aia national president. so, they're just great examples for you and the work that you have been doing, and we appreciate your continued partnership. i am going to go ahead - >> you can watch the rest of this online at c-span.org. you are watching live coverage on c-span 3. >> today, education hearing of motor vehicle safety. i will look forward to robust an informative discussion that'll help congress. the subcommittee gains a clear understanding of motor city issues. automobile safety has been a long standing topic of the subcommittee and we play a crucial role in ensuring the vehicles in our roadways are

safe for families and workers. automobiles are woven to the family lives from continuing to work or going to school or taking across the road trip. members driven and stake holder informed process to develop a motor safety title to reauthorize our service transportation programs. as part of this, subcommittee to inform a motor vehicle title. our primary objective will be find solutions to address a tragic reality that nearly 40,000 americans die annually from motor vehicle crashes. these crashes also lead to hundreds of billions in economic

losses and cost and taxpayers of tens of billions of dollars. congress was ensured that the agency was equipped and needed to fulfill its mission and save lives. we need to recognize the economic importance of the automotive factor supporting tens of millions of jobs and serving as a major driver as exports. china seeks to dominate the future of automotion. this includes looking at ways to modernize streamline and regulations while maintaining strong standards. third, we must embrace the future of mobility, it presents

an opportunity of crashes and bolstering economic growth. congress must use this opportunity to advance a robust framework for autonomous vehicle or technology. to achieve these goals, i look forward to work with ranking member murcowski and ranking member palone. together, we can shape the future of transportation for the better. thank you again to our witnesses for being here today and looking forward to your testimony. with that, chairman recognizes ranking member, ms. caskey for five minutes. >> thank you so much.

i want to say that we were able to pass a number of pieces of legislations, some that we'll talk about later and some that we'll need to push forward on. i do want to say that about 70,000 people have died on the highway and we have to do better than that. these are numbers that are going up, not down. so, we have to focus on what are things that's going to save more people on the highway. so, i am happy right now to call on mr. mullen to talk about highway safety and focus on his

community. it is yours. >> mr. mullen: thank you, ranking member and thank you for the witness to be here today. recent development and technology have been exciting to see. they speak to the need for congressional action. autonomous vehicles. i have seen first-hand how rapidly this technology is advancing. while other areas of the country are beginning to take notes. waymo has been cruising through my district for years now. i see its potential for transforming traffic safety and leading to a rapid decline of injuries and fatalities. as it develops, we have the responsibility to make sure it is safe and not causing unintended consequences. this is why my colleagues and i

have been asking to collect more information about avs for years. the agency has decline to do so and despite the fact that more and more avs are driving on our roads. this is not a partisan issue. now, under the trump administration, i am concerned of the agency's recent step to reduce reporting requirements and cut staffing. i look forward to speaking with our witnesses later today about why we need to be doing more and not less. another issue that this committee looked as for years is distracted driving in 2023 was responsible for more than 3,000 traffic deaths in the u.s. one technology that may pose new risk is replacement of tactile controls with dashboard touch screens. other countries are exploring these new technologies contribute to distracted driving and i believe we should be, too. i introduced the safety act to

study how the driver experience and the use of touch screen affecting driver's attention and pedestrian safety. i want to thank ms. cathy chase and advocate for highways and safety today for their input. i look forward to discussing all of these issues in today's hearing and with that, i yield back. >> mr. guthrie: thank you, chairman fulter. thank you conducting the hearing today. i want to say good morning and thank you for all the witnesses being here. this hearing provides an opportunity, an important opportunity for this committee to better understand the current state of vehicle safety and emerging trends and critical

roles. safety is at the core of that work. today's hearing marks the beginning of a thoughtful process, a bipartisan process to develop a title as part of the auto reauthorization efforts. my district is home to many automotive parts, manufactures and create thousands of jobs, most famously home of the corvette. it is important to ensure motor vehicles - the millions of workers who build and maintain the vehicles on our roads. together our committee will develop smart, safety first policies that modernize regulations to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. this is also a moment to leak

globally of emerging technologies, particularly in artificial intelligence. autonomous vehicles provide an important rural world of applications of ai, technologies and demonstrate the substantial benefits ai can provide in advancement. whether reducing fatalities, that obviously is shared by your side of the isle. we need to support the mobility challenges. av can offer an opportunity and independence of millions of americans. further, our work on av's demonstrates congress's existing regulatory framework can appropriate sector specific ai applications. i want to thank chairman fulter for leading this. i appreciate the witnesses for

being here. looking forward to your testimony and questions. i will yield back. >> chairman recognizes mr. palone. >> mr. palone: the economic cause of the safety crisis is enormous, million a trillion dollars a year of medical bills and emergency services and insurance cost and workplace lost and legal expenses. drunk and distracted and drowsy driving is relatively a small number of serial offenders are the leading causes of fatalities and injuries on the road. right now there are proven solutions to the safety crisis. unfortunately, they have not been widely adopted by automobile manufacturings.

congress took action to address automobile safety. it directs the highway traffic to adopt rules that deter drunk drivers. many of these rule makers are not yet complete. the agency has an important mandates to save lives and establishing vehicle defects and recalls. unfortunately, rather than strengthen this, the trump administration is undermining its critical work to make our roads safer. cuts have led to departure of many highly skills and highly employees that needs for the

work. instead of focusing on proven solutions to make cars being sold safer, the trump administration is betting on the promise of autonomous vehicles, while driveless vehicles have shown some potential but not a solution to dangerous driving and they raise their own concerns. i call my republican colleagues to speak out. the american people are counting on us to improve the safety of our nation's roadways. i would like to yield the last two and a half minutes to representative dinkle at this time. >> ms. dinkle: thank you, mr. pallone. for too long, it is treated like

a political football. that's not how we support long-term investment, protect jobs and stay competitive in a global marketplace that's moving full speed towards advanced vehicle technologies. for decades, congress worked in a bipartisan way to strengthen autosafety. for us to do that, we need a fully functioning nitza. it has been too long since we have seen it. that means finalizing and long overdue rules. nitza must also be proactive in addressing emergency vehicle technologies. autonomous and connecting vehicles are not a far off future. they are here today. without strong oversight, there are gaps now in regulations that bad actors and foreign adversaries are exploiting at the expense of consumer safety

and privacy. china is going to be there of the mark place to boom. unacceptable. safety should never be partisan. we all drive the same roads and all face the same threats. we need to get as the ranking members said a number of rules making done and out and pass this committee ages ago like child safety and drunk driving. i look forward to working together to support nizta and advance vehicle safety and innovation, protect consumers and keep the american autoindustry globally competitive and number one in the world. i yield back. >> thank you, this concludes opening statements.

>> our witnesses today, mr. david harkey. ms. katherine chase, and mr. jeff farra. each witness will have the opportunity of five minutes of statement and followed lie a round of questions. >> chairman, and chairman guthrie and thank you, distinguished members, thank you for the invitation to share my perspectives today on motor vehicle safety in america and policy to nationalize a highway traffic to achieve a shared mission, helping to save lives

and making the road safer for everyone. some context, a healthy, competitive domestic autoindustry is a prized asset among nations. here at home, the autoindustry under pins america's economic and national security. it is our largest manufacturing factor. 5% of gdp and 10 million american jobs pumping $1.2 million into the economy every year. it also includes china and tariffs which are a significant near-term challenge. i know the president and his team are finalizing agreements with our trading partner to deliver some clarity. that's positive. i will say this, automakers are committed to building and investing in america. automaking is a long lead time, high asset manufacturing

business. existing automotive facility and global supply chain are massive and complex. they can't be relocated or redirected over night. against this backdrop of trade uncertainty reforming nhhtsa should be a priority. it can lead to affordability. the autoindustry wants, it needs a functioning and effective, safety regulator. we don't have that today. here is what i have observed over the last several years. nhtsa has become less transparent and collaborative.

nhtsa's technology is not fast enough. rules accumulate even when some are clearly obsolete. meanwhile, there were nearly 40,000 deaths on our roads last year. it is a shocking and tragic number that's not acceptable to anyone. it comes at a time when vehicles are safer and equipped with more driver assistance technology than any time in history. why is this? what's happening in a safety partnership once existed automaker today are surprised by nhtsa's action. we need a revitalize partnership and real dialogue to achieve what i assure you is a shared mission to help save lives. i want to note that we had good and important dialogue with secretary duffy and i have seen

significant actions to advance safety. how do we modernize and fix nhtsa? one, move beyond the vehicle's equipment mandates and require a systematic and behavioral approach to safety. two, modernize the new car assessment program to promote innovation and empowered customer with clear information with vehicle safety. nhtsa should we think and take oversight of the program out of rulemaking and look at how similar programs are working better around the world. three, streamline out dated rules. nhtsa should look at all and ask this question, are they reducing fatalities. are they delaying deployment of

life-saving technology. av represents the next leap of personal mobility. they'll reduce crashes and provide transportations for people of disabilities. countries around the world are raising to dominate our autonomy. america should be leading under a national set of standards for safer and immediate av deployment. as i have said, we want a functioning and modern nhtsa and agency that's staffed with enough resources to carry out its mission and vehicle safety and it is a partner of innovation and progress. thank you, i am happy to take your questions. >> chairman: thank you, mr. mozzella. dr. harkey, you are recognized for five minutes. >> dr. harkey: thank you for the opportunity to share your

perspectives of highway safety. simply put, the united states is in the middle of the road state emergency. crashes have increased 33,000 to 40,000. the spike is not a global trend. the u.s. is an outlier. our rate is more than double the average. since its creation and 1966, nhtsa played a key role through safety and data and research program. the most direct impact is regulation. the issuance is safety standard. requirements that all vehicles be equipped of frontal air bags estimated at least 70,000 lives. beyond regulation, nhtsa produces the five-star safety

rating is an important for consumers shopping for new vehicles. it is important to understand, however, nhtsa's role extends beyond the motor vehicle itself. more than a third of our fatalities on the roadways can be attributed to risky behavior. one of the most influential demonstration of the nhtsa's research program engaged years

ago was click it or tikt it. funds from nhtsa allowed for expansion of the program by 2003. it was a key component of a remarkable cultural shift increasing front seat belt use from 67% to 84%. having robust safety data is critical to understand what is or is not working and when to invest resources. this includes the fatality analysis reporting system and other crash databases as well as the national roadside survey on impaired driving. despite as many important roles, nhtsa is failing to meet the moment by lack of action.

we have petitioned this twice in ten years to require a motorcycle avs and thus far, no response. more than 30 countries mandated the life-saving technology. 2021 infrastructure law, nhtsa was instructed to issue the rule. the deadline was 2024 for the final rule has passed and nhtsa has only issued an advance notice rule of making. many cases, ihs found way let gaps. we have substantial influence with consumers and vehicle manufactures. pushing out automakers.

automakers introducing more automation and new safety concerns are being raised. given the lack of regulations, ihs developed partial automation safeguard to help ensure drivers staying engaged. at ihs, we are alarm by the rising tolls of crashes and the lack of urgency to fix our problem. we launched an initiative we are calling 30 by 30. a goal to reduce u.s. fatalities 30% by 2030. we hope all stakeholders will rally around this and pledge to contribute to the effort. for our part, we'll focus on risky behavior and commercial vehicles inside and outside the vehicle. nhtsa has an essential role to play in confronting our emergencies. thank you for your time and interest this morning. >> chairman: thank you, mr.

harkey. ms. chase, five minutes. >> ms. chase: good morning, advocates is a national alliance leading in the agents. working together to prevent crashes, save lives and reduce injuries and curve economic costs. thank you for holding this hearing at a critical time when motor crash fataliies is at a historic high. unfortunately, we also experience tremendous tragedies on our roadways. more than 40,000 people were killed and 2.4 million were injured in crashes in 2023. more than 7,000 were pedestrians and over 6,000 were motorcyclists and more than a

thousand were bicyclists. for all of these groups, we experienced significant increases over the last decade. the leading factors are impaired driving and speeding and distracted driving. these are not just statistics. they are family members and friends throughout the country. many victim advocates are joining us today in-person or virtually. i want to extend my condolences for their losses. so, while this is the tragic news, the good news is that proven solutions are available and actionable. since advocates inception in 1989, we have worked on a holistic approach. this approach is what is known as the safe system approach. our annual road map to safety report provides a blueprint for how congress and state elected officials can eradicate the motor vehicle crash fatality and

injury toll which by the way comes with a substantial price tag. the annual economic costs of crashes approximately is $340 billion. this means that every person living in the u.s., essentially - one of the most effective tragedies is proven vehicle safety technologies which meet minimum performance standards. from 1968 through 2019, nhtsa's safety standards prevented more than 80,000 deaths and damaged to 65 million vehicles. when consumers go to autodealer showroom to purchase one of their largest budget, many prioritizing safety. minimum safety alexander standards are essential. they ensure they all have to meet a baseline of safety by a

certain date. these technologies are building block for autonomous vehicles or avs. avs has to respond to all infrastructures in all conditions. to monitor and reactive blind spots and stay within its traffic line. that's lane keeping assist. to know if the vehicle is occupied which is occupant detection among other responsibilities. also, until if we reach the day when everyone is in av, drivers continue to make poor decisions. this is why ranking member, congresswoman dingell leadership on drunk driving and other issues must be brought over the finish line by the u.s. department of transportation.

in that vain, automanufacturing proposed that avs are safer because they don't drive drunk. no one is disputing that. avs are essentially billion dollars pieces of equipment with years of research should not drive better than the worst drivers on the roads. especially, with all of these new technologies, nhtsa is the essential agency to be the watchdog to keep everyone on the road safe. the agency conducts important research and collect and analyzes crash data. its ability to protect the public necessitate funding and resources. thank you.

>> thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. my name is jeff farrah. in recent years, autonomous vehicles have gone from science fiction to aspirational and to common place. last month, our members driven more than 145 million autonomous miles on u.s. roads. the number of autonomous miles driven have more than doubled in the past years alone which underscores the tremendous progress our industry made. i will be frank, this progress occurred in the absence of a federal policy framework and it is leaving u.s. companies at a disadvantage to china. today, policymakers are faced

with a choice. we can continue to lead a voice at the federal level which helps china's ambition to dominate the global av market and also put the u.s. state at the forefront that's desperately need at a federal direction. this committee can lead the way for avs across all vehicle classes regardless of vehicle weight or size. in doing so, congress must answer key questions on vehicle design on performance. putting in place a federal policy framework will have the support of the american public that's increasingly riding the autonomous vehicles and lovering the experience. those who are passengers in autonomous vehicles became comfortable with the technology and wants to experience it again and again. even though those who are not

passengers in avs but live in areas where avs are safety and its benefits. i commend secretary duffy and his team for the early attention on autonomous vehicles. on april, secretary duffy announced a new framework part of his agenda. it is imperative that this progress continues. we are optimistic that with confirmed at nhtsa and that more is to come. first, we believe that public trust in avs is essential to their acceptance and the

industry should earn and maintain that trust every single day. we are engagement first industry and provide public education on the technology and work closely with local first responders and law enforcement. last year, we release the trust principles which announce industry commitment and new initiatives to build and sustain of public trusts of avs. the av industry could not do this work alone. the federal government has an important role to play, such as a rulemaking from nhtsa. creation of a national av safety data repository which houses av resident data and allowing nhtsa to share information with state and transportation regulators. second, congress and the department of transportation must also modernize the motor

vehicle standards and certain indicators that should not be applicable to level four or five avs. autonomous vehicles are an opportunity to reimagine how motor vehicles looking like and how they are designed. av will be a game changer for the elderly and people with disabilities. my written testimony provides additional policy recommendations that should be included in federal legislation. the av industry is excited to get to work with members of this committee to put in place a framework that supports leadership. the time is short and it is now. thank you for your attention and i look forward to any questions. >> chairman: thank you, the panel for your testimony. i will begin the questioning and recognize myself for five minutes. mr. farrah, this question is for you but i want to go to mr. bozzella for some comments. much of the testing and

deployment occurred in dense urban regions. there are a lot of rural and remote area including my state of idaho, most of the geography would considered rural or remote. that presents many challenges with connectivity and tracking and capacity and so on and also with road markings can be not existing. can you comment how the industry is working to address some of those challenges in the av industry? >> mr. farrah: thank you very much for the question. the first thing to notice that when we talk about autonomous vehicles, we are talking about level four driving systems. these are vehicles in so far that there is a human in the vehicle and nearly a passenger. it is confined to what we call an operational design domain. safety limiting factor that applies to where the vehicle is

and what types of circumstances that it can ultimately operate in. when the industry is looking to go into a new geographic al air. the first thing they do is extensive testing and mapping to understand the unique characteristics of where they operate. this is why you see a deliberate and steady deployment that's going on, sometimes city by city and highway by highway. we are not in a hurry to deploy these vehicles. we want to make sure that safety is at the forefront. as we look to expand the footprint into more geography into the country. we need make sure we take into account of special circumstances that you know like markings or rule roads having challenges. sometimes when you are operating in highways is different than in city environments. we have to be sensitive to all the localities and what they have to offer. >> mr. chairman: thank you for that. mr. bozzella.

comments on that? >> mr. bozzella: i think it is important to recognize, we are also talking in addition to level four vehicles, level three highly automated vehicles. there are use cases that'll support rural drivers and passengers who, for example, take long distances and could benefit from the hands off, eyes off safe av vehicle in a personally owned context. what this comes down to and i think mr. farrah would agree is we need a national framework to make sure we are building used cases to support all rural and suburban users. mr. chairman: dr. harkey, many are users of cell phones, can you share some research that you have and what are the broader

and safety implications of a technology-enabled distracted driving. >> mr. harvey: we know distracted drivers is a growing problem, of the 3,000 to 4,000 range in terms of fatalities assigned as a result of distracted driving. the number may be as high as 10,000. so, we know this is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. no doubt that mobile phone is a big part of that and something needs to be addressed. it has to be addressed in a couple of ways. we can do as much as we can with awareness and education of the general public. that works to some extentment. there are some policy changes that could be implemented. changing those laws from a whole

and use just simply hold, gives law enforcement, greater capability to be able to actually pick out the violators of the particular law and be able to have that adjudicated properly in the court. i think it is something important moving forward. it is a combination of what can we do from an awareness standpoint or enforcement standpoint. more importantly as we think to the future, what can we do from a technology standpoint in the vehicle itself. there are ways that we can limit use and i think that's going to be really, really important. >> mr. chairman: mr. farrah, i don't have time for a question but i want to send you a written question having to do with disabled and elderly. you touched on that but i don't have time right now. with that, i yield to the ranking member for five minutes.

>> ms. schakowsky: i would like to ask a question of you. i would like to talk something what has already passed and they have not been implemented. we passed -- what we do for kids, kids in hot cars, we passed that and i thought we were not going to be able to save the children. what can we do about that and also drunk driving. i know that's really hard but we still have not succeeded. what more can we do for that? >> thank you for the question and so much on your leadership on the issues of hot cars. it is devastating that we are still losing children or children who are forgotten in the backseat or fell asleep during a family trip or they

climb into a car when adults are not looking at them and especially a time when this panel is talking at automost vehicles. surely, we can get the detection systems into vehicles so children don't suffer both fatalities. the bipartisan infrastructure law directed the u.s. department of transportation to issue a rule to have equipment in vehicles that would alert people if a child is left in a car. we have not seen action on it. we implore this committee and congress to continue oversight efforts so that rule can be brought over the finish line. our organization is held numerous demonstrations of which you have been apart of over the years showing the technology exist and works. so, this is not something that a new technology has to be invented for. it is there and we need to get

up to cars. >> ms. schakowsky: we really need to work on it. >> ms. chase: you brought up impaired driving, again, mr. bozella's organization held a demonstration a year ago where they show the passive system can detect small amounts of alcohol and prevent people from getting behind the wheel. that's what we need. until that technology is required as required in the bipartisan infrastructure law. there are steps that can be taken. here is a bipartisan nbwi act which should be enacted. that should require all offenders if they are convicted of drunk driving. people who have had the ieds in

their car had admitted stopping them while driving impaired and change their driving behaviors. >> ms. schakowsky: do we need to talk to the drivers, the manufactures to get busy on these? >> ms. chase: absolutely, there is no reason to wait. we don't want a situation where some systems are under performing when a consumer is expecting them to act a certain way. for example, right now there are already automatic emergency breaking systems in cars and that's not required until 2029. so, cars have the ability to be saving lives right now and we urge automanufactures to continue their work to get these systems into car.

>> ms. schakowsky: thank you so much, we can definitely do better. i appreciate the work that you do. >> ms. chase: thank you. >> mr. guthrie: mr. farrah, many ways avs present a real world application of ai with transformative vehicles. most of the committee has been american global leadership in ai. can you talk about how american av can help in leadership on ai. >> mr. farrah: autonomous vehicles are useful example of what we can do with artificial

intelligence. a lot of americans, how it is ai is going to transform our economy and contribute in many ways and when you see this physical manifestation of ai where people can be passengers and they can see their goods are being delivered and see that we can make huge strides on roads and accessibility. these are wonderful things that av can do. i am very concerned that we have not had a federal policy framework in place that is allowing united states to globally lead. we do know that many of our strategic competitors including china are serious about dominating globally when it comes to ai and on avs. we are fighting with one hand behind our back. we need to have a framework in place that allows for private sector investment and innovation in the space and so we are eager to work with you and members of this committee to pass av legislation and work with the department of transportation.

>> mr. guthrie: thank you. that gives you another kind of thing we have been dealing with being the commerce committee, we are protect ter of the commerce laws, we have the ten amount of the constitution, so, we were talking about this a second ago as we were talking about this and sometimes you have to determine where it goes. we are also a laboratory of democracy with our 50 states. when we have a leave of vacuum, the states try to fill that in. to me, avs are clearly commerce clause unless you are going to regulate what's going to happen in your state, you are going to build a car in one state and travel to another. the lack of that puts pressure on us and the states put pressure on us by doing it themselves because if you are not going to do it, we are. we have to be mindful of. mr. bozzella, can you outline the major trends you are seeing

in states and how inconsistent state laws that are inconsistent with each other. can it be safe nationwide deployment for motor vehicle safety? >> mr. bozzella: thank you. we heard of the importance of federal motor vehicle standards on vehicle equipment. that's precisely the challenge in the av space we are facing today. a customer in an av should be able to understand that vehicle that they purchased or they are in is the same vehicle going from state to state and it works the same way. what we are seeing in states is as you said, states are putting in place equipment requirements for av. this is clearly the purview of

the federal government of the federal safety. so, i think the most important thing that this committee needs to consider as it works on this legislation is the preemptive importance of having a robust av policy at the federal level that is focused on safety. so, examples, in california right now, four different equipment standards are being considered by the department of motor vehicles in california that would be imposed on vehicles. >> this is the vacuum that has to be filled by the government. >> mr. guthrie: thank you, mr. farrah. >> mr. farrah: there is a strong role for the federal government. you have 26 states that passed autonomous vehicles, deployment statues and accounting for 50% of the population.

those are a welcome trend. they are speaking narrowly to state issues. they are authorizing level four or five or avs on the road and speaking to insurance minimum requirements and law enforcement. the federal government needs to be the one speaking to vehicle design and construction and performance. we are are seeing states creeping in. we need congress to pass the federal av statute. >> mr. guthrie: thank you, mr. farrah. >> mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. helping nhtsa to fulfill its mission is a key part of the submit tee's work.

so, i am concerned that this law of expertise along with the trump administration proposed reallocation to resources at nhtsa will make it impossible for nhtsa to adopt its rules that mandated. so, i have two questions, first, do you share my concerns and just feel free to elaborate if you will but i do have a second question. >> ms. chase: thank you, i appreciate talking with you today. i want to say it is interesting that one commonality of all the panelists' testimonies that we all called on nhtsa to do more work and you have pointed out that there has been a significant reduction if workforce and important talents have been lost. i am concerned that this is not a short term concern but all

have long lasting ramifications in terms of attracting talent at a time when cars are getting more complex. we need to have expertise at this agency which is charged so importantly of protecting all road users. they need to have sufficient resources or talents to make sure our roadways are safe for everyone. i absolutely share your concern. >> mr. pallone: i appreciate that. i hear from everybody and it was not a republican/democrat thing. nurses or doctors would come in and - oh, we can do more with the healthcare system and help more people and providing more services with less money. i would say, okay, at some point that's not going to be true anymore. i think we have reached that point in the healthcare system. i think generally speaking, you

know, you can't give an agency more work or provider more patience or provide more services and give them less money. it does not work. let me get to my next question. nhtsa's five star safety system is intended to help consumers to compare the safety of vehicles when they shop. now, while the rating system have been updated in recent years, there is general agreements that the agreement have been out dated and we have fallen behind the country. is the five-star safety system working for consumers and what should we do to make sure the safety program is helpful to others. >> ms. chase: this is a place where the united states have fallen behind other countries. the united states started this program and in fact one of my

board members, jones brook, when she was at the head he started the program but now it has desolved over the years. we have come fallen subject to star-flation it is like oprah, you get five stars and you get five stars. as i mentioned earlier, expense the bigger part of the family budget and wants to save that they know five stars mean something. the insurance chief for highway safety have done an exceptional job in terms of crashes of vehicles. this should be the role of our government and agency that's nhtsa.

>> mr. pallone: i appreciate that. the idea of consumers right to know and their ability to shop and make decisions if you provide them with information, you know, shopping for a car, i think is - this is all very important. i appreciate what you said. thank you, thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mr. chairman: thank you. >> thank you, i want to start with you mr. bozzella, vehicles are designed to prevent deadly crashes but while it could improve vehicle safety, it is important of the safety features work, so, do drivers know if the

a desk system is functional or calibrated? >> mr. bozzella: yes, thank you. a dash system are not autonomous driving systems. the driver must be the driver must be fully attentive and fully in control at all times. adas is there to aid the driver and support the driver and provide assistance. .2, we worked on these systems, the durability of these systems and the effectiveness of these systems and warranty systems like we do for every other part of the car. it is really important they work all the time. the last point i would make is when you build an adas vehicle that combines two different types of technology like

adaptive cruise control and lane centering it is also important we monitor the driver and make sure the driver is attentive. those systems do work and need to work over the life of the vehicle. rep. harshbarger: my understanding is there is not a universal way for vehicle owners to see the system is working properly. should there be a standardized and vehicle so owners know if your system is functioning properly? mr. bozella: i would love to learn more about your concern. the vehicles i am familiar with make the customer aware of when the system is working and when it is not and when it is on and it is off. it is important we educate customers about how the systems work and what their limitations are. rep. harshbarger: to the automakers provide independent automotive businesses with information on how to maintain that adas functionality?

ms. chase: this is critically -- mr. bozzella: this is critically important. the manufacturers provide the data to diagnose and repair vehicles to independent repair shops. rep. harshbarger: you save me a few seconds. that was my next question. you mentioned how vehicle manufacturers need to jump through two were three or four hoops when it comes to the mission requirements. explain how cafe standards which benefit smaller cars, how they can hinder safety standards. mr. bozzella: the challenge with emissions and fuel economy regulations as we have four different agencies and severing different rules regulating one vehicle -- and seven different rules regulating one vehicle. there is an enormous amount of confusion and waste in the

system that does not produce emissions benefits. that is the biggest challenge. for the most part manufacturers can achieve both more safety and more fuel efficiency at the same time. the key is aligning all of the agencies on one national program. rep. harshbarger: i know what you are talking about when it comes to agencies. mr. farrah, i keep reading reports on the safety benefits but you mention how safety benefits should be refined or removed. can you clarify which safety requirements need to be changed for ev's and how will they not jeopardize passenger safety? mr. farrah: thank you for the question. i will say the first thing to note is we all get our cars and leave at the end of the day. you see the things put around you because a human has been the

one driving a vehicle so our vehicles are very human centric. why we have a steering wheel and a brake pedal is there to help you safely operate the vehicle. if you step back and think what happens in a world where in a thomas driving system can do the driving, he would design the vehicle in a different way. we to make sure we are modernizing the rules to account for that situation where we will now have in a thomas driving system that will do the driving. it will help us make the vehicles more accessible and more safe in the future. this is an exciting opportunity. rep. harshbarger: that is good because i drive back and forth to d.c. and it is six hours. >> the chair now recognizes representative castor for five minutes. rep. castor: thank you for calling this hearing and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. automobile safety touches everyone across the country. it is so important.

i represent a community where it is one of the most deadly places in the country to be a pedestrian. on average one person walking and one person biking are involved in a crash every day, with many resulting in serious injury or death. this is a tragic problem. in fact, my hometown newspaper the tampa bay times has been pressing the issue. they wrote that the tampa bay metro area has been one of the most dangerous places to walk in the united states. a pedestrian is far likelier to die in tampa bay that a much busier and larger new york city. three times as likely when accounting for the big apple's larger population. three times. in a typical year, drivers had more than 1000 pedestrians. about 100 of them die. thank you, ms. chase for

recognizing that these are all individuals and not just statistics. it is a stark reminder that pedestrians stand little chance when things go wrong. we try to do some things in the bipartisan infrastructure law. we send large grants back home to address the backlog of safety for bicyclists and pedestrians, the way we develop our roadways. under the biden administration we started a substantial number of safety rulemakings and started number of rules that will save lives. i share the concern that ranking member paul loan raised that you confirm -- that ranking member pallone raised that these arbitrary cuts, taking caps off the beats, delaying rulemakings's not going to do anything to help save lives.

we benefit from the expertise. at the university of south florida we have a center for urban transportation research. they do a lot on safety practices and they highlighted to me the most important things we can do our technological and behavioral changes. i think distracted driving is such a problem. everywhere you go, i often count cars of people on their phones as they drive. we have addressed nitsa as this but where are they? ms. chase: i want to commend you for bringing up pedestrian safety. going for a walk should not meet a death sentence. that is what is happening but it should not have to be. there is technology available in some cars and should be in all

new cars that prevents people from getting killed. cars can be designed so they are more forgiving if they are in a crash with a pedestrian so the vehicle absorbs the energy instead of the person who is obviously more vulnerable. in terms of your question of where are we, we are behind. we need more resources to bring needed rulemakings over the finish line in a number of areas. i would like to focus specifically on advanced driver assistance systems. these are systems we know that can reduce crashes and reduce crashes whether someone is distracted, impaired, drowsy, and all of these things are happening behind the wheel. if a driver falls prey to one of these characteristics, the vehicle can take over and break and center a lane and capture a blind spot and take action so i bicyclists or pedestrian is not hit.

rep. castor: didn't nhtsa finalize a rule requiring automatic braking requiring -- by 2029. is the institute involved in that litigation? mr. harkey: we are not directly involved in that litigation. our role is strictly to figure out are these systems performing at a level that will prevent the crime of hard for vehicle to vehicle incidents as well as vehicle to pedestrian and now to bicyclists. rep. castor: does your data show that rule would save lives on breaking being integrated into vehicles.

our data -- mr. harkey: our data shows a 50% reduction in vehicle strikes currently. those are for lower speeds. our most recent testing we've increased those speeds come increase the number of targets they must address. we are seeing better performance from the automakers. the auto industry is working hard to improve performance and we see them get better and better over time. rep. castor: thank you very much. i yelled back. >> represent is recognized for five minutes. >> i was interested in your discussion with chairman guthrie about the fact that 26 different states have already created regulation of a thomas vehicles and you stated it is important that regulation of av's the a

partnership between federal regulation and state regulation and i was struck by the fact that we have a similar situation that is developed with respect to artificial intelligence in general. i chair the task ai task force and we included an entire chapter on the issue of preemption because the balance of regulation is so important. i want to ask about something we are considering in congress which is a temporary moratorium on state regulation of ai. we think that is necessary to avoid 50 different state regulators going in 50 different directions on something that is clearly interstate commerce. we think ultimately regulation of ai will require a partnership between federal and state regulation. in your opinion, that moratorium is specifically for ai so general-purpose regulation of av's should be exempted. do you see the moratorium as a positive or negative to the

develop and and adoption of av's? mr. farrah: we have been close observers of that discussion on the moratorium. there is a discussion in the senate as we speak. what i can say is our read of the rule of construction related to that moratorium would preserve the state av deployment statutes that would advance the safe operation of autonomous vehicles on our roads. our organization has worked diligently for a decade to pass the 26 av employment stats and we want to make sure they remain in place. there is an excellent opportunity for partnership for federalism to exist where states are having a lot of jurisdiction around authorizing vehicles on the roads regulating things within their purview. the federal government has not caught up. they are not doing what is needed around vehicle design and performance. that is what we are looking for. rep. obernolte: i would say a

similar situation looks with respect to ai in general and will try to fix both of those things. i was very interested when you talked about the fact the public trust will be essential for the success of av and all of the benefits that technology can bring to our society, particularly with respect to lowering accident rates. you talked about things like the creation of safety data repositories and behavioral tests that can enhance public trust. i'm wondering if the problem is not just midge bigger than that? the reason i say that is when there is a bad vehicle accident locally you might see something about it in the local news. when there is one accident and a tesla on autopilot in florida we hear about it in california. the public has adopted this risk model with av's that is very dissimilar to the risk model they except when they drive their own vehicle on a highway. it would seem to me as a society from a logical standpoint as

soon the safety level of av's exceeds the safety level generally of human piloted vehicles we ought to celebrate that as a success. instead the attitude that one accident is too many and somebody must be at fault and it must be fixed. how we reconcile those different risk models because it seems like that is a lot more critical than the other things you mentioned. mr. farrah: your very eyes wide open about the reality that this is a new technology and something most americans have not had the opportunity to experience. this is something that is very new and fresh to a lot of people. they have a lot of questions. is why i said we are an engagement first industry. we want to talk to first responders and mayors and local committee members and citizen groups and explain who we are and what the technology can do, what the safety benefits are the accessibility benefits. we need to lead on the public

education piece. that is the reality of what is going to be the case. it is clear we need to do more to explain this but i also think congress can be a partner to all of us trying to pursue more public trust. rep. obernolte: i just have a few seconds. we will have a problem parceling liability for accidents when autonomous vehicles are involved. what is the current thinking on how we do that because it is a very complex topic. dr. harkey: it is a complex topic and i'm not sure we have the answers. i will not know until we get cases in the courts in see the litigation to understand how that will be arst and where this will fall in terms of the vehicle manufacturer, the insurer that is responsible, or the particular driver that owns the vehicle. all are going to be part of the lawsuits so we just don't know the answer as to how that litigation will play out. rep. obernolte: i wonder if

congress could be part of that solution rather than leaving it to rooms full of lawyers. thank you for your testimony. >> thank you. the chair recognizes representative soto for five minutes. >> talking about florida and lawyers, that is a double threat. i ought to get our chair down here to talk about florida pride. the other two floridians on the committee would be coming to my aid. we know a thomas vehicles, crash avoidance systems continue to evolve across america. safety, mobility, young people, seniors, folks with disabilities. central florida has been a big part of this. we helped develop one of the redundancy systems for a thomas vehicles. we have the longest-running autonomous public transit. way back in 2019.

it shows you how new this technology is in our district. and son tracks, a partnership -- and sun tracks, a partnership with the florida department of transportation. we will look at fast-growing central florida we see the turnpike, bright line, expansions to help with commuter rail and high-speed rail. electric links buses. when you see these of thomas vehicles, the last few miles can play a critical role in getting folks really need to go. i know having worked on their first nhtsa waiver and now their second we are in a waiver system , which is kind of great. it does not -- which is kind of gray. it does not help when we are trying to do up thomas vehicles that there is a lack of rules and inaction by congress. i am hoping this committee will

move on this. contrast that to faa rules on flying cars. we are doing a vertical flying car area for orlando international airport because that rulemaking came out. as far as i can see, and nhtsa rolled out their first national framework in december 20 under the biden administration that had a proposed voluntary review and reporting. five months later the trump administration came out with the second framework that incorporated the safety aspects and added innovation and commercial deployment. still a little light. not particularly substantive. we have not seen a lot of movement on rulemaking and you add in 50% of autonomous vehicle department being asked under -- being axed under doge.

how is nhtsa doing on rulemaking? mr. farrah: i want to make a point of commenting on something you talked about, which is the opportunity around shared mobility for the elderly and people with disabilities and that is an opportunity for all of us. florida has been a national leader when it comes to regulation for a long time. rep. soto: how is nhtsa doing? are they slow? mr. farrah: early days we have seen encouraging signs. we have seen secretary duffy talk about his federal framework and the need to take action. we hope with a confirmed nhtsa administrator we will see additional activity. it underscores the need for this committee to be acting on federal av regulation to give nudges to the department of transportation. rep. soto: they have authority? mr. farrah: nhtsa as incredible

latitude to initiate new rulemaking. rep. soto: so they could. tariffs. we saw 10% across-the-board. 50% on steel and aluminum. we know it is raising the prices of vehicles. it is also affecting innovation in areas like a thomas vehicles? mr. bozzella: it could and it depends on how long this environment lasts and how expansive it is. certainly with regard to not only tariffs, import tariffs but also export controls, those types of policies could affect the pace of innovation. rep. soto: we saw usmca, we had established a framework and even lifted the percentage that needs to be built in the united states free to be an american car. -- for it to be an american car.

how are automakers feeling and the certainty of their business? mr. bozzella: congresswoman dig no -- congresswoman dingell touched on this in her opening remarks. the industry runs best when we have clear rules and we know it they are and we adjust to manage them. we are hopeful these rules be clarified, negotiations will be completed and we understand what the rules are. we make the adjustments necessary and move forward. we need the clarity to make the adjustments. rep. soto: i wanted to submit the special equipment market association letter in support of what we are doing today. >> repeat that. rep. soto: the special equipment market association. it is a courtesy to ms. harshbarger. >> without objection. rep. soto: i yield back. >> representative fry?

rep. fry: dr. harkey, your testimony you reference international trends. in terms of crash prevention and vehicle safety, what countries have good models we should look at when it comes to that? dr. harkey: it is a great question. you're trying to parse out what makes other countries better than ask and it is sometimes a challenge. there are themes that are there. the first is a systemic approach to safety. it has been integrated into all elements of government in a number of countries. whether it is sweden, the netherlands, a number of countries where they have done this and they have done it well. we adopted a safe system approach as part of the national roadway safety strategy in 2022.

we have failed to implement it in this country. it is one example of something that happens in other countries that we are not doing here. i do think congress can help encourage the u.s. dot to do that and provide more support for them to be able to do that at the state level or at the local level. culture is also a big thing. you do not see impaired driving problems in other countries the way we have those here. this is where technology and vehicles like passing alcohol detection can fix those problems. we need to be thinking about how technology can help. the other thing i would say is action in these countries to do things like safety cameras is very aggressive. speed is a huge problem. it is more than a quarter of the fatalities in these country. that is another area you see that.

the final area in these other countries is policy. they have the ability because they are much smaller than we are, they have the ability to federalize and put policies in place that go across the entire country and it is easy for them to do that. we still have states putting policies in. we can encourage things of the federal level for states to do and incentivize things that the federal level for states to do to address the risky behaviors we see on a roadway. rep. fry: in your written testimony you talked about overreliance on automation systems becoming a problem. what is your data show about how consumers interpret features like lane keeping or adaptive cruise control? dr. harkey: our work on those systems has generally been on the performance side in terms of how well those systems work with respect to keeping the driver in their lanes or adjusting the

throttle and breaking to keep them out of crashes. what we are seeing in terms of our research is we survey drivers on the use of these systems and their understanding of what the systems can do. the thing that is the most frightening about the partial automation systems is the lack of understanding. these systems are not self-driving. the drivers are interpreting these to be self-driving systems and that is where you get into the overreliance problem. we need to do a better job -- nhtsa needs to do a better job of helping get drivers to understand what these systems are and what they are not. rep. fry: what their limitations are, that is important. mr. farrah, what is the most realistic timeline for level four autonomous vehicles to be deployed in urban develop in's and what factors increase or

decrease that timeline? mr. farrah: level four a thomas vehicles are here. our members have driven more than -- driven ever-increasing autonomous miles on public roads. autonomous vehicles are being deployed in different fashions. robotaxis are being deployed in various u.s. cities and that will increase over the course of the next several years. i anticipate that as you see more cities having a thomas vehicles deployed you will see the footprint of those vehicles expanding out into more suburban areas and rural areas and then you see autonomous trucking which is a huge aspect of the a thomas industry which is moving cargo -- of the up thomas industry -- rep. fry: the chairman was going to go on this before he ran out of time. regarding elderly people and people with disabilities can you give concrete examples of way or

av has close that gap or shown the most promise? mr. farrah: my grandmother will turn 95 on saturday. rep. fry: you better be there for the birthday. mr. farrah: as she has gotten older i've seen her independence wayne. -- her independence wane. not every american has that. we do have people get to jobs more easily, get to social settings more easily. we've seen the negative effects of that. upon a missed vehicles can -- autonomous vehicles can drive down the cost. the elderly in the united states are going to be one of the main beneficiaries of this technology. >> representative trey hannon's rep read -- is recognized for five minutes. rep. trahan: hand it is no

secret modern cars have become computers on wheels. cars are smart but they carry tremendous privacy and security risk. on a single ride to the grocery store the average car might collect data on a drivers location, detailed information on their driving habits, even physical information like the drivers height and weight. it is clear from that the data can help make our roads safer but without guard rails the data can be transferred to third parties for purposes inconsistent with the drivers understanding our expectations. like most americans highfill strongly about the need to control my data. the suspect in the recent shooting gets of minnesota state rep. melissa hortman and her husband had in his possession a list of people search websites. reports suggest he may have used these sites to determine his

victims home addresses. the herring ordeal has renewed calls for privacy protection, especially the right to be deleted, an idea i have champion in legislation like the delete act. mr. bozzella, more and more car companies are collecting sensitive data, tracking visits to psychologists, places of worship, and even revealing when americans cross state lines to seek abortion care. an investigation by senator wyden found several car companies do not require a warrant before they turn over location data law enforcement and he found several car companies sold dated a data brokers, some for pennies on the dollar. what responsibilities do you believe car companies have to protect the privacy of vehicle owners, including handling requests from law enforcement and the sale of consumer data. mr. bozzella: this is a very important issues for the reasons you mentioned.

they are computers on wheels. they collect the data for critical reasons. much of the data is used to manage the safety systems of the vehicle. the biometric data, my weight, it indicates the power of the airbag. telematics data allows first responders to know where my car is even if i cannot respond to a phone call. these are important things. manufacturers are responsible. we have since 2014 had privacy principles, voluntary privacy principles which were groundbreaking at the time where companies committed to protect the data of their customers, especially this sensitive data. context is important. transparency is important. consent is important. those principles are enforceable by the federal trade commission. we expect our members will

follow them and their consequences when they do not. we need a federal privacy law. rep. trahan: i cannot agree with you more. i am happy the principles include data minimization, transparency, and choice. while today's computers -- while today's cars are moving computers i think it is fair to call autonomous moving supercomputers. av's rely on external sensors to operate safely and expensively -- and inexpensively. these sensors introduce novel privacy concerns. the risk to individuals present in today's car. the continuous video feeds could in theory be fed into a larger centralized network alongside other data sources. i am concerned we could create a mobile surveillance state if we are not careful. mr. farrah, in your testimony you state congress should

include language "requiring av manufacturers to develop cybersecurity and privacy plans for their technologies." do you believe a robust av privacy plan must include data minimization and consumer control? mr. farrah: thank you for the question and i share a lot of the feedback you received from mr. bozzella. we very much want to be part of a federal data privacy dialogue that will go on. we need to make sure we are not singling out autonomous vehicles. there are many concerns in terms of data and the use of sensors on vehicles. we want to be part of that conversation. rep. trahan: it is clear this committee should be working in a bipartisan fashion on comprehensive privacy regulation that covers every sector including av's i look forward to working with my colleagues on that. >> thank you. represent of mullen is

recognized for 5 -- representative mullen is recognized for five minutes. >> i truly believe advanced driver assistance systems and autonomous vehicles will one day reduce traffic deaths and i agree we need to move quickly to realize those benefits. isaiah have discussed we must ensure emerging vehicle technologies are delivering on their promise to reduce crashes and save lives. right now we are flying blind. as nhtsa has explained we are not able to evaluate the relative safety performance of a v's because we do not have the data. as ms. chase mentioned there been numerous incidents allowed my districts where aps entered construction zones, sped through crosswalks, block traffic and transit lanes come in interfered with first responders including the path of fire trucks. we do not know the extent of the

problems. i understand this technology is in its early stages and will keep getting better over time. how will we know when it is better? these are the kinds of situations that make the case for stronger oversight and standardized reporting. i've been encouraged by recent conversations with industry leaders including many supported today. there is a growing agreement that more transparency around this technology is necessary and responsible. i know human drivers can be erratic. let's make sure we have the data so we can be assured av's warming safely -- are performing more safely than humans. you mentioned av's have driven 145 million miles in the u.s.. for comparison californians alone drove 340 billion miles every year. we need to collect much more data to draw any conclusions. can you tell me who is

collecting and validating av driving data right now? mr. farrah: i now the autonomous vehicle industry is doing data reporting under the general order that nhtsa is collecting information so we are providing information about av incidents to nhtsa at the federal level. that information is shared at the website. sometimes it gets misunderstood. what we have said as an industry is let's step back from the standing general order, let's put in statute a national av safety data repository that will capture the data and improve it and let's make state regulators part of the process. in our travels to state capitals , many departments want to be part of the equation. they want more information from the federal level. what we have said is let's share that information to this natural

-- this national safety data depository. that is something we will be very eager to work with you in your office on. rep. mullin: encouraged to hear about this progress. i understand nhtsa collects data about collisions. beyond that is there any requirement to report vehicles traveled or how av's performing in complex environments like near schools and work zones or around first responders? mr. farrah: the incident data that is shared via the standing general order right now does talk about incidents that are occurring. in terms of vehicle miles traveled that is something we would support. i think that is a relevant point. we as an industry have taken that on in terms of producing the data point you mentioned around 145 million miles. we would very much like to do that in partnership with our regulator. ms. chase: i have -- rep. mullin: i have been heartened by

the discussions i've had with industry leaders. you agree there is a need for more transparency in this arena? mr. farrah: right now there is more data known about a thomasville vehicle than any other type of vehicle on our roads. if you combine the federal level with your home state of california, the department of motor vehicles is a very robust regulator. the cpuc is a robust regulator. there is a terminus meant of data available and it is requiring a lot of great insights about the safety record of autonomous vehicles which is extraordinary. we need to find a way to make sure that is more easily consumable, avoid the duplication, make sure we are putting this in a spot where people can understand it. we want public trust in a thomasville vehicle. we know that -- in autonomous vehicles. >> thank you. representative angelle, he recognized -- representative

dingell, you are recognized for five minutes. rep. dingell: i am glad all of my colleagues are focused on autonomous vehicles. i hope everybody understands china is collecting data right now and using it against us and someday we have to do something about it. i want to start by touching on consumer safety, specifically on how crash test standards are failing women. we know today's crash test dummies do not face the real world risk women face in car crashes. crash test dummies used in u.s. safety tests are still largely model after the average male from the 1970's. i don't even look like my colleague mullen today. even though women are 70 percent more likely to be injured in frontal crashes. this does not seem to be a technology problem. advanced female crash test tommy

-- crash test dummies exist and are being used in other countries. it looks like it may be or a regulatory problem. while legislation has been introduced to require nhtsa to a doubt the modern test dummy -- given that nhtsa has not incorporated a modern female dummy into its testing, can you explore what the auto industry is doing to close that gap and ensure vehicles are safe for all drivers? mr. bozzella: every driver, every passenger is entitled to the same safety. every human. we have to have a regulatory system and a product developer and system in a research develop and respects that. what we are doing is we continue to advance crashworthiness and we advance airbag technologies and seatbelt and restrict

technologies. that is going well. here is a place -- there is work being done on advanced dummies as you recognize. today nhtsa does not test its current female dummies in every driver position it tests male dummies. why is that? we wrote a letter this week to the national highway traffic safety administration asking that question. it is very important that in their testing they do so. rep. dingell: i will send you more questions on that so we get you on the record but i also want to talk about cafe standards because nobody else has. today's vehicles are much cleaner and more efficient than those of yesterday and that is not by accident. that is because of decades of innovation and smart regulation. there is more work to do for a series about reducing emissions and protecting public health and our auto industry globally competitive. what the auto industry needs is

certainty. certainty is how it can support long-term investment, protect jobs come and stay competitive. to do that we need to bring all of the stakeholders to the table , said fuel economy standards that are forward-looking but also practical and achievable. any future standards much push innovation, protect workers come and give manufacturers the predictability they need to plan for the future. as we sit here today the department of transportation is planning to reset these cafe standards, potentially taking us backwards while also redirecting resources away from the fuel economy will making. at the same time my republican colleagues are trying to eliminate penalties for failing to comply with these standards and removing any real enforcement mechanism from the equation. how do we expect u.s. automakers to lead in a competitive global market if we keep changing the rules?

what does this uncertainty due to the long-term planning and investment needed to stay ahead? mr. bozzella: it is very important we have one set of aligned standards for vehicle emissions and fuel economy going forward. i said earlier we have four different agencies, three of the federal level and one of the state level with seven different regulations regulating one tailpipe. this is very challenging and it produces no benefit. the first thing i have to do is get alignment. i agree with your comment that we have to have balanced, achievable standards that reflect market conditions and keep us moving forward. that is the place we need to be and that is the auto industry's ambition. we are heartened by the initial dialogue we have had with the department of transportation in recent weeks because we think there is a recognition we have

to have a balance there. the market for electric vehicles is not what we thought it was going to be a few years ago when very aggressive standards were set. adjustments need to be made but they should be balanced and they should continue progress to reduce emissions and improve fuel economy. rep. dingell: i have to yield back but i want to make the point there is a demand for some electric vehicles. mr. bozzella: i agree 100% without. there is and there is progress that is clearly part of a competitive automotive industry and our future. >> asserted schreier is recognized for five minutes. rep. schrier: despite significant safety improvements and innovations in technology to improve vehicle safety you have all call attention to the fact that driving remains dangerous in the united states and rates of roadway fatalities have

increased in the last decade. one thing i do not think any of you have touched on is pedestrians, cyclists, and scooter safety injury and death. perhaps if you could incorporate that into your next answer i would be grateful. some increasingly automated and eponymous system called this great promise for making our roads much safer, hopefully for everybody and debts. -- and deaths. mr. harkey, you mentioned we are seeing crashes happen when drivers are over reliant on partial automation. i can see something on the screen and i still look over my shoulder. i've not gone to the trust place yet. i do not think people truly understand the limits of what their vehicles can and cannot do on their own. we already talked about better communications. if you could add specifics to

that. not just in terms of sensing cars but sensing pedestrians, cyclists, and scooters and how that factors in? dr. harkey: thank you for that question. let me start with some stats that back up your point. pedestrians, by six -- bicyclists, motorcyclists, those rates of fatalities has risen much more than others in vehicles in the fatality picture . pedestrian fatalities are up more than 80% since they hit a low point. it is a serious problem. it is a reason we are focused on safety, not only inside the vehicle, but we are very much focused on how we protect the most vulnerable outside the

vehicle. in our testing and evaluation program and in our research programs. two points. we are seeing technologies like automatic emergency braking systems for pedestrians working. we have seen a 27% decrease in those crashes, vehicle striking pedestrians of that is encouraging. we will see that move forward and we will see that get better as we move to higher standards. rep. schrier: i want to take some of that blame off the cars. humans carry a lot of that responsibility when people are stepping into streets, looking at their phones and not listening for oncoming traffic. i want to be clear. you do not have all of the responsibility. it is just that did the driver will not get injured -- it is just that the driver will not get injured. we talked about cell phones.

if you could talk about the safety of touchscreens. i have found and this is not my primary car, but the ones i've used require me to take my eyes off the road for too long and i am comfortable for. i cannot even turn on the radio until i met a stoplight. i was sorting if you could talk about what you have found about the safety of the touchscreen to the right of the driver. dr. harkey: we have not done direct research on that but i will give you opinions from my team who worked with others. it is a huge human factors issue and design issue in vehicles. we are very much concerned about anything that takes her eyes off roadway for an extended time. the most problematic screens we have seen are the ones where you drill through menus to be able to get to the right function to turn something on or off or adjust. the longer your eyes are off the road right the more risky the

situation, the more danger you are putting yourself in and your fellow road users in. rep. schrier: that sounds like dumb engineering to meet, may be engineering by non-drivers. expanding on what my colleague talked about with privacy issues. there was a story may be a year ago that a bunch of people's our insurance rates went up because per insurance companies were sharing data about their driving with the insurance companies without the drivers being at all aware of this. you can say this would make things safer. although if you're not telling the driver they are being monitored that does not help their safety, it just makes them angry when they get their bill. you talked about voluntary privacy commitments. which car companies decided to reveal this information about their drivers without telling them? dr. harkey: every card company

has agreed with these principles and they are enforceable at the federal trade commission. they are not voluntary, they are enforceable. i 100% agree with you need a federal privacy framework, a federal privacy law to clarify all of this. context is important and most important is consent. consumers should get consent. rep. schrier: can you name the companies so the people watching are aware? mr. bozzella: of the companies, there was one company that you're referring to, general motors, there was subject to that news article. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. represent of clark is recognized for five minutes. rep. clark: good morning for about 10 more minutes. thank you to the chairman and the ranking member for holding this hearing today. i want to thank our witnesses for testifying and sharing your expertise with us. i want to talk about the

intersection between the irresponsible 10 year moratorium on state and local laws regulating artificial intelligence that my republican colleagues supported in the reconciliation bill they all voted for in state and local regulation of eponymous vehicles. av's are a promising technology that can potentially be very useful in curbing roadways fatalities and offering more transportation options to persons with disabilities and to all of us. autonomous vehicles use artificial intelligence to operate and make decisions about how to navigate our roadways. it is no secret there is no federal framework regulating av's nor is there a broad federal law regulating ai. states and local governments have stepped up to protect the public and oversee babies on our public roads. in new york city and state we have laws regulating that specifically allow the safe

testing of atomics vehicles. these are not general-purpose laws. they do not apply equally to a visa and cars driven by -- to av's and cars driven by people. republican version of the bill would prohibit new york state from adopting and enforcing laws governing av's, tripping the city in the state of their oversight on av deployment, making deployment that much less safe. the version in the current draft of the senate reconciliation bill would prohibit new york from enforcing av and other ai laws if it accepts funding to build at high speed internet. either way, new yorkers lose. are there additional examples of safety enhancing state-level regulations that would be unenforceable if a broad ai moratorium would be adopted?

ms. chase: thank you for the question. we have significant concerns. i am not an expert you but you point out that av's use a eyes. if there is a moratorium that prevents certain regulations -- certain areas called an operational design domain, under certain times or under certain weather conditions, we have concerns those will be disallowed under this ban. it is still being worked out or debated in congress so we do not know the final language, but we have very significant concerns that absent any federal regulations that states should be allowed, they must be allowed to protect their citizens. rep. schrier: very well -- rep. clarke: very well. some witnesses have discussed the growing av industry. how would an ai moratorium that ends state programs to test and

provide guardrails with av deployment impact industry growth and adoption? ms. chase: i am not an expert. what i would like to say is public opinion polls we've commissioned show the american public is very concerned and wary about getting into autonomous we have goals. -- about getting into autonomous vehicles. if they learned there are no federal regulations or state regulations to protect them getting into a vehicle, that shaky acceptance of autonomous vehicles could be threatened. our organization is not for or against autonomous vehicles. if they can be achieved safely and reduce crashes on our roadways, fantastic. what we have been observing. there been comments made about how many miles autonomous vehicles to the moon and back. av's have only driven .004% of

what human drivers drive every year. it is not an apples to apples comparison. we have significant concerns that absent regulation that these of tana must -- that these autonomous vehicles will be put on the roadways and they can already be put on the vehicles to test and not comply with any federal regulation now. rep. clarke: mr. farrah, would you want to add your perspective? mr. farrah: this is an obvious point but nhtsa regulates all vehicles operating on public roles -- on public roads. our vehicles are regulated by nhtsa and those applied to all vehicles. we are talking about a federal policy framework that gets at av specific items. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. rep. clarke: i yield back.

to be continued. >> the is recognized for five minutes. >> is no secret america stands to benefit from developing and deployment of ai systems including in the automotive industry. at the same time we have had experts raised concerns about the risks ai poses. i know a faulty language model may be annoying but faulty ai in a car can kill or injure the stakes are very high. this week texas passed a new autonomous vehicle law requiring authorization from the state's department of motor vehicles for cars on public streets without human interaction. meanwhile house republicans have supported and passed a 10 year freeze on state regulations concerning artificial intelligence. if this freezes passed by the senate and signed into law it would prevent state such as texas from implementing their own safety and regulatory

oversight of av's. i want to ask mr. chase what impact with the states pursuing a cautious approach and some of these restrictions i just talked about on states have when it comes to effective integration of av's nationwide? ms. chase: states should have the traditional authority to protect their citizens. that is what the federalism concept is about. when there are no standards for the advanced technologies -- true av's have to comply with the traditional, but there are no regulations on the new technologies. just to counter the last point. to your point. it is essential states and localities being protect their citizens and absent any -- should that authority be taken away that is threatened. rep. veasey: this is back to you, ms. chase.

how could this regulatory tension influence united states position in the global rates for leadership in ai against our competitors in china? ms. chase: if citizens do not feel safe they will not get into cars. the billions of dollars that have been invested in order for av's to achieve could be threatened. it is essential there be federal regulations and not just federal framework, but federal regulations that nixon these vehicles perform as needed and as expected -- that makes sure these vehicles perform as needed and as expected. rep. veasey: it was concerning the just before elon musk departed the administration doge slashed the number of employees working on vehicle automation safety at the national highway traffic and safety administration and these cuts to critical av research came over months before tesla launched its

first-ever robotaxi service in austin. i wanted to ask mr. farrah, given these layouts and potential funding cuts across the national highway traffic and safety administration ordered by doge and trump, how can this agency fulfill its responsibility to regulate the agency and collect data needed when its hands are tied behind its back? mr. farrah: you noted the new texas state law that is in place. our organization worked very closely with that and texas has been a tremendous leader nationally in a tana miss vehicles. -- in autonomous vehicles. we do recommend adequate funding for safety regulators. we want to make sure nhtsa has adequate resources. we are asking for them to set new regulations as it relates to

autonomous vehicles. we want to make sure there are people in the seats to do that. rep. veasey: i know is the industry continues to advance and it is amazing to go to austin and see the cars everywhere. as the industry continues to rapidly advance and deploy av's in our communities what can congress do to ensure av's are equipped with features like spot detection and automatic emergency braking and rear cross trafficking alert? ms. chase: we strongly encourage congress in the next reauthorization bill fireman's for the u.s. department of transportation to discuss rulemakings that issue rules to discuss at eight certain for these technologies with the institute of highway safety has demonstrated to reduce crashes such as the ones you mentioned. rep. veasey: i yield back. >> the chair recognizes

representative kelly for five minutes. rep. kelly: thank you and thank you to the witnesses. over the past decade roadway fatalities and injuries have increased substantially. congress has passed bipartisan roz -- bipartisan laws directing nhtsa to implement these trends. these technologies would have the potential to save lives. speaking as one of the leading factors in many motor vehicle crashes. what actions can congress take to promote to promote technologies that would reduce instances of speeding? >> thank you. a tremendous problem in our roadways. the old adage remains true. those required the vehicle to -- comply with speed limits. we know that lake speed --

exceed speed limits. what i assay does is make sure, first it can alert and let them know if they are exceeding a speed limit. also, the next step would be to slow the vehicle down. strong bipartisan support. the first law in the country was enacted this year in virginia that requires i is a for offenders known as super speeders. people who race on the highways and have been convicted of doing so, to reduce their speed limits. we strongly support that and also support federal action to incentivize states to continue this. right now, only virginia, washington state, and the district of columbia have these laws. we want to see them around the country. i sa is a proven technology to combat speeding. >> thank you.

regarding my previous question, my district is urban, suburban, and rural. started in chicago, and i have 405,000 in my district. does the research show distinguished factors contributing to crashes due to excessive speeding between urban and suburban and rural areas? >> speeding is a problem everywhere. it is a factor in rural in urban areas. when you start talking about urban areas where speed really impacts, it is on the pedestrian safety issue. we talk about the bicyclists. one thing we have to really pay attention to is how we are addressing speed in those areas. that is where vehicle technology such as idsa can play a role. anything we talk about with technology in vehicles is the long game. it takes a long time.

we have to continue to look at it. safety cameras are critical. we see a rise in being allowed in states in works zones and school zones to protect the most vulnerable. anything we can do as a system to slow down vehicles and get drivers to understand the risk they are taking is an important step. >> right now as he rightly pointed out, federal funds can be used in works zones but not outside of them. it would be a tremendous step for congress to allow funds to use safety speed cameras. >> thank you. becoming more and more prevalent . these can reduce crashes and save lives. more advanced driver systems,

how do we make sure low income and middle class americans can buy cars, which are so expensive, they can have access to these advanced safety speed -- safety features found in more expensive vehicles? >> this is important. safety needs to be available for every consumer in every vehicle. what we are seeing with advanced driver systems is they are increasingly available at every price point in virtually every sized vehicle. that is encouraging. i think you will see more of that as the technology develops and as manufacturers provide these vehicles and customers get comfortable with them. i am encouraged by what we see in the marketplace today and i think it will continue. >> thank you. we talk about speed. is it generational or

across-the-board? what about age wise? >> it is across-the-board. there are issues with demographics and speeding. you do have younger people, younger males, who are often involved in speed related fatalities so you see some differences but speeding in general is something we have to address if we are going to get a control on fatality numbers. >> thank you so much. i yelled back. >> the chair recognizes for five minutes. >> thank you to our witnesses for being here today. it is hard to believe i am working on autonomous vehicles for over 10 years. we had that piece of legislation that passed unanimously. it passed the floor. i think what is important is we

look back at the number of highway deaths that we see out there. about 94% of the accidents being caused out there are because of driver error. the troopers are out on the road and you can point out quickly, people not paying attention. we want to make sure we get this legislation passed. we will be reintroducing legislation because we have got to get it done. one thing i have said, it is so important we look at this because it is safety first, safety last, safety always. as we look forward going with safe or safe there than any vehicle on the road today, it is notable that it is never tired or distracted or impaired, but

how else can we ensure that when av is on the road, it means that threshold and can detect and respond? >> congressman, i want to first start by thanking you for all your efforts over a long time and acknowledge all of the efforts you put into this issue. i do not think anyone in congress has thought more deeply about this or more committed about this. you worked closely with the congressman who has stepped out. i want to acknowledge her work as well. very pleased to work with you again to advance this legislation. you really articulated why this is so important from a safety and economic perspective and a strategic competitive perspective. a couple things we need to do here. to make sure we are advancing public trust. one thing is to make sure the federal government is able to speak to issues that only it can speak to. that will be married with a lot of great efforts that can happen in a lot of u.s. states,

including your state of ohio. we would like to see, first and foremost, to try to get rulemaking off the ground at the department of transportation and work to build public trust, requiring a driving and behavioral competency test, and this repository i talked about with the representative. in addition, a lot of issues with design that we would like to see congress speak to, specifically trying to make sure that we clarify that manual controls meant for human drivers are not applicable to level four or level five autonomous driving systems. that is the way to modernize the cb standard, lead to more accessible vehicles for americans. >> thank you. you mentioned the importance of modifying the provision. can you share why this is so essential? >> yes, and it builds on those

comments. federal motor vehicle safety standards are built around hands and feet and heads and eyes. we also have vehicles that have steering wheels and petals and the like. in an atv context, especially in a level 3 av context where the vehicle is both able to be operated autonomously in a highway setting or a traffic jam setting, those manual controls do not go away, but they need to be made inoperative while the automated driving system is in control. federal regulation is unclear about what to do about that, so it is important that the law clarify that a manufacturer can do that. all the testing has been done, all the certifications have been

done, safety has been insured. when this system is engaged and it is driving, those controls should be disengaged. current federal regulation does not allow a manufacturer to disengage systems required by federal law or federal standards right now. >> thank you. i only have about 17 seconds left. what happens if we don't act? what happens? especially looking forward to the competition where we might be coming from and we only have seven seconds. >> i will say briefly that while the united states invented autonomous vehicles, we are currently the leader but far from the only country that wants to be the global leader. the communist party in china is very debit -- dedicated, meaning -- leaving a federal policy in place to help move faster and ultimately globally. >> thank you. i yelled back. >> don is recognized for five

minutes. >> thank you. i am grateful for joining today. a critical choice in automotive safety that hits close to home for almost every american. if you own a truck, car, or motorcycle, this matters to you. i am talking about the repair bill. i applaud the colleagues for the right to repair. it is 60 bipartisan cosponsors. last congress, we already have 30. and a bipartisan senate bill for the first time. i want to thank my colleagues on this subcommittee. i want to thank you for already cosponsoring the opportunity for everybody. for most, car ownership is essential. it is facing some significant marketplace and regulatory changes. as cars become more complex,

they turn into computers on wheels, which is great for innovation, but it is imperative to protect consumer choice about how and where we get our cars repaired or we repair them ourselves. i am from that generation. we did a lot of that. my bill is motivated by a preservation of consumer choice as well as fair and open marketplace in the automotive repair industries. repair technicians traditionally could plug into the port, analyze critical repair maintenance data. the phaseout of these tools and newer vehicles is incredibly problematic. that is just among other tech -- as well. if you own your own car, you should own the data generated by your car. specifically critical repair maintenance, wear and tear calibration, and recalibration of parts. this is just a basic concept of

ownership. you own it, it is yours. over the past three years, i deliberate we worked with many stakeholders, including the auto manufacturers after parts industry, to ensure there is a robust representation of all of these parties in the bill. i think that is why there are new provisions codifying protections for intellectual property trade secrets, cybersecurity, parity and costs and even protections around autonomous vehicles. days ago, the wall street journal published the article that high cost ended america's affair -- it was a riveting read. they showed the average cost of owning a motor vehicle is almost $12,300 a year. that is just owning it.

a 30% rise in the last few years. cost issues coupled with mounting complexity of new technology, i think that confirms that the act is needed to update to level the playing field. mr. chairman, i have a level of support and 20 organizations supporting this bill that i submit for the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. i want to thank the automotive vehicles association for working to negotiate the av protections together with your team and the chairman's team. we included repair protections around the highest levels of four and five. this will ensure that the highly computerized systems should not be unintentionally -- to share any computerized data that would affect the intellectual property of the autonomous vehicle company really into the

computerized system unrelated to repairs. i want to quickly mention how helpful tesla has been working with our bill. even though their cars are -- are advancing, many americans cannot take their tesla's to an independent repair shop to get things fixed. how important is it for the av industry to ensure americans still have the option to fix their vehicles without restricting access to clinical repair data? >> thank you very much for the comments. i want to acknowledge the great efforts you took continuing in this congress and working on the specific provisions you referenced around autonomous vehicles and levels four and five. it is important to acknowledge the way in which our industries are evolving are a fleet managed mode -- model where they are owned and maintained by the manufacturer, by the autonomous vehicle developer that is there,

something that will probably continue to evolve in the future. we need to make sure for a safety perspective that we maintain the vehicles for the highest possible care because they are elaborate and complicated. it is paramount to everything we do. >> i am sure we will do that. time flies mr. chairman. i will yield back but i will submit questions for the panel. with that, i yelled back. thank you. >> thank you. for a brief closing statement, the ranking member is recognized. >> thank mr. chairman. congratulations on the way you handled this committee. i hope you will share this information with gusto when he comes back, that every single member on the democratic side came and asked for questions --

asked questions and participated. it is not all the time that that happens. many of the republicans as well. there is clearly a lot of interest in this issue and i am so happy about that because we have a lot of work still to do about autonomous vehicles, about safety, and i look forward to moving forward. i want to say, he is at his son's wedding and so we want to wish him well. so thank you very much for your leadership today. >> thank you, ranking member. the chair and i represent -- recognizes the representative for five minutes. >> thank thank you to our distinguished witnesses being here today.

as congress works to ensure roadways are safe, i am grateful for the opportunity to hear from experts, the automobile industry, innovation and the impacts we are having on safety, new jersey's roads, and across the united states. the central aspect of the motor vehicle safety act is it promulgates the federal motor safety standards and motor vehicle manufacturers certified compliance with all standards. you discuss the importance of maintaining the self certification regulatory framework and how this supports motor vehicle safety and innovation. >> yes, thank you. this is an essential structure that supports innovation and safety at the same time. what is key to this is making sure they continue to maintain and update federal motor vehicle

safety standards. what we have seen is motor vehicle safety standards that are no longer relevant, necessary, or producing safety are often still on the books and they slow innovation down. we have an antiquated bumper standard that makes it difficult for manufacturers to put in the sensors required for automatic emergency braking, for example. federal safety standards are critical. self assessments and certification are critical because they move these technologies into the marketplace quickly. but the key to this is there needs to be alignment and fast movement to modernize these. >> thank you. can you point to any research that supports the safety promise of autonomous vehicles? >> thank you. i would be happy to. i will start by saying that

right now, the autonomous vehicle industry is reporting data under the standing general order so we want to see this process involved and -- evolved and improved so that americans can better understand the safety of these vehicles because we know that public trust goes hand-in-hand with the deployment of these vehicles. that is something our industry has embraced and we want to work on a bipartisan basis with members of this committee. there has been a tremendous amount of data produced by the manufacturers themselves and the industry writ large. we have been collecting the total amount of autonomous miles driven by our members over the course of a number of years. we published last month that our members have driven 145 million autonomous miles just on our roads, not simulation or close tracks. what is interesting is that figure has more than doubled just last year.

it really speaks to the inflection point we are at right now with regard to commercial -- commercialization. i will go back to what i said before, which is that many factors have been releasing data . one study that is very compelling is there was an evaluation of limo and 3.8 million miles that the way mode driver drove -- waymo driver drove. if you think about, it is 3.8 billion miles. what if we could do that at scale in the united states and have that amount of reduction of bodily injury claims, it speaks to the technology. >> can you discuss the latest research on seatbelt use and solutions to promote seatbelt use? >> thank 2 -- for the question. the seatbelt is the most

important safety feature in a vehicle today. we stressed that in every communication. one thing that is a real challenge is getting people to understand that they need to wear that seatbelt in the front seat or back seat, no matter where you are sitting in the vehicle, at all times in all scenarios. this is something we continue to work on. there is a real disconnect. we see seatbelt usage for this country, 90% right now in the front. in the back, 75%. that sounds good and encouraging, yet the number of fatalities we see in our country, almost half of those in the front seat of passenger cars are un-belted. we have got to do a lot of work to get people to buckle up, specifically those who are high risk in vehicles. a lot more work needs to be done

and i encourage this committee to think about what they can do to help with those who are not will -- not wearing their seatbelt. >> thank you. >> thank you, representative. panel, thank you for your participation today. there is a lot of interest in this. anytime there is a new technology, that adoption implementation will be a key thing in the interest that you represent will play a key role in that. i will point out to you specifically that when it comes to data, they will read too much to that especially adopting something new. i ask unanimous consent, the documents on the staff, the list be submitted on the record. without objection, so ordered. thank you for being here today. there are additional written questions for you all that will be submitted to you. 10 business days to submit for the record. i ask you to respond promptly by

the close of business friday, july 11. the subcommittee is adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2025] [indistinct conversations] >> coming up here on c-span three, at 2:00 p.m. eastern, the faith and freedom coalition is hosting its annual conference focused on increasing the gop majority in congress. we will hear from house speaker mike johnson, representative nancy mace, and florida senator

rick scott among others. that is live here on c-span3. around 4:00 p.m., president trump will host congressional leaders and others at the white house to talk about the importance of passing the republican tax and spending cuts bill through the senate. the president has set a deadline of july 4 to sign the legislation. that will also be life on c-span3, c-span now, our free mobile video app, and online at c-span.org. >>. community centers so students with low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. >> comcast supports c-span as a

public service as well as these providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> c-span ceo sam pfister delivered a commencement address to the 2025 commencement in georgetown university. he spoke to the unity and the importance of speaking out to those with different points of view for compromise. this is about 15 minutes. >> hello, everybody. thank you for this generous honor and the extraordinary privilege of addressing the 2025 public policy graduates. thank you, my dear friend ej, for that kind introduction. thank you and a special thank you for saying yes all of those times when i called of the last minute.