And it could result in lives lost unless we have enforceable rules and regulations that protect the traveling public, not just the folks who may be behind the wheel but also passengers in vehicles out on the roads today. Driving continues to be one of the deadliest activities. The reason the framework issued yesterday concerned me so greatly is that it depends on voluntary selfassessment by the industry as opposed to mandatory rules. It was termed by one report even less burdensome than the voluntary one issued under the obama administration. The net effect would be to leave enforcement virtually toothless. So i am putting to you the question, to all of the witnesses here today, isnt it necessary to have mandatory rules and regulations enforced by the government, by the department of transportation or some enforcer to protect the traveling public . I think thats absolutely true. There has to be weve seen too many examples of and thats one of our concerns, is whether or not theres going to be the kind of oversight necessary to protect the american public. We have seen too many cases for example in the case of volkswagon where everyone assumed they were going the rig doing the right things. Its still the same issue if a company is allowed to produce vehicles, whether it is automobiles or in particular when its 80,000 pound riggs, then there must be oversight. Thats why i think its premature to think that these commercial vehicles should be included at this time. That is not to say and i am hopeful that were all willing to guarantee that were going to protect all those drivers jobs. But were certainly open to talking about anything that improvouim improves safety. I am concerned. When uber spent lots of money in the city of pittsburgh and making sure that they measured down to the centimeter every street in that city, but yet one of the vehicles went the wrong way down a one way street. You know on a oneway street maybe theres a way to control that. Weve got to have more thought. Not that theres not going to be a time as i have listened here and agreed with some of my colleagues here, i understand that we are going to see some changes. But there has to be a lot more work done. Does anyone on this panel think the nitsa guidance offers an adequate basis to go forward . I wouldnt say, senator, that its an endalli issuance of guidance it would say it is a first step and thats better than nothing. It ought to be a lot more robust. It will be a lot more. We are going to have a framework. We are moving in that direction. At the same time the only reason were having this discussion today is because innovation the driving this outcome not regulation. But the rules are as important as the technology, would you agree . I agree. I think its getting the federal government to where it has understanding of where this technology is going to take us. We advocate a federal role, Sole Authority. And the rules have been to be enforceable. Absolutely. The rules have to keep pace with the technology, correct . I think eventually they will. But yes youre correct. The eventually part is what concerned me. In the meantime, there will be a lot more deaths and injuries if the rules and enforceability of those rules fail to keep pace. I think the same is true if you get the rules wrong. I think inclusivity and getting this right from the start we all share the road. I think having a federal frorol Sole Authority overseeing it, not a patch work of state laws, would be the pest approach. Relying on voluntary selfassessments and foregoing public oversight and enforcement i think is a mistake that would diskroetd the goal that we share of making Technology Available and accessible to as many people as possible and increasing safety through the use of technology. I think that revisiting this guidance is something that has to be done and will be done. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator lee. Thanks to all of you who have joined us today as witnesses. As we consider the issue of Autonomous Vehicles this month, its become more and more clear that the future of American Transportation is inextricably intertwined with the advent of automated technology. Its therefore really important that we think about this issue a lot and we move forward with it with an eye toward advancing it and allowing it to be developed. At issue in this debate is not whether congress should restrict or block or slow down the development of this technology, but its rather how congress can best establish a regulatory framework, one that encourages and facilitates the development of life saving technology, technology that will make the American People safer and more productive. The research and development of autonomous commercial Motor Vehicles is critical to this type of innovation and should therefore be included in any legislation that we put forward this month. Now, according to the u. S. Department of bureau of labor statisti statistics, trucking transportation occupations account for more work related fatalities than perhaps any other profession. Its my understanding that 87 of truck related collisions are caused by human error. Not because the people driving them are bad. They are, to the contrary, well trained and everything. But humans make mistakes and human error can lead to fatalities. I have a question. Ill start with mrs. Hearseman. Given that trucks are involved in a disproportionate share of fatal vehicle crashes, wouldnt automated Trucking Technology make sense and have the potential to have kind of an out sized benefit for american drivers . Yes. Technology has the potential to be that game changer when it comes to reducing fatalities. Rear end collisions are a great example. Three times more fatal if youre involved in a rear end collision with a truck, with a commercial vehicle than a passenger car. We can all understand the phy c physics of that. Automatic emergency braking, vehicle to Vehicle Technology can help with that. Automated vehicles are an extension of some of those technology. Way would it make sense for us to put them on two different tracks . We dont think it does make sense, because in situations where we have put passenger cars on a fast track and we havent addressed commercial vehicles. Electronic stability control is a good example. After there were some rollover examples, this committee required that were looking at not having that on commercial vehicles for many more years. That doesnt make sense. We need one level of safety for everyone on the roadways. Colonel hernandez, the legislation is clearly limited to addressing Vehicle Design standards that will be centered by nitsa. I realize theres a lot of interest and debate over the ultimate operations of autonomous cmvs. But the current bills dont address that. Theyre ensuring everybodys safety. That being said, colonel, would there be any reason to delay the fundamental safety framework for automated cmv design . No, not at all. I think that we already saw a live example in colorado where its jumped out in front. It would be a lot better for us in the Enforcement Community to be able to be ahead of it as it relates to commercial vehicles. We have many questions that are the same in the Enforcement Community, such as how to estimate a crash. The advantage for us to understand how these technologies work and work with the industry to learn how to better and reasonably regulate and enforce laws. Well have a much better advantage than xrateding the two in my. Sounds like a considerable Public Safety game. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator lee. I would point out for twhohose think that the nitsa guidance isnt strong enough, that would indicate to me why we ought to have all these cover eed by the legislation. Please answer yes or no. Do you believe that this committee as it actively works on legislation to promote the deployment of Autonomous Vehicles, that we should also create policies to help those working americans that will lose their jobs because of these emerging technologies . Yes, i believe that should be considered. Yes. Yes. No. Mr. Hall . Yes, except that hopefully were going to have a situation where were not going to lose jobs. As i have listened to various speakers talk about here today. Theres always disruption. When they invented the talkies, all the piano players in the silent movie theaters lost their jobs. Time moves on and youve got to make sure youve got a plan in place to make sure the protection is there. These vehicles are obviously already computers on wheatels. Theyre going to continue to axccelerate in that direction a technology deployedeploys. Mr. Hall, do you believe that we should proactively develop robust mandatory regulations so that these vehicles are protected against Cyber Attacks as they are moving down the streets of our country . Absolutely. Thats one of the biggest concerns that i have. As i said earlier, the Teamsters Union has worked all over this country on innovation and to make companies more competitive. In this case and particularly the case of Cyber Security, its terrifying to me to think weve got tractor trailers rolling down the road that can be hacked. To say that they want be in todays world, thats one of the things i think there has to be more information, more studies to ensure that were not going of that issue. Because no one thought we would have the credit card issue weve had in the past week where millions of peoples information has become public. We didnt think i agree with you 100 . In fact, we were warned about all these things, that they can happen. Its not as though equifax didnt know it could happen. Its not like the Auto Industry doesnt know these vehicles can be hacked. Its all there. I agree with you mr. Hall. Do you agree with that mr. Spear, that we need mandatory robust protections that are built in as rules of the road Going Forward . I think thats where were headed. Its a First Step Towards something much more robust. This allege legislation that remarkable first step. We know this is a reality. Its not just cars and trucks. Its a cross the board. Thats why i introduced the legislation the spy car act that directs nitsa. Finally on the issue of privacy, obviously since they are computers on wheels theres going to be a vast amount of information about all americans thats going to be gathered as they are moving around this country. Do you think that we should be ensuring that this information which is gathered by the Auto Companies or by others about all of our individual habits, where we go, what we do, all the information that can be gathered as these computers are being used. I really dont know that im qualified to answer that question. I think that perhaps that information may be out there with cell phones and others now, but i think thats something that perhaps do you have a view, mr. Hall, whether or not we should be providing privacy protections for people wto make sure that information is protected . Theres no question that we continue to see i mean, were talking about protecting peoples privacy involves a lot of things, including getting involved when youre talking about someones personal lives, youre talking about personal lives, finances. Thank you to the witnesses today. Colonel hernandez, welcome to the committee. Hard on the family. It could have been avoided. I think that through this technology, it absolutely could have been avoided because there is a prior crash. So often these are secondary crashes. That takes the lives of many people as this secondary crash. I think thats one of the huge advantages to this type of technology, both in cars and commercial vehicles. So i think one of the challenges we have is not just if we get there, but its how we do it in a way that manages safety. One out of 20 jobs in colorado is a Truck Driving job. I grew up on a small town on the Eastern Plains of colorado. We have a lot of Truck Drivers there. One of them came up and said did you see the truck delivery. I said yeah, wasnt it great . His response to me said, yeah, whats going to happen to me . Hes a truck driver. As policy makers, we have to figure out how were going to answer that question of whats going to happen to them. The answer is always with the innovations that we have been able to achieve in this country, were going to have progress, innovation and more jobs than weve ever had before. Weve got to figure out how to say that to help people see that, understand that and know that. Youre going to be okay and heres how. There is going to be an uncertainty. We need help in being able to answer that question. The secondary impacts are going to be phenomenal but how do we make sure we can articulate too a very uncertain american populace Going Forward. Im excited about the future we have here. Yesterday i had a hearing with the National RenewableEnergy Laboratory in denver. And we talked about the 11 million miles of High Resolution data that fleet partners across the country have been able to provide them. How do we get the information we need using some of the National Assets to really move forward on a system of Autonomous Vehicles and the information we need to make this work . I alluded to it a bit in my testimony. Its not just d. O. T. And nitsa. There are a whole host of ben fok t benefactor agencies. We work a lot of d. O. D. There are a lot of good things that can be done on military bases to advance this technology. The more inclusivity you have, the more robust this platform is going to be. I think the inclusivity of the labs and the agencies, not just d. O. T. Need to be squarely at the table and drive the outcome. If the legislation can speak to that, i think that would be a very good thing. Thank you. Thank you to the panelists. Very engaging, important discussion today. So mr. Spear, let me start with you and make sure i understand what im hearing today, is that you would be comfortable if we passed federal legislation that only went to a level two authority. What i mean by that is, it limited any type of future technology for specifically to driver assisted Technology Level two and we didnt open the door to a level five Driverless Technology for commercial trucks, is that correct . Senator, let me stipulate that im not suggesting the committee, you know, earmark it to level two or three. Thats the reality of where we see things for the foreseeable future. Driver assist, not driverless. If thats acceptable, that to us is not a threat to driver displacement. Its actually a catalyst to a lot of beneficial things, productivity and safety. If the legislation speaks to that, i mean thats a decision you all make. But we just dont believe displacement or level five new york city ste no steering whe new york city pedals is in the foreseeable future. If we were to limit it to level two and level three because you dont see that in the foreseeable future as driverless and we want to make sure were addressing that worker displacement and Cyber Security issues that we all the have concerns about, as well as addressing the safety on the roads, you would be comfortable with that federal legislation . Absolutely. Mr. Hall, would you be comfortable to that federal legislation if we were to limit it to just driver assisted technology and understanding the evolution of that driver assisted technology for commercial trucks . I certainly would be happy to see that type of limitation on it. By the same token, i also think that we have to address the many safety concerns before we make any of those changes. And so when you talk about the many safety concerns, that is including the worker safety concerns as well as the discussion weve had today, correct . Correct. Okay. So let me just say this is an important discussion. And i think for all of us the challenge is going to be how we balance the emergence of this new technology that mr. Spear you said is happening. Theres a demand for it. It is going to happen whether we are part of this discussion or not. And how we balance that with Worker Protections and worker placement, because the last thing i cant speak for all of my colleagues but i would imagine is that worker displacement. It would harm our economy. It would harm our workers. It would harm our jobs. Thats not what were trying to do here. There has to be a balance. Thats what im hoping everyone will come to the table and help us at a federal level find that balance to Work Together to have not only the ability to embrace this new technology but address the worker issue and worker displacement to make sure that does not happen. Do you think theres an ability to Work Together to do that . Absolutely. I think theres an ability to do that. Thank you. The reason why i am really excited and interested in this space is because there are a lot of work that is happening in nevada right now as you well know with this new technology both for Autonomous Vehicles as well as for driver assisted trucks. I think it is the future and we need to embrace it, but we need to put those guardrails in place that weve all talked about today. Just in nevada, the Transportation Commission of Washoe County is currently taking data on autonomous bus that will move many of my con stitch we constituents back and forth in the region. Thats why i am excited to be able to be introducing legislation to promote smart cities and communities. My bill will ensure that the federal government proceevides seed money. My colleague is lead sponsor on this. Im very excited to work with him. That is our future, the Internet Connectivity of things and i want to make sure were in that space of innovation. I think we can address the Security Issues that youve talked about and the safety on our roads. But at the same time make sure were training that work force for the future. Were involving them in this discussion when were talking about the new technology. Thank you for the conversations today. I really appreciate it. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The reason youre experiencing some redundance in questions, is we have 50 of the Committee Also on the environment and public works committee. We find ourselves having to go back and forth and its very difficult. The question that was asked mr. Clark, let me first of all say how much we enjoy you. My citizens in my city of tulsa have been in your operation many times. Its a great benefit to us and i appreciate your presence and all the contributions youve made to our local communities very much. When you were asked by senator wicker some things i think are kind of interesting. That is where are we it was a difficult question to answer. The rest of you, you know, theres an assumption by the American People that were always number one, were always the first there. I served as Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services committee. We know there are many countries out there that are developing Missile Technology and other things. Were not always number one. But this is something thats new. I think its appropriate to ask each one of you kind of where are we right now in terms of other countries. Weve heard germany, japan, china, other countries that are advancing. Where are we in the mix right now . Youve already answered, mr. Clark, but some of the rest of you . When it comes to fatalities, were trailing. The rest no, im talking about this technology thats the subject of this meeting today. So the other countries have made more progress. Some of that is because they have embraced technology. Things like automatic emergency braking, not required here on trucks, looking at that in europe. So they have that in europe. When we look at automated enforcement, other countries are embracing some of these technologies at a more rapid clip than the United States. Anybody else, any thoughts on that . That explains the european end but anything else . Id like to know because we get asked these questions, what are other countries doing . We do benchmark with what our colleagues in europe are doing. We think the proving grounds and the development at the local and state level in the United States is a bit more advanced. I think thats in large part to the environment. Were seeing multiple states and communities stepping up to really attract innovators to their states and cities. I think smart cities were mentioned. Were creating those environments where technology can be tested in a safe way. Thats a good thing. Those investments are going to accelerate the adoption of the technology. It was kind of presumed that this mass exodus of jobs in america and so its a difficult question for you to answer yes or no to. I guess id hike to have a comment from each one of you, pause ive heard from this committee that there are some arguments that were actually going to be employing more people. Were getting into other technology. But how do you see us . When this washes out, are we going to have the massive jobs declines that were kind of assumed in the question that was asked you . Would you comment to that . I think i struggled just with that straightforward question, just because i start thinking about the number of lives weve lost on our roadways and highways and how to reduce that. And then just that im not the subject Matter Expert on this key point, but primarily driven by our goal to get to zero and what that will look like. From a Law Enforcement perspective, ive been involved for 30 years, like the senator said. Every time we get more technology, it definitely seems to take more people than less to manage those technology systems. Any other comments on that . Mr. Spears . I would say that the type of Job Description were going to see in the next 20 years for drivers and technicians is going to make these employees more marketable. Theyre going to be better skilled and trained. Employers are investing a lot to make sure these technologies are done in a safe way. We dont believe this is a displacement issue. Well, from your perspective, the last thing i wanted to ask is, do you believe that heavy trucks should be included in the drafting of the legislation . Absolutely, senator. Does anyone not believe that . I dont believe they should be part of this current legislation because and i dont want to over simplify this. But all the discussion has been about Passenger Vehicles. And i think we have to recognize that there is a vast difference between a 4,000 pound car and an 80,000 pound vehicle. Youve made that point. I appreciate that very much. Did the other three of you mostly agree with mr. Spear . Yeah. All right. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thanks to you and senator peters for all your work on this issue. And thank you to the panelists for being here today. There is no doubt that Automated Vehicles have tremendous potential to save lives and reduce the nearly 4,000 deaths caused by large truck accidents each year and the over 30,000 annual traffic fa tatalities onr nations highways. How can we guard against potential harms of this technology from and out of state actors who are looking to harm us . I dont want to trade one set of harm for another. I will tell you i spent some of my homework period visiting summer camps in new hampshire. I was visiting one a couple of weeks ago. It was for a group of adolescents. They wanted to know what a senator does. I talked a little bit about the work of this committee and said this committee had jurisdiction over Automated Vehicles and the technology around it. Within seconds there were kids 13, 14 years old raising their hands going do you know how easy it would be to hack those . Since theyre the Digital Natives among us, i tend to listen to young people when they talk to us about technology. So i am very concerned that were all assuming that there are going to be levels of Cyber Security built into this technology when weve seen in all various Industry Sectors that sometimes we think about Cyber Security after the harm is done and given the lives at stake and the potential of out of state actors who want to use vehicles now for a different purpose, i am very concerned that we get the Cyber Security right at the front end and not wait for something bad to happen. We also know there are Critical Thinking components to operating a vehicle that im not sure translate to automated machinery just yet, which is why i think were seeing the Different Levels of automation described in this legislation. To all of you, if trucks are added to this bill, what more could be done beyond the bill to guard against potential Cyber Security risks of automation . Im not a Cyber Security expert. But i would say it makes a lot more sense to me to make sure that its incorporated so that Autonomous Vehicles are secure whether its a car or a commercial vehicle. Mr. Clark . Actually great question and great topic. This whole issue around Cyber Security is an immediate issue and it is an issue now in our industry. Both navistar as well as the competitors in the industry currently have some number of connected vehicles, probably in the neighborhood of 40 of the vehicles on the road today are connected telematically. We do different things. We offer services. This is an immediate need for us today. The recognition of these needs has energized our industry to Work Together like few things that i have seen. We are committed to get it right and we will not go to market nor test without the proper safeguards. We welcome the oversight of the regulatory bodies in that particular space. We would say it is a rapidly changing area. We dont believe that the right thing is to mandate the technology but certainly we stand ready and willing to participate in the regulatory process to provide the right safeguards. Because my time is running throw ill ask the rest of the group to address it. Would it make sense to have a set of standards that everybody had to meet in place . Senator, i think thats what were trying to work toward even without legislation, the commercial sector as well as the automotive which is up and running for a couple of years now, really developing protocols that are seamless across both autos and commercial vehicles. It really speaks to why trucks being part of this legislation is important, so that you get that seamless protocol. I would say that there were earlier questions about the voluntary nature of whats going on now. This is exactly why this body needs to get involved. If we dont like whats happening out there, its because people dont i feel like they have the authority or direction. Its really important for you all to at least set some of those high bars. We dont have anything now shs so it it is a bit of the wild west out there and there needs to be a sheriff. I think the opportunity to do that is through having these conversations and sh legislatth legislation, not putting it off. I think there needs to be regulation and strong regulation. Because while there are certainly Reputable Companies including people represented here in this hearing today, there are bad actors out there. And we have repeatedly seen that where with the volkswagen scandal, if that happens with the Cyber Security, we have got a huge problem. And i guess the thing that i see is perhaps as they say in West Virginia, we have to make sure were not getting the cart before the horse. We need to insure the stability and safety of these vehicles before we start rolling them out and furthering legislation to put them on the road. Thank you, and thank you for your indulgence. Ill put some questions into the record about workforce training. Thank you. Senator caputo. Thank you for the hearing. Havent been in the entire time, but you have a great panel because you have two West Virginia ens on the panel. I recently returned from a trip to israel. And when the question was asked what countries are really at the cutting edge, they talked a lot in israel about selfdriving and Automated Vehicles. And i think they have a very small, very flat country as well. But i think theyre really working on the technologies there. So i wanted to bring that up. I have a question. And it may be that im kind of on how these things really work. So mr. Clark, this is sort of directed at you. We live in a state that has spotty connectivity, even on our main arteries. Through even our wireless on our interstates. Cuts in and out. And i have some concerns that if we move forward on this or as the technology moves forward, how much connectivity in all the different areas plays into being able to run this efficiently and safely. Could you speak to that . Yeah, thank you, senator, for the question. The basic Autonomous System on a vehicle is intended to in fact drive in a very autonomous way. It does not have to be a connected vehicle to be an Autonomous Vehicle. It operates with a very detailed 3d map. Its looking and comparing using cameras and detectors and making constant comparisons to whats in its memory, looking for things that arent there and making decisions, are those objects moving or fixed and what decisions should be taken. Not the least of which is i think i dont understand. Im just going to pull over. So even in a nonconnected environment, the vehicles can operate autonomously. Their safety advocacy is significantly enhanced when they do operate in a connected fashion, either connected to other vehicles or connected to portions of the infrastructure or in many cases for our testing purposes connected back to us. So that we can collect that data that can be used by regulators and analyzed for future purposes. Well, you mentioned in your previous question that 40 of your trucks were connected telematically, what do you i would like you to think about that the truck itself has a cell phone. Okay. Like every couple seconds, its sending us a message on the condition of the mechanical conditions of the vehicle. Through the wireless. Okay, thank you. Mr. Hall, on the concerns about the workforce impacts, obviously, West Virginia, we have a lot of Truck Drivers. Its a great occupation. I notice as were looking at the Different Levels, i dont know, level one to level four, theres somebody in the car thats being in the truck. But i started thinking, so why is mr. Hall worried about if youre going to have a teamster in the truck anyway. Do you envision its a lower paying, lower type drive that doesnt have maybe the same beginning salaries that somebody who is a member of the teamsters might have . Is that your concern . Because it looks as though at least from the very beginning and except in very urban situations, theres somebody in the vehicle. Well, thats obviously one of my concerns. I mean, first, yes. We dont want to see just, you know, its been mentioned here today that some comparison to we still have pilots in airplanes even though theyre very much automated. So certainly, its a concern of ours because people make a good living doing that. But also, our concern is the safety of all of the drivers as well as the general public in saying that it shouldnt be we dont believe that you should just include 80,000pound trucks without further study. I dont think you can say because we have been talking about automobiles that then it just makes sense. Its no more than, you know, i bought my grandson a bb gun, but i dont think that means i should give him a highpowered rifle because hes learned to shoot a bb gun. We need to make sure that were taking the time to look at some of the aspects that are so much different about trucks than they are automobiles. But you are right. One of my concerns is that there be regulation so that we dont have those bad actors, and most of the companies that we deal with are up front and do the right thing. We dont want bad actors who are putting people on the road at the low end considering the lowest cost at the risk of safety for the general public. Okay. You know, its hard to imagine living in the terrain that we live in, that an Autonomous Vehicle, there are certain places im not getting in an Autonomous Vehicle to get up to my house. Its a pretty windy, windy road. There are lots of areas where this is not going to work, but ms. Hersman, lets take i81. I dont know what the percentage of truck traffic is on that piece of highway, but its enormous. How do you see this technology evolving in terms of safety on a very crowded highway like that, thats pretty high speed . I think thats a great example, because thats exactly the kind of corridor where i think this technology could work the best. Very predictable. Repeatable. Youve got good coverage. You have mapped it out. Its not unknown. And those are the kinds of spaces where i think vehicles can talk to each other. Its a very controlled environment. Youve got widely spaced lanes. Youve got shoulders where people can pull over. That environment, i think, is probably one of the spaces where were talking about using Technology Like this first. It could control speeds. Im sure if you drive on 81, there are some speed racers on that road, in addition to it being a truck alley, theres a lot of people moving really quickly. We can look at a lot of safety issues that can be addressed through this technology. Traffic flow, management, but safety is the first and most important thing. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chair. Senator duckworth. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would like to quickly recognize our two illinois natives, good panel. Ms. Hersman and mr. Clarke, welcome to the panel. Briefly touching on what mr. Hall just said, i think the name captain Sully Sullenberger is a great example of the importance of a human being Decision Maker at the controls of any type of a large vehicle. With the advent of level three, four, and five technologies, i think we face a truly Game Changing opportunity and associated challenges as well. You know, in my own lifetime, theres been few technologies with more potential to improve the mobility and independence for individuals with disabilities than Autonomous Vehicles. It would be freeing for those with visual impairments, for those that are unable to drive, to be able to actually leave their homes and gain mobility. Clearly, the potential to greatly reduce the 30,000 annual roadway fatalities is also truly exciting. I do know that we should expect growing pains and unintended consequences. What i would like to focus my discussion on is on how Autonomous Vehicles would challenge our existing transportation infrastructure and what that means for our local municipalities and states. And also the future of labor. So mr. Clarke, what existing and future infrastructure considerations should manufacturers take into account when designing vehicles at level three and above . Thats a great question, senator. And it certainly reflects your understanding that commercial vehicles actually operate in a system or an environment that includes the infrastructure. Things such as not just the highways but entrance and exits. You know, toll plazas. Even something as simple as where can the vehicle pull over during that application. Whats exciting about this opportunity is that we can concurrently discover as were validating the technologies those Cost Effective or the most Cost Effective methods to get at what will ultimately be some infrastructure needs. As the point has been made, Autonomous Vehicles, even the most sophisticated, if everything worked perfect, are probably just not suited to some roads in america or some circumstances. But, you know, they are suited to a number of other places as well. Things like, we have already talked about vehicle to vehicle communications, but we could talk about vehicle to infrastructure communication where the road itself, okay, and its condition can talk to the vehicle for incidents that maybe are miles and miles in advance. And last but not least, look. These technologies, you would only think of deploying these technologies in the immediate term in a place where the vehicle always has available to it the ability to pull itself over and stop. Which kind of dictates its riding in the righthand lane. So now we have to reassess the capacity of that particular thoroughfare because all the trucks will be in the righthand lane. There will be traffic and speed control, but it always needs to ability to pull itself off. Or in the place of platooning, which we talked about previously, decel lanes on freeways or limited access highways may need to be extended so entire vehicles could pull over and still leave room for Passenger Vehicles to navigate their way off the highway as well. And then last but not least, another very simple example would be the vehicle needs to be driven once it gets off the highway. And perhaps at that point in time, there will be the need for marshaling areas or cross docking facilities or the ability to pull the vehicle over very close to an entrance or exit to make the right inspections, to create the right certifications, so that we know that the vehicle is capable of performing the next challenge, so to speak, in its task. So the opportunity to bring this technology in a very controlled manner for the purpose of developing data that will fuel regulations and Infrastructure Research is the exact opportunity we look forward to. I think i speak for our entire industry. Thank you. I think its important to talk about the point beyond getting off of the interstate, off the major roadways as well, because in many of our municipalities, the roads through cities and towns into the industrial areas, into the loading docks are 1960s and 1970s era, very narrow. Theyre simply theres nothing to replace a human being to negotiate through those. And ms. Hersman, i think everyone agrees that the safety potential of Av Technology is enormous. From a safety perspective, could you speak to the infrastructure challenge for states, municipalities, in terms of accommodating future av technologies . I think on this issue its really important for states and municipalities oversight agencies, licensing agencies, all of them need to have a seat at the table. When we look at whats happening, its happening in controlled environments. They need to be notified of testing going on in their states so they know how to respond, but there may also be changes in design that we need to do Going Forward. We talked about vtoi. Vehicle to infrastructure. We have a lot of great crossings in illinois. Thats a great opportunity to kind of connect industries. So how do we keep from having grade crossing fatalities. Likewise, we have seen pedestrian and bicycle fatalities going up. How do we insure were thinking about all road users wherer were talking about trucks and cars today, but theres a lot of fatalities that occur on our roadways. States and municipalities have to be at the table whether were talking about lane markings and how we have systems that interact with each other, or about the rules of the road that we set. No ones really talked about consumer education. One of the Biggest Challenges that we have is how do people understand how these vehicles are behaving. Whether its a large truck or whether its a car, really important to bring people in the loop, and i think the state and local leaders have a role in that. Thank you. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator cantwell. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thanks for this hearing. I wanted to ask mr. Clarke, obviously, the super truck program, which is both about moving forward more from an efficiency perspective. I know pat car in our state was awarded one of the doe for developing more fuel efficient engines. How do you see these two things working together in the challenges we face on competitiveness of moving u. S. Products and keeping costs down . How is increasing fuel efficiency and automation going hand in hand . Yeah, senator, thank you so much. Boy, i couldnt have asked for a better setup. You know, all of the major truck manufacturers in america participated in the doe super truck program, and as a program itself, the super truck program, how it was managed, it was managed in an outstanding way that created the very technologies that were putting on our vehicles today. To improve not only their efficiency and operation and how clean they are and the environment, but it really gave us a test bed to test many of these connected technologies and many of the, well, for instance, many of these technologies that are in fact the basis of Autonomous VehiclesGoing Forward. For instance, in our super truck program, we had such a successful experience with Collision Mitigation and avoidance that in the middle of the program, we decided to put it on our brandnew tractor called the lt, and we made it standard. So Collision Mitigation is standard. You can delete the option if you so choose. But surprising to us, the tick grade on that has been 35 . And in fact, those vehicles who are equipped with Collision Mitigation and mitigation style braking already prove, the data would suggest, 24 reduction in those type of accidents, the very accidents it was intended to avoid. So it does it did give us confidence to move forward with that technology in a test platform where we could do it outside of the commercial venue, and the supertrucks were all tested on highways. So we were able to test it in multiple customer environments all across the United States, and again, it gave us this rapid validation and feedback that let us do something really good, not just commercially for us, but we think for the drivers as well. Well, its kind of hand in glove, right . Its not just, you know, are you going to have automated trucks. Its what are the efficiencies youre going to drive in to trucks or reducing costs. When we see this from the aerospace industry, huge wins in the marketplace because the customer wants a more fuel efficient plane. I would assume driving down the cost in these fuel areas and efficiency areas also give you a more competitive advantage when youre out there marketing cost and moving product. Yes, senator. Ours is a highly regulated business environment. You know, that is aimed at safety, efficiency and Clean Products and the environment. There are no Better Safety regulators in the world than nhtsa and federal motor carrier Safety Administration. We have historically worked together to not only bring products to the market that improve safety, reduce operating costs, but create a cleaner environment. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator cantwell. Senator peters. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for letting me have another round here. I appreciate your indulgence, and again, thank you to our witnesses here today. Ms. Hersman, the advocates for highway and auto safety have expressed concerns to my office about including trucks in this legislation. And they have recommended several ways to congress, the d. O. T. , nhtsa, fm, csa can insure safety of highly automated trucks. They have a little different perspective or at least are raising a number of i think are important issues. I would certainly welcome your thoughts on some of the issues they raised. The advocates for highway and auto safety believe automated trucks that do not comply with federal Motor Vehicle standards should not be exempt to exemptions, would you agree with that . Are you talking about for testing environments . I think that if we have very specific testing environments, we want to think about how were what were testing. What equipment were testing. But i do think as theyre operating out on the road, with the public, they need to be subjected to the same standards as other vehicles out there. So youre in agreement with that stand . Yeah, but i would say, you know, certainly when we look at test environments, we talked about a situation where we had a unique test, and they created specific parameters around it, so i would say we have to sometimes put technologies and systems out there if were testing them to understand what its like in the real world. Its important not to say we wouldnt want to allow anything, but i think we have to have major controls around those things. Fair enough. Have you considered what would be an appropriate number of exemptions for highly automated trucks Going Forward . I think its possible, i know the committee has a number in their bill. You could think about a pro rata share based on the number of vehicles that are out there, Passenger Vehicles versus commercial vehicles. Its in the purview of the committee to put that out there, but what were talking about as far as fully Automated Vehicles, were just not seeing those numbers now. Under current law, current law allows 2500. Would 2,500 be sufficient for trucks . And my understanding is theres about 300,000 produced in the country versus 17 million automobiles. Is 2,500 sufficient . Im not sure that 2,500 is the right number. I might defer to some of my colleagues who have more real experience with respect to putting vehicles out on the roads. But i think its really important for this committee to engage in this issue and set some guidelines and some escalation for how that could occur in a thoughtful way, because right now, there are none. Right. Realize 2,500 is current, but if we change that, we obviously need some thoughtful consideration of that and get some data and evidence to determine that. I appreciate that answer. The advocates for highway and auto safety also believe automated trucks must have an operator with a valid commercial drivers license while in the vehicle at all times and are advocating for the secretary to issue a standard for driver engagement. Does the National Safety council have recommendations for insuring that an operator is behind the wheel. I would say youre asking me about other folks recommendations, i can absolutely share with you what some of our recommendations are. Is that one of your recommendations . I think for us, we do feel depending on the level of automation, there absolutely needs to be a qualified driver behind the wheel. One of the things we havent talked about that this issue goes to, that the advocates are raising, is i know we talked about displacement and Training Programs, but i think what we really need to talk about are Training ProgramsGoing Forward, making sure that there are opportunities for people to be qualified on advanced technologies. I held a commercial drivers license. There are endorsements for those licenses, whether its air brakes, school bus, passenger endorsements. I think its important for us to think through technology as we advance. How do we train and qualify people for advanced technology. Because these systems are going to be complex, and its going to require a different set of skills. Well, thats actually really leading into my next question, because the advocates raised concerns about driver training, as you just expressed. They believe drivers operating a highly automated truck must have an endorsement on their cdl to make sure theyre trained to monitor and drive the vehicle. And if need be, take over the control of that highly automated truck. They believe this training should include a minimum number of hours behind the wheel. It sounds like the direction youre going to, its something we need to think through. I absolutely think as long as human beings are engaged, we have to make sure that we do it safely. I know everyone is talking about level two, three, four, five. But i would posit that one of the most dangerous environments are when the human being and the vehicle are sharing control, and how we handle those handoffs and how we structure the notifications, the warnings, and the training are very important. This is where we have seen in the Aviation Industry mode confusion, overrely niance on automation. These are really important conversations for us to have, even about level two and three before we get to four and five. Its going to be a very messy environment, and we need to talk about those things. Yeah, absolutely. I agree. And just one final point, mr. Chairman. They are also suggesting that Motor Carriers using highly automated trucks apply for additional authority. Has the National Safety council considered that issue . I think its important that they apply for operating authority as theyre required to do so today. I think its really important for the federal Motor CarriersSafety Administration to identify what that means, and they need to be part of the conversation with respect to vehicle standards, that nits hts responsible for, but its a new world out there. Everybody has to come along and identify what that means. All right. I appreciate those answers. Its clear we need to do a whole lot more thinking about that. I appreciate your response. Thank you. Thank you, senator peters. And again, thanks to our panel today. Its been a great conversation and discussion. I think its shed a lot of light on important issues as were we try to shape our bill, and we have been working, as i said, senator peters and i and senator nelson and others on the committee in working some time to try to craft a bill that really does enable the technology to move forward and with maximum emphasis on safety. And so were trying to figure out how to thread that needle. I would argue that it makes sense not to have two Safety Standards out there, one for trucks and one for automobiles. And that as we think about these things, we want to have, make sure that were providing the safest environment for all motorists on the highways, but thats a point that we continue to talk about in terms of the final bill that we end up filing. So we have a draft out there. I know many of you have looked at it, and we welcome your thoughts and input, and certainly the testimony this morning and the response to your questions has been very helpful in that regard. I would simply say for members of the committee who have questions for the record, to submit those and if we could have all of you respond within a twoweek time period, it would be very appreciated. And well make all of that part of the hearing record. So thank you again for being here. With that, this hearing is adjourned. We have some sad congressional news to share with you this afternoon. Former senator Pete Domenici has passed away. Mitch mcconnell made the announcement on the senate floor this morning. I regret that i announce to the senate the passing of our dear friend and colleague senator Pete Domenici. Pete had a long and notable career. One that took him from pitching on the baseball diamond to teaching mathematics at an albuquerque junior high school, from City Politics to the u. S. Senate. In fact, when he ran for the senate in 1972, domenici became the first republican elected from his home state in nearly four decades. By the time he retired, he did so as the longest serving senator in new mexico history. Like others in this chapter, i served for a number of years with senator domenici. I came to know him as a smart, hardworking, dedicated, and a very strong advocate for his home state of new mexico. So were all saddened by this news today. The Senate Offers its condolences to senator domenicis family and especially his wife nancy. Former senator domenici had more than 1,500 appearances on cspan. You can find them online at our website, cspan. Org. Check the cspan video library. In some other news, President Trump has invited the two Democratic Leaders to the white house for dinner tonight. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer are expected to talk to the president about allowing grown children of Illegal Immigrants to stay in the United States. And other possible legislation that they can agree on. Our live coverage will continue at 2 00 eastern today as the house ways and means oversight subcommittee will look into how the irs resolves taxpayer disputes. You can also watch online at cspan. Org or listen with the free cspan radio app. Coming up at 4 30 eastern, foreign diplomats and state Department Officials will discuss Hurricane Irma response efforts in the u. S. And caribbean. Well have live coverage of that, of the center for strategic and International Studies discussion beginning at 4 30 eastern on cspan3, also Available Online at cspan. Org or listen with the free cspan radio app. Sundays at 7 00 p. M. Eastern on oral histories, a series of six interviews with prominent photojournalists. This sunday, a conversation with Frank Johnston about his photos and career. When they brought oswald out, he was within three feet of me when they when jack ruby, who leaped out from behind me and went between bob jackson and i, fired the gun. And we were all thrown to the floor because there must have been 100 police in that basement that sunday morning. Watch our photojournalist interviews on oral histories sundays at 7 00 p. M. Eastern on American History tv. On cspan3. A panel of scientists recently offered their predictions on some of the technological and environmental changes that will occur over the next century. Some of the areas they explored included artificial intelligence, brain augmentation, climate change, the future of space life, and the potential for extraterrestrial life. This 90minute discussion was part of the annual World Affairs conference hosted by the university of colorado at boulder. Hello. All right, so the first thing, i have already done this to my phone. I messed it up. You guys know im not the queen of technology. You guys, you have a cell phone, turn it off. No phones ringing, no lights flashing. Ill be able to see them from up here, so here we go. Phones off. You know how i am about phones. Okay. All right. Here we go. So the topic today is life in this morning is life in the 22nd century. And, you know im an engineer. I see a phone on back there. Turn off that light, or a computer or something. Thank you. You know, when people talk about the future of the 22nd century, im sort of like, i go into my engineer mode and go, well, what are you going to do about cosmic rays when you fly to outer space and what about the time problem . Im kind of a wet blanket. But these three panelists are very well qualified with actual facts to talk about the 22nd century and what we might anticipate. So our three speakers, im going to introduce them in the order theyre going to speak, and theyll get ten to 15 minutes. If they talk too long, i cut them off. All right. So our first speaker is david grinspoon, who is an astrobiologist, which is super cool. Its like, you know, biology and space. Its very weird. So thats what he does. Our second speaker, michelle thaller, is director of science for communications at nasa. So she knows all about the Rocket Science program. And our third speaker is sheth shostak, who works at settee, which is looking for extraterrestrial life. Theyll talk about what we can expect. Were going to start with david. Good morning. Thank you for coming here and having us here in boulder. I have to say, boulder high is sort of a mythical place for me. Its the first time i have bun here, but i lived in boulder for a number of years and had a lot of friends whose kids went to boulder high. As a result, i now have friends who are graduates of boulder high. So yeah. So now i get to be here on stage. And also, im just realizing i think the last time i was maybe on the stage of a High School Auditorium was when i was in high school and our talent show and my band was playing like free bird or something. If i have a flashback and get up and do an air guitar solo, you have to forgive me. I, of course, want to start out with the requisite obvious but necessary point that nobody can predict the future. And there are no experts on the future. None of us can really tell you whats going to happen in the 22nd century. But its also true that all of us are people who in our careers think a lot about the future in various ways. And we at least can give you some insight into how to think about the future, hopefully. And when i was your age, when i was in junior high and high school, i was really obsessed with certain kinds of visions of the future. I was definitely a teenaged scifi geek. And this was, by the way, before it was cool to be a geek. So it was uncool, but i still was. And i was really enthralled by one of my earliest memories was the apollo landing on the moon when i was in four th grade. I grew up obsessed with space and the future. The movie space odyssey was very influential. I just assumed by the 21st century, humans would be living in space, and that was connected with this idea of sort of utopian view of what would happen with our society, that the cold war would wind down and we would basically have a peaceful and Equitable Society on earth. You know, it hasnt completely worked out that way. And so reflecting on that now, when i was your age, my visions of the future and the way things have worked out so far, one thing i think human beings cant help but doing is projecting into the future in a sort of linear way, i think its actually built into us cognitively, that we seek Current Trends and we assume the continuation of those trends. And thats what forms our view of the future. And that sort of makes sense on the short time scale, but on the long time scale, thats never a good guide because there are these nonlineal Game Changers that ultimately determine the way things are. So in the Science Fiction of the 1940s and 1950s and early 60s, which some people call the golden age of Science Fiction, which were the stories i grew up reading, a lot of times, just to give one example, they were written before apollo, so a lot of those stories had people finally getting to the moon in the year 2010 or finally getting to the moon in 1999. So because people werent actively engaged in that effort, people thought it would be a long way off. Then of course, 1960s, apollo program, john f. Kennedy, we choose to go to the moon. Inspirational speech at the beginning of the decade. And this massive effort. And of course, we did it. And then you look at the Science Fiction written during and around the time of the apollo project. And it was the opposite. They projected that motion, things would happen very fast because things were happening very fast in that decade. So then you have 2001, and by then, well be out at jupiter and doing, you know, they were overoptimistic, if you consider technological advance good. Because they were extrapolating from the rapid the rapid acceleration that was going on. They were extrapolating that into the future so they overshot the other way. You see this in a lot of other areas that we cannot help but extrapolate our Current Trends, and thats one of the reasons why were always wrong when we predict the future. I was recently i got to spend a year at the library of congress. Working on a project, a book project about the future. Considering our time on earth, the human time and geological history. And how humans are changing the planet and how that fits into the longterm story of the planet. And part of what i did for that project on trying to get a handle on how we think about the future was i read a lot of predictions about now that were written in the past. A lot of predictions of the future that were written a long time ago. And theres a section in my book thats called a brief history of the future where i sort of summarize this. Its interesting because you read essays by these really smart people that were written 100 years ago, 200 years ago, about what they think, you know, the early 21st century is going to be like. And its an interesting combination of some really prescient, really smart, how did they know that . You know, people predicted that we would run out of fossil fuels and that we would be running things by solar power. And people kind of predicted the internet. You know, really smart. And then combined with some just like really wacky, you know, ridiculous stuff. We would be talking to the spirits of the dead, and you know, theres its always some combination of that. But what they miss is the Game Changers. You know, the things that have really changed our world. The internet, which nobody really predicted. Communication satellites, which arthur c. Clark actually did predict but was so sure it wouldnt really happen in his lifetime, he didnt baath toor patent them. And then of course, they happened way before the end of his life. And so forth. We just we see things in a nonlinear way, and history we see things in a linear way, and history is very nonlinear. The big anxiety about the future when i was a teenager were, well, the cold war, of course, seemed like it would never end. It was just this intractable thing, and nuclear war between