attorney. you can order "landmark cases" for $8.95 plus shipping and handling at c-span.org/landmarkcases. >> next, a discussion about driverless vehicles. hosted by the american association of state highway and transportation officials. this is an hour and a half. >> he's here. one of our panelists is out.

before we get started, c-span has graciously decided they will record this. i was told to tell myself to be on my best behavior. [laughter] and so you all have that same command, be on your best behavior, or not. it might make for great television later on. and then during the q&a period, we're going to pass microphones on so they can be picked up by c-span. shall we get started? [inaudible] >> there are rules in this. ok. well, good morning. department hroer,

of transportation of tennessee. and happy to be here. the title as you all know of this is the state d.o.t.'s harnesses on connected autonomous vehicles. interesting subject. we are not sure we can harness all that stuff but we can learn about it as we go forward. we all know -- and we've been dealing with this year and years past is the movement of technology in this direction. it has been phenomenal. we all know that's what happens with technology. we talk on the cell phone and the stuff that goes on. our children know more. i call my children, how do you do this? and mine are grown. i hear when parents of teenagers and even younger ask their 10-year-old child, how do i get on this app or what do i do with this? and here comes kevin. we're not going to say you were late walking in here or anything. that's ok.

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

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

back then, i think it's interesting. you look at the history of most of the transportation departments across the states that they all got started in 1914, 1915. and because we had our 100 had the -- 100th-year anniversary in the last two years. no one heard of a transportation authority in 1901 or 1902. i believe what's going on in my heart and technology is where we are today. it might even be quicker than that. which saw -- i saw california is going to in april allow cars to be driven with 50 companies that have been approved without a driver in the driver seat starting april 2. i also saw with humor monday or tuesday that ford motor company and dominos have agreed to have

autonomous delivered pizzas. their only concern is getting people off the couch, out to the car to pick up the pizza and what they would be wearing when that happens. [laughter] john: so we're going to have to go through that whole process and see what happens. we got a great panel today. we're going to have opening remarks by each one of them and then we will have lots of time, i think, for questions and answers. we're just going to get started. and our first panelist is we're going to start with ladies need to go first. so cheri pascoe. she's the professional staff majority of the senate commerce committee. cheri advises committee chairman john thune, republican from south dakota, on automotive, cybersecurity, technology and consumer protection policy and strategy and conducts oversight and

investigation of federal agencies and private sector companies. she has been integral in the development, negotiation and passage of the fast act, and serves as lead staffer for the a.v. start act. she's previously worked under former ranking member kay bailey hutchinson and before coming to the u.s. senate she worked at the university of chigan and university of stratkla in the u.k. we'll let you have the floor. >> so thank you so much -- cheri: thank you so much for commissioning and thanks to aashto for inviting me being here and kind of provide an overview and updates on our committee's work on self-driving vehicles. so let me just move this forward. i have the great honor of working for the senate commerce

committee which has a wonderful jurisdiction over a number of different issues, from transportation to technology to space and science. we even have jurisdiction over time. and so -- [laughter] cheri: we are very well-positioned to, you know, respond to innovation unfolding kind of across a lot of sectors. and the chairman of the committee, john thune of south dakota, kind of consistently looks for ways to advance innovation but in a safe and kind of responsible manner. so we believe that automated vehicles or self-driving vehicles really hold tremendous promise to transform transportation in our country. i've worked on auto safety issues for the last decade, and

there's one number that everyone remembers and that's 37,461. that's the number of lives that were lost on u.s. highways in 2016. it's a number that unfortunately has been going , and we believe that a.v.'s that don't get drunk, don't get distracted and they could have really a lot of potential to save thousands of lives. and we're watching kind of how manufacturers are beginning to task a.v.'s across the nation and a number of them are asking for regulate certainty so that when the time comes they will e able to deploy their vehicles. so, therefore, because of that in february of last year,

chairman thune and senator peters of michigan announced publicly that they were going to work to draft legislation for the safe testing and deployment of a.v.'s. worked with more than 200 stakeholders to craft that legislation. we really wanted to make clear that everyone was at the table. and when you look at a.v.'s and the impact that they have on our society, that includes a lot of people. it's not just, you know, the auto manufacturers. it's also the tech companies and there's a lot of new entrants. states and cities are really key partners as well as insurance companies, environmental trades, unions, the trial bar, rental car companies. there's whole lot of folks out there that are going to be impacted by a.v.'s in one way

or another and we wanted to make sure that incorporated all of their concerns in our legislation. in the summer we released the text of our legislation and then in the fall, the commerce committee unanimously approved it, and it currently is awaiting full consideration by the senate. there's a couple of key points that i want to talk about what our bill does. so one of the big priorities that we had or principles, so to speak, was we wanted to make sure that safety continued to be a priority and set up kind of a near-term and long-term federal regulate structure for a.v.'s. as with conventional standards e felt like federal safety standards are important there and they will continue to be

important with respect to .v.'s. update outmoded existing federal standards. so currently there's a body of federal regulations. they are called federal motor vehicle safety standards. we use a lot of acronyms in the federal government, as i'm sure you do in state -- [laughter] >> really? cheri: it's taken me about 10 years to learn all of them. and so there's all of these standards which are meant to govern the safety of a vehicle, were written really without thinking about self-driving vehicles. and so, you know, in the interim we are setting up a safety evaluation process where manufacturers will self-certify

that they meet certain safety criteria. and we also want these standards updated and new standards set that govern kind of the safety of these vehicles. and kind of most interest to you all, we also wanted to tackle reinforcing separate federal and state rules. and so over the past year we worked very closely with the states and cities. we may have worked too closely, too many meetings, but spent as many meetings as it took to craft, you know, the preemption section in our legislation. you know, we're really thankful ghsa and mayors, national league of cities, as well as a number of individual kind of states and cities and are particularly appreciative

that the states and cities, you know, worked closely with us to craft that preemption. and the principle that we started with was that, you know, legislation and preemption should be based on the existing relationship between federal and state regulators. but it should be kind of tweaked to make necessary updates that are posed by self-driving vehicles. so the federal government has historically regulated vehicle, motor vehicle equipment. states historically regulated licensing, registration, titling, insurance. the construct within our bill retains that. so, you know, we believe that states and cities have kind of an important role to play with respect to overseeing a.v.'s

and kind of their authority over registration, taxation, insurance and even kind of enforcement of traffic laws and traffic safety which i know has been an issue. we'll continue with respect to a.v.'s. our bill does address a number of other things, but there is one point that i wanted to make which is we called it the a.v. start act for a reason. it's the start. [laughter] cheri: it's the first bill. it's definitely not the last. there are a number of issues that still will need to be addressed, and new issues that we're not aware of yet as a.v.'s continue to be tested, continue to be deployed across the nation. so we're committed to staying involved and having kind of a good partnership with all of the stakeholders that we have

worked with over the past year. and i hope that, you know, in the near term the senate will take up this bill and so we can conference it with the bill that's already passed the house and sends something to the president's desk. so thank you so much for being here -- or for having me. thank you. john: we thank you for being here as well. it would be terrible to talk to an empty crowd. cheri: i know. john: next up is finch fulton, deputy assistant secretary for transportation policy in the u.s. department of transportation. served as a member of the president's team, with the department of transportation as a special advisor to the secretary on transportation policy. he's served in the house of representatives under congressman jim mccrery and congressman john flemming and in the senate for -- fleming and in the senate for jeff

sessions. and worked with v.o.x. global, advocacy campaigns. native of mobile, alabama. a graduate of the university of alabama. that's ok, i guess. [laughter] from alabama ople except -- [laughter] finch: just our football team. john: again, native of mobile, alabama. i will say it again, graduate of university of alabama. received m.b.a. from john hopkins university. most recently a resident of deleaks. -- dallas, texas. finch: good morning, everybody. cheri talking got me thinking how her committee handles -- got me thinking about d.o.t.'s role. we actually, through our legacies, working with the coast guard, we worked with traffic management and timing

there. also, through our legacy role with the federal railroad, they control time zones. they actually manage that. in addition, we're working more and more with our partners at nasa and d.o.t. with special launch and re-entry. and everything going on with infrastructure and innovation, pretty much we do space, time and everything that matters. so it's wonderful work we get to do. so you all probably seen what we talked about with our version 2.0, a vision for safety and everything we got going on with a.v. i won't spend too much on these slides and leave more what we're doing with 3.0 but it is worth going through this because we repeat again and again that the -- what we've done with 2.0 is the foundation we build upon with everything in 3.0. one of the keys here is we focus on levels three through five, higher levels of automation and that's important because there's a lot going on with levels one and two automation that we didn't want to get in the way of because these things were already

deployed and on the road today. one of the things we're also been stressing again and again, and i think industry is hearing us now, is that the 12 areas that we're focusing on with our safety elements we ask them to post voluntary self-safety assessments, these are unchanged. in our -- and the way we've been talking about things, we heard many in industry saying, are y'all changing this again? is there a moving target we have a work towards? these are changing fundamentally. we're still getting feedback. ultimately you can -- you should consider these as unchanging as for the time being. you are all very familiar with levels of automation. but thinking through what this means, a lot of the conversation we're having on level four automation because that's really where the meat of the work has to be done but there's a lot of work on level three and some of the steps in between and transition of how we go from here to there. i like this slide a lot because it comes from the department of commerce so i can criticize it freely.

[laughter] finch: this is part of the report they put out last year and i think it's interesting because this is sort of their best guess as the pace of timing of things. this is not saying when the technology will be available. this is more focused on when it will be available to the common person or at least somebody with a little bit of money. as you can see, if you are looking at the higher levels of automation, i guess our job is to make sure the mobility benefits of this technology, what new orleans the united states leads in this technology but people jump to 2045 and say, my god, the jobs will be gone. .

have to panic. things that prevent, being able to have brake assist. many of the technologies are ones people are comfortable with and think about. yesterday we started talking t1 more and more about what we're doing with 3.0. this is our inner mobile pproach, trying to combine all the efficiencies and different modes of transportation that the department regulates. we had a big risening session yesterday where we brought in a number of stakeholders. we got phenomenal feedback in the morning in particular we had some the efficiencies and different modes of transportation that the department regulates. we of the closed door round table sessions we heard things from first responder community. we have never been talked to this way. we have never gotten to be listened to this way. this is the first time we felt like we have been heard. i'll have to say that again and again. we heard from state d.o.t.'s. we had teamsters, department of labor, commerce people.

we had our disability groups working with our safety, tech companies. first responders talking to all these groups. it was just great conversations. we're going to have a report out there the six areas we focused on which included insurance and liability concerns which is very much a state issue, work force and labor issues, cyber security. we had our friends from d.h.s. in this. s.a.e. was there. we had consumer and public education workshops. disability concerns. public safety and first responders. this really helped us bring in a lot of the different players in these areas. especially as we focus on the intermobile connection. there has been a lot of discussion about nist's work and the role of the vehicle on the roads and when it means with technology. we need to make sure we're thinking every corner and finding every benefit we k you notice the difference in branding because we're talk 3g.0 now. you have all probably seen the first four request for public

comment that department has put out. i'm sure you'll be talking to federal highways throughout the year with their national dialogue they'll be holding. we have our federal transit request where we focus on what research needs to be done and what is the federal role in the research in this area. then also comments on what barriers can inadvertently hinder transit. some of these are similar. requirements for disability concerns to have somebody in a bus that can help somebody with disability. if you do say we don't need a driver, who does the job? and how do we have equal service? common sense when you look at it but we need to make sure we're incorporating that feedback. -- i think we know what they are doing. the secretary did announce yesterday the concerns with what we have with our pipelines and hazardous materials. we're working with first

responders, what we need to make sure is able to be transmitted to our first responders if there is an incident involving truck carrying has aroundous materials. -- hazardous materials. there is research being done now so an automatic message can be send to the responders. we have federal railroad put out one or about to, hopefully very soon, just trying to make sure we have ground base information. we're getting a lot of different things from our different partners. we need to get something on paper to tell us where they are and make sure we're not in the way. and then with one of the most interesting ones, a rue view -- this is another word, they are putting out a report of fncsr's that looks at the 39 areas where there are overlapse and complications when you talk about human machines and the roles they play. that's just they are -- there are regulation force heavy duty trucks that typically refer to

drivers and it's always been the driver would be human. yesterday we talked about drivers as machines. d.o.t. has done work in the past responding publicly where we asserted that. we needed to make sure we were asserting this with all the authority we have with restrictions for congress. we can't insert that in every mode of transportation, where we can, we're. that also goes into some of the conversation. even know we can can say the erator of the machine is human, a lot of the regulations say somebody with a commercial driver's license has to do inspections. throughout the transit of a truck, we still have to have our license professionals. human, a lot of the regulations say somebody with a commercial driver's that part won't change. there's going to be more conversations about this going forward. but one of the things that i thought was most important yesterday was when the secretary talked about all of our principles with how we're directing these things through policies, regulations, and complementary work with congress. we tried to say in line with

what congress is doing and communicate effectively there. very first, safety is always our top priority. if you lose track of that, you lose track of everything else. we want to be flexible. we want to be as forward leaning as possible and seek to keep up with the pace of innovation. we want to be tech neutral and let the market decide the winners. when regulations are used, we're going to be performance based and talking about how the operator of the machine could be a computer or human. you can see i'm trying -- i have to do more work to make this more concise. we're very much looking to working with our state and local partners to make sure we have an approach that doesn't hinder innovation by meeting somebody wouldn't be able to drive from washington to minnesota in an a.v. have different standards. and the law going through some states were banned. we want to make sure there are at least not hindering, they don't have to be identical, we

want them to be complementary. i think d.o.t. plays a role in working with our state and local partners to make sure everybody gets what they need. we're going to do our part. you can see there. i won't read this supplied, but one of the things also very important for the secretary to clarify, we consider autonomous vehicles completely complementary. i think early the language confused people and scared people what we were thinking about with connected vehicles. if we have more questions about that, we can talk about that, but i hope you understand we made public statements wanting to preserve that spectrum. we're tech neutral. that does play out in how we look at these issues. we're very supportive of connected vehicles and everything. all the benefits they hold. lastly, we think that people will never give up their right to drive. we're not going to try to take away their ford mustang from them. prevent them from going on the open roe road. and in alabama some of the vehicle technologies aren't

going to make it there for a long time. you have to prepare for new orleans war nine. the ideal is not there. you have to prepare for vehicles that can can travel around the country without connectivity the entire time. that is all i have to say. i'll be happy to answer questions later. thank you. john: thanks, finch. chicky saw, alabama. they may not like you said that. they like their mustang g.t. next up we have ben husch, serves as a senior policy director for natural resources and infrastructure at the national conference of state legislatures. in this role he leads ncsl's lobbying and advocacy work on transportation, environment, energy, and agriculture issues before both congress anti-administration. he joined ncsl in march of 2012 after nearly four years with the national association of state budget officers. a master's degree in public

policy from rutgers university and bachelor of economic from wake forest. ben. ben: i get to stay out a whole lot. first off, thank you very much for having me. i just wanted to say publicly thank you for all your help as we have been dealing with this issue for probably more than a year. thank you very much. if there is one thing can i leave you with today, it is that if you ever have a question or you're trying to figure out what other states, how other states have looked at this issue, if you google ncslab the top result will be our public database with legislation that deals with both autonomous vehicles and connected vehicle information. if you go to that page you'll won't change, er

especially if states are in session now. but we're about 20-plus states. i want to point out that some of that number includes some states that have won't change, especially if states are in session now. ut we're appropriated funding for connected vehicle technology. it's not necessarily we have 20 states that have different testing rules. before i get into my comments, i want to maybe ask three questions because i tsh-that really helps me get a feel for the room. you can say yes to all three questions. the first one is how many folks are are excited about a.v.? >> yes. ben: second question, how many folks are nervous? >> yes. ben: third question, how many folks have ridden in an autonomous vehicle? >> yes. en: that's very helpful. why we're here, not here as in the room, but the situation that we face, cheri laid it out very well. historically federal government has been responsible for the

safety of the vehicle, states have been responsible, state along with local partners, have been responsible for safe operation on roadways. that has been accomplished through the enactment of federal motor vehicle safety standards, fnbfs, which has become my new favorite acronym over the past year. we're at this point in time where we have this new technology, technology where we for awethon must vehicle technology, and we proach agree that enactment of safety standards would provide regulatory certainty. it is important to our private industry partners there be regulatory certainty. with that in mind it almost maybe forced congress to act to

put in place a -- maybe temporary system, so that the dichotomy of the federal role and state role could be continued as this technology came on to the market. so with that in mind there were really two key pieces that -- from ncsl and state's perspective we were concerned with both in the senate bill and house bill. the first one was how each bill addressed the issue of preemption. sto have stated our support for the preemption provisions in the bill as cheri mentioned we're extremely appreciative of their work -- their working with us to make sure it was crafted in way that continued the current dichotomy and made sure with the appropriate tweaks it was continued moving forward as this technology came off the market. the way i look at it is that

the way the house bill addresses the preemption is it preempts states in all areas except four, then it lists a number of them. they are the main ones you can think of. insurance, registration, licensing, so on. it essentially takes the a.v. regulatory feel and puts a box around what states can do. the senate bill does it the opposite way. it looks at the regulatory field for a.v.'s, and says these are the areas the federal government will regulate. states are preempted on those areas. anything else the states can deal with. we view it from our perspective is the senate bill boxed in what the federal government can does, the house bill boxes in what states can do. we obviously much more supportive of that. there are other issues we have with the house bill as well but i won't get into the weeds on that. the second area is ensuring these vehicles are safe.

we very much agree with the administration and cheri's about the importance of reducing fatalities on roadways. i can't even really probably accurately put into words how important that is. it's equally as important that to make sure that the environment that these vehicles operate on is safe as well. that is historically been the state's role to make sure the roadways are safe for vehicles to operate on. we see that as just as important. so with with that in mind, the way the senate bill and through their requirements on the safety evaluation report, or s.e.r., goes about requiring o.e.m.'s, or a.d.s. tech companies to submit information about the safety of their vehicle, we see as much more detailed requirement and will

provide significantly more information to states and local governments about the safety of the vehicle itself so that states and local governments can effectively design and provide a safe environment for these vehicles to operate in. and maybe just the last thing i'll mention is we're here, kind of the concern about the potential for a patchwork to prevent this technology. we very much agree with that. i don't want for it to be understood our position is, that we want each state to have its own system. obviously there are interstate commerce issues that we want to overcome, but at this same point it's important to understand where we're with this technology right now. very much viewing it as still in the testing phase, which is

important, which is a reason it s important that we get a bill from congress that continues the historical dichotomy between federal and state roles right. that's really everything i wanted to mention. happy to answer any questions on any other specifics with the bills. again thank you so much for having me. i look forward to your questions. john: thanks, ben. last to speak is kevin mccarty. he's the assistant executive director for the u.s. conference can of mayors, national bipartisan organization representing mayors of more than 1,00 cities with a population of 30,000 or more. kevin is the conference's point person on transportation issues. and supports the work of the mayors through the organization transportation and communications committee. prior to joining conference of mayors, he worked for other state and local government

organizations and jurisdictions including the city of seattle. kevin: good morning. thank you so much. it's a great place for me to be having heard the prenations -- presentations already. cheri, thank you for your great work in trying to figure this out. preemption is hard to do. we have preemption going on in a few other places and i'll alk about in a minute. finch, i want to thank you, you have a big task in front of them. with what may be coming. no small matter. i was struck by the people who are still anxious about them. i'm not finch, i want to sure what i sh deduce about that. also i want to thank ben for his leadership. he's helped organize our state and local work. particularly on the technical side and as a partner i want to thank aashto for their great

work. they have really tried ethiopia us figure this out. aashto has been doing what they re supposed to be doing. have your organization help us think through this issue. it's fair to say it's a tough one to think through because i don't think we have all the information. talk about a couple of things. number one, the idea, sometimes congress gets a little anxious because they think they are the only one that is care about technology. the truth is that technology gets deployed in all kinds of way, and very local examples, it moves up the system. in e deploying small cell communication right now. 5-g technology. we still have a debate in congress.

we have 4-g's of good partnership in the private sector. all of a sudden come to the fifth we lose -- lose our minds. preemption is a thing that some people -- it's become a currency sometimes in washington. something you can give to people. give them comfort. also already reasons why it makes sense. in the past, i have been around long enough to say we worked together with state and local communities a long time. preemption is tough to do. there are times when the state and local community acknowledge preemption is needed in someplaces. the truth is in a.v.'s, don't think we're at that point. we're in the early stages of this. we put mators on a phone call to talk about a.v. technology. we had a company representative, unnamed, who said, let me tell you why this legislation is important. why preemption is important. what the mayors do is conduct

the test in the city said, i'm not sure i'm feeling good about this legislation. we're doing a very successful test in my city right now. i have zero confidence when congress gets done the language you developed is going to make it any better for me in what aim doing right now in my test. it really speaks to the complexity of the preemption issue. we rightly have struggled as we should because as they say, preemption is not something we should take lightly. frankly if this issue was totally transparent, why is the language in the house, fran just a week before the bill went to the house floor, a day before the august recess, i don't know if you know much about washington, the day before the august recess, something akin to being on a boat in the mediterranean for about three months. people just -- the whole system falls down for that three or

four week period. then everybody comes back. then they put the bill on the floor in the house the day after labor day. which as you might know, washington needs at least a couple days to recover having been off for at least five or six weeks over the holiday. i put that out to say if this is such a transparent activity, that behavior doesn't follow. by wait, it was put on the consent calendar, 2/3 majority, no debate, no discussion. we went ahead and did a fairly aggressive preemption of state and local law without any real public deliberation on that. just a reminder to say stuff -- people know it's complicated. hat's why -- at the end of the day, one of the great things about washington is two to three years from now when something goes bad, there won't be anybody to point to. because the way the bill was done, nobody put their name on t and they can say i never knew that's what we were dofplgt we sought to get preemption right.

cheri, not the best place you can be, because you have to work through these things. let me give awe couple of thoughts particularly about issue. why we're concerned. states tend to run the main large routes, we tend to run the smaller streets and roads in connection to homes. 0% of the road network is owned locally. we're in this game whether people like it or not. we're also large-scale regulators. e're also large-scale users. companies rely on us to purchase large fleets. we do that regularly with taxpayer money. we're a big part of the transportation network. and the right people looking to deploy a.v.'s. the reason i say that, we have 100-year partnership with

companies seeking deployment. going back to the issue of preemption, it's not as if somebody who is a stranger out there in some other place. we work together closely over time. i think we should continue to approach that all hands on deck. let's get this right for everybody. citizens expect us to protect them. that's an important idea. a lot of us -- it's tough to figure out. to be truthful it's getting more complicated. if you look at the data, what it tells us about the future, the country is still urbanizing. it's urbanizing faster than we think. all of our economy is increasingly coming from metro flex. what does that mean? it means that new houses, new businesses, more demand for goods to be shipped through airports. ports more packed. all those things are coming. the data we looked at said

about 92% or 93% of all future economy will be in metro areas. that also means for us that we're going to be questioning more people through the same pipes. we won't be able to have as many as we get close to more compact, dense areas. we'll continue to to walking, biking, transit. work at home. all these pieces of a large complex equation, we have to push a lot more people where they put more stuff into a five-pound bag. that's what we're looking at on the transportation side. for your purposes you are very well aware of these issues. it's a challenge. a.v.'s goes right at the fact that we don't have a stable system we're dealing with. it's becoming more compacted. there are more people on the curve. one of the reasons why new york cares so much about the a.v. issue is, in a given day when you go to an intersection in

new york, there are 150 people on the curb. for someplace that is might be the day's use of a sidewalk. but 150 in 30 seconds, or 15 seconds. those numbers continue to grow. that's why people are anxious about this. and why we have to get it right. the other point i would say, -- it's tough to get preemption right and we talked about that. the other thing i would say technology is really a challenge for us in a lot of areas. i brought along an article which i thought was interesting. i'm not sure you are familiar with some of the business models for why we do things, but for those of you familiar with uber, you may remember originally when they started they came into communities and pretended they didn't have ordnances and rules about taxicabs and stuff like that. so they just started providing services and all of a sudden they had a list serve. and wrote to their customers,

your city down sil sill member, mayor are crazy. uber, we're moving away from antagonistic relationship with cities. i say that they lectslekt add business model they love to use technology to be disruptive and pretend for second cab regulations don't matter much. and put aside. we'll figure out what we're doing, everybody will be for t that's one way. other industries have taken the view, look, we're going to need help to get this right. let's use federal preemption as -- instead of being lawless about it, be lawless -- be lawful and get the federal government to do soft money rules that allow us to do what we want. that's why you see a lot of companies, thrick those that have been in business a long time, adhere to the model of let's have legal certainty preemption as the device they select. you see that in a bunch of space. with communications companies, auto companies can, etc.

that's why we're having this debate on preemption and we will continue to have it for some time. let me leave with you a couple quick things we hope to see in the final bill. just a reminder, one is the legislation is an opportunity to empower different states. as mingsed this is our day job. unlike other people who just come in, do it, then move on to a different topic. we're in this business to tromplet it's a very vital part of our life. that's how our economy functions. 80% of road network. state and locals are pushing about $200 billion a year in revenue in building and maintaining these net woverpblgts a lot of tax money. could be used for other things if people don't think we should do it. not all is user fees. a lot is taxes. when you come into this issue of somehow all of a sudden that asset we have spent all that money to aguirre, basically owned locally and statewide, is

now subordinate to somebody else who may or may not even be a company that does business in our community today. that's a tough thing to figure out how to handle. permit we have to get a to use somebody else's property? what kind of system are you running here? somebody paid for it for 100 years. maybe you ought to -- by wait the people that open and operate those systems have to get permits, too. you don't own anything, you're not even a taxpayer, and showing up saying we shouldn't have to pay. there's this new technology user world that's getting trick qui. -- tricky. it's tough 20 figure -- to figure out what the answer s we also have to figure out how to share data. in the short term we know that a.v. is inevitable. for us learning as much as we can now and begin to change -- we're like the titanic. it's hard to turn our capital programs and move in different

directions if there are things we need to start doing now to help make a.v.'s more successful as an option in the future. data will help us do that. there's been a little deficiency in the debate about the people and companies saying they are proprietary, we don't have to share it. they are doing it in a public space. so with rules and expectations by people. people who pay taxes, we don't expect to get run down by an a.v. that's not why they are in the game. they like to augment their life, improve t but they have reasonable expectations. finally i would say this, states need to continue to safeguard operations, people. this is an important function you have had for a long, long time. cities and counties rely on it. we partner with you on it. and at the end of the day, this

is all about partnering to get to the very significant opportunities and advantage this is new technology will bring. thank you so much. john: thank you so much. being a former mayor i understand some of the dilemmas. oftentimes the cities are the last ones. i appreciate everybody's always passing things down. sometimes cities take the brunt. i guarantee if cities didn't build roads or pave roads and use that money for something else, they would hear something about it. you-all oftentimes the cities a the last have a great opportunity here. you have four really bashful eople who know a whole lot about what they are talking about. this is a great opportunity to learn and ask people that are involved in this at the top levels. we're going to throw it open for questions. we have about 35 minutes.

this is your chance. you don't want me to keep asking the questions. i'm going to throw it out and see who has something to ask. right over here. we're going to -- we have a wand that you can talk into. what are those things? >> bentley systems. i'll be a little bit of a devil's advocate. and s except for china india, who don't publish 2016. y rates, 37,000, we're not going in the right direction. i didn't hear distracted driving mentioned once yesterday. from our distinguished panel. i know we were -- if we had a

country, we he decentralized, it would be easier to answer. pointed out we've got partners to deal with all these decentra be easier to answer. issues. that's based on what we have had for a long time. talk about how we're going to .o a better job inaudible] cheri: i think you're absolutely right that it our country and our states are still -- they need to be -- continue to be involved in kind of basics. making sure that people wear seat belts.

making sure people are drunk don't get into cars and drive them. making sure that folks are aware of the dangers of taxing and talking on their cell phones. i think that the manufacturers ve done a really good job of building safer vehicles and trying to enhance kind of occupant protection in the event of a crash. and i think that states have done a really good job on kind of education campaigns, enforcement, of local traffic aws and traffic safety laws. that needs to continue because we're not going to have 100% complete of a.v.'s overnight. for my boss, drunk driving is probably one of his biggest priorities. we're going to continue kind of kinding solutions to combat drunk driving.

with all the focus that's been going on in these areas, i think we now have kind of an opportunity to look not just at occupant protection, but actually crash avoidance. nd that's this new area that a.v.'s fit into. rying to make sure that we eliminate the crash or reduce the severity of the crash. th 94% of traffic fatalities due to human error, automated systems have a huge potential to save lives. we're already seeing kind of safety benefits from level one, vel two systems, automatic emergency breaking, lane tracking. these are systems that are starting to be introduced into

cars can. consumers like them. my mom just got a new s.u.v. it's got lane tracking, the best thing ever. she's terrified of a.v.'s. that's an automated system, mom. when people think about self-driving vehicles, they are nervous. there's a tendency to say, we laws o throw away all the on our books and write new ones. i actually think that when we have started to go through the process of looking at the federal laws, our laws are quite flexible and resilient. i think some states have found very similar things. may need to tweak a few things here, few things there to update them, but the most important thing is just making sure that everyone is kind things of ready to keep pace with the

changing technology and kind of eater transparency so that everybody is able to make the decision that is they need to make. finch: much of what cheri said i won't echo. when you look at the fatalities in 2016, you see the number of alcohol related fatalities went up, speeding fatalities went up, seat belt, distracted driving fatalities decreased. this mass been a major initiative of the d.o.t. since the days of secretary lahood. we need to make sure as we talk about these things, we have to address them all. this is doing a lot of good work with their behavioral issues addressing these and more work to be done. i have heard compelling arguments that the numbers we have don't capture all the distracted driving incidents and distracted pedestrian

incidents. it does have to be handled in many ways at the behavioral level and educational level bus i don't think there is any law could you pass, a regulation you could pass, they can't walk around and look at their phone as they are crossing the street. i don't see a world where that happens. much of it is on working with our state, local, and industry partners to push these mention through. some have been very successful. again not to repeat anything cheri said, some of the industry estimates on even the level two automated driving system technologies indicate we could see a 5,000 fatality reduction in 2025. just for the technologies we have toyed today being integrated into the fleet. we still have many concerns about some of the info at the ame time -- infotainment systems. i think today we have an appropriate focus on safety areas. john: anybody else want to

comment? ore questions? >> i think i need -- i think statement like we're seeing distracted driving fatalities go down, we have to be careful with that. that's an area where data can be, perhaps, misleading. are able to we capture data on distracted driving appropriately. inch: are able to i appreciate. a identified' like to ask particularly legislative construct. i think the point made about data sharing is vitally important as owners and operators of the systems at state and local level. a real opportunity here for us s as these vehicles with

advanced sensor systems are traveling on the roads. that's a huge amount of data on the situational awareness on the conditional system itself. we need to make sure if we're providing these opportunities for the o.e.m.'s to operate on the systems, that data sharing is important. the quicker we can get to our reactive basis modifications to improve conditions, with that situational awareness, the better off we'll all be. something to consider that i haven't heard a lot of discussion on yet. that, i think, is a fertal ground for all of us. -- fertile ground for all of us. >> we have a stated position on that, i will say when we see a state take up a bill on this issue, it is one of the most contentious arguments that happens. ben: and especially contentious amongst the o.e.m., tech companies, and insurance companies.

obviously the insurance companies have significant -- are very interested in this technology. but don't have the historical data on this technology they do on human drivers operate conventional motor vehicles. it's one that is a interesting conversation to watch play out in individual states. cheri: i'll just add that data is probably the number one topic that we heard from from every single stakeholder we met. but the challenge has been that each of those stakeholders is asking for different sets of data, different purposes they plan to use that data, and so kind of figuring out a pathway forward or a federal framework .hat covers everybody

what we have done. what we have done in our legislation is the safety evaluation report is meant to provide greater public access to data where manufacturers are going to have to explain publicly and to all of you how their system works, how it -- what their cyber security protections are. what data is recorded on the vehicle. so that -- we were very careful not to preempt data sharing so data f you learn that x is collected by that vehicle, you can request it. we have also set up a commission specifically on data ownership and data sharing. to have ission's going three seats from state and local entities. it's the most number of seats that will be on this commission. it's going to have folks from the insurance companies, rental

car companies, fleet managers, and all of these folks are going to start to talk about how do we -- what kind of data do we want, how do we get access to it? what are we going to use it for? and provide recommendations to the secretary as well as the ongress in anticipation that we can develop a federal framework for data sharing. but in the near term, we think that this is kind of a prime area where some more discussion needs to occur. >> one of the initiatives the department of transportation is taking or has been working on, back in december we had somewhat similar to yesterday, on safety. data for automated vehicle safety. we laid out our principles how we want to address these things and what we think the right approach is. finch: some are simple. start small.

build truce. prove value. and show all partners can participate and everyone can be mutually beneficial. we worked with our partners in the industry and safety associations and our state and local partners to identify the areas where we could make the most sense to start to prove this relationship and the value. what we got as focused, everybody agrees using that as an example to show how this can work is important, and focus on cyber security. we have work going on there. and how some of these vehicles will be tested is a third. some will take longer than the others to work on. in fact s.a.e.'s meeting on how they would talk through scenario planning and variable testing. first time they are eating. -- meeting. i doubt we'll come up with anything today. the conversations have begun and they are important. if everybody hasn't seen t. you can see what we have been doing

and our principles and how we'll address these issues. it starts by starting small and proving value. and showing there is value in voluntary exchanges. john: go back a little bit to the preemption discussion. we've got to have that discussion. being from one of the states that have passed new bills on autonomous vehicles and also platooning, taking a major step and doing those kind of things. you've got to pay attention to what's happening in other states. you got to say california is an example who obviously i think leading the country in new laws and new things that can happen when now we can -- on april 2 can you now have -- i know people are going to freak out, where no one is behind the driver's seat. being a mayor, kevin you representing them, and also, ben, it trickles down.

i know the states are moving quicker. the cities are moving quicker. they are coming up with new ideas and flue technologies. we all know -- new technologies. we all know the federal government moves a lot slower than the states and cities do as it gets bigger and moves slower. what happens when states and cities have come up with good ideas and good proposals and all of a sudden this preemption idea comes in. how does it affect all you-all? how do you use the data being selected currentlyly -- currently from the state and cities, maybe use that data to help move a bill or law around. kevin, start with that. kevin: let me say from a certain perspective technology also has made it possible for people to look at the whole country as one unit. then take advantage of the economies very quickly because you can go on to a website or your phone and aggregate a lot

of people quickly, make money. some of this kind of debate is -- get this national thing worked out so we can get there faster. i guess i would just say, we forget how big this country and how big our economy is. the new york metropolitan area is equal to the output of mexico. if someone came to me he and said, hey, kevin, how would you like to have the sole proprietorship for a business in mexico, i would say, sign me up. that would be a good deal. that's big economy. lot of people. money. california's the sixth biggest economy in the world. this gi economy here is i think close -- this economy here is i think close to bell gup. switzerland is about what the chicago metroplex is. these are whole countries you could park into these metroplexes. to say we have to get to 20% of the world economy in the u.s. mediately, if you're airbnb,

uber, maybe that's how you think about the world. this one has a little different problem. there will be wheels on the streets in every community. it's not something done on the web. these are real machines working their way down streets. and looking at a policeman who all of a sudden overtakes the traffic signal and says, hey, guys, stop. there are things in our system we have that we -- this little circle thing at clarendon, i can't figure out. my wife and i -- john: he's a man after my own heart. kevin: after all our years of driving talk to each other how to get through it. listen, all those years of speaks earn two of us, my wife works for the county, it's her department. been frying to figure out what to do -- been trying to figure

out what to do. not everything is settled in the system. a.v. will come in and just blow through and get us to nirvana that quickly, if they say we can take more time on the front end to get this right. we have one advantage that preemption isn't going to change. in the world people want to deploy a.v.'s here in america because we have a different legal structure that they do in europe. in europe, you can only do things that the government lets you do. america tends to be more on the other side which is, can you do everything that you're not prohibited from doing. that's why a lot of people look at america as a test bed because of that nature. for those of you localities can't do anything unless the legislature grants, that looks like europe n other states where you have home rule, are you opened to do whatever makes sense given your citizens. that's what america looks like. that's an enormous advantage. whether we have federal preemption or not. people will be deploying these

deployments and preemption issue. we can't set up -- this is a minimum wage aor shift in how we might do transportation in the future. we can't hide behind the argument that people on the house floor or senate didn't know what they were doing or somebody put a paper in front of them. that's not good enough. this needs more debate. our struggle with data is a good example. we can't even get a conversation going. i know they are going to do things later and anything that out. we're trying to stay up front. isn't there some ways we can inform us so we can do a better job? at the end of the day that's what we're measured by. you understand this. if a road is blocked. pete, you're in the service business and you understand we get measured by that. i think this a.v. thing has caused some anxiety for good reason. john: no one hates preemption more than the legislators. why don't you have a comment on that. ben: it's important to understand we talk about preemption we have to not only

think about future but also the present. states and localities are already preempted on vehicle safety, conventional vehicles. it's not like there isn't preemption that doesn't already exist. what -- we heard from finch and cheri, in order to allow this technology to continue to advance, it is important to maintain that existing dichotomy not so that we want to take something away from states, and localities, which is a great message to hear, but so we can put in place to a certain extent a base level of regulatory certainty. so that technology can advance. but at the same time we haven't done a full, deep dive on how e senate language or how the would preempt

those states that haven't enacted bills from our resources standpoint until there is an actual law or looks like a final version, but there are many aspects of what would those states that haven't enacted bills from our states have done wouldn't be preempted. registration requirements, that's -- those are areas that both the house and senate say they are not trying to take away from states. there are certain aspects of -- that get into the data conversation that might be preempted, as we heard cheri say, the importance of data sharing is not something that they are trying to undo. from our -- from ncsl's perfect spect -- perspective, it is not only protecting the authority and rights of our members, but also when we hear from our members is they are excited about the beb fits -- benefits of this technology. they want to make sure that it can proceed as quickly but also as safely as possible. so it's kind of trying to

manage those competing interests, if you will. that's why we think the senate ll does a very good job of continuing the existing preemption system that we have, i should say maybe structure, rather than system, for this new technology that is still very much in the tempting phase . when it is a deploy technology i think is still somewhat up in the air for discussion. john: finch? finch: i'm going to be a little cagey because i don't think it would be good for my current employment opportunities if i got out in front of the or the y on stance --

white house. john: we don't care about that. finch: i can always get a job -- what will i do is i actually white house. john: really agree with what ben said. and wait he put it. i think our respect for the state's role is apparently when you look at our drone pilot program. there was a lot of debate in congress about should there be a federalist approach or preemptive approach on airspace for drone integration into the national airspace system. our approach to say there was a lot of work to do to test it out. we put out a pilot program that allowed state and local partners to come together with industry and security, police, and law enforcement agencies to put forth proposals for best time place and manner usage in drones and airspace system. we got a great response from that and will make selections in may. our approach is there is a lot of progress that can be made without making definitive. yes it's there or no it's that. there is a lot of work to do we can prove it out. to show there is common space

that everyone has so it's not a dramatic step. weasel w i'm going to out of that one. cheri: i think given that i work for the u.s. congress, we're always kind of tasked with thinking about federal leadership. i think in the space of a.v.'s one of the reasons on this issue is there's a safety benefits, mobility benefits, a huge e's also economic benefit. as a number of other countries around the world are investing significant attention and investment to the safe testing and deployment of a.v.s, we need to make sure that the u.s. doesn't fall behind.

this is going to be a multiple trillion dollar industry. it's not going to happen overnight, but we need to make sure that right now the jobs and the testing and the investment is occurring in the u.s. but now that we have started to work on legislation, there's been a lot of legislation at the state level, other countries are paying attention. we need to make sure that the u.s. remains a leader in innovation so that those jobs continue to occur here. i'll also say that in the absence of our legislation, a anufacturer can deploy, feal highly automated vehicle tomorrow. we're not granting that authority. it already exists. as long as the vehicle complies with all the existing federal

motor vehicle safety standards, they can sell it. as i said earlier, they are a little bit outdated. it's not going to be that difficult for a manufacturer to do so. because of that we wanted to -- i'll et up some say maybe safety guardrails for the testing and deployment of a.v.s that will -- occur kind o across the nation. we all understand how limited ur state's resources are and making sure that kind of safety of these vehicles, safety of these systems is considered on the front end. will help you to kind of tackle some of the really difficult questions with respect to operation of these vehicles.

i don't -- as some folks have said, and i said earlier, the preemption on our bill reinforces the existing roles of the federal government versus states and cities. to be senate happens the more deliberative body by its creation. we're a little slower. we have the luxury of going second on this legislation. and we're going to continue to work with stakeholders and other offices in the senate to make sure that our bill is improved and that it advances. we would definitely appreciate aashto's support for helping the committee advance this legislation. anybody ever has questions about the preemption, feel free to give me a call. john: thanks. other questions? >> i want to point out one aspect that we have significant

concerns with on the house bill. i'm not sure how many of you have read the specific legislation. ben: if you look at the section on preemption where it carves out specific areas for -- that states can regulate, tends the -- that paragraph, if you will, with unless such a rule, law, or regulations is an unreasonable restriction on automated vehicles, a.v.s. technology. that presents a huge issue for us because, of course, it begs the question of what is a an unreasonable restriction? i know we spent a lot of time what we talked about on the senate bill. john: time for a couple more. yes. >> a lot of discussion about the data you want to get from private companies. and other types of capacities.

national meeting, tremendous amount of data that you have in all our cities, states, governments, the round about, as we connect vehicles to that round about and they machine learn how to navigate that round about better, they can provide that information to the a.v.'s, and they'll navigate t i drove home from asheville last weekend to the great smokies, the reality is that local climate area is something you have to inform these a.v.s b they don't have eyes beyond 250 feet. they cannot see what they cannot seat. when they move a fog -- >> we do leave the last few minutes of this. can you find it online at c spafment.org. live now to the floor of the house gaveling in for speeches. returning at 5:00 for legislative business. seven bills on the agenda today naming post offices around the country. and any votes that will be taken will be taken at 6:30 p.m. eastern time. later this week work on measures to change certain emissionsnd