committee assignments, also contact information for state governors and the biden administration cabinet. preorder your copy at c-span shop dot worg. every purchase helps support c-span's non-profit operation. a house transportation subcommittee held a hearing on the use of automated vehicles. lawmakers heard from state official, union representatives and safety advocates. they answered questions about several topics including safety concerns, environmental impact and infrastructure needs. [inaudible conversations]

>> good morning welcome to the subcommittee on the future >> good morning and welcome to the subcommittee on highways and transits hearing on the future of automated vehicles known as avs. i must say i'm particularly interested in this hearing, fascinated because it gets us well beyond roads and bridges. today we will examine the effects of the adoption and deployment of avs on roadway safety, infrastructure, and the commercial driving workforce. we will also consider this committee's role and responsibility overseeing av

deployment to ensure that the highest possible safety standards are met and that all americans have access to high quality family wage transportation jobs. automatic vehicles are on the cusp of transforming our transportation system. avs including commercial trucks and buses are those in which at least some aspect of safety critical control function occurs without direct driver input. some can themselves perform all driving tasks and monitor their driving environment. this technology presents both opportunities and threats. nationwide, we are experiencing a startling rise in

fatalities among drivers and other road users. avs have the potential to drastically reduce deaths on our roadways by reducing traffic crashes caused by human behavior. still, safety benefits must be carefully weighed against risks. especially when deployed commercial and passenger carrying avs. we have seen disastrous consequences when automation technology is deployed haphazardly. to maximize the road safety impact of avs, we must ensure these technologies are held to the highest possible safety standards. such standards must consider the safety of all road users when to act with avs, including pedestrians and cyclists and those who scoot and use wheelchairs, which is especially critical in urban areas like my own district of columbia. avs must be integrated into a

system in a manner that respects america's commercial driving workforce. avs could significantly improve working conditions for commercial drivers and increase on the job safety, but eliminating the need for a human driver could also result in a widespread job displacement if the needs of workers are not prioritized at the outset. employer transparency, comprehensive regulations and oversight of av deployment will be required to create and preserve high quality family wage jobs and good working conditions for americans whose livelihoods depend on driving. thank you to each of our witnesses for being here and offering your unique and much-needed insights for this subcommittee.

i look forward to a lively discussion and hearing what our committee can do to maximize the benefits that avs aim to deliver. i ask unanimous consent that the chair be authorized to declare a recess at any time. without objection. i also ask unanimous consent that members not on the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee in today's hearing and ask questions without objection. as a reminder, please keep your microphone muted unless speaking. should i hear any background noise, i will ask that the member please mute the microphone. to assert a document into the

record please have your staff email it to documentsti@mailhouse.gov. now i am pleased to recognize my good friend the ranking member mr. davis. >> thank you, chair norton. and before i begin with my opening comments, can i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record comments from the national association of mutual insurance companies? >> so ordered. >> thank you. and we will e-mail it too. follow those instructions. i want to welcome everyone to today's hearing along with chair norton on automated vehicles. avs offer the opportunity to not only transform the automotive trucking and transit industries, but it will also transform our nation as a whole and solve many of the challenges that we face. as you know, the subcommittee has jurisdiction over large

trucks and buses. employing automatic mated technologies on trucks and buses will have economic and societal implications that we believe will benefit every american. most importantly, incorporate ing this new technology will save lives. the national highway traffic safety administration estimates 38,680 people died in motor vehicle accidents in 2020 and expects fatalities to increase in 2021. according to the department of transportation, 94% of serious crashes are due to driver error. because avs are expected to anticipate dangers and mitigate or remove human error from the chain of events that lead to a crash, av technology would increase safety and save lives. in addition, avs could revolutionize mobility and make the transport of goods and people safer, easier, cheaper, more efficient and more accessible. av technology could improve mobility for vulnerable groups,

including the elderly and those with disabilities, connecting them with jobs and services and allowing them to live independently. in addition the resulting freight transportation efficiencies could reduce the cost of goods for consumers. in the long-term, provide solutions to some of the supply chain bottlenecks that americans currently experience today. all these benefits are compelling and must recognize the potential impacts of av technology and what they could have on our workforce. we need to implement pro-worker policies because av deployment made lead to fewer professional driving jobs, we need to incorporate training programs to upskill our workforce so they can take advantage of new jobs that avs will create. today transit agencies and trucking companies are partnering with technology firms to test avs. our future depends on what we do now. we need to have a clear regulatory structure in place to be able to continue to support av innovations and its

eventual deployment. we need to take the steps necessary to ensure that america cements its leadership in the av space. with that, i want to thank our witnesses for joining us today and i look forward to hearing their testimony. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. davis. i am now pleased to yield to the # chair of the full committee for any opening statement he may have. >> thank you, madame chair. thank you for holding this very important hearing. thank you to all the witnesses. since there are so many witnesses and there is a lot to learn, i will be very brief. the challenges that are proposed -- obviously, there is tremendous promise with avs with already a number of those aspects of those promises have been mentioned. i won't repeat those. but it's also a tremendous challenge to regulators. to regulate a rapidly evolving

technology to be certain that the public is -- all public interests are included in the development, the deployment and operation of these vehicles, it's going to be an extraordinary challenge for the federal regulators. i shouldn't be done state by state. we need some reasonable guidelines federally. we have to get it right. unregulated, we saw what happened with boeing and the max. we don't want that to happen with avs. i just read a report today and i think it was the post that there were 34 unexpected and unnecessary severe braking incidents in teslas last month. didn't lead to any major accidents yet, but it certainly could. so there are potential down

sides to this technology as it is being deployed and developed. we have to stay on top of that. it also presents challenge to our infrastructure. that these avs use different ways of basically centering themselves on the road. if you don't have good striping, if you don't have fog lines, if you don't have regular signage, it's going to be a much more problematic deployment and rollout ultimately. so we have to get it right we have to realize the promise. we can mitigate congestion, mitigate deaths, and be a more efficient nation in terms of fuel consumption. there's a whole host of benefits just waiting out there. we just have to get it right as we move toward them. thank you, madame chair. >> thank you chairman defazio.

i'd like to now welcome today's witnesses on our panel. the honorable martha, vice mayor and city council member for houston, texas, testifying on behalf of of the national league of cities. mr. scott marlin, director of our department of transportation testifying on behalf of the american association of state highway and transportation officials. mr. john samuelson, international president transportation workers union of america. ms. katherine chase, president advocates for highway and auto safety. mr. nat beuse, vice

president of safety aurora, mr. doug block, political director for joint council, mr. larco, professor and director of urbanism, next center university of oregon. mr. wolf, general council opt -- autonomous vehicle industry association. thank you for being here today. without objection, our witnesses' full statement will be included in the record. since your testimony has been made a part of the record, the subcommittee requests that you limit your oral testimony to five minutes. first ms. castex-tatum, you may

proceed. >> good morning, chair norton, chair defazio, ranking member, and members of the subcommittee. i am houston's vice mayor pro tem on the southwest side of houston. i'm here today on behalf of the national league of cities to discuss our experiences with piloting autonomous vehicles. zero is the only acceptable number of deaths on america's roads. today we are losing far too many of our residents to dangerous roads in houston and across this country. and efforts to reduce fatalities must include every possible strategy, including autonomous vehicles. cities handle most aspects of public transportation, and that experience and authority equips us to see both the opportunities and challenges to these new types of transportation. we are aiming to create the right environment of share, safe, connected av transportation options that will better serve our residents and meet our goals as a city.

in houston, piloting the testing of avs started with our metro transit agency and their self-driving shuttle at texas southern university on their tiger walk across campus. they are now ex-panding to on road options between two universities. av buses and researching better transit options. my district was one of the first three areas in houston where niro launched zero occupant avs for commercial service delivery using lower speeds and smaller lightweight vehicles. these avs pull right up to your home and deliver groceries, prescription or hot food from kroger, domino's, cvs, and the # houston food bank, which has been extremely helpful during covid when we needed to social distance but also needed our daily necessities. when it first came to district

k, we made arrangements with our local police officers to allow them to see the vehicle, understand how to access it in an emergency, and to ask questions. as with all avs, these vehicles must be designed to operate on the roads as they exist today. and to interact in the real world situations. today the national league of cities is providing three recommendations for federal action. number one, invest in piloting with local governments. congress and u.s. department of transportation can support a federal pilot for local av testing in partnership with communities and with strong safety guidelines. the scaling and spread of piloting to different areas of the country and different climates can encourage the data exchange that will allow for federal safety regulators to move the entire autonomous industry forward.

number wo, invest in ensuring a skilled, trained workforce. in houston, we want to ensure residents have access to quality jobs that have even higher earning potential. we're encouraged by companies like niro starting new upskilling training programs with community colleges, but investments in our nation's workforce needs to happen at scale. we know we need workers for infrastructure rebuilding and for growing technology industries like avs. if we do not invest in worker training now, nlc's latest study shows the u.s. will struggle to fill at least 4.5 million jobs. any moving legislation like the build back better act must invest in workforce training. number three, raise planning and technology sharing in regions. anticipate, adapting and accommodating for changes is the basis for good

transportation planning. new technology is changing transportation and investment in planning for the future will serve us in a more sustainable and practical way. in closing, we firmly believe commerce and america's cities, towns and villages are crucial to the safe adoption of avs into our existing transportation networks. i'm proud of the work that we have done in houston, and we look forward to working with each of you as we advance our shared goals in transportation safely together. thank you. >> thank you. now we would move to mr. scott marler, director of the department of transportation. you're recognized for five minutes. >> chair, ranking member davis, ranking member graves and members of the subcommittee, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to appear today and speak to the important topic of automated transportation.

it's my honor to testify on behalf of the american association of state highway and transportation officials and the iowa department of transportation. my main message is to share the critical importance that connected and automated vehicles or cavs, will have on improving the safety, equity, and sustainability of the nation's transportation system. state d.o.t.s are preparing for a future with avs and they are dedicated to supporting the safe deployment of a connected, automated, and cooperative vehicle roadway ecosystem. where benefits extend across modes and throughout all states. one of the key reasons state d.o.t.s are so interested in avs is to improve roadway safety. we have learned that the first nine months of 2021 were deadly on our nation's roads. more than 31,700 people died in traffic crashes.

in iowa alone, we lost 354 people to traffic crashes last year. this is entirely unacceptable. as each life lost is one too many. u.s. d.o.t. recently announced the national roadway safety strategy, which includes actions for safer roads and safer vehicles. reduce crashes and save lives. i believe the technologies must be an integral part of these strategies in order to fully realize the safety promise they hold. in iowa our vision for deployed transportation has taken a two-pronged approach focusing on the drivers of the today and the cavs of tomorrow. we have several strategies that promote readiness for a more connected and automated transportation future including the following. defining our vision of land, extensive engagement through our transportation council.

improvements that work for human drivers today and the cavs of tomorrow. iowa's experience is not unique among the state tovs. we believe fundamental to the safe and effective deployment of cavs across our states and nation. i would like to highlight two for you now. first to realize the benefits of automated transportation, and they must also be connected. connected vehicle technology is key to ensure automated vehicles have the enhanced safety features in place to fully advance our goals of a safe, mobile, equitable and efficient transportation system. this is a key reason why we support the preservation. second,an urgent need for a coordinate national strategy. the vision of the strategy must

be developed collaboratively, and collective input, industry, communities and all levels of government. the safety and mobility benefits are potentially enormous with clear direction to focus on the tactics. these are only two of the principles and i encourage you to review all ten in more detail. i would like to conclude my remarks this morning by the emphasis on the actions that could lead to the successful develop. congress can call on usdot to articulate a clear vision. number two, continue to foster collaboration and partnerships. usdot needs to continue to foster partnerships and cross sector dialogue because collaboration is our competitive advantage. number three, preserve the needed communication spectrum. congress can provide much-needed certainty by working within their authority for the safety for automated transportation. i will be happy to answer any follow-up questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. marler. we now move to john samuelsen for transportation workers of america. john, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for providing us this opportunity to present our

views on autonomous vehicle technology. as president of the transport workers of america i am here representing more than 150,000 working people on the front lines of our freight systems, and the includes school bus operators and mechanics and others across the country. our members are the ones most at risk of job loss and displacement if automated vehicles are deployed without ways of undermine workers and jobs. this is essential for the house to advance an av proposal, and ensuring safety and protecting transport workers jobs and rights and our transportation network are all core to this committee's work. let me be clear. the twu fully supports pro worker, pro safety technology, innovation and policy. we frequently spend our own capital at the bargaining table to enforce our employees to install safety driver assist innovations. it holds new technologies to our existing safety standards. innovation and automation are not new to our union or members. the new york city subway ran a fully automated train across manhattan from 1962 to 1964, a train maintained and overseen by the transport workers union.

this system and others like it gave rise to federal transit worker protections, standards like these ensure workers are treated fairly and have access to necessary training and can transition as jobs change due to technology. they have made our transportation sector a major hub for the solid blue collar jobs that power our economy. while the specific futures or equipment may be different in 2022 than in 1964, this approach has empowered workers for generations and should not change. the same is true of our safety policies. the tw members have worked with regulators to transition from rotor blades to jet engines to positive train control and most recently toward zero emission buses. as a country we always fought to ensure that these innovations not only meet but exceed our existing safety standards. avs must be held to the same accountability. they must demonstrate their ability to improve their safety and our regulations must hold them accountable to any promise safety improvements. as automated technology has been integrated into other modes, and focus has been centered along trained professionals to

operate. bus, subway, truck operators play an equivalent role in surface transportation and our federal av policy must declare these onboard workers as the essential element of safe roads, and no level of vehicle automation should ever replace them. my written testimony includes elevating workers voices and implementing new technologies, and ensuring any transition to avs creates and sustains good union jobs across the entire spectrum, and informing dot to a unified approach to regulating automation to ensure workers are supported as new technologies arrive. tw members and all transportation workers are counting on our elected leaders to fight for our jobs and our safety. this committee has an opportunity now to lead the way as we integrate the next generation of transportation technology. thank you for giving me the opportunity to address these issues here today. we look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, mr. samuelsen. before our next witness provides testimony -- first i would like to recognize ms. chase. ms. chase is president of the advocates for highway and auto safety. ms. chase, you are recognized.

>> good morning, chair norton and ranking member. i am catherine chase. thank you for holding today's hearing at a critical time with motor vehicle crash fatalities skyrocketing to historic highs, despite a drop in miles traveled since the onset of the pandemic, and truck crashes have been increasing by 40% since 2009. however, it is yet to be fully develop and its safety and numerous other impacts are currently unknown. in the short term, many safety solutions are available. since our inception in 1989 advocates strongly supported proven life-saving technologies as standard equipment in all equipment, these include airbags, seat belts, electronic stability control and rear view cameras. we are deeply concerned about the rush to deploy unsafe and unproven automated or autonomous vehicles, avs, including buses

and our regulations must hold them accountable to any promise safety improvements. as automated technology has been integrated into other modes, and focus has been centered along trained professionals to operate. bus, subway, truck operators play an equivalent role in surface transportation and our federal av policy must declare these onboard workers as the essential element of safe roads, and no level of vehicle automation should ever replace them. my written testimony includes elevating workers voices and implementing new technologies, and ensuring any transition to avs creates and sustains good union jobs across the entire spectrum, and informing dot to a unified approach to regulating automation to ensure workers are supported as new technologies arrive. tw members and all transportation workers are counting on our elected leaders

to fight for our jobs and our safety. this committee has an opportunity now to lead the way as we integrate the next generation of transportation technology. thank you for giving me the opportunity to address these issues here today. we look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, mr. samuelsen. before our next witness provides testimony -- first i would like to recognize ms. chase. ms. chase is president of the advocates for highway and auto safety. ms. chase, you are recognized. >> good morning, chair norton and ranking member. i am catherine chase. thank you for holding today's hearing at a critical time with motor vehicle crash fatalities skyrocketing to historic highs, despite a drop in miles traveled since the onset of the pandemic, and truck crashes have been increasing by 40% since 2009. however, it is yet to be fully develop and its safety and numerous other impacts are currently unknown. in the short term, many safety solutions are available. since our inception in 1989 advocates strongly supported

proven life-saving technologies as standard equipment in all equipment, these include airbags, seat belts, electronic stability control and rear view cameras. we are deeply concerned about the rush to deploy unsafe and unproven automated or autonomous vehicles, avs, including buses and trucks while overlooking the need to look at other solutions now. we commissioned a national public opinion poll last week and it revealed that 80% are concerned about sharing the roads with driverless cars. this distress is evenly expressed throughout the country. even greater concern of 85% was found for driverless trucks. again, throughout the country. yet when asked if there were concerns about driverless cars would be addressed, 60% responded yes. since congress held its first hearing on avenues a decade ago, if they can figure out how to build avenues, the u.s. department of transportation or dot can figure out how to develop stan yards. last month secretary buttigieg responded that we need to make sure that people are weighing

how to navigate a world of automated vehicles know that there's some baseline of safety that's being established by regulation, unquote. we share that view. without regulations, government oversight, consumer information and industry accountability the safety of all road users is in peril. these inadequacies are leading to a great deal of confusion about the capabilities of driverless vehicles versus cars with convenience features like lane keep assist. in turn this has led to drivers misusing and over relying on some technologies which resulted in fatalities and injuries. also yesterday tests recalled 54,000 cars that were programmed to roll through stop signs. the dot clearly needs to step in and step up its oversight of the regulatory responsibilities, and this includes releasing information it has been collecting since last june from automakers for cars involved in crashes. their invest in america bill was included in the jobs act. two critical truck safety measures are the mandated rule

on automatic emergency braking and a mandate upgraded standard for rear guards. these and other directives must be a floor and not ceiling by dot. the issuance of minimum standards for verified advanced driver systems for all new vehicles must significant or reduce crashes including impaired, distract or drowsy driving. they are the building blocks for the possibility of futureless driverless cars and trucks. upgrading infrastructure is critical to advancing safety precipitation tragic bridge collapse in pittsburgh last week shows this need. quick implementation throughout the nation is vital. additionally, research and data on the impacts of avs, and other issues in the study directed by the iija must be completed to inform future policies. in closing we support rigorous testing, government oversight and industry accountability with the future goal of safe deploying of the avs including autonomous trucks and buses. in 2020 advocates were joined by 60 groups representing labor, disability rights and emergency responders, law enforcement,

bicyclist and others in developing the av tenants. we urge the sub committee to continue its safety leadership role by advancing these and other needed protections to improve the safety of all road users in our nation's infrastructure. thank you. >> thank you very much, ms. chase. before our next witness provides testimony, i would like to recognize representative lamb for an introduction. >> i am excited to introduce nat beuse. one sense about aurora, they are an incredible far-seeing company that will be with us for a long time coming from executives and innovators out of uber and tesla and waymo. they have partnered with companies like tesla to take the lead in self driving and automation technology for cars and trucking. can you see their cars on the road in the city of pittsburgh almost anytime and they really have been an honor to have in our community as one of their main headquarters. nat is the vice president of safety, and more than 190 employees that we have in person pennsylvania, and he leads the

development of approach to safety, and works on regulatory bodies, and it's about how to make rules for the industry in the future. he was with uber before aurora, and before working the private sector, nat over saw the entire nation's vehicle safety research program including automated vehicles, and he also serves on the board of mothers against drunk driving, so this is somebody coming to us today that not only has significant industry experience and can help us to understand the day-to-day, but still continues some of the work -- >> thank you very much. mr. beuse, you are recognized. >> good morning, chair defazio, ranking member graves, and ranking member davis and the members of the sub committee. thank you for the invitation to testify before you today on the subject of autonomous vehicle technology, and thank you representative lamb for the kind introduction. aurora's mission is to deliver the benefits of self driving technology safely, quickly and broadly. we are developing that. aurora was founded in 2017 by

experts in the av field, and the company has grown to over 1,600 employees across pennsylvania, california, montana, texas, washington, colorado and michigan. i lead the team responsible for developing and implementing a holistic approach to safety. we also work with industry stan yards groups, regulatory bodies to develop best practices and safety standards because transparency is critical for the success of this technology. my entire professional career has been focussed on making our roads safely. it's a deeply personal connection for me and so many other americans. it's not acceptable we lose 40,000 americans every year, and the unbelievable part is this trend has been going in the wrong direction for far too long. information released yesterday show traffic fatalities continue to rise at a record pace. i believe deeply in the work we do at aurora every day and that's going to be part of the solution to improve safety on our roads. first, it's important to note for this sub committee that aurora is a regulated company at

all levels of government. our technology is subject to the state requirements and the motor carrier requirements. it's state has it's own approach, and there are several open rule makings about the safe deployment of avs we would like the see move forward as we continue to build our internal safety programs. where does my role fit into this regulatory system. there's one thing we know from decades of learning across safety critical industries. failures and safety are rarely caused by a single person, but instead by organizations that failed to prevent multiple mistakes from turn into a disaster. two strategies for our approach are as follows. one, all employees are empowered to request halting of operations if there's a safety concern, and

the board of mothers against drunk driving, so this is somebody coming to us today that not only has significant industry experience and can help us to understand the day-to-day, but still continues some of the work -- >> thank you very much. mr. beuse, you are recognized. >> good morning, chair defazio, ranking member graves, and ranking member davis and the

members of the sub committee. thank you for the invitation to testify before you today on the subject of autonomous vehicle technology, and thank you representative lamb for the kind introduction. aurora's mission is to deliver the benefits of self driving technology safely, quickly and broadly. we are developing that. aurora was founded in 2017 by experts in the av field, and the company has grown to over 1,600 employees across pennsylvania, california, montana, texas, washington, colorado and michigan. i lead the team responsible for developing and implementing a holistic approach to safety. we also work with industry stan yards groups, regulatory bodies

to develop best practices and safety standards because transparency is critical for the success of this technology. my entire professional career has been focussed on making our roads safely. it's a deeply personal connection for me and so many other americans. it's not acceptable we lose 40,000 americans every year, and the unbelievable part is this trend has been going in the wrong direction for far too long. information released yesterday show traffic fatalities continue to rise at a record pace. i believe deeply in the work we do at aurora every day and that's going to be part of the solution to improve safety on our roads. first, it's important to note for this sub committee that aurora is a regulated company at all levels of government. our technology is subject to the state requirements and the motor carrier requirements.

it's state has it's own approach, and there are several open rule makings about the safe deployment of avs we would like the see move forward as we continue to build our internal safety programs. where does my role fit into this regulatory system. there's one thing we know from decades of learning across safety critical industries. failures and safety are rarely caused by a single person, but instead by organizations that failed to prevent multiple mistakes from turn into a disaster. two strategies for our approach are as follows. one, all employees are empowered to request halting of operations if there's a safety concern, and this is part of the larger approach from managing safety

risks. teams across aurora are held responsible for completing our framework and providing evidence that our avs are safe to operate on public roads. how we develop the aurora driver and prepare for public road operations also matters. we collect data and use onroad testing to validate our simulations. with our virtual testing suite, this allows us to train and evaluate the driver software across a vast range of scenarios well before the software is loaded on to vehicles or public roads. we do not build technology for its own sake or as a silver bullet. we are building it could support our partners.

our pilot with fedex between dallas and houston while in autonomy. this pilot is critical for us to learn while testing safely on public roads. in my remaining time i will highlight two ways aurora believes congress and usd can support the safe development of avs. we ask congress to ensure that laws and regulations for avs are model and technology neutral. second we can congress to ensure any commission research about the job related impacts of avs be driven with the experience and technology and job quality be central to any policy and industry conversation. aurora is committed to continuing to tackle these issues together with congress, usdot, state regulators, cities, law enforcement, safety advocates, labor and many other stakeholders to preserve jobs here in the united states.

i want to thank ms. tatum and marler for their testimony today. the process you led demonstrates how impactful leadership in congress westbound today. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, mr. beuse. i recognize mr. -- sorry. we go next to mr.bloch, who is the political director of the teamsters joint council 7. >> thank you all. i appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. my name is doug bloch, and i am proudly representing over 100,000 teamsters in northern california and nevada. a future that includes partial and full autonomous vehicles will change the nature of work in nearly every part of the

transportation industry. congress will play a key role in determining whether they changes will be for the better or worse. in this case i am afraid if we let large corporations write the rules themselves it will surely be the latter. our union is not afraid of new technologies. the teamster's logo displays a team of horses and in our early days there were skeptics that thought horses would never be replaced with innovation. the impact is still unknown. our experience makes me skeptical about claims that we will train our way out of any job losses.

we once had roughly 100,000 workers in california canneries, and thanks to automation we are down to about 15,000 now. when campbells soup shut down their sacramento cannery and 1,700 teamsters lost their jobs, the government swooped in to provide job training, and one lady worked there for 40 years, and she made $23 an hour plus benefits, and it took her three years to become a sonogram technician and find a job. the act also mandated the transit agencies receiving grants to deploy avs must require workforce development plans from applicants.

we are trying to get ahead of the curve here. how do we capture the jobs being created by automation and make sure they are good union jobs? what can our elected officials do to help? we are meeting with manufacturers and government to see how to do that. in san francisco we represent nearly 1,500 workers in parking garages. av fleets need a place to park and get charged and be maintained. this is work teamsters already do in parking garages and rental car agencies. there's no reason why municipal garages cannot be servicing

these fleets and teamsters should be doing that work. however, every time there's a meeting like this, we get called up and it has not resulted in good union jobs. it's also important to ask what is the problem we are trying to solve here. one problem we hear a lot about recently is the so-called truck driver shortage. before deregulation in the '80s, driving a truck was a good middle class job, but in little time trucking evolved into drivers work an average of over 60 hours a week, in many cases making less than minimum wage. automation is the industry's answer to a driver retention problem that the industry itself created. the solution is not to do away with humans but to better enforce our labor laws and bring back good jobs. finally the issues facing commercial vehicles are different potentially more dangerous than personal.

they warrant their own separate and careful consideration. every day our members see the benefits of new technologies and the malfunctions that occur. human drivers are a much-needed safety net for those scenarios and more. the commercial use of vehicles at 10,000 pounds or less presents an agency jurisdictional issue which should be addressed. waymo recently teamed up with our player ups in arizona to use self driving vans, and these are under 10,000 pounds but they are clearly operating as commercial vehicles. the committee included the operation of small commercial vehicles study in the invest act. we urge you to continue to explore this segment in the package industry for appropriate regulation. in closing, in all aspects of automation, we applaud you for having this hearing with the teamster's voice at the table. thank you and i look forward to answering any questions you may

have. >> thank you, mr. bloch. >> i am pleased to introduce the next witness, professor nico larco at the university of oregon school of architecture. a national and internationally awarded multidisciplinary organization that focuses on sustainability issues as they relate to the built environment. professor larco worked directly with many cities and states to examine the impacts or potential

impacts of emerging technologies and helped them to begin to plan for the future. i am pleased you can join us today and i am looking forward very much to hearing his testimony. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, mr. chair. and mr.larco -- professor larco, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to testify on the future of avs and the impacts they can have on the country.

i am a professor of architecture design as well as the director at the university of oregon. it was mentioned as a cross disciplinary center emerging technology are having and will continue to have on communities. our focus is on the mechanics of the technologies but land use, and building design, transportation and real estate and why these impacts matter for equity and health and the economy. private sector partners, professional organizations and other research organizations and foundations. our country is at the earliest stages of real world av testing. that said one thing that is clear is that avs are not just another vehicle. in the same way over a century cars were not just a different horse. our research is avs could have widespread devastating affects, and they have podstive and negative impacts. we suspect it would cause the demand for parking, and potential improvements and coverage. that might also come with large impacts on labor and avs could

pull riders away from transit. similar av trips may cost so much that av travel could be a transportation choice with the healthy but their implication shouldered by everybody. this is an important point i want to make. they will have cascading affects. this would be increasing in lane consumption and impact infrastructure, the environment inequity. we could fill parking lots with houses, shops and services increasing accessibility. and it would allow us to put more development on anyone parcel and would bring down the cost of development increasing affordability. at the same time the shift, and with areas that currently have the largest amounts of parking the most affected by the changes. avs could significantly impact licensing, parking fees and a study conducted by my colleagues found revenue losses could be between 3% and 51%. avs could have substantial impacts on equity. we found large areas of concern regarding who has access to avs. and some are at risk of falling by the wayside. don't only focus on av technology, efficiency and safety, which are very important, but expand it and focus on large city, mid sized and smaller and rural communities. second, support research on the cascading impacts of avs, and we need to focus beyond the technology, safety and deployment and understanding cascading impacts. and it's a promising step forward and we are thankful the basis for the center. third, assist local governments and states with regulatory preparedness, and it's not only

regulating policy, but also understanding governmental roles and how to steer deployment and how to corps rate community engagement. fourth, organize and lead a national dialogue on av impacts and community needs. we hear the desire to sherry search and best practices on the many aspects of av deployment. in closing our av future is not preordained but ours to shape. we can only shape it and the cascading impacts it has. thank you for this opportunity to speak with you, and i look forward to answering your questions.

we found large areas of concern regarding who has access to avs. and some are at risk of falling by the wayside. don't only focus on av technology, efficiency and safety, which are very important, but expand it and focus on large city, mid sized and smaller and rural communities. second, support research on the cascading impacts of avs, and we need to focus beyond the technology, safety and deployment and understanding cascading impacts. and it's a promising step forward and we are thankful the basis for the center. third, assist local governments and states with regulatory preparedness, and it's not only regulating policy, but also

understanding governmental roles and how to steer deployment and how to corps rate community engagement. fourth, organize and lead a national dialogue on av impacts and community needs. we hear the desire to sherry search and best practices on the many aspects of av deployment. in closing our av future is not preordained but ours to shape. we can only shape it and the cascading impacts it has. thank you for this opportunity to speak with you, and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, professor larco. we will hear next from mr. ariel wolf. >> good morning.

i serve as general council to the autonomous vehicle association on whose behalf i appear today. thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify at this important hearing. the autonomous vehicle association was founded as the unified voice of the av industry. they are committed to bringing the tremendous safety, mobility and economic benefits of avs, otherwise known as capable vehicles to consumers in a safe, responsible and timely manner. for a dozen years the technology has been tested on the roads and maintains a remarkable safety

record. at the same time the fatalities with human drivers have increased dramatically. yesterday there was a report that 31,721 drivers died on the roads in the first months of 2021. that represents the highest number of fatalities in the first few months of any year. last week in it's new national roadway safety strategy, the u.s. department of transportation reaffirmed what we have known for many years. human behavior is a contributing factor to the overwhelming majority of crashes including drunk, impaired, distracted and reckless driving. the av industry was established to confront the monumental and ongoing tragedy on the roads, while av technology continues to develop and advance, the simple fact is that avs do not drive drunk and do not drive while

texting, and they do not fall asleep at the wheel and they do not recklessly speed. the record is clear, autonomous vehicles are being developed safely and will make our roads safer. to reduce fatalities and injuries, americans need a comprehensive approach to roadway safety that includes a full sweep of solutions from driver impairment prevention symptoms and updated traffic guidance. av technology will also transform our transportation system by making it more accessible, efficient and sustainable. last we i saw firsthand and i rode in avs safely navigating the streets of san francisco, las vegas, phoenix and pittsburgh. i climbed into trucks and saw how zero occupant delivery

vehicles are expanding access to fresh food and reducing emissions. it's understanding the opportunities for this industry to change our lives for the better. on a personal note, i think about safer streets for my four daughters as they grow up, and expanded independence for my grandmother in florida and parents and in-laws as they get older, and opportunities to expand delivery options in my neighbor here in d.c. i see this happening all while growing the economy and creating well-paying jobs. the av industry is creating jobs and creating opportunities for workers with a wide array of experience and backgrounds. in locations across the country

av developers and manufacturers are hiring safety operation specialists and many others to support the testing and deployment of av technology. once they found that the av industry has created 6500 new jobs in the pittsburgh area alone, and adoption of av trucking will increase total u.s. employment by as many as 35,000 jobs per year on average and raise annual earnings for all u.s. workers. given the phased timeline for the deployment, it will serve as one tool to reduce strains on the apply chain caused in part by the long-standing truck driver shortage. >> a vs offer great promise, and

it will be harder to achieve the benefits. i want to thank the sub committee on the leadership. the autonomous industry looks forward to working with you to make autonomous vehicles a reality for americans nationwide. we are eager to engage with congress and all the stakeholders on the policies to ensure safer streets and new jobs and economic growth. i look forward to answering any questions you may have. >> thank you very much, mr. wolf. i now recognize the chair of the full committee, mr. defazio >> thank you, madam chair. thanks to all the witnesses up for the testimony. this is very important and the committee needs to be focused more on these issues. i would like to address one particular concern, pretty much all of the discussion in congress has been about the technology, the vehicles themselves, and i think there has been very little discuss of the state of our -- the current state of our infrastructure and whether or not its suitable and if not what sort of measures do we need to implement in order to have, you know, vehicles safely deployed throughout the whole united states.

anyone like to comment on that? >> thank you for that question, chair defazio. many of the autonomous vehicle companies stated that the infrastructure needed is not different from the current infrastructure of drivers today. we can all benefit from improved roads, fewer potholes and better lines, but the information we received in houston is that these vehicles will operate with the infrastructure that we currently have in our cities. >> i mean, some of -- they use different ways of navigating, and if anybody else would like to comment, because i am concerned that, you know, when many states don't put state of good repair at the top of their list, that there are many roads that don't have adequate fog lines and good markings and many of these things these vehicles depend upon to range more

widely. anybody want to comment on that? >> mr. chair, i can comment on that. i think being in a city that just experienced a pretty horrific bridge collapse, and thank goodness there were no fatalities, the point you raise is really important to understand around maintenance of the current infrastructure. while i completely agree with what ms. tatum was saying, but there are normal things that make driving as human beings good, and those are good for self driving vehicles, and sometimes somebody has a different approach and when we talk about this issue it's more about what can we do to make the current environment safer, so whether that be striping or making sure road signs are there, and whether that be equipping different vehicles with different technologies, and that will help the development of avs instead of how it is done now, discreet and with the

different issues. >> anybody else? >> yes, mr. chair. kathy chase. i agree with some of the points you already pointed out in terms of improvements that need to be made in terms of vehicles now and vehicles of the future, especially as our population is aging, signage needs to be improved and the different lines of sighting needs to be improved for autonomous vehicles. i am thinking about a few years ago when the senate of environmental public works held a hearing on autonomous vehicles, and now the deputy secretary of transportation said

something to the affect that new york city will never have a perfect infrastructure and these vehicles need to deal with what they are going to come upon, and we agree with that and that's why we are pushing so hard for the minimum standards, like a vision test, so when a car or truck takes over the responsibility of seeing that we know that the vehicle itself will actually see in response to what is happening. i think we need a holistic approach where the infrastructure needs to be approved now because people are holding on to cars for approximately 12 years, and vehicles of the future and all of this can be accomplished. thank you. >> i want to make another point, because this is very important. tomorrow we are holding a hearing on 5g, and the fcc has created issues the way it was deployed, and the fcc is -- you referenced this. do you -- i mean, can you just comment on how bismoly stupid that is? >> i would be happy to offer perspective from the state dots.

we all want good pavement condition, and we all think lane markings and clear signs are very important, and this would help drivers today and the cavs tomorrow, but it's just important to enable the communications and data standards, and digital mapping. with specific yard to connectivity, we believe that the safety prominence of the cavs will be enhanced, so preserving the safety band, this would add certainty not only for state and local jurisdictions, and also for developers and manufacturers, and we do see that as a key component of any future automated transportation system. >> thank you, madam chair. the time has expired. >> thank you, mr. defazio. now i recognize mr. crawford for

five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i appreciate that. i would note that this hearing was originally scheduled for 10:00 a.m. i don't know how many people this change inconvenienced, but i hope we can at the least maintain a schedule. perhaps if we held hearings more frequently we would not need to jam eight witnesses into a panel, and it does a disservice to constrain meaningful dialogue. let me say this. i want to direct a question to katherine chase. in your written testimony the committee in november on challenges to the supply chain you responded to the argument that many of my colleagues and myself made if 18 is old enough to put your life on the line and drive a convoy in the battle, then it's old enough to make the

living as a truck driver, and you minimized the hard work and sacrifice of young men and women in the uniform with a political cartoon because it's such an easy task. ms. chase, would you consider manning military vehicles an easy job? >> no, sir. >> thank you. if 18 is old enough to die for your country, is it old enough to choose to make an honest living as a truck driver. >> i would like to address -- >> that's a yes or no question? is 18 old enough to give your life for your country, can they also drive a truck? >> it's not an equal question. >> yes, not only did you make that comment but you included this, which is already in the record but i will ask unanimous consent to enter it into this record. >> so ordered. >> i find that highly offensive as a veteran and i think most veterans would that your position is that we are either

incompetent and/or lazy or not well trained. so i'm asking you again. this is a yes or no question. do you think 18 years old is old enough to die for your country, shouldn't they be old enough to drive a truck? >> it's -- >> yes or no or i will go on to my other witnesses. >> please go on to your other witnesses. >> so you have no answer? we know how you feel about it based on the cartoon you entered earlier based on your testimony. okay, i will move on. we certainly in my district like many other districts, there are a lot of truck drivers out there, and i know how vital they are out there especially with the supply chain crisis, and can you talk about how you envision higher levels of automation make truck driving safer and what impacts will it have in

terms of efficiencies on automated trucking and productivity? >> congressman, i am happy to take that question. thank you for that. i think the place to start with the well documented and long standing driving shortage, truck driver shortage, and that's having an impact on the economy as we speak and the supply chain. that issue in concert with the u.s. department of transportation study that showed a net increase of jobs, as many as 35,000 per year in addition to other economic benefits, leads us to the conclusion that it's really time to shift the way we think about the conversation around jobs and autonomous trucks. these are two areas that can compliment each other in the ecosystem. i would also say it's a matter of safety as a baseline matter, because as we talked about the statistics of being -- of worsening over time, 14% of fatal crashes, serious crashes involve heavy trucks.

getting this technology deployed is essential for that in that respect, and the jobs front, we see overall an increase in jobs, economic growth and as i noted in testimony, as the ecosystem grows, there are a number of different roles and new kinds of jobs that are going to be created in this exciting area. i think all of that taken together, we see a lot of positive activity going forward. >> thank you. mr. meuse? >> congressman, thank you for the question. i think i will mention two things. part of the challenge we have with this basis is the lumping of all the technologies together and we call them all automated. certainly there are technologies in the pipeline and some are already on vehicles today, commercial trucks that make the driving task easier for human drivers, and then there's technology that we are working on which is really around the driving task, which could make the driving and trucking jobs

different in the future. it's not about some sort of replacement thing. that's exactly why we're doing this fedex -- this pilot with fedex so we can learn all these different issues beyond just does the tech work, but it's how do we introduce the technology into the existing system in a way that is frankly seamless. we don't want to introduce friction into a system that already has a bunch of friction in it. >> thank you, i yield back. >> thank you very much. i recognize myself for five minutes. mr. samuelsen, your testimony makes a strong case for ensuring workforce needs are addressed as deployment of commercial avs become more prevalent. i hear your concerns that if left unchecked, automated vehicles may create tremendous hardship for commercial motor

vehicle drivers, so my question is what steps can congress and the federal government take to harness the safety benefits of automated trucks and buses while at the same time supporting a stable well-paid surface transportation workforce? do you believe that addressing commercial driver workforce needs and employing av technology are mutually exclusive goals or both can be obtained? >> thank you. we have a situation where there are ways of technology coming into public transport, buses, for instance, the operation of buses, that require an absolute robust federal regulatory framework for them to be deployed safely. i think the first thing that needs to be done is there needs to be a federal check that anything that goes on to

highways, roads in america, meet a regulatory minimum that is set forth by the federal government. the second piece of that is, you know, i have listened to some of the questions back and forth about automated technology and the impact on the workforce. i think the impact on the workforce has the chance to be extreme. right now there are -- despite discussion about automated technology being introduced for safety reasons, for any other reasons, there are transit systems and operators across the country embracing this technology simply for the purpose of reducing head count. that's absolutely true. we deal with transit employees across the country, public sector, public sector operators looking to reduce budgets, and they are looking to maximize profit and all doing this without any regard for the safety, the future safety of highways or roads. i think the only intervener there that can prevent this from

happening in a chaotic way is the federal government. in terms of the use of automated technology simultaneously with human operators, i think that's -- that is the way to go, to utilize automated technology augmenting and assisting humans operating vehicles, particularly in public transit. there's no real -- there's no working american that believes that replacing buses with automation is a good thing for working people who use public transit in america. nobody believes it. also, this notion that the introduction of automation is going to somehow create new jobs, we have heard all of this with nafta, with nafta, with the normalization of trade with china and somehow the introduction of automated

technology that will replace human operators will create more jobs, and we saw that movie already and have no faith with this technology coming in in a positive way unless the government regulates that. >> thank you. the last time this committee held a hearing on this topic was in 2017, that was over ten years ago, and at that time avs were still considered a technology of the future but today there are at least 1,400 avs, including automatic commercial vehicles being tested on us roadways in 36 different states. what do you think is a realistic timeline for deployment of your technology, specifically vehicles with level 4 automation and above, and what can americans expect -- when can

americans expect vehicles to drive on the roads next to them? >> madam chair, i am happy to jump in and defer to my colleague on the panel here. i think that, you know, as a baseline matter, we see this technology on the roads today as you noted. one of the most important things to see this technology scale, and again, it is as mr. beuse noted, being used in pilot projects carrying freight and trying to alleviate the supply chain crisis we face, and there's technology in arizona providing meals to individuals who live in food deserts. that's another example. but to scale this technology, the timeline is somewhat dependent on building a national framework that will accomplish two things. one is to enhance consumer trust

in the technology, and the second is to maximize deployment. in my written testimony, there's work we are want to go continue to develop a national framework that will nationalize the deployment of the technology, and we will see the benefits we talked about so many times acue to the public. >> my time has expired. i go next to mr. bust? >> thank you, madam chair. before i go on to my questions, i want to associate myself to representative crawford made. as a member on this committee, probably the only one that had my license for a tractor trailer when i was 16 was driving whenever i was 18, and by the time i turned 19 i was in the

marine corps. all of those things i was capable of handling and handling safely. my family believed in me. you know, the state of illinois tested me out, and by golly, guess what? i passed that drivers test at 16 years old and never had a driver's license but a tractor trailer license. at a time when the united states is needing people to work, wise decisions based on the individual, not discriminating against them because of their age, would probably be a lot wiser thing to do than have cute cartoons about what -- where we're at right now and what we are needing. that being said, mr. wolf, the development and deployment of the automated trucks is already raising questions for truck drivers about what the future of their profession would look like. many are wondering how their work would change and what new skills they would need.

to help us understand what the future would look like for drivers, could you describe the level of standardization between the various avs as far as trucks and their technologies being developed by different manufacturers. for example, if a trucker is trained to operate one of the trucks that aurora has developed, would their skills be easily transferable to the drivers of a different manufactured truck or technology? what would the driver need to -- or what would the driver need to have separate or additional training in? do we know that? >> thank you, congressman for the question. i am happy to address it. i think maybe the place to start is to understand that there are two different kinds of technologies here, and the autonomous vehicle, and the industry association, we're working with of course autonomous vehicle technology, which is so-called full

automation, where a human driver -- the technology is not designed nor is it expected for a human to be involved in the driving task, and that's distinct from driver assistance technology which many of us have seen, lane assist and cruise fr assistance technology, which many of us have seen, unassisted [inaudible] cruise control, others have described it. that technology, there is an expectation for licensed human operator or driver to take back control or to the vigilant at all times taking control. those are two very different kinds of technologies, and i think that distinction is critical, because oftentimes it can be conflated. so in that respect, i can't speak to the expectation to licensed human drivers in the driver assistance context, the technology in that sphere, but in the autonomous vehicles out, again, the expectation is that there will not be a driver to take back control for the time being, there are safety operators and monitors involved

there. and i would defer to individual members to speak, two of our association, to speak to the transferability of the skull. >> understand. i appreciate that answer. mr. samuelson, you know, well trained mechanics are essential for keeping our drugs and buses safe and on the road. wanted-ish until training needs will be for mechanics for having automated systems? are there additional safety concerns for workers around the automated trains or buses, and what can we do to make sure that the maintenance workers are prepared for these type of vehicles once they start in operation? >> yes, thank you for the question. so, workforce development with forced by federal intervention, federal regular delivery requirements, is of the utmost of importance with the advent of these latest weather technology coming.

av technology, and electric buses are closely related. and if that is a model going forward, what we could potentially expect. electric buses, which seem like such a great idea in terms of grading the environment, cleaning up in america, have the unintended consequence of a massive, massive negative impact on workers, particularly bus mechanics. so we anticipate a 30 to 40% reduction in bus mechanics that would be necessary when the bus fleet across america are fully electric or fully zero you missions, without the combustion engine, it's just a lot less maintenance required. so what we see is a necessity for workforce development, in a city for, by the federal government, to ensure that [inaudible] mechanics on diesel buses are able to transition to the new fleet. and that systems and the trade union movement are able to work collectively to figure out how the existing work force, other

negative effects can be mitigated as best available. so the federal government is extremely valuable in this. they're going to be the guy here, and again, a regulatory framework and workforce development requirement is vital. thank you. >> thank you. my time is acquired, madam chairman woman, i yield. >> i recognize next miss johnson of texas. >> thank you very much, madam chair, and thank you for holding this hearing. i have a question for mr. bloch, but i'll departed by a statement first. over the last three years that the dallas, fort worth area has become one of our nation's central testing grounds for ev trucking technology. and to completely, is kodiak robotics and waymo, have opened operation hubs in my district, and another company, aurora, expanded into the dallas-fort

worth area unknown till june of 2020. [inaudible] i tech bringing high quality high tech jobs to many of my constituents. indeed, this wave of investment is due in large part due to the leadership and close coordination demonstrated by dallas college, which is our community college network, the north central texas council of governments, and the dallas regional chamber. the department of ten, checks texas transportation and public safety, and dallas college has been the leader in creating the workforce development in our community college district. focused on the future transportation, in part fueled by one and a half million dollar grant from [inaudible] to develop [inaudible] for ev and transportation tech jobs. through a. grant while i have our although

ev technology has a potential to provide many societal benefits, serious questions remain, like many of my colleagues, i'm concerned about the issues related to safety and want to make sure that a strong federal safety framework is enact it ended here to and managed. additionally, we will follow, i believe that the congressman and av industry should incorporate av priorities and address the workforce needs by including policies aimed at mitigating both job losses and any potential weight decreases. and lastly, i urge the av and the industry to invest in the creation of high quality jobs for those who may face displacement. now, we have a large traffic in trees. and this was simply a way to try to keep things moving. i notice that most people are

worried about the jobs, and we are to, except that we have a such a small number of drivers for the traffic we have. so, mr. bloch, i want to thank you by highlighting highlighting a provision i thought to include in the [inaudible] act with regard to workforce retraining. if you educate, imagine i was mother disappointed that the senate deleted that language from the final bill. would you be able to expand on what kinds of programs you would like to see when you mention workforce retraining programs for surface transportation, workers whose jobs have been affected by our nation. now, i have the largest potential [inaudible] teamsters local in the country in my district. so i'd like you to respond to that if you will. >> thank you very much for the question. you know, i'm thinking about legislation we are introducing

in the california state legislature and public transit arena that will make it a subject of collective bargaining when av technology is introduced in the public transit arena. and i think the important thing is that impacted workers get noticed of new technology before it's introduced, and have a chance to respond and have a voice. now, i gave some examples of the canneries, where canneries were closed, and workers were thrown out there at the mercy of workforce development, and it did not work well for them. so i do think it's important to get ahead of this, and i appreciate the efforts that are happening in your district. here, we represent 800 workers at a bus company called gillig. they are the highest paid

manufacturing workers in the united states. they make buses that mr. samuelson's members drive, and we are doing a partnership with gillig with funding, workforce development funding, from the state of california, to train workers to work on zero emission vehicle buses. we really do think there are win winds in areas out here, where we can leverage federal and state money to train workers for the jobs of the future. but again, the important thing here is that at least in california, when employers get money that are strong labor standards attached to that. prevailing wages. minimum wages. so that we make sure that the workers that we are training actually stick around and get retained in the work. >> thank you very much. i'm out of time, but i ask unanimous consent to put the rest of my questions on the

record for attention, and [inaudible] the rest of my statement. thank you madam chair, and i yield back. >> so ordered. mr. stauber, i recognize mr. stauber. >> [inaudible] [inaudible] thank you. thank you all for being here today, and i think we've all learned a lot about the industry, and about this technology already during this hearing. i'll preface this with saying that i think that congress needs to get this right and i think there is a happy medium between writing tech companies will our streets and applying over restrictive government regulations on industry. my first question has to do with the actual technology used in evs, as technology progresses, i have no doubt that we will see more of these vehicles throughout the country, not just in cities or areas where there are companies pacific engineers to make repairs to vehicles. we have already seen with, some manufacturers, that they are

limiting who can actually do work on the vehicles. i can tell you that i trust by local mechanic a lot more than someone who needs to fly out to my hometown in northern minnesota from silicon valley to do the repairs. and mr. garamendi, this should not be offensive to you. [laughs] i just want to know, mr. wolf or beuse, our companies looking in to these issues as we move into the future. >> thank you congressman for the question. i'll take a look at it chuck at it and then help i'll pass it over to [inaudible] to talk about. it obviously we're still in the testing phase in getting kind of really focused on the path to shaping a project. one of the things we're learning in all of that, and [inaudible] the questions you ask about. so how do we think about maintenance, and the schedules of those, what that really looks like? i think a key point to reference here is the fact that the technology that we are developing is really more of a

business to business relationship. so think about a fedex or walmart or an amazon who has their own fleet of vehicles, who is maintaining those fleet of vehicles for the operations that they're conducting. versus the point, you know, you're actually made about, you know, you write in a personal vehicle needing to get a repair had, you know, the local repair shop or wherever you choose to go. i think again this is where, you know, we in our principles are very supportive of congress actually doing more on commissioning in the studies on jobs of that, it would really be around the quality of those jobs, because there are going to be slightly different than i think what we envision today. >> okay, thank you. and mr. wolf? >> thank you sir. i might just add that there, in response to that question, that the autonomous vehicle industry is a diverse industry with respect to use cases and

applications. and so, in thinking about those imported issues you raised, there's of course personal vehicle ownership, there's the deployment of fleet model, there's autonomous tracking, and there is a last mile autonomous delivery services. and it's at all -- so in a sense, it's not one size fits all, there are many different conversations in each of those use cases as those businesses start to continue to scale up and bring benefits to the american society. >> and mr. wolf, this is a next question. additionally, i also recognize that increased automation introduces new risk factors for folks that we do not understand or folks that we do not understand, [inaudible] sensor, camera or software problems. because of this diagnosing damage to a vehicle, dirt germany liability, and completion of police reports will increasingly rely on the data that the vehicle generates before, during and after attacks that. mr. wolf, what are the companies you represent, what are they doing to ensure that relevant entities will have access to this critical data,

and that it is timely, complete, and useful? >> well thank you for the question, congressman. in that respect, the autonomous vehicle industry and companies that are developing and operating this technology are engaging in information sharing in a number of ways. and i'm not just spell out a couple here. all of these companies are responding to an [inaudible] order with respect to incidents involving autonomous vehicles. the developers and manufacturers also are participating in a voluntary initiative with the national highway traffic safety administration to provide information about the location of testing at the parameters of that testing. members also have released safety self assessments that examined the safety of the technology and provide information in that respect. and so, i think, for those reasons and other reasons there is a number of ways that these companies are providing data and information added look forward to having a conversation going forward in

other ways as well. >> okay, my last question, real quick, for mr. samuelson. the human component of the, of our public transport operators are really valuable and great members of our community. in, for instance, in a bus or one of the transit commuters, we've seen examples where there's violence happening. can you please lead to some of these incidents, and how we will look at them going forward on evs or evs? >> yes. violence is prevalent. there's a full moon atmosphere going on right going on right now across passenger transportation. but it's been a growing problem in urban transportation, urban transit, buses and subway, for decades. so, actually, the uniform bus operator is the single greatest deterrent to that type of crime, crimes taking place against drivers in the systems, and i think one -- a really big problem with the potential of a humanist operation of public

transit is the crime that rioters would be exposed to absent a uniformed president of a bus operator. i think the print portrait to contemplate going forward. i myself was on a b78 bus in brooklyn many times, months going to school and saved by the intervention over uniformed a bizarre project. so i hope that answers your question. i think it does. >> it does, thank you very much. madam chair, i yield back. >> i recognize next mr. garamendi. >> madam chair, thank you very much for this hearing. mr. stauber, thank you very much for your questions. i was going down the same line here. my questions really go to, first, miss chase. the gathering of information. it seems to me that one of the things we must do immediately is to make sure that information on, on all accidents, as well as the machine and the technology, be readily available. could you please respond to

that? it's information available? what do we need to do to make sure that it is our reporting on all accidents? >> general order thank you for the question, congressman. as was recently just mentioned, there's a standing general order by the national traffic highway traffic safety administration which requires companies that are producing vehicles, sae level 2 and higher dissipated formation on regarding crashes. however, we have not seen that information so, we don't know what's happening on our roadways, and it's very critical that the national highway traffic safety administration share this and that republican consumers are informed when they are on the road, when they're driving cars, what they can trust. and i just like to comment also on you know the compliance with the voluntary safety agreements or the av test act, none of these are regulatory or required. they're all voluntary, meaning a company can decide to submit some tests, some information,

choose what information they want to stop it or walk away at any point. and that's why this minimum performance requirements are so essential. the framework or a voluntary agreement is not going to do the trick. we need to know what's happening on our roads and the way to a complete save [inaudible] through regulation. >> very good. that also applies to the insurance industry, and that was, i'm sure, one of the issues that was brought to us earlier today. mr. samuelson and mr. [inaudible] representing the many men and women that are on these trucks and vehicles. what -- how do you envision a regulatory environment or scheme in which your workers would be protected? and the transit operators and people that are on those vehicles would also be protected? what do we need to do to create a regulatory environment? >> so if i may, i believe the

main thing here is to understand that we've, we've seen advanced technology introduced into public transit several times before, in my 30 years, this is about the 34 significant wave of technology coming in. and the technology can be used for enhanced service delivery, safety, state of good repair, while simultaneously benefiting workers. and that's, that's what a regulatory framework from the federal government should emphasize. that all of these can work synergistically together, to produce a really good outcome for writers and transit systems and workers, where no worker gets left behind, and no writer gets endangered. thank you. >> thank you. mr. bloch? >> yes, thank you, mr. garamendi. so, we all know our friendly neighborhood [inaudible] bus driver, and our members -- we have 325,000 working for ups, it's the largest collective

bargaining unit in the country -- we do have cut staff that have driver assisted technologies light activated braking systems, uncontrolled, telematics, mapping and routing software, algorithms that all make our jobs safer and better. so like mr. samuelson, we are not afraid of technology, and we benefit from it. however, in response to your question, i think it's very important, as others have mentioned, that the federal government set the floor for the regulation of technology and not the ceiling. i'm fortunate enough to live in a state like california, where a lot of this technology is being developed, and we have policy makers that are going above and beyond to protect both workers and the general public, and not to stop this technology, but to ideally develop it in a way that benefits workers and the public

and industry so. thank you. >> i thank you for that. it seems to me that we have a necessity to set at least a couple of standards here, one that information from crashes and the technology be readily available, not only to the government, but also to the insurance industry as well as to the committee so that we can then develop legislation. is secondly, the training programs that have been discussed here [inaudible] must also be in place. fortunately, and unfortunately, this committee wrote a very good bill on service transportation. unfortunately, much of the training programs that were in that bill did not find their way into the infrastructure and jobs act. so we have to repurpose and get that back in. with that, i yield back. >> hear the gentleman yields. we will hear next, i ask next,

mr. fortunate for your questions. >> thank you chair lady, thank you all for being here. i will make a statement force that has absolutely nothing to do with my questions but i think one of the folks in labor said something about nafta and how they were promised jobs and how that just turned out to be a joke i. think it might have been mr. samuelson. and if you think these ev jobs are going to come to you, i think you probably own mistaken in that, because the only thing we seem to do appear very well is run up a debt and your either at the table are on the menu, and i think american workers are currently on the menu with a lot when a lot of this stuff comes down. so i hope you all are playing close attention to that. but my question is for mr. beuse, regarding the fedex ground pilots with aurora. what safety data is aurora collecting, and how will that be used to improve the safety of evs more broadly? >> congressman, thank you for

the question. this is a really great example of self i mentioned in my testimony about our safety case framework. so our safety case framework is a holistic approach to safety where we are not looking at just the product, but also our operations, as well as our organization. and so, in this way, this is how we're addressing safety, even before those vehicles are on the road with autonomy. as we get closer to actually releasing the product and without cooperators, all vehicle, operators there are different principles we have and there are five that we need to soulful within that. so the fedex pilot is really learning more about the operational aspects of what we're trying to do, as opposed to how we are engineering the product. and surely, is there are some things that we are actively looking at, typically with respect to maintenance, that i mentioned before. but really, the safety of the product is really handled by our 50 case framework. >> okay, thank you.

i was county mayor, and i remember hearing some testimony about it, and just out of the, i think the educational level on this is lacking out in the communities, because a lot of folks thought that some of this would be controlled community to community, but in reality it's got to be an entire network, and can't be one county to one county or one state to one state, because we know those borders are not, are not followed, especially when traveling. but the automotive vehicle legislation, of course, has been in limbo for at least half a decade. and what do you think is going to be needed in the short and the long term to make sure that the automated vehicle technology can be safely deployed? and also, i wondered, in my mind, i hear a lot of folks talking about how ev, you know, is it going to be -- somebody's got to have the master switch and be able to turn it off when somebody steps a fall of the law or some other reason, if they can literally shut that

down? i wonder what your thoughts on that are? mr. beuse. >> think you, congressman, for the question. yes, i completely agree with your points around jurisdiction to jurisdiction approach. you know, that is certainly not workable for an efficient rollout of the technology, nor is it workable to actually realize even the potential, right? like, that is a framework that just doesn't work, and it's a framework that we've never used for motivational equipment in the united states. i think, with respect to what's needed, i think that some of the things that burgeoning here, so one is knits and d.o.d. have a blind sum nhtsa and don't you have a dog [inaudible] but secretary buttigieg puddles left. we need those to continue and we do to continue with some urgency. i think one of the themes that i keep hearing in this, in this panel, is that we are putting safety against innovation. i don't know why we're doing that. we are literally in a crisis of

fatalities on our nations right with, we need really needs [inaudible] on the table. including autonomous vehicles. so all those rule makings are helpful, whether they apply to lower levels of automation, or whether they apply to what we are doing a. think the second thing we need is really for congress to show and demonstrate some leadership with all of our stakeholders around developing laws and regulations that our technology and business neutral. i still hear a lot of commentary that seem to very specter fake specific to a specific calculation, some cases even the particular manufacturer, which again is not how we developed and roll out our technology the united states. and that the third thing, it is really with respect to the jobs question. no doubt there are issues that we need to study and understand, but that doesn't mean we should not take an action, right? again, the status quo is not great, that should not be our goal. our goal should be watered or

all the tools that we need to use in order to see this technology really advance. >> thank you. that's on my time. thank you so much. >> thank you. we hear next from mr. johnson of georgia. >> thank you, madam chair, for holding this very important hearing. i thank the witnesses for your testimony. the georgia institute of technology -- in march of 2019 that exposed inc. algorithmic bias embedded in machine learning and the technology behind self-driving cars. researchers found that people with darker skin are more likely to be struck by an autonomous vehicle than a person with fair skin, because models are programed by people who do not consider every complexion a person can have. mr. abuse, which measures can

be taken to rule out racial bias at the outset or at the onset of newly developed technology? what if anything is holding back industry from taking all steps? >> thank you, congressman johnson, for the question. as we sit here in the beginning of black history month, it's very important as well. i think what i would say is it's not necessarily about the folks writing the software. part of what we are doing is training autonomy based on with it sees. it's really more the environment as opposed to someone actually programming something malicious in the code. there is a lot of talk in industry about how do we go about making sure that those biases are not in the illegal rhythms. as we get closer to deployment. i know some researchers have put some studies out there, but i think this is one that is

worth a deeper conversation around this. it's fitting together, -- thinking about this particular issue. >> thank you, sir. as avs and christen numbers, they will need to talk to one another and their surroundings. this will result in the need for supportive infrastructure, not to mention security and privacy safeguards for the exponential growth and data. mr. wolf, what's measures are needed to prevent against cybersecurity attacks to ensure the privacy of americans data. >> congressman johnson, thank you so much for the question. the autonomous vehicle industry has some of the world's top engineers to build a visas and in that context, cybersecurity efforts are part of the engineering and design process from the start at all levels of development. that's a very good aspect there. not just for the development,

but for the testing and eventual deployment. now in the 21st century of course, security is critical. every single day for the av industry, but it's not confined to the av industry, but the rest of the automotive industry. and so in that context, not just the automotive industry, but all sectors. so we support as an industry a robots and risk based approach that recognizes that cyber threats are dynamic and constantly evolving. we'd be happy to work with this committee and other stakeholders to develop that approach. >> thank you. how should federal agencies ensure that our wireless infrastructure can handle the data needs, that abc's require without causing interference with existing systems such as we've seen with 5g and aviation industry?

>> mr. wolf? >> thank, you congressman. i want to make sure i answer the question directly. i think there are maybe two things. on the issue of spectrum and the use of connected vehicle technology, of course the industry welcomes investments in that respect, but vehicles are being developed, tested and deployed solace to not have to rely on connected vehicle technology, but again welcomes investments and infrastructure that enables those functionalities. with respect to the data handling on the federal side of, may i refer to the others on the panel to respond to an writing on that. i'd be happy to do so. >> thank you. the statistic that 94% of traffic crashes are caused by human error is widespread, even though it's erroneous. in fact, numerous structural

issues play a role in traffic crashes, including the distance between crosswalks and the roadway. the width of a lane as the speed limit changes, and the presence or absence of bike lanes. so the idea that self-driving cars are the solution, this is the bigger picture. what's more, tesla recently developed a sultry vague model that includes assertive driving features so that the car will not fully stop at stop signs. mr. wolf, we justification is there for developing a program that allows vehicles to violate state and local laws? >> i appreciate that question, congressman. the simple answer is tesla is not a member of our association because it is not an autonomous vehicle. it's a driver assistance technology. autonomous vehicles are developed from the start to comply with all federal and

state, local laws as just one component of the safety assurance systems that are put into the technologies. other examples is dealing with other technologies and driver systems that just don't relate to it. i would say maybe one additional note quickly on the statistic you noted. whether or not it's a specific exact number, the u.s. department of transportation just last week reaffirmed in its national roadway safety strategy, that the overwhelming majority of serious fatal crashes involved at least one human behavior issue as a contributing factor. that is the key point, and the autonomous vehicle industry, fundamentally, first and foremost exist to address that safety failure as contributing to the crisis on our roadways and in addition to many other solutions and strategies that

are outlined in that paper, and as you noted, congressman, we are hopeful and look forward to getting this talking-ology widely deployed to solve that problem. >> thank you very much. and i recognize -- >> thank, you madam chairman. i want to first of all thank all our witnesses for educating us on the challenges that lie ahead marie. mr. abuse, i want to talk to you about your testimony where you talk about the importance of safety and trust as being an important key mission. you actually say it in your written testimony on page three, you say safeties at the core of everything we do. it shapes who we hire and how we work and how we develop our products. i see later on on page four you talk about safety case framework which was published in august of last year in which you described as the first abc

safety first framework that a place to autonomy is trucks and passenger vehicles. then you're going to want to talk a little bit more in-depth about safety. things that i found was particularly helpful, was the fact you said no single piece of evidence captures the totality and safety and then you go on to list five safety principles, so those principles that you -- reported more proficient, fail-safe, continuously improving resilient and trustworthiness. so i would ask if you could take a few minutes to expand, on each of these principles, and that to explain how these principles are applied to automated vehicles. >> thank you, congressman, for the question. i am a safety guy, so safety appears a lot when i talk. it means a lot to me. one of the things that i think maybe helps to explain how this

all fits together is kind of taking a step back and talking about the aurora driver as technology rather than it being inserted into one of our platform partners like paccar, or bravo or toyota. so in order to do those partnerships we have to have people relationships with these beagle manufacturers. we are very good admit building vehicles. what we are doing is putting together the best of the best. we are very good at building hardware and software that can do the driving test and they are very good at building vehicles that are used today and for the foreseeable future. when we think about the safety, the safety of that whole package together, so these five principles are how we engineer and design the aurora driver in concert with us vehicle manufacturers. so let me talk about proficiency, for example. proficiency is really around how we put the height

behavioral competencies in the vehicle, that we understand what it means. do we understand the environment we are operating in? we have tests and requirements, so on and so forth. when you look at the principle of fail safe, that's really is the vehicle safe in the presence of all faults and failures? if the camera goes out. that's something we have to understand and understand how it relates to the vehicle ending up in a safe spot. or whatever the case may be. when you think about continuous improving, this is where we are always learning. i think one of the challenges that we have an industry right now is assumptions that you do it once and it's done forever. that is not the case with an automated vehicle. there isn't continuous improving department where we put lessons learned back into the vehicle. resilient is where we really focus on. things like software and how the vehicle could be misused. these are things we have to think through as we design the aurora driver. and then there's

trustworthiness. first and foremost, our regulators. that's also with members of the public, and also with our partners. we have to build a product that is safe and for them to actually be able to trust it and use it in their course of business. those five principles together, we believe encompass the whole framework of safety to employ these vehicles safely. >> is this something that could be expanded industry wise so it's not something just unique to aurora itself, but the same principles would be important to anyone who would be in this industry, is that correct? >> yes, congressman. it is. we've been openly sharing our framework, and in fact i would note that i was in dc about two weeks ago for the industry meeting and there were some of our competitors where we were talking about safety cases and things they've considered. >> thank you very much. madam chairman, at this time i yield back. >> thank you very much, mr. guest. our next call on this for five

minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i really do appreciate you holding this hearing today. i am sure this is going to be one of many, many hearings on autonomous vehicles. as certainly as the technology progresses on this. so, you know, i think safety always has to be first. i think everybody agrees on that. as mr. sam has noted in his testament, he said our reliance on automation can be deadly. we certainly saw that on this committee with the 737 max in 2009 redlined metro crash ndc. in my opinion we are going to continue to need highly skilled drivers for transit vehicles and trucks. speaking further on safety, you

also noted and your testimony that there are 9.1 self-driving car accidents per million miles driven, versus 4.1 per million miles among regular vehicles. to me this is a startling statistic. since many proponents of avs are either that the technology will improve safety, but why do you think they're such a disconnect between the real statistics and the rhetoric? >> first of all, i think that -- the introduction of automated operation for public transit is so new. it is so absolutely new. it's not even here yet in reality. there were tests going on into big city public transit's in america and so the rhetoric is going to accompany just the introduction, because it's new and nobody's ever seen it before. but absolutely. the statistics that are being

put forth, we just saw kind of doing statistics right now with how many accidents there were per hundred thousand, and whether or not those accidents are facing reality based on human error or based on traffic design and that type of thing. so, i don't think i'm answering your question quite well. >> well, i appreciate your attempt at it. again, there's an important distinction to make as we move through this. as we move forward with this we want to move forward based on the science and facts, and not by rhetoric. mr. chased, you have anything to add? >> i do, thank you, congressman. i think the lack of standards and confusion right now about what it can and can't do and the human over reliance upon some of this technology. not to beat up on tesla. i'm not here to do that, but when a company calls a system

auto driver, autopilot or self-driving, it really communicates a message that that it is with -- that's what it's going to do. i think while aurora and other companies might be tapping the best of the best, that's not happening throughout the industry, and that is why the federal government needs to step in. we need our regulators to do their jobs. with that assurance from the federal government, and we will see all types of crashes reduced. >> thank you for that. that leads me to another question for mr. wolf. and this is really more about public education. her synced feminist understanding among the general public regarding the level of autonomy that some vehicles offer. >> for instance i'm sure we've all seen the viral videos of people sleeping behind it wheel or setting the back seat of vehicles which are not fully autonomous. and then have there have been

some high-profile crashes that race consumers consumers do not understand the necessary level of driving engagement required to operate vehicles that are considered level two vehicles. so my question is, what is the autonomous vehicle association doing to educate consumers about the significant differences between level two and level four or five eco autonomy, and what additional steps do you think are needed in this area? >> congresswoman, thank you so much for that question, because it speaks to a very important safety issue issue that's at play today. autonomous vehicles are distinct and different from the driver assisted technology. and that conflation, as you outlined, ma'am, that conflation is having really a two for the impact. when is it's having, it's dangerous, because it's leading consumers to believe that lower levels of automation and technology are in fact actual

autonomous vehicles and over reliance on that. and then second, it's having an impact on consumer trust in the autonomous vehicle industry, which is problematic, because of the very positive safety benefits that will accrue to society if we get that technology deployed. so as a two for the impact, as well as other things. now, the industry is absolutely committed to trying to brighten this line, delineate this as clearly as possible, and has undertaken some initiatives on consumer education. there's a number of educational initiatives trying to work on terminology, standardizing town terminology so that consumers can understand that. so in a number of different ways, we are laser focused on trying to get this distinction essentially decoupling this. because what we are concerned about, in addition to what i mentioned, is in some wrecks some respects, in the conversation, leveraging these

high profile failures, of driver assist technology, and having that impugn or disparage the autonomous vehicle industry, which has a very strong safety record going on more than ten years, and again, will solve a number of safety problems that are driven by human behavioral issues in this statistic. so i'm happy to follow up with you more on that, and explore ways that tried writing that line. >> thank you for that. my time is way over. i yield back, madam chair. >> i'm next call on mr. fitzpatrick for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i will start -- and thanks to all of congress for being here for sharing your work. i want to start with mr. samuelson, so good to see you. i wanted to talk a little bit about evs. the d.o.t. recently in issued a new set of innovation principles for transportation.

this principle make it clear that inefficient invest which should be in service, creating high quality jobs. do you believe that congress should adopt this approach to overseeing new technologies like evs as well, and do you expect, and do you expect that approach to improve the lives of your members [inaudible] ? >> yes. so thank you for the question. absolutely. congress should follow the lead that the d.o.t. set out. innovation, investment, can be an absolute win, win, win across the board in public transit. it can be a win for the workforce in terms of ensuring that good jobs are protected and wind good jobs are created, that they are solid union jobs. it can be, it can also enhance service delivery, in has a state of [inaudible] repair, enhance the overall transit rider experience. so those, that type of innovation investment is exactly what we're looking at. and with a regulatory framework in place that has in mind the

impact on workers, how our members will likely greatly benefit from a much of this technology. >> appreciate that. moreover, i wanted to expand on that topic since about 2016, d.o.t. has taken steps to having a regulatory framework for evs. if congress were to move forward this year, in the av bill, what benefits [inaudible] oh would you like to see in their? you know, the av bill, this congress can tell us what types of provisions could ensure that labor has [inaudible] too. >> so we would want to see a bill that put an emphasis on writer safety, workers safety, workforce development, and an absolute assurance that we don't revisit, make mistakes of the past that workers are displaced by technology in the same way that they would be displaced by mass exportation of jobs. all of this can be achieved

with the federal government intervention. that piece of legislation would be incredibly helpful to work isn't i fear that without a piece of legislation that accomplishment, that accomplish is what i just laid out, that workers would be, will be severely negatively impacted going forward. >> thank you, mr. samuelson. next up, mr. wolf. the faa has extensive experience with autopilot technologies going back to [inaudible] more recently, it has dealt with avs. some avs even have [inaudible] to be multi-model and service, service in air taxis. sir, from your industry perspective, has there been adequate cross agency collaboration between this if i am csa and the faa? >> thank you, congressman, for the question, i can't speak to what conversations have been taken place between nhtsa and

the faa. but what i can say, is that the autonomous vehicle industry and the engineers and scientists and all the folks who are working to develop that technology, i know are open to learning from all different ideologies and other technologies to make this technology as safe as possible. i would note that there is the important to differences. 270 million plus vehicles registered in the united states, and our approach does take a human driver approach to how those operators [inaudible] licensing. so all of us get behind the wheel. and as i noted a couple of times, just it bears reiterating, that the new u.s. department of transportation has affirmed just last week that it remains the case that the overwhelming majority of serious and fatal crashes involved at least one human behavioral issue as a contributing factor. so in that respect, it becomes

very important for the autonomous vehicle industry to scale and deploy so that it can work to remove those human behavioral issues that contribute to these tragedies on our roads. and if we can get that technology out and scale it quickly and safely as possible, in conjunction with many other safety approaches, they may apply in the cross model context, as you noted, congressman, then you can start to see a reversal of the terrible trend regarding fatalities and injuries on our roads. >> do you believe there should be a new agency whose sole mission would be to oversee new transportation technologies such as this? >> well, congressman, i would say that as we look right now, as my co-panelist nat beuse has mentioned, there are a number of regulatory instruments that will make things that are underway. both nhtsa, the federal carrier border safety administration, that will help address the

[inaudible] to get this technology to scale. so at the moment, we're looking at those rule makings and advancing them as quickly as possible in conjunction with congressional action that will also we, in some of the measures i enumerated in my testimony, will help the industry scale and roll out and bring benefits to the public and. >> thank you very much. >> i yield back. >> well next here from mr. lowenthal. >> thank you madam chair and thank you for all of our witnesses. i think that what we've heard is the tremendous opportunities and challenges of our tornado vehicle technology that presents to us and mr. block and mr. samuels turn of these technologies impact the part of our supply chain that is

[inaudible] and frequently [inaudible] it's really disenfranchised part of our supply chain. i represent the port of long beach, and also the co-chair of the ports caucus. you know, drayage truckers face one of the most challenging conditions, and it's exist remotely competitive industry. and frequently drayage drivers a classified, and i think [inaudible] as [inaudible] it leaves them in a cycle of poverty without the benefits of employment, without the benefits of potential unionization. and so the question that i have is we are dealing with those that are the most disadvantaged now, the most impacted, how do we facilitate the deployment of av technologies to take advantage of the potential to improve working conditions for existing drivers, such as the

driver assistants technologies to improve operator safety and [inaudible] quality, while also mitigating the risk of job displacement. while we're really talking about those that are already disenfranchised? [inaudible] the trucking workforce. do you have any thoughts about how this is going to impact those that are the most disenfranchised today? >> well, mr. lowenthal, i appreciate the question, and i appreciate all the work that we have been able to do with you during your time as a representative in california to improve the working conditions for truck drivers had all of our california ports. we did a study with a researcher named steve viscelli out of the university of pennsylvania a few years ago, looking at how automation was going to roll out in trucking. and the scenario that he

projected after talking to industry experts was that a lot of the long haul trucking guy is poised to take advantage of this technology, from platooning to semiautonomous to fully autonomous vehicles. but when you get into urban areas, such as long beach and l.a., it's very hard to imagine drayage trucking or sure talking or lesson for [inaudible] trucks fully automated doing that work. so the scenario we saw was hubs being set up outside urban areas where these transfers could happen. and our concern, unchecked, is that we could have hopes outside of urban areas all over the united states that operate under the same model that happens at our ports, which

you're describing, which is hiring workers as independent drawn contractors instead of employees, making them by the trucks, making them liable for everything, and essentially them making less than minimum wage after they pay all their expenses, which has led to huge turnover in the workforce, and gets back to my earlier point about the supply chain problems are not really a training and recruitment problem, but a worker retention problem that's tied to actually making sure that drivers make decent wages and benefits so they can stay in their jobs. i hope that answers your question. >> he has. thank you. mr. samuelson, do you have anything to add [inaudible] complete answer. >> yeah. only that and the -- thank you, thank you for the opportunity -- and only that in your comments leading up to the

actual question you spoke about innovation technology working synergistically with truck drivers and. and i think that's, the ultimate goal here, that should be everybody's ultimate goal, to utilize technology to make transportation either passenger transportation or otherwise as safe as it possibly can be. we all know that automation fails. we've seen automation fail. there's been testimony and answers to questions about how safe it is, but all we have to do is look back at the 7:30 737 max indecent where in one fell swoop in the computer overrode the decision of a piloted craft, killing several hundred people, more than once. and i'm not suggesting that that's the beginning, but it's that type of thing that human operator would stop, and this type of technology, again, working hand in hand with a human operator, isn't ideal that we should be pursuing. thank you. >> >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you.

i recognize mr. johnson of south dakota. >> thank you, madam chair. i appreciated. my conversation will be with mr. moral or. i like the fact that you called out the fact that our world only holds 19% -- our population at 68% of our nations one miles and 45% are fatal crashes. i coming from rural state, i care a great deal. that defazio asked really good question earlier among the other witnesses about the effectiveness of these automated vehicles, it really depends on the quality of the roads. you mentioned -- shuttle service ringing all different kinds of rural roads, including gravel and unmarked roads. maybe tell us a little more about that. maybe tell us how you would have answered this question. >> thank you for that question.

rural roads and the operation of autonomous vehicles is on the minds of many of the population. all rural in nature and as you pointed out, the rural areas have 45% of all fatalities. absolutely it is a concern. one of the things we focus on iowa is our physical infrastructure across the board needs to be in good condition, better bridges and our signage and shoulders. we know that those good stewardship the physical infrastructure helps to enable automated vehicles for the future. and russell again the digital infrastructure, the demonstration project you mentioned. the university of iowa actually received a federal grant to look at the operation of rural shudder -- shuttle buses in parts of iowa.

in unmarked routes, very rural scenarios in the state of iowa, because we're trying to make sure that we are able to serve all of our populations across the state. and so one of the things that is very important for this shuttle bus to work is the digital infrastructure. more specifically, the high definition mapping that is on board. that map is able to digitally paint the centerline down the gravel road. this is very key for the operation of this particular rural shuttle. that's one thing we are learning. many learnings we are experiencing. i would say there is work yet to do here. we need to assure that the benefits are going to be widespread. i mention one other things that i will tie into this directly. the expansion of broadband across states and nations. and iowa, this is been an important focus for us. just in the last 12 months we've invested 323 million and broadband grants for the

private sector to install more broadband. >> so, as we work on this demonstration project, as the university of iowa works on this demonstration project, what appears to be the biggest challenge? i mean logistically? what will be the largest hurdle to clear? >> logistically, standards across the board. basically, this is helping us understand the data standards that we need. we are building that through the demonstration project. one of those minimum standards across our nation that we didn't look at for data. one of those minimum standards for connectivity. this is one of the reasons we talk about -- we need to be able to rely on some of the communication technologies as well as the minimal data standards that make the distribution of the technologies ubiquitous and everywhere in our country. >> is the demonstration project -- i mean, tell me more of their analyzing to what extent these things or scale-able, right?

i think you are right, the digital infrastructure is critically important. but what about all the other things. you talk about the quality of the roads. that is a pretty soft substantial undertaking as well. is a demonstration project re-scale-able? >> we think it will be. keep in mind, we are learning a lot with this, but the reason we think it's scale-able is because these lessons that we are learning, we are trying to look at it from an agnostic point of view with the technology. one of those basic names in these rural areas, like i mentioned the broad bad perspective -- >> one more thing, quickly. what would come next? let's say the demonstration project is a big success. with his face to look like? >> understanding operationally what we can do as the transportation departments, to help the situation with rural automation, what can we do from an infrastructure and investment perspective to set that stage so that we can

really be scale-able and go to the next level? it's really our operation focus which comes next as we analyze the data. >> thank you, sir. thank you, madam chair, for your indulgence. i yield back. >> thank you. next, mr. garcia, for five minutes. >> thank you name for holding this important hearing on automated vehicles. as automation becomes more common across all our transportation modes, including public transit, we must proactively ensure that we are placing workers first and that we areholdthe highest safety standards. we could do this by including workers in the decision-making on how automation is deployed and making sure that they are giving knowledge to use the new technologies. my questions. to mr. samuelson, in your testimony, you mentioned how av

framework needs to focus or most, in upholding the highest safety standards and the creation of good jobs. as you mentioned, we can do this by giving workers a seat at the tables so they could help shape innovation. employers who -- including transit agencies, usually know that they will eliminate positions years ahead of time. it's disinformation generally shared with workers in a timely manner? if not, should the federal government require companies that use on may to technology, to give workers advanced notice on these kinds of procurements? >> yes, absolutely. thank you for that question. certainly, there is very little notice given in general to who workers or representatives of workers, workers unions. very little notice. it would be common or a worker or the union to find out that there's going to be technology

displacing human jobs when a pink slip arrives. that would not be uncommon at all. >> how best can we bring workers to the table when it comes to deploying innovation? is it fair to say that making sure workers learn about these kinds of events far enough in advance to find other employment, or to retrain in the use of new technology as the first step? >> yeah, absolutely. and in cities in america where workers have the power to compel that to happen, it has happened, but the overwhelming majority of transit cities across the country, that does not exist. so the federal government is stepping up and compelling transit employers or municipalities and state governments, too, to give as much advance notice as possible as a requirement would be ultra helpful. in fact, it would enhance labor peace in the long run. it would give the unions and employers a chance to work together to identify jobs that workers who would potential

face displacement could land it. that's what it would all be about. >> thank you. mister black, from a kingston's perspective, how can you bring workers to the table when it comes to innovation so we are putting workers first? >> i appreciate the question and would echo the comments of mr. samuelson. when you technology comes to the workplace and workers have the ability to join together in unions, and they can't sit across the table from their employer -- i mentioned we are introducing legislation in california to make the introduction of autonomous vehicles in the public transit sphere, and we also represent a lot of drivers. a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. we are going into bargaining with united parcel service this year. as i mentioned, the largest collective bargaining agreement in the country. you better believe we are going to be bargaining around

technology. our experience has been that new technology can help make our jobs safer. make us more productive. but as you said, sir, to have those discussions on the front and allows us to be proactive and adapt. and for workers that don't have unions, they just have to take whatever they get from the boss, and that's not the sort of protection that the workers need. >> thank you, sir. council member castex-tatum. in the testimony you discuss how the manual needs to be modernized. it is the infrastructure investment and jobs act that congress directed -- the u.s. department of transportation to revise and beauty cb, including by making sure vulnerable users, like pedestrians and cyclists are protected by incorporating avs

into the mu two -- from the national cities perspective, what -- am you t c d to modernize it? >> [inaudible] the main thing we want to point out is we want to make sure this does not become an unfunded mandate on cities. local governments own any of the roads in our city use and maintain those roads. concerning the manual, we just want to make sure it does not become a [inaudible] mandate. >> thank you and thank you for your indulgence, madam chair. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. i recognize mr. needles for five minutes. >> thank you, chairwoman. holmes norton and ranking members for having this hearing. i have concerns about how we

integrate av's safely on to roads and into the economy. trucking is a critical industry and disruptive technology, like abs, promising great increases and efficiency and safety, but it threatens jobs in an already strained truck driving market. while i appreciate talking about how technology could disrupt the trucking market in 20 to 30 years, i want to talk about is forcing truckers out of the profession today now, and that is the vaccine mandate. while the supreme court thankfully struck down the unconstitutional vaccine mandate voted by president biden, of the canadian and u.s. governments are imposing vaccine mandates on truckers just to be able to cross the border. we are releasing potentially covid infected aliens from federal custody into our countries on the southern border, but on the northern border, we are not alone truckers to cross simply because they don't have the

vaccine. interesting for the first two years of the pandemic, it was considered safe, but now that the main variant causes less serious infections, the truckers must be vaccinated. it does not make a whole lot of sense. this also threatens to disrupt trade with one of our most important partners, canada, in the middle of an artificially created supply chain crisis. in canada, we've seen a massive protest against the senseless mandates. a convoy of trucks, 45 miles long, made it all the way to ottawa to protest. and a similar protest has been planned in the u.s.. so i have a question. in your written testimony, you talked about the difficulties truckers face in the occupation, including supply chain and efficiencies that caused drivers to wait in line for hours. the division in the call car hall division in the teamsters represents thousands of

hardworking drivers across the u.s. and canada. do you know how many of your members either resigned or lost their jobs due to earlier vaccine mandates? and the union concerned about the new cross border mandates impact on your members livelihood? >> thank you for the question, sir. on the federal policy and cross border i will have to ask our federal policy experts to respond to your question, which i am happy to do. the california experience on the inefficiencies, i think everybody on this panel today who has worked for somebody or supervised anybody during their career can appreciate the efficiencies you have with an employee where you can direct that person to go somewhere and do something, versus this model

of hiring truck drivers is independent contractors. >> so you represent -- okay. got it. so you represent 100,000 truck divers in california and nevada, and you are telling me you cannot answer the question as to how many of those trucks fibers have been affected, how many have lost their jobs as a result of the mexican -- vaccine mandate? you can't answer that? >> i can tell you that we have not heard complaints here. we've heard complaints, but we have not seen resignations because of vaccine mandates here in california. >> very well. not surprising. >> sir, we did not take a position on the mandatory vaccinations. >> i'm just saying with all the issues we are facing across this country, and right now what you are seeing in canada, and now coming to the u.s., with vaccine mandates on our truckers, i'm surprised that you who represents the teamsters could not have an

answer to my question. again, it doesn't surprise me. the gentleman yields back. since a vote has been called on the house floor, the committee, the subcommittee will stand in recess to the call of the chair. we will restart the hearing as soon as the last vote it's over 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.