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.

>> i call the subcommittee to i want to call the subcommittee to order and resume the hearing while members are returning,

and we certainly have one member here already, mr. auchincloss. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. and i appreciate the patience of our witnesses as we take a break to vote. i want to start by emphasizing points that have been made in different threads by both my colleagues and by some of our witnesses, which is who each to be at the table as we roll out autonomous vehicles technology. with long haul trucking, in particular, or as mr. bloch, you were emphasized quite articulately, the changes would be at the player, whether it's a hot one, whether it's a different model that ends up being the organizing architecture of foreign ev long haul trucking system. unions in particular, the teamsters, in particular, need to be at the table to ensure

that we are sustaining, reinforcing and cultivating good union jobs as we roll out this technology. and that in so far as avs have a place in our cities, and maybe they do and maybe they talked, we are going to explore that over the next decade and cities, mayors and governors are really need to be the ones driving that ship because they know what's best for their constituents. but in so far as we are rolling out ev technology in the cities i would encourages or to organize around the premise of water bill that would ability. what [inaudible] what promotes public health, good environmental quality would help small businesses, would have big cities more livable for citizens abilities and ages is walkability, is the infrastructure and the ambiance that promotes walking and cycling, and we do not want an autonomous vehicle future to in any way undermined that. and it may not. it actually may promote it. and i think one we it could do that as, has been pointed out by one of our witnesses, is by

reducing the need for parking, which has really been a play golf american urban land use for the last 70 years. if we can drastically reduce the amount of parking that is required because of an autonomous vehicle fleet -- share rideshare fleet -- that would be a good thing. and that should be used as an opportunity for cities to promote walkability and how they spend their infrastructure dollars and has a report of repurpose public land one institution that really has not been brought up to date in this hearing has been an important stakeholder is the property and [inaudible] insurance industry. i would encourage my colleagues, as [inaudible] from the varying perspectives to bring in the p&c industry in these conversations. property and casualty insurance industry has a huge stake in making sure that we do this well. they are on the hook [inaudible] safety considerations, financially, and got tremendous data from sometimes over the

course of our of 100 years on the populist population, scale about what types of behaviors make for safer driving, what kinds of infrastructure and semiotics makes for safe driving and, they really need to be a part of this conversation. so i'd open it up to any of the witnesses to weigh in here about they how they have worked with the p&c industry or how they propose that we worked with the b and c industry to ensure and p&c industry to ensure a safe rollout of av technology. >> congressman, if i could respond to your question. >> sure. >> by no stretch of the imagination do i speak for the p&c industry but i want to ensure that our board of directors is comprised of half of members of the p&c industry and half of other leading public health, law enforcement, consumer and safety advocates and individuals. so there are some wonderful committees that belong to advocates for highway and auto safety who are deeply devoted to making sure that autonomous vehicles [inaudible]

cars and trucks are developed and deployed in a safe way as possible. i also just wanted to comment on your remark about making sure that cities are walkable and by kabul. we share that as well, and one of the promote -- one of the permissions that we have been advocating for are to make vehicles more absorbing if there is a conflict or a crash with a car -- with a car or a truck, especially delivery trucks, which are more ubiquitous in some of our neighborhoods. and bicyclists. and my last point out that is, again, the urge for automatic emergency -- to require that standard equipment requires, and not as allowed on in a luxury package for only a high-end vehicle, which not everyone can afford. because that is an equity issue. every family should be afforded the safest break its braking

systems, and that will lead to tremendous value of all road users, especially vulnerable motives. thank you. >> thank you. mrs. chase. >> congressman, i can add on from an industry perspective, that'll be helpful. >> yes, very briefly, because i'm overtime. >> sure. so, one of the things we've done is [inaudible] very, very important and here in pennsylvania, we are on a committee along with several other local farms that were cohn served driving along with insurance companies. absolutely [inaudible] at the table. >> madam chair, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. vandyne. >> i've been called worse. this vandyne. >> i'm sorry, miss vandyne. please forgive me! >> [laughs] no, your fight, your find! thank you very much, madam chair. only a slim framework currently exists when it comes to automated vehicles across this country. many state, such as texas, have been leading the charge to

provide safe testing while also giving companies flexibility to [inaudible] productive tests. as we continue to recover from the pandemic, employers struggle to find enough workers, experienced slow economic recovery and are faced with national supply chain disruptions. our regulatory framework favoring av deployment in the u.s. is critical for workforce opportunities and domestic growth. u.s. is home to a dynamic av industry that provides job opportunities for americans across the country. our regulatory framework favorable to the deployment of [inaudible] ensure the continuance joys of this industry by [inaudible] and more seamless supply chains. a 2021 u.s. department of transportation found that a level four and level five automation in the long haul trucking industry would raise annual earnings for all u.s. earners by between $203 and $260 per worker per year. the study additionally found that tracking automation would increase total u.s. deployment

by 26,000 to 35,000 per year on average. over 30. so mr. bloch and mr. stimulus, an [inaudible] 80,000 drivers. i have heard this from businesses across the country, specifically within texas. this nick is expected to double by 2030, and yet, in your testimony you stoke fear of massive job losses and the layoff. [inaudible] you are literally the only folks that i've heard that from in the country. and i thought i'd be curious, what solutions do you propose to close these gaps? and if you do look towards the future and innovate for advancements in new technology? >> well thank you for the question, and i actually -- we are not ruling on the ground screaming about a robot apocalypse coming to take jobs in the trucking industry. i don't see it.

i actually agree -- >> [inaudible] . >> well, okay, thank you. i don't go for hyperbole. and quite honestly, we do believe that in some segments of the supply chain, we may see a net job increase. i think that our concerns are more around the quality of jobs. we are doing a big push around our apprenticeship program here in california to train workers to take these jobs. the big concern is how long people stay in those jobs after they train them. and we don't want to invest a lot in california or anywhere in the country, including texas, in training workers if it's just going to be a revolving door. and so that's why i try to tailor our comments to the quality of jobs that we are creating, and i appreciate you raising those issues in your

question as well. >> thank you. does anyone else have a comment on how to bridge the gap with the need in the current got that we've got, if not three technology? okay, i'll go on to my next question. north texas is home to a growing av industry. it has more aviation jobs than anywhere in the country. autopilot requires extensive programming and this creates new jobs to develop, maintain and update the system while increasing the efficacy and resulting ridges of pilots in the aviation industry. so why would autonomous motivate called technology do not do the same thing for road transportation? and what your members not benefit from safety and productivity and which improvements? would your organization welcome the opportunity [inaudible] folks who program and maintain these systems? >> hi, if i may. and thank you for the question. i have no comment because we are not, we are simply not the

trucking industry, we are the airlines that public transit and railroads, no trucking. so the question was posed as if somehow that we are opposed to the implementation of technology or the development of technology and the way that that can create jobs. it's simply not the case. but we -- so we are in favor technology, we [inaudible] weaves off new technology and the jobs that brings it to public transit. we just want that technology harnessed in a way that creates and sustains jobs, doesn't have an unnecessary impact on workers, and doesn't jeopardize working safety or writer safety. so the comments that i've made all day, i think sort of connect with the question you are asking, which is that type of innovation is good. but we embrace it. we just want good jobs, we don't want workers [inaudible] displaced where, if it was another route that was taken,

[inaudible] they would be fine. so we are good with innovation. we just one good union jobs across america. and we want to save jobs. so we do, we do have a disagreement with the use of av in public transit to replace bus operators. we believe it's dangerous, we believe automation should be under the control over human operator at all times, and so, thank you. >> all right. thank you. mr. bloch, did you have anything to add? >> i would say very quickly, because you are out of time, yes. and if there are employers who are tuning into this hearing we think there are jobs out there, please, call us. please! please contact! yes. >> [laughs] . >> the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. bordeaux, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairwoman norton. and thank you for holding today's hearing.

it's clear from the testimony that we are going to see automated vehicle technology increasingly woven into our transportation systems, and it is now our job to ensure that we at all levels of government create safe, equitable and well researched av policies that really maximize the benefits of this technology, while also protecting against the risks. my his district is home to curiosity lab at peachtree corners, which is a one of the kind of living lab, and it's designed to provide a real world test environment to advance next generation intelligent mobility and smart city technology. during a conversation with the head of curiosity lab in november, he mentioned that vehicles are taking over smartphones as the most connected devices in the world. a key element of safety, of course, is ensuring that these highly connected technologically reliant vehicles cannot be hacked or remotely controlled, and one of the things that they are testing there is cybersecurity.

so just wanted to talk about that little bit. and starting with mrs. chase, in your testimony, your list cybersecurity standards as one of the tenets of autonomous vehicle legislation. could you fill listen and talk a little bit about the current cybersecurity requirements for autonomous vehicles, and are there additional standards or things that we need to be thinking about to ensure their safety? >> >> thank you. i greatly appreciate the question. having a minimum standard is -- i'm not going to claim to be a cyber expert by any stretch of the imagination. i can't get granular into the details of that, other than to say we have deep concerns. we've already seen having and weaponizing some vehicles that have advanced technologies in them to the detriment of pedestrians and road users, so

it's a concern of ours. the 80 tenants it's a collaborative process as i mentioned earlier with possibly 60 stakeholders representing a myriad of organizations. we listened to everyone and created this living document, if you will, that we hope that the committee and the subcommittee will use as a foundation for future legislation. >> thank you. mr. wolf, do you have any thoughts on this? i know you talked about this issue earlier? >> absolutely, congresswoman, thank you so much for the question. cybersecurity is a challenge, which is one that is not limited to the av industry, of course, but for the automotive sector, and of course the economy at large in all sectors. the av developers manufacturers, they build inside security by design upfront. it's something of paramount

importance that the outset. as we look ahead to ways in which the av industry and the auto sector at large can address that obscurity, the vulnerabilities, we look at a robust reason based approaches the best way to address it and happy to work with stakeholders on that process looking forward. >> thank you very much. so building on that, are there things that we should be doing in congress to talk more about for cybersecurity protection or build out standards? should we be focused on software requirements in the workforce. physical infrastructure. one of the kinds of things you should be thinking about as we move forward with trying to find ways to support the deployment of these technologies? >> i appreciate the question. ultimately, i think -- i'd be happy to respond to you in writing with more specifics.

it's intended on looking for whether those risks and vulnerabilities, and how can there be a framework that is able to adapt overtime rather than adapt a provisions and have a static kind of a check box exercise. that's the exercise that is important for this kind of policy. i note it again, across different sectors, i believe it was national standards and technology -- has a framework for cybersecurity. a number of other measures could be adapted and applied in this context and again, very happy to follow up and writing on that. >> okay, thank you very much. i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. representative hernandez.

mr. lamalfa. representative lamalfa? >> thank you, madam chair. yes, i'm here, mostly. [laughs] . thank you for convening today's hearing. i have a few thoughts on what is going on here in rural california. and the effects of legislation on people that were provided lyft and uber services and tie that back in into a vehicles are able to provide in our rural area. excuse my illness here today. i'm at home. taking it easy here, so ... my rural district in northern california, lyft was performing about 2500 rides late at night, which you know might entail people that have had too much to drink or other purposes, but

certainly drunk driving and drowsy driving is something we want to avoid. in the state of california, of course, a bill passed called ab5, and it's being, the pro act is being modeled after that. the result was that they were trying to -- uber drivers as employees of companies, where actually they really do have, in their own way, autonomy as to set their own hours and their own workplace, etc. the voters to california overturned that portion of ab5 initiative process to a referendum to say that had gone even too far over the line. and so, what we are looking at is, so rural areas are specially affected by less

choices with these types of uber and lyft operators. as you can surmise, there's going to be less people operating at those hours versus washington, dc, etc. it's harder to compete for rural folks like that. so if we find they still can't compete because of the effects of ab5 and the pro act coming through, then mr. beuse and mr. wolf, what can autonomous vehicles provide, do you think, in rural settings like we are talking about here? very rural -- many miles between towns, etc. >> thank you for the question. i think you point out at the macro level sort of an issue with regulations that sometimes kind of go the wrong way.

specific to avs for example, we look at -- i look at for example, i would consider myself -- not necessarily rule, but it could take half an hour to get lyft out there. you could think one of the uses for a visas kind of balance that. where that part of the population that doesn't get the magic of the service as -- with say, are better served by something like an autonomy's vehicle operating on an. i think the issue is larger though, right? the issue right now we have is in some space states it's just not particularly clear. for example, in california, the currently exists of [inaudible] probation on testing and deployment of autonomous trucks, and so until that gets fixed, we can't even start to address some issues that you are talking about with respect to

trucking. but one thing we have to do is we're working closely with not just our industry partners, but also with a governor partners to kind of really encourage with the government partners to encourage a more future looking view, and not try to lock down [inaudible] for what we know today. i mean, having regulated at the federal level for a while, rulemaking's are challenging, and this, exactly, is the point i was making earlier around bringing a more flexible approach here and for [inaudible] continue the will making [inaudible] . >> let's bear down a little more on the role aspect then. and we're talking, you know, long, no stretches of two lane road, highway, even turning down a dirt road perhaps for certain, certain, whether talking deliveries or, you know, and hubert lyft situation via autonomous vehicle. how do you see it applying that well to areas that just have this infrastructure of markets or, you know, signs, or

whatever you would use as an autonomous vehicle to tie into that? >> yes, exactly. those are challenges that we have to solve within the operational design [inaudible] the area that we are going to go into. a point at, you know, part of our mission at aurora is to deliver this technology, not to safety, not just quickly, but broadly. we believe there is a huge, huge impact far beyond our imaginations on what this technology could deliver. and certainly i think rural america's part of that. i mean, i grew up in a very rural part of [inaudible] we had one stoplight. so i can relate. >> yeah, okay. well, the time has flown by. i thank you. i yield back, madam chairwoman. >> the gentleman yields back. miss strickland, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairwoman norton and ranking member davis. as we consider the direction of this emerging technology, i know my constituents back home

in the washington tense congressional district want to see transportation developments that can improve their daily lives and also have a focus on equity. but they also want to [inaudible] see if unsecure on our nations roadways. as we've heard today, there is evidence that evs have the potential to reduce roadway deaths and injuries. and the 2021 being the deadliest year for motorist in washington state in 15 years, i'm glad that this subcommittee is exploring these possibilities. so i have two questions, one for mr. wolf in the industry, and this is more of a conversation about messaging. could you briefly talk to our constituents and people who may be hesitant or not quite certain or nervous about av deployments happening across the country, and what would you tell them after this discussion, what should be the big takeaway for people outside of our bubble? >> thank you so much, congresswoman for that question. the simple and straightforward answer is that the data is clear. autonomous vehicles are not

only safe but they are making our roads safer. there is a crisis on our roadways system discussed a number of times in this hearing, and it cannot be stated enough. and the number of crashes and severe fatalities and severe injuries continues to go up at an alarming rate. and the overwhelming majority of those are, there is a contribution, of human behavior all, a human behavioral issue, whether it's distracted driving, drunk driving. those are the numbers. and it's a big problem. so autonomous vehicles, the industry that we represent and the members of our association are designing technology that will address that specific issue. and it will have a dramatic impact on safety, in conjunction with many other solutions, though, put forward by secretary buttigieg and national way safety strategies. so first and foremost, this is about improving safety, not just of other drivers on the road, but vulnerable road users

as well. bicyclists and pedestrians, and that's across the whole gamut. so that's the key thing. just very quickly, enumerate the other benefits with respect to equity. the ability to enhance and expand mobility for individuals with disabilities, and with respect to economic growth. there are tremendous benefits that accrue just society as a result of the deployment of avs and what we're looking to do is build out a national framework to scale that deployment in deployment in a way that brings benefits to the greatest number of people possible. >> great, well thank you very much. now i'd like to turn to vice mayor castex-tatum. welcome, and it's nice to see you here. i'm a former mayor myself so i do appreciate that you are here today. and you know, i would like to ask you, on the local level, what specific infrastructure investments have been needed in your city, in houston, or in dedicated lanes as you try to prepare for this deployment. that's the first part. and the second part, tell me

how you [inaudible] through the lens of equity as a leader? >> thank you for that question. i can speak from the pilots that we've had here in houston. with the pilot that we had at texas southern university in conjunction with metro, we had a shuttle that was riding on the campus of sex texas southern university. and that was phase one. we are working in phases. phase two, we are looking at going off road between two universities. so as we work through each of the phases, we are hoping to gather more data so that we can make sure the infrastructure works alongside of the autonomous vehicles. with our work with nuro this is delivering for businesses, we've seen transportation become less of a barrier for some of our lower economic communities. specifically during a time with

covid, nuro was able to deliver senior boxes to an apartment complexes in one of our poor areas in the city of houston, one of our complete community areas, one of the areas where residents need assistance with getting groceries. so we see the opportunity for these autonomous vehicles to really help the quality of life for some of our residents who can't drive to the store because they don't have a car, or some of our different, differently abled constituents to get some of their prescriptions delivered. so we see this as a new and innovative way for us to meet the needs of our residents, and really improve their quality of life in cities. >> >> thank you, madam vice mayor. madam chair, i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. mrs. napolitano. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you.

my statement is that it's going to create quite a bit of confusion. people are soon driver-less cars and trucks. we have to be sure that -- because that's going to be a tremendous -- well, traffic safety hazard. but i have a question for mr. bloch. i agree with your testimony regarding classification for drivers. -- 14 plus our days made below minimum wage because a forced independent contractor status. the state of california has been trying to crack down on these companies, but the government needs to step in and do more. i authored provision for the bill that creates federal tax force to study the problem and create clauses to address this problem. secretary buttigieg recently

announced -- what are your thoughts on with the federal government could do to address this problem? >> thank you very much. this is been the problem the teamsters union have been combatting for the last four years. it's deregulation of trucking, and prior to that, 90% of the truck drivers of the united states made good wages working under our teamster contract, and i wish that was still true today. i can speak to the california experience which came out of a court ruling against a package delivery company using an dependent contractors that competes with ups, one of the largest private sector employers in his district. a ups driver makes 100,000 a year in california on average. that's fully paid family health insurance and a pension. it doesn't matter if you have a

criminal background or just a high school education. you can get that job. the california law that passed in the portions of the pro-act that deal with miss classification came out of the court case involving companies that was competing with ups and under cutting those good wages. that is the issue that is happening within the trucking and transportation industry in the united states, and so -- >> look at the federal government do to make it better and address it? >> having a task force to look at miss cleft suffocation is very important. eight new abc test, the provisions and the pro act that mr. lamalfa mentioned is a test in many states in the united states. it's the most stringent test to address these classification of

workers. >> thank you very much. mr. samuelson, i want to thank the transportation -- transport workers union are making provision and the bipartisan infrastructure bill to improve transit safety -- with bus driver protection and blind spot removal requirements. how can technology help drivers with blind spot issues and general safety issues? >> thank you for the question. in terms of blind spots on buses it is a fact that buses in the united states across every transportation district, every transit provider, bus operators are ordered through to go through pedestrian right of way areas -- on buses with blind spots. that is a bit of a disaster waiting to happen. it's an example of where technology has such an extremely positive place in terms of collision avoidance. that type of thing in order to

protect pedestrians, and the rioters and operators. technology has its place. i'm sorry, you asked a second question and i forget what it was. >> helping drivers with point spots. because if they implemented at the avs, then -- i don't know what technology can do to avoid having to help prevent accidents. >> absolutely, the technology -- our position, essentially, across the entire spectrum of this conversation is that the technology should be utilized to increase safety, to increase service reliability, increased state of repair that is applicable and all synergistically working with a

bus operator. we believe that's the safest outcome. a bus driver being in control of the operation. a bus operator that can pull a switch and and a dangerous situation. but yet, utilizing the technology to improve safety and service delivery. >> thank you, sir. the av issue is enormous. we have to be careful. >> thank you, gentlelady, for your question. sir, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank, you madam chair. and thank you to all the witnesses that are here today. thank you for your time and your testimony. from passengers to commercial vehicles, there is no doubt that autonomous vehicles will become integrated into our transportation system in the coming years. congress must begin preparing now to legislate in a way that optimizes economic benefit, prioritizing safety and

avoiding job displacement. i'm interesting and learning how congress could support employment of evs, but we should also be considering, when it comes to safety regulation, ensuring transportation workers have a place in the workforce. mr. samuelsen, you know that the department of transportation innovation principles -- put job creation and workers at the center of the innovation development process. elements of these principles include 14 partnerships with the private sector, while protecting interest of the public workers and community. how can congress promote partnerships with private sector and local communities in ways that facilitate and support workers by expanding access to skills. hawkins partnerships wrap around on going to points and pilots to develop and build

training models? >> right, thank you for the question. the federal government plays a vital role from workforce development to -- and across a whole wide array of the above the necessities as we go into the future of public transit. now, the federal government, as it -- it needs to ensure that those providers are doing everything you said. both in terms of ensuring investing in more force development and involving communities that -- and the decisions on what's public transit will look like going forward. i believe you said a couple of times about the deployment of automated vehicles in public transit. again, we would be adamantly opposed to that. it's not just about the degradation of jobs, which is bound to come, despite what people might think how it's gonna be a job creator. when you talk about automated vehicles, automatically, with

that's going to lead to is the degradation of the diminishment of bus operated jobs. we are opposed to that on a whole bunch of levels. the main one is that service delivery and public transit delivery is about more than the amount of buses we put out. it's about service quality and service reliability. we believe that innovation technology is best utilized, as i said before, in conjunction with a human operator technology used to augment the safe operation of buses while maintaining service reliability and augment scheduling in a positive way to ensure that service delivery is at the highest level it can be for our writers. >> thank you. it's exciting to hear about the successes in houston. how did houston work with the industry to implement the safely and equitably? >> i will tell you that nuro

came to us with their pilot and the boss and we met with them. we had an opportunity to also introduce their product to the community. we introduced them to the law enforcement officers in our community so that once they started to see these buses on the roads, if there were any problems or concerns they would know how to interact and who to contact. i say all the time, governments can't do it alone. these public private partnerships are extremely important for us to make sure we are meeting the needs of our constituents and really doing our best to try to make their quality of life better. so, we are excited about the opportunity to bring services directly to people's homes, and also to provide shared services to help get one person out of one car. we think that the autonomous

places will allow us to get some cars off the road and move more people at the same time, so that we won't all be sitting in traffic all the time. >> should other cities implement similar programs? what lessons can they learn from houston? >> i think it's important that they start piloting with companies like nuro and transit authorities like metro. we learn as we pilot and gather data. that's why as the national league of cities, we are asking for federal partnerships for more testing in more places so that we can provide more data and get more evs to have some regulated safety standards. so, my suggestion would be keep piloting. >> thank you. i'm out of time. i yield back. >> thank you very much.

next we have mr. moulton for five minutes. i recognize you, mister moulton. >> think you to all the witnesses for seeking the south. i know this is a long time, but we are grateful for your witness on this incredibly important issue. professor larco, if i may start with you. -- partnered with hyundai to develop a v fleet. but without a legal framework for av's testing their technology, which is different massachusetts than nevada, at least a understand it. so states are being burdened with the absence of clear federal guidance. beyond the bird and individual states and communities like nevada and massachusetts, what does this cost with regard to our national priorities, do not have these federal standards? >> thank you very much for the question. i think you're absolutely right. a lot of the deployment of a these are actually -- it's a local fishery right.

a lot of things i talked about -- cascading impacts are going to be affecting different communities differently, and there needs to be some control at the local level to be able to respond to these things. the conversation we've had so far, it's fantastic to hear the issues around safety and labor but one of the main points is that is not the only questions that are important for 80 deployment. we need to be working at the local level to be able to answer some of these things. to answer your question about the role of federal government, i would say what's really important is that the federal government actually does many other things that we've been talking about here. to help support pilots and help support research in this topic and supports cities, but making sure it's not only about safety and about technology itself, but really looking at these cascading effects. >> to follow on that, mr. wolf, the u.s. can be first in market av deployment. we could see that leadership to countries like germany, allies or competitors, like china.

how will the u.s. market create efforts to -- if we don't act first. if china sets the rules for evs? >> thank you so much for the question, congressman. i think the critical issue that we've discussed today, and that is american leadership in this technology. america is the birthplace of the thomas vehicle technology. in many respects it's got the largest amount of investment, and we are the leader in that technology. where we are slow is in the regulatory framework component. the national framework piece is a critical aspect of being able to scale in technology. in that respect the countries you mentioned and others are catching up. being able to allow technology to scale and deploy their. so the biggest thing that needs to happen from the industries

perspective, and i think a lot from the perspective of a number of approaches, is actually we need to proceed with -- without delay to enact this national framework that has a couple of components. the way we structured it isn't two pieces. it has to be able to enhance consumer and public trust and technology. that's first and foremost. that comes from completing a number of rule makings that is underway -- a number of other initiatives that could help on that front. the second part, and they must go hand in hand, is to maximize deployment of technology. the vice mayor is correct. one of the key things that comes from being able to scale technology in the interim, while rule makings are in process, is the information that regulators and policy makers could get from being able to deploy technology. great exemption, caps being able to put new and different kinds of vehicles on the road in the interim.

that's critical. we have to maximize deployment to keep that position of leadership. >> so following on that, specifically on your first point about consumer trust, i hear a lot of concerns from constituents from technology experts, from artificial intelligence experts, about the degree of trust that drivers currently place in their tesla. why is level three and above automation different than what teslas are using on the road with us today. and do you think these technologies are safe? >> i appreciate the question, congressman. i think the key thing there is that the av industry association, we represent level four and above. and the distinction is critical, because level four and level five autonomous vehicles are not designed to have any expectation of human involvement in the performance of the driving task. >> but a lot of humans today read the newspaper behind their

tesla, so there seems to be an expectation that they don't need to do anything. >> to that exact point, congressman, tesla is not a level four or level five technology. it striver assistance technology. as we were discussing a little bit earlier, it's very important, to your point, sir, that we are very clear to what the differences are between those technologies. so that consumers are not confused and engaging in dangerous activities with driver cyst technology and when they assume it's autonomous vehicle technology. they're different industries and business models, different technologies, all of it. they need to be separated very quick clean. we welcome the dialogue and working with state voters to do that. >> thank you and thank you madam chair for giving me more time. i think it's an important issue. i yield back. >> of course, mr. molten. ms. williams, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair, and i want to thank all the

witnesses here today that are testifying. sticking out with us. waiting through the votes. when you get to a freshman member whose last name starts with a w, you know you are in the home stretch. it's almost time to go home. thank you. thank you. when people say that congress writes the rules of the road, that's usually just an expression. except here on highways and transit subcommittee, because you all, we really do write the rules of the role -- the road. we want to make sure we're writing the rules as quickly as the roads are changing while ensuring safety for workers and innovation simultaneously. when it comes to writing the rules of the road for automated vehicle technology, this is no different, and we must center transportation workers and the people who rely on transportation systems every day. vice chair, castex-tatum, in your testimony, you highlighted the importance of achieving zero fatalities on our roads. what role do you see automated vehicle technology playing in

achieving that goal, and how can congress start writing policy and preparation for automated vehicle technology that prioritizes safety for both motorists and pedestrians? >> thank you for that question, representative williams. zero is the only number that makes sense for us with fatalities on the road. animal sees position as we are recommending more pilot partnerships with our cities. that way we can have more testings and more places and rural areas. the areas that are urban. we need more data. so that autonomous vehicles can get their own safety standards. until we have more information, i think that we will need to do more testing, more piloting, so that you can write the rules that would be equitable across the country. >> thank you. and last week, i took the time

to speak with state and local elected officials in our district about many of the programs and opportunities that exist in the bipartisan infrastructure law. one of the programs that garner interest was the safer streets and roads for all programs, which funds projects aimed at reducing traffic fatalities. vice mayor, i'm going to get it right this time. vice mayor, castex-tatum, how can a critical programming to support projects that build advanced responsible technology and reduce traffic fatalities? >> we definitely want to take the human error out of the fatalities that are happening on our roads, and we feel like autonomous vehicles is that opportunity that can take that human error out of the u morris number of crashes that are happening on our roads. the sensors that are on these autonomous vehicles have shown that they are stronger than the human eye. the vehicles can't react faster than a human.

this technology is very innovative, however, it's still very premature, and there still needs to be more piloting and more data collected so that we could do all of this innovation safely and make sure we are protecting the public trust. >> thank you. mr. samuelsen, in your testimony you mentioned protective collective bargaining principles that every stage of automated vehicle development, including during research testing and implementation. can you elaborate on this and tell me how these principles can be implemented at each state of technology development to ensure that workers have a seat at the table every step of the way? >> yes, and thank you for the question. so, as the technology comes in, and wet needs to be done, definitely it's been referenced here many times today, is that the federal government needs to set up a framework that protects workers, protects jobs, doesn't allow a situation where transit providers, and i'm

speaking strictly about transit, implement technology in the blindside manner that eliminates workers. so, the federal government has an ability to compel the transit operation -- operators, employers, to develop and engage in workforce development investment and also to engage with communities and workers in such a way where ways of technologies that will impact neighborhoods and workers themselves are discussed well ahead of time. well before the time of implementation. those things are happening now, where we have -- where workers have power to compel that to happen in new york city. where it's very common. it's very common in new york where the tea w contracts that we have in new york, but the federal government needs to adopt it as a uniform standard so it happens city after city after city. transit provider, transit provider, and on. >> thank you. my policy making always centers

those most marginalized and building a transit system that is accessible for all as a top priority for me. i have additional questions that will submit for the record and i hope that i could get for their answers and madam chair, i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, miss william. your time is expired. >> no time to yield. [laughs] >> mr. stanton, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, madam chair, for holding this important hearing. thank you to each of the witnesses for your testimony today. arizona and my district in particular has been at the epicenter of development and testing of autonomous vehicles. and chandler, waymo is operating a tribalist vehicle. and scott stale, nuro and crews have partnered with retailers for local deliveries and in tucson arizona, -- recently completed its first

fully automated semi truck run on the open road in phoenix and tucson. a piece of the potential to transform our transportation system by improving mobility for populations are those who faced barriers to transportation, enhancing vehicle safety, reducing vehicle crashes and deaths, and increases -- at the same time we also need to recognize that a visa have the potential to alter our workforce. we want to keep as many people employed as possible. as congress continues to consider the federal rule in a testing of employment of evs, it will be important for this committee and all of the entities represented by the witnesses before this committee today, to have a seat at the table. my first question is for the vice mayor. vice mayor castex-tatum, i'm a former mayor myself. i come from the city -- phoenix. leadership at the local level is key for fostering

innovation. what are your thoughts about with the federal government can do to support and collaborate with cities in 80 testing and development? >> and again, i will reiterate the importance of piloting with the cities. we want to see partnerships with cities that create more testing in more places, providing more data. really working to get autonomous vehicles their own safety standards. >> thank you very much. my next question is for mr. marler, there are many public places involved in av development. your testimony calls for federal leadership to help direct the conversation surrounding 80s. what role can the federal government play to help facilitate the safe deployment of av's to meet community needs? >> thank you for that question. in iowa we've convened public private multi sector visions for avs. we create a space for this in

our state via the iowa automated transportation council. we've done this regionally and the with midwest among our western states. it's our view that we need to replicate these types of engagements at the national level and establish a clear, consistent vision strategy and framework. there is sufficient -- across the nation in terms of this conversation. it's been somewhat fragmented. and iowa we call them silos of excellence. congress can foster this collaborative environment at all levels of government. we believe that you can convene a new national dialogue and conversations. you can make sure we are engaging and broad cross section of for input and colluding local communities, both public and private. but also, there's some great collaborative efforts underway that support is critical. like the cooperative automate of transportation coalition. those are some thoughts on how we might meet community needs. >> if any other witnesses want

to answer, a significant number of roadway fatalities occur on rural roads where the challenges on the use of connected and automated vehicles is the lack of required infrastructure features to accommodate them in rural parts of our country. what can and should be done to prepare rural america for the expanded use of 80s? >> i'd be happy to start with an answer to that question. thank you for that question. two things we are looking at, first is we do not need to look at our physical infrastructure to make sure we have good condition pavements, our science, hourly markings, that these things are in good condition in our rural areas especially, but the investment could still be challenging. our rural areas do struggle to have the available levels of funding to ensure that there might be -- the second thing we can do is put an emphasis on digital infrastructure. really looking at our broadbent, particularly rural areas. looking at mapping, connectivity spectrum. this is why the spectrum

question is so critical. these two components, both physical and digital for our rural areas, they really have the opportunity to lift our rural communities across our nation. >> any other witnesses want to -- >> yes. i will chime in here. just add from an industry perspective. two points you raised. one, we find a lot of value in the convening power bill that state level, like congress is doing today, but also to bring all stakeholders together. our personal opinions, i don't know if we've done enough of that lately on this particular issue. on your point about rural, part of our mission is to deliver this technology broadly. in fact, when you look at some of our locations right now, they are what we consider the rural america. i think we need to keep that in the conversation as well. many of the past highways cut through our rural and nature, and there's a lot of needs that probably should be considered.

again, to support the efficiency and effectiveness of the rollout. >> i've run out of time here. i have to yield back. i'd love to get a separate conversation at a later time with all representatives of the organizations. i yield back. >> thank you very much. i would like to thank each of the witnesses for your testimony today. you can see by how many members came back after the boats to ask questions, that this was an important here at. in our committee today. your comments, you have testified today. they have been very informative and very helpful. i ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided

answers to any questions that might be submitted to them in writing. i also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and information submitted by members or witnesses to the subcommittee stands adjourned.

q&a tab at the bottom. we will try to get to as many as possible. i would like to invite our panel to introduce themselves. joining us today is neil, and molly reynolds. neil and molly, could you take a few minutes to introduce yourself. molly? molly: thank you for having me. i am a senior in the government study program. i study congressional rules and procedure, including the filibuster and their effects on domestic policy outcomes.