much for the question. cybersecurity is a challenge which is one that's not limited to the av industry, of course, but for the automotive sector, and of course the economy writ large in all sectors. and so the av developers/manufacturers, they build in cybersecurity by design up front. it's something of paramount importance at the outset. as we look ahead to ways in which the av industry and the auto sector writ large can address cybersecurity vulnerabilities, we look at a robust, risk-based approach as the best way to address that and happy to work with stakeholders on that process going forward. >> thank you very much. just sort of building on that, and back to you, mr. wolf, are

there things we should be doing in congress to talk more about cybersecurity protections or build out standards? should we be focused on software requirements, workforce, infrastructure? what kind of things should we be thinking about as we move forward with trying to find ways to support the deployment of these technologies? >> i appreciate the question. ultimately i would be happy to respond to you in writing with some of the more specifics here. risk-based approach is intended on looking for what are those risks and vulnerabilities and how can there be a framework that is able to adapt over time rather than enact specific provisions and have a static kind of check the box exercise. that's the exercise that's important for this kind of policy and i know that, again, across different sectors, i believe it was the national institute for standards and technology has a framework for cybersecurity. and a number of other measures

can be adapted and applied in this context. and again, very happy to follow up in writing on that. >> okay. thank you very much. i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. representative jimenez. mr. jimenez? representative lamafa. >> thank you, madam chair, i'm here, mostly. thank you for convening today's hearing. i had a few thoughts on what's going on here in rural california.

and the effects of legislation on people that were providing lyft and uber services and tying that back into what av vehicles might be able to provide in our rural area. excuse my illness here today, i'm at home. and so i'm taking it easy here. my rural district in northern california, lyft was performing rides late at night, which might entail people that have had too much to drink or other purposes, but certainly drunk driving and drowsy driving is something we want to avoid. in the state of california, of course, a bill passed called a.b. 5, it's the -- the pro act in dc is being modelled after that. they were trying to classify lyft and uber drivers as employees of companies, actually

they really do have in their own way autonomy, to set their own hours and their own workplace, et cetera. so the voters to california overturned that portion of a.b. 5, the initiative process, a referendum to say that had gone even too far over the line. and so what we're looking at is can -- and so rural areas are especially affected by less choices with these types of uber and lyft operators, you know, it's just -- you know, as you can surmise, there's just going to be less people operating at the hours versus when you're in washington, dc, et cetera. so it's harder to compete for rural folks like that. and so if we find that they still can't compete because of

the effects of a.b. 5 or pro act coming through, then, mr. beuse and mr. wolf, what can autonomous vehicles provide, do you think, in rural settings like we're talking about here, very rural, you know, many miles between towns, et cetera? >> yes, congressman, did you for the question. i think you point out at the macro level sort of an issue with regulations that sometimes kind of go the wrong way. specific to avs, for example, when you look at the use case, i live, for example, i wouldn't consider myself necessarily rural, but it can take, let's say, a half hour to get an usual an uber or a lyft out there. av can balance that, that part of the population that doesn't get the magic of the service, as

dara would say, are better served by something like an autonomous vehicle operating on the network. i think the issue is larger, though, right? the issue right now we have is in some states it's not clear. for example, in california, it's a flat-out prohibition on the testing and deployment of autonomous trucks. so until that gets fixed, we can't even start to address some of the issues that you're talking about with respect to trucking. but one of the things we have to do is work closely with not just other industry partners but also the government partners to kind of really encourage a more future-looking view and not trying to lock down things from what we know today. having regulated at the federal level for a while, rulemakings are challenging.

and this is exactly i think the point i was raising earlier around, we really need a more flexible approach here and for d.o.t. to continue the rulemaking -- >> let's bear down on the rural aspect. we're talking long, long stretches of two-lane road, highway, even turning down a dirt road, perhaps, for certain -- certain -- whether we're talking deliveries or, you know, an uber or lyft situation, autonomous vehicle, how do you see it applying that well to areas that just have less infrastructure of markers or, you know, signs or whatever you would use as an autonomous vehicle to tie into that? >> yes, exactly, those are challenges that we have to solve within the operational design domain or the area we're going to go into. i point out, you know, part of our mission at aurora is to deliver this technology not just safely, not just quickly, but broadly. we believe there's a huge, huge impact, far beyond our imaginations on what this

technology could deliver. certainly rural america is part of that. i grew up in a very rural part of town. we have one stoplight, so i can relate. >> okay. the time has flown by. thank you. i yield back, madam chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. ms. strickland, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairwoman norton and ranking member davis. as we consider the direction of this emerging technology, i know my constituents back home in the washington 10th congressional district want to see transportation developments that can improve their daily lives and also have a focus on equity. they also want to know they'll be safe and secure on our nation's roadways. as we've heard today, there is evidence that avs have the potential to reduce roadway deaths and injuries and with 2021 being the deadliest year for motorists in washington

state in 15 years i'm glad the subcommittee is exploring these possibilities so i have two questions one for mr. wolf in the industry and this is more a conversation about messaging. could you briefly talk to our constituents and people who may be hesitant or not quite certain or nervous about av deployments around the country and what should be the big takeaway for people outside of our bubble? >> thank you so much, congresswoman, for that question. the simple and straightforward answer is that the data is clear. autonomous vehicles are not only safe but they're making our roads safer. there is a crisis on our roadways that's been discussed a number of times in this hearing. and it cannot be stated enough. and the number of crashes and severe -- fatalities and severe injuries continues to go up at an alarming rate and the overwhelming majority of those,

there is a contribution of human behavioral issue, whether it's distracted driving, drunk driving. those are the numbers. and it's a big problem. so autonomous vehicles, the industry that we represent and the members of our association are designing technology that will address that specific issue and that will have a dramatic impact on safety in conjunction with many other solutions that were put forward by secretary buttigieg and the national roadway safety strategy. so first and foremost, this is about improving safety not just of other drivers on the road but vulnerable road users as well. bicyclists and pedestrians across the whole gamut. that's the key thing. i would just very quickly enumerate the other benefits. with respect to equity, the ability to enhance and expand mobility for individuals with disabilities and with respect to economic growth, there are tremendous benefits that accrue

to society as a result of the deployment of avs and what we're looking to do is build out a national framework to scale that deployment in a way that brings those benefits to the greatest number of people as possible. >> great. well, thank you very much. now i would like to turn to vice mayor pro tem castex-tatum. i'm a former mayor myself. i appreciate that you're here today. on a local level what specific infrastructure investments have been needed in your city as you try to prepare for this deployment? and the second part, tell me how you've done this through the lens of equity as a leader. >> thank you for that question. i can speak from the pilots that we've had here in houston. with the pilot that we had at texas southern university in conjunction with metro, we had a shuttle that was riding on the campus of texas southern university. and that was phase 1. we're working in phases. phase 2, we are looking at going

off-road between two universities. so as we work through each of the phases, we are hoping to gather more data so that we can make sure the infrastructure works alongside of the autonomous vehicles. with our work with neuro, which is delivering for businesses, we've seen transportation become less of a barrier for some of our lower economic communities. specifically during our time with covid, neuro was able to deliver senior boxes to apartment complexes in one of our poorer areas in the city of houston, one of our complete community areas, one of the areas where residents need assistance with getting groceries. so we see the opportunity for these autonomous vehicles to really help the quality of life for some of our residents who can't drive to the store because

they don't have a car or some of our differently abled constituents to get their prescriptions delivered. so we see this as a new and innovative way for us to meet the needs of our residents and really improve their quality of life in cities. >> great, thank you, madam vice mayor. madam chairman, i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. ms. napolitano, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman norton. my statement would be that it's going to create quite a bit of confusion, people seeing driverless cars and trucks. so we've got to be sure that we -- because that's going to be a tremendous -- well, traffic safety hazard. but i have a question for mr.

bloch. i agree with your testimony regarding the concerns over the misclassification of truck drivers and i have met with some of the drivers in southern california that work 14 plus hour days, make below minimum wage with no benefits, because of forced independent contractor status. the state of california has been trying to crack down on these companies but the government needs to step in and do more. i authored a provision in the bipartisan infrastructure bill that creates a federal task force to study the problem and create policies to address the problem. secretary buttigieg recently announced a plan to formulate a federal task force. what do you think the government can do to address this problem? >> thank you very much. and this has been a problem the teamsters union have been combatting for the last 40 plus years since the deregulation of trucking. prior to that, 90% of the truck drivers in the united states made good wages, working under a

teamster contract. and i wish that was still true today. you know, i can speak to the california experience that mr. lamalfa mentioned which came out of a court ruling against a package delivery company using independent contractors that competes with ups, one of the largest private sector employers in his district. an ups driver makes $100,000 a year in california on average, has fully paid family health insurance and a pension. and it doesn't matter if you have a criminal background or just a high school education, you can get that job. the california law that passed and the portions of the pro act that deal with misclassification came out of a court case involving a company that was competing with ups and undercutting those good wages. and that is the issue that's

happening within the trucking and transportation industry in the united states. and so -- >> the federal government do to make it better to address it? >> so having a task force to look at misclassification is very important. the new abc test, the provisions in the pro act that mr. lamalfa mentioned, is a test in many states in the united states. it's the most stringent test to address the classification of workers. >> thank you very much. mr. samuelsen, i want to thank the transport workers union for working with me on a provision in the bipartisan infrastructure bill that improves transit safety program with bus driver protection and blind spot removal requirements. how can technology help drivers with blind spot issues and general safety issues? >> thank you for the question.

in terms of blind spots on buses, it is a fact that buses in the united states, across every transportation district, every transit provider, bus operators are ordered to go through pedestrian right-of-way areas to maintain schedule on buses with blind spots. that is a bit of a disaster waiting to happen. and it's an example of where technology has such an extremely positive place in terms of collision avoidance and that type of thing in order to protect pedestrians, protect riders, and protect the operator. and so technology does have its place. and i'm sorry, you asked a second question and i forget what that one was. >> well, to help drivers with a blind spot because if they implement it in the avs, then it

solves a problem that might work -- i don't know what technology can do to avoid having a blind spot to help prevent accidents. >> oh, absolutely. the technology -- our position essentially across the entire spectrum of this conversation is that the technology should be utilized to increase safety, to increase service reliability, increase state of good repair where that's applicable, and all synergistically working with a bus operator. we believe that's the safest outcome, a bus operator being in control of the automation, a bus operator that can pull a switch and end a dangerous situation if one is arising. but yet utilizing the technology to improve safety and improve service delivery. >> thank you, sir.

[ inaudible ]. >> i thank the gentlelady. >> thank you, madam chair, thank you to the witnesses who are here today, thank you for your time and your testimonies. from passenger to commercial vehicles there is no doubt that autonomous vehicles will become integrated into our transportation system in the coming years. congress must begin preparing now to legislate in a way that optimizes economic benefits, prioritizes safety and avoids job displacement. i am interested in learning how congress can support the growth and deployment of avs but also what we should be considering when it comes to safety regulations and ensuring transportation workers have a place in this workforce. mr. samuelsen, you note that the department of transportation, d.o.t., innovation principles will put job creation and

workers at the center of the innovation development process. elements of these principles include forging partnerships with the private sector while protecting interests of the public, workers, and communities. how can congress promote partnerships with the private sector and local communities in ways that facilitate support for workers by expanding access to skills and how can these partnerships wrap around ongoing deployments and pilots to develop and build training models? >> right. so thank you for the question. the federal government plays a vital role from workforce development to -- and across a whole wide array of other necessities as we go into the future of public transit. the federal government, as the federal government doles out money to providers, we have to

make sure they're doing everything you said, both in terms of investing in workforce development so workers aren't left behind and also involving communities that workers live in and the decisions on what public transit will look like going forward. and you said, i believe you said a couple of times about the deployment of automated vehicles in public transit and again, we would be adamantly opposed to that and it's not just about the degradation of jobs which is bound to come despite what, you know, some people might put forth about how this is going to be a job creator. when you talk about automated vehicles, automatically what that's going to lead to is the degradation of -- or the diminishment of bus operator jobs. and we're opposed to that on a whole bunch of levels. the main one is that service delivery and public transit delivery is about more than the amount of buses you put out, it's about service quality and service reliability and we believe that innovation

technology is best utilized, as i said before, in conjunction with a human operator. technology used to augment the safe operation of buses, augment service reliability, augment scheduling to ensure that service delivery is at the highest level it can be for our riders. thank you. >> thank you. vice mayor castex-tatum, it is exciting to hear about the successes of pilot programs in houston. how did houston work with the industry to implement these programs safely and equitably? >> well, i will tell you that neuro came to us with their pilot and their bots and we met with them. we had an opportunity to also introduce their product to the community. we introduced them to the law enforcement officers in our community so that once they started to see these bots on the roads, if there were any problems or concerns, they would know how to interact and who to

contact. so, you know, i say it all the time, government can't do this work alone. these public/private partnerships are extremely important for us to make sure we are meeting the needs of our constituents and really doing our best to try to make their quality of life better. so we're excited about the opportunity to bring services directly to people's homes and also to provide shared services to help get one person out of one car. and we think that the autonomous buses will allow us to get some cars off the road and move more people at the same time so that we won't all be sitting in traffic all the time. >> should other cities wish to implement similar programs, what lessons can be learned from houston? >> i think it's important that they start piloting with companies like neuro and transit

authorities like metro. we learn as we pilot and gather data. that's why, as the national league of cities, we are asking for federal partnerships, for more testing in more places so that we can provide more data and get more avs to have some regulated safety standards. so my suggestion would be keep piloting. >> thank you. i'm out of time. i yield back. >> thank you very much. next we have mr. moulton for five minutes. i recognize you, mr. moulton. >> thank you, madam chairwoman, thank you to the witnesses for sticking this out. i know this is a long time but we're grateful for your wisdom on this incredibly important issue. professor larco, if i may start with you, emotional, which is an av company headquartered in

boston, testing their technology looks different in massachusetts than it does in nevada or at least that's how i understand it so states essentially are being burdened with the absence of clear federal guidance. beyond the burden individual states and communities like nevada and massachusetts, what does this cost with regard to our national priorities to not have these federal standards? >> dutch for the question. i think you're absolutely right that a lot of the deployment of avs are actually -- it's a local issue, right, and a lot of things that i talked about before, some of these ramifications, cascading impacts, are really growing affecting different communities differently and there needs to be some control at the local level to be able to respond to these things. the conversation that we've had so far, uh, it's fantastic to hear, uh, the issues around safety and labor but, uh, i guess one of the main points is that that is not the only questions that are important for av deployment we really need to be working at the local level to

be able to answer some of these things. to answer your question about the role of the federal government, i would say what's really important is that the federal government actually does many of the things we've been talking about here, help support pilots and help support, uh, research on these topics and support cities but making sure that it's not only about safety and about the technology itself but really looking at these cascading impacts. >> to follow on on that, mr. wolf, look, the u.s. can be first in market wide av deployment or we can cede that leadership to countries like germany, allies, or competitors like china. how will the u.s. market and efforts to create a federal framework be impacted if we don't act first, if china sets the rules of the road for avs? >> thank you so much for the question, congressman. i think it's a critical issue that i don't think we've discussed enough today, and that is, american leadership in this technology. america is the birthplace of

autonomous vehicle technology and in many respects it's got the largest amount of investment and we are -- we're the leader in that technology. where our edges are eroding is in the regulatory framework component. the national framework piece is a critical aspect of being able to scale the technology. and in that respect, the countries that you mentioned and others are catching up and being able to allow technology to scale and deploy there. so the biggest thing that needs to happen from the industry's perspective and i think from a lot of -- it sounds like from the perspective of a number of folks is actually we need to proceed without delay to enact this national framework that has a couple of components. the way we structure it is really two pieces. it has to be able to enhance consumer and public trust in the technology. that's first and foremost. that comes from completing a number of rulemakings that nhtsa

has under way and the safety administration has under way and a number of other initiates that can help on that front but the second part and they must go hand in hand is to maximize deployment of technology. the vice mayor is correct. one of the key things that comes from being able to scale a technology in the interim while rulemakings are in process is the information that regulators and policymakers can get from being able to deploy the technology, raise the exemption caps, being able to put new and different kinds of vehicles on the road in the interim, that's critical. we have to maximize deployment to keep that position, that leadership position. >> just following on that, specifically on your first point about consumer trust, i hear a lot of concerns from constituents, from technology experts, most concerningly from some artificial intelligence experts, about the degree of trust that drivers currently place in their teslas. so a rather technical question

but why is level 3 and above automation different than what teslas are using on the road with us today? and do you think these technologies are safe? >> i appreciate the question, congressman. i think the key thing there is that the av industry association, we represent level 4 and above. and that's the -- the distinction is critical, because level 4 and level 5 autonomous vehicles do not have any -- they're not designed to have nor do they have any expectation of a human involvement in the performance of the driving task. >> right, but a lot of humans today read the newspaper behind their tesla. so there teams to be an expectation that they don't need to do anything. that's a problem. >> to that exact point, congressman, tesla is not a level 4 or level 5 technology. it's a driver assistance technology. as we were discussing earlier, it's very important, to your point, sir, that we are very clear about what the differences between those technologies are so that consumers are not confused and engaged in dangerous activity with driver

assist technology that when they assume it's autonomous vehicle technology. those things -- they're different industries, different business models, different technologies. all of it needs to be separated very clearly. and we welcome the dialogue and working with other stakeholders to do that. >> thank you. and thank you, madam chair, for giving me a little more time. clearly there's work the federal government needs to do in this regard. so thank you. i yield back. >> of course, had moulton. ms. williams, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair and i want to thank all of the witnesses here today that are testifying for sticking it out for us, for waiting to the votes. when you get to a freshman member whose last name starts with "w," you know you're in the home stretch and it's almost time to go home. so thank you, thank you. when they say congress writes the rule of the road, that's usually just an expression, except on the highways and

transit subcommittee because we really do write the rules of the road and had our job is to be sure we're writing correctly while centering safety, workers, and innovations simultaneously. when it comes to writing the rules of the road for automated vehicle technology this is no different and we must center transportation workers and the people who rely on transportation systems every day. vice chair castex-tatum, in your testimony you highlighted the importance of achieving zero fatalities on our roads. what role do you see automated vehicle technology playing in achieving that goal and how can congress start writing policy and preparation for automated vehicle technology that prioritizes safety for both motorists and pedestrians? >> thank you for that question, representative williams. zero is the only number that makes sense for us with fatalities on the road. nlc's position is we are

recommending more pilot partnerships with our cities. that way we can have more testing in more places, more climates, more areas, our rural areas, our areas that are urban. we need more data so that autonomous vehicles can get their own safety standards. until we have more information i think that we will need to do more testing, more piloting, so that you can write the rules that would be equitable across the country. >> thank you. and last week, i took the time to speak with state and local elected official in my district about many of the programs and opportunities that exist in the bipartisan infrastructure law. one of the programs that garnered interest was the safer streets and roads for all program which funds projects aimed at reducing traffic fatalities. vice mayor, i'm going to get it right this time, vice mayor castex-tatum, how can a critical program like that support projects that both advance

responsible technology and reduce traffic fatalities? >> we definitely want to take the human error out of the fatalities that are happening on our roads. and we feel like autonomous vehicles is that opportunity that can take that can take that human error out of the numerous number of crashes happening on our roads. the sensors on these autonomous vehicles have shown that they are stronger than the human eye. the vehicles can react faster than a human. this technology is very innovative, however it's still very premature and still needs to be more piloting and more data collected so that we can do all of this innovation safely and make sure we are protecting the public's trust. >> in your testimony, you mentioned collecting bargaining

principles at every stage of automated vehicle development including researching, testing and implementation, can you elaborate on this and how these principles can be limited on each step of technology development so researchers have a seat at the table every step of the way? >> yes, and thank you for the question. so as the technology comes in and what needs to be done, definitely, which has been referenced many times here today is the federal government needs to set up a frame work that protects jobs, doesn't allow a situation where transit providers implement technology in a blind-sided manner that eliminates workers. so the federal government has an ability to compel transit operators, transit employers to engage in work force development investment and also to engage with community and see workers in such a way where impact on

worker and see neighborhoods themselves are discussed well ahead of time, well ahead of the time of implementation and those things are happening now, where workers have powers for that to happen, for instance in new york where that's a very common element of the tw contracts we have in new york, but federal government still has to adopt as a uniform standard so it happens city after city, transit provider, transit provider and on. >> thank you, my policy-making also centers on those most marginalized and building a transit system that exists for all is always a top priority for me on this committee. i do have additional questions i can submit on the record, madam chair, i yield the balance of my time. >> thank you, your time has expired. >> no time to yield. >> mr. stanton, you are

recognized five minutes. >> thank you very much madam chair for holding this important hearing and thank you to each of the witnesss for your important testimony today. arizona and my district in particular has been at the epicenter for testing of autonomous vehicles, in chandlor, a fulling driverless vehicle as part of its service, in scotts dale, neuro and crews operating multiple deliveries, and completed a first autonomous semitruck on the road between phoenix and tucson. autonomous vehicles have the ability to improve barriers on transportation, reducing vehicle crashes and deaths and increasing productivity, at the same time, we have to recognize avs have the potential to alter

our workforce. we want to keep as many people employed as possible. as congress continues to consider the federal role of testing and employment of avs, it will be important for this committee, and all of the entities represented by the witnesss for this committee today to have a seat at the table, my first question is for the vice mayor. i'm a former mayor myself, i come from the city world, former mayor of phoenix. i think first-hand, leadership at the local level is key to fostering innovation. what are your thoughts about what the federal government can do to support and collaborate with cities in av testing and development. >> again, i'll reiterate the importance of piloting with the cities. we want to see partnerships with cities that create more testing, in more places, providing more data, and really working to get autonomous vehicles their own safety standards.

>> thank you very much. my next question is for mr. marlor, there are many public places and public and private stake holders involved in av development. your testimony calls for federal leadership to help direct the conversation regarding avs. what role can the federal government play to help facilitate the deployment of avs to meet community needs. >> thank you for that question. in iowa we've convened a public/private multisector vision for avs and created a space in this via the iowa automated transportation council, we've done this among our 10 midwestern states and it's our view we need to replicate these types of engagements at the national level and establish a clear, consistent vision, strategy and framework. there is sufficient, across the nation in terms of this

conversation, fragmented, we call silos of excellence. congress can foster this development at all levels of government, we believe you can convene in new national dialogue and conversation, engaging a broad cross section for input, including local communities both public and private, and also there are some great collaborative efforts already underway that support like the cooperative automated transportation coalition so those are thoughts how we might meet communities. >> thank you, this is for yourself and who may answer. significant fatalities happen on rural roads, and there's a lack of features to accommodate them in rural parts of the country. what should be done for rural america for the expanded use of avs? >> i'd be happy to start with an answer to that question and thank you for that question.

really, two thing that we're looking at. first is we do need to look at our principle infrastructure and make sure we have good conditioned pavements, our signs, lane markings, that these things are in good conditions in rural areas especially but the investment can still be challenging. our rural areas do struggle to have the available levels of funding to ensure they're making those stewardship investments they need. the second thing we can do is really an emphasis on digital infrastructure, really looking at broadband in particularly rural areas, looking at mapping, connectivity, spectrum, this is why the spectrum question is so critical. these two components, both physical and digital for rural areas really have the opportunity to lift our rural communities across our nation. >> very much, short time left, any other witness want to take -- >> yes, i'll chime in here from an industry perspective. two points you raised. one, we find a lot of value in

the convening power both at a state level like congress is doing today but also at usdot level to bring stake holders together, i don't know in a we've done enough with that lately on these particular issues. part of our mission is to deliver this technology broadly, you look at some of our locations now they are considered what would be rural america and i think we need to keep that in the conversation as well, be many of the past highways that cut through are rural in nature and there's a lot of needs that should probably be considered, again, to support the efficiency and effectiveness of the roll-out. >> all right. i've run out of time here so i'll have to yield back but i'd love to get a later time, maybe a separate conversation with our representatives of organized labor about this and thought on that as well. i'll yield back. >> thank you very much. i would like to thank each of the witnesses for your testimony

today. pu can see by how many members came back after the votes to ask questions that this was an important hearing in our committee today. your comments, you have testified today have been very informative and helpful. i ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing remain open until such time our witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in writing. i also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and information submitted by members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's hearing. without objection, so ordered, the subcommittee stands adjourned.

>> c-span is your infiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more including buckeye broad band. buckeye broad band supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> now available for preorder in the c-span shop, c-span's 2022

congressional directory, go there to order a copy of the congressional directary, this compound spiral-bound book is your guide to federal government with information on every member of congress, including bios and committee assignments, contact information for state governors and the biden administration cabinet. preorder your copy today at c-span shop.org or scan the code with your smart phone. every purchase helps support c-span's nonprofit operation. >> cq roll call hosted a conversation on the senate filibuster, its origins and how it evolved over the years to recent efforts to eliminate and limit its use. >> i'd now like to invite our panel to introduce themselves. joining us today, neils, cq senior writer and molly reynolds, senior fellow government studies, brookings,