Transcripts For CSPAN3 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20240622 :

opportunity to work with lawmakers and law enforcement officials to try to do what we can to improve the situation purported is difficult but then we have the ability to get information under which the companies are operating so for those as represent companies definitely let us know that you can't be more specific we can raise these issues said in conversation with specific examples otherwise it is just dead generalization. under what circumstances so let us know because we do gather that information we will have those conversations with those issues. >> but there are certain levels at government so we are still seeing to encourage your clients with the cooperation what michele said to bring concern there is the agreement between russia specifically on intellectual property for the obligations of the government that have committed to work on to be as specific as possible whether or not they respond is a different question but there were some very specific concrete concern said is a possible avenue. >> there is of a lot of jokes with the trade violations in the interest of time i will skip that. one of the sayings that we probably all have is how you measure success? particularly for innovation and number of ph.d. or start up gore patent? what are the litigation rates? how do you measure success when you say this is working not only as a patent system but to contribute to the economy? >> is how you measure output there is a lot of these numbers you can put on the patents or the start-ups but the association of america did universities set task force with the president's last fall to walk through that discussion why we do what we do and why are we in this business. looked at the results they each came up with it is about to bring this activity or the discovery that is how you add value see you can attract these variables. i was just that the bias industry convention three weeks ago it philadelphia. it is an amazing trade show. hundreds of not thousands of companies talking about the work to solve health care our agricultural issues. there were amazing stories told. the people stories a little girl who had a rare form of cancer and they had run out of ideas the doctor came up with out of the box solution she walked out four years later cheered and there is not a dry eye in the place and that is what you want to see. is anecdotal but a lot of those where people's lives have been changed by the work by researchers on campuses are labs or companies is an issue that is hard to quantify to be an effect will be better off economically to have better quality of health care? our brief trading the next generation of scientists? i say we are the biggest transfer is not the ideas of the marketplace but millions of educated students into the economy to do great things whether it is research related or not it is hard to agree on one certain set of criteria but the overall benefit is the country and of better place than 10 years ago? >> it is important to have metrics as a comparison so i will answer the question from the government point of view. governments are a good dad many things. it is not particularly good at innovating. so i think from the government pointed you whether it can credibly say it has stepped back to review as -- remove as much friction as possible so whether that means there is the immigration system to make it easy as possible whether that's there is an education system to make sure that we have our own pipeline with the unknown by engineers and developers to make sure there is day of litigation system to not divert from research and development. i believe that is the mode of success. it will take as much friction out of the system as possible. so they could innovate as much as they possibly can and. >> i agree. >> we do attract those but with the we are talking about more global. >> we track the cases that are adjudicated within the statutory time frame and we track the outcomes and for the most part they have all ben a firm to how do we measure the affective government policy on innovation? bay hit it just right. >> we measure everything. >> do you see the depth to diagnose what is happening? >> we do see the trend beyond the of finding feet or the backlog what we're doing now the uspto has a lot of valuable information that is the early telltale sign of their investments are made and we are looking through the big data to make available publicly available information about filings so businesses can take that to make informed business decisions. where is this talent located? it has tremendous economic impact and of benefits for a country. >> but what has continued to the end of the backlog so once a week to bring to him the oldest patent applications they would dispose of them that day as a way to say however long it has spent it is unfair to hold up the innovation because of our bureaucracy that is why we are in favor of having more resources to get that process so to get that adjudicated and out the door. >> if you put more on the market that is okay. >> i am from g we have two versions the senate and house version i interested to hear from you which you believe that takes the most of the transaction and cost? you talk about that little girl coming up on stage to be as innovative as possible to favor the house or the senate version and why? >> i will start. the community has been working closely with the senate and we appreciate the negotiations on those issues the draft was voted out of committee it does have improvements on two major points and one is the joinder peace to try to reach back to other investors in there is the better way to shield those that would not be held liable so the house bill is a number of reasons that we have highlighted in the past so that is where we are. as we talk beforehand i get the sense there is in time jews taken up before the fall. i think the house is looking to act much sooner. >> those bills have some of good things. so to be on the senate side for what the senate bill doesn't have that when it was new to a committee so we will continue to work with the senate on this bill but of the house side so when it makes sure there is language in their at the beginning of litigation. it is not clear how the patent is infringed the we will continue to work for the house judiciary committee as things are continuing to improve to eliminate some of these. >> we are a lot working very closely with stakeholders on these issues. there is more activity with the senate bill from the house bill and not the senate. with customer stay in their minor variations between the house and the senate. i am optimistic that people will work together with each respective bill to get the consensus still this year think a lot is going into these provisions but it is headed in the right direction. >> you don't want to jinx these things. >> it is early they have lots of time to move around with one question in the back. >> thank you for bringing their great group together. in 1994 the president of the institute was the year original author of the espionage act one of of provisions we attempted at that time was the civil portion but today concurrent with that action was the establishment of the national counterintelligence center to savor eight countries aggressively stealing technology from the united states from the national counterintelligence executive now 40 countries are stealing technology now moving first to patent all the stolen technology from the other countries how do we protect our inventors with all of the stolen data with the innovation coming forward to protect themselves against? >>. >> that is say big question. when you say we again i will answer this from the perspective of u.s. government but the private sector may have things to say but to say i know this problem that it would be helpful to give the law-enforcement more authority in and it is very difficult but there is the fair amount of trade secrets that it doesn't have greater authority and it would be very helpful said additionally i think 140 countries and did my own view that that they have a very senior level diplomatic pressure to forestall some of the economic espionage i will take us a national security had of this but that is searching cases that can be very hopeful -- helpful and it is important it is the concerted effort by united states government i dunno if they can do that alone or fetid the signal but that has been helpful in some cases as an approach to take that companies need to be, and i know but it the company's that have decided what they will focus on that need to be investing more i advocated the aware no system is completely full proof but in my old job i was surprised to see they were hoping they would not be a target to firewall off the information for which location to other types of information for them to 100 protect themselves than i think in particular that the beverage has said as a target we need to take stuff to make sure that you are as productive as possible. . . just getting the language right but what they are trying to do in terms of probation, we do a lot of work with, on the ground coordinator and making sure that people are aware and have the resources. that's certainly not the time to be coming into the government office and working with us to make sure we have appropriate remedies. another topic i raised seeing trade secrets as a form of intellectual property like copyright and trademark. we are beginning to get it. >> they have been actively advocating and working with european nations and they are very interested in what's happening here in the united states. >> you mentioned moving from first inventor to file with the systems we have now. there's a number of changes i pr was created out of that whole process. we just need to see the implications. just now, three or four years later, what it means. later, what it means. will it have positive implications or something that we may see there are issues with that. that is why, if we are going to legislate again in this area we need to be very careful about how we go about it because we are just now seeing the output of what it was back in 2011. we ought to be cautious about how we go back and wade into that water again. >> i agree with you. this is a big harmony with the united states. japan is also looking at providing their trade secret law and it's a problem for european countries. i think this is where the u.s. government can work well with its counterpart. they need to try to encourage other governments to put domestic laws in place that make it easier to prostaglandins prosecute against that. or at least prevent it from happening in the first place. >> there does seem to be consensus in europe and japan that there are measures you can take to reduce the problem but one of the things we are seeing now is rethinking our approach with a more assertive approach. we've reached the end of our time. i thought this was a great panel. it was really fascinating. was really fascinating. michelle lee, thank you so much. you cut me off before i could think victoria and mike so thank you to them as well. [applause].s of online service provider start-ups. later, a look at the u.s. innovation system and the economy. tuesday, a senate commerce science and transportation subcommittee examine new technology toss improve the safety and efficiency of the nation's transportation systems. witnesses included officials representing volvo, amazon.com, bnsf railway and the port of long beach california. this is just over an hour. good afternoon, everyone. i am pleased to convene the merchant marine infrastructure safety and security for its sixth hear technology transforming transportation is the government keeping up. ranking member booker suggested holding this hearing. and he and i are excited to bring together a range of issues that we have worked on together here in the senate. for example, we underscored the important role that technology plays in our daily lives by collaborating on the internet of resolution at the beginning of this congress. i was pleased to see that our resolution passed the senate earlier this year. we have also made progress on several transportation matters related to maritime, rail and highway infrastructure. our hearing brings our work on these various issues today. today we will explore the federal government's response to the current technological developments in our nation's transportation industry is. in order to maximize the efficiency and safety gains being made by the private sector, the federal government must ensure that it is keeping up with modern technology. regulatory frameworks must facilitate rather than hinder technological advancements. today's hearing is an opportunity to look into the future and look for ideas to makin know vacation easier so we can agree quicker, safer, and easier. automated driving has the potential to make trucks more efficient and could result in thousands of dollars in annual savings. additionally, automation has the potential to make american companies more competitive in the global market. clearly, more should be done to foster innovation and streamline obsolete. step one is educating innovators on who exists and how we can facilitate more voluntary solution toss our transportation challenges with cutting-edge technologies. technology has the potential to auto kael process, cinque. increased automation and connectivity make transportation and low gist cal networks more efficient. most importantly innovations in transportation offer tremendous opportunities to improve safety. autonomous trucking technologies, for example, will strengthen driver awareness and reduce accidents on our nation's roads. additionally, we will hear how the increase use of trackside monitoring devices and the development of robust data bases will provide the railroad industry with the ability to better repair and upgrade critical infrastructure. in other words, the internet of things and big data are identifying the challenges of tomorrow with technologies that we have today. we must also appreciate the role our nation's ports play. as centers of intermodal connection. america's ports are modernizing to drive efficiency and keep goods moving throughout the country. the benefits of technological advancements are clear for our economy. for our safety and for the efficiency of our transportation networks. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the kinds of policies that will promote innovation. our country is a leader in innovation constantly creating the next big thing to drive the global economic engine. and i would now invite senator booker to offer his opening remarks. >> senator blund, it is good to have you here this afternoon. i appreciate that we are holding this hearing. we have done extensive work together on technology and transportation. i'm excited to examine further where government can help. and conversely where government can stop hindering. in the meeting in tprafrastructure challenges, this is important. we are both excited by this. and how some of our government agencies may not actually be equipped and to keep up with this incredible innovation. this is a theme i'm sure our panel of witnesses will update us on today. technology is rapidly changing. everything we do, including how we commute and maintain our systems is changing. it is changing how we get to work, how we drive our cars, and even how we hail a cab. we have an opportunity to harness new technologies to dramatically improve public safety reduce costs create jobs, and address infrastructure problems in creative new ways. the federal government can be a key player in help to go advance and utilize developing technologies. let's take a look at safety. while traffic-related fatalities and injuries continue to decline, over 30,000 people each year still die on our highways. we continue to see trains that derail too frequently. putting enormous burdens on our first responders. in the face of these challenges, we've got to understand the opportunity that comes with technology and improving our transportation systems. our country has already invested billions in interstate highways, bridges, rails, and ports. technology could help us to get more out of what we have already built. today there are exciting market ready proven solutions to make our roads safer. >> from mattic braking sensors, radar, and even autonomous cars and drones. advanced technologies can now alert a truck driver or even take control of a vehicle if they begin to drift out of their lane or fail to break which stops traffic ahead. it can enable a smartphone using real-time information to suggest to a driver the best time to hit the road for their commute or family trip. or direct a driver to the nearest available on-street parking place. something we need in washington. harnessing technology will not only save time and fuel, it will reduce traffic congestion for everyone else on the road. something drivers in my state and throughout the northeast know all too well. new technologies can improve the safety and efficiency of our a network and port and facilities. it is critical we reexamine how we vest in our infrastructure, plan for the future and make best use of these technologies. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how the federal government can help existing businesses thrive how the federal government can be a worldwide leader and help us to be a worldwide leader in innovation and advance, not stall, transform tiffin know vacations. thank you. >> thank you, senator booker. i would like to welcome our first panel of witnesses today. with that i will begin with ms. alt if you would like to give us your testimony, please. >> thank you. chairman fischer, ranking member booker and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to talk about new transportation technologies and how they improve the safety and efficiency in our transportation network and the world of the federal government plays in either facilitating or hindering that development. the volvo group is a world leader in sustainable transportation solutions. we build stuff that make the roads and we build stuff that uses the roads. in the u.s. we produce heavy duty trucks under the brand names of mack and volvo. marine inches and nova buses. we have more than 12,000 u.s. employees with nine manufacturing facilities in six states. and our goal is zero accidents. i'm going to comment today from a heavy duty truck perspective because trucking delivering 80% of the value of the freight that's shipped in the united states. buyers of heavy duty trucks today cannot can have technology that keep the drivers and other roads safer. lane departure warning systems or active braking. but on the more horizon we see vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to industry. messages for sent on the 5.9 gigahertz spectrum. it is sent using dedicated short-range communications or dsrc. in 1999 the government got it right when it set aside and protect said this frequency for only safety-related communication. but in 2013, the fcc began exploring using the 5.9 gigahertz spectrum to also support unlicensed wi-fi users. proposals have been provided but no consensus yet reached. the concern is that allowing other technologies to be shared on the same spectrum could create a lag or latency in saving life-saving communication signals. let me clarify. say vehicle one is approaching an intersection with a green light. but the view of oncoming vehicle is blocked by a building. the driver in vehicle one can be alerted of oncoming vehicle two that is not slowing down for his red light and the alert will allow the collision to be avoided. if there's any latency in that signal because of interference, for example, wi-fi user watching a video, the accident likely would not be avoided. so until a solution is found for spectrum sharing, the 5.9 gigahertz frequency, we want it to remain dedicated for safety applications only. vehicle to infrastructure is the road side weight and inspection where they stop and wait in long lines and can create potential hazards. they have used it from the truck to the weigh station that allows moving trucks to wirelessly communicate their credentials to the inspection stations such as if the weight of the vehicle is below the limit or if the driver is wearing a seat belt. it keeps the trucks moving and allowing them to focus on other trucks that haven't been validated in a program we call trusted truck. let me end with what is probably the talk of the town. that is automated technology or autonomous vehicles. that is using connected vehicle technology with on board collision avoidance technology. we think the area is very interesting. but caution our pace will be set with how safely it can be adapted to the infrastructure and society. platooning is one example of automated technology. there is a lead or pilot truck. it is wirelessly linked to a truck behind it. volvo group transportation technology or path are in the process of implementing a two truck platoon at slow speeds that will be expanded to three trucks in 2016. full scale demonstration yielded 10% fuel efficiency gains because of the reduced air drag. we're developing technologies for connected and automated driving because of their potential to enhance safety and improve productivity. increasing the speed of adoption for these technologies could be achieved if we eliminated 12% federal excise tax added to the purchase of the new truck and off setting that with a higher fuel tax. the other challenge is as products roll across state lines, different states are developing different regulations to promote autonomous vehicle testing. we will need a national standard before they can become operational. with uncertain funding for the u.s., transportation adoption of these new technologies will allow us to move increasing amount of freights but won't solve all the freight capacity problems and doesn't let congress off its hook to do its job to provide federal funneleding and passing a long-term transportation bill. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i look forward to questions. >> thank you. mr. misener welcome. >> thank you, madam chair. amazon began selling in july 1995. our challenge was to create a scale of new form of warehousing where pallets would receive in store. but instead of being trucked out to retail stores, we would ship directly to customers. thus we developed a pallet and box out. they were only at retail. third-party sellers are responsible for 40% of all the units sold through amazon. many of our services -- and many use our services to warehouse and fulfill orders of their goods. now we receive not just pallets of goods but small brown boxes to be stored waiting for a customer to place an order for the goods. our warehouses which we call fulfillment centers, box in and box out. "time" magazine illustrated this process. thank you, madam chair for showing it here today. it begins deep inside a truck trailer at the loading dock looking backwards as the trailer door is opened. there is sound for this. here we go. thank you. ♪ ♪ >> after we receive an item it is stored awaiting a customer order. those orange things are robots. they move shelves up to 750 pounds. >> once a customer orders an item, it is retrieved and sent for packing. ♪ and then it is load odd a truck for shipping. while we continue to improve within our facilities, we have developed and invested a more efficient way to hand off boxes to the u.s. postal service. rather than give an unsorted stack of boxes we have begun operating sortation centers that provide usps groups of boxes all going to roughly the same location. this arrangement, and package volume, benefits the usps by using better use of its facilities, equipment and personnel without incurring building additional capacity in its upstream logistics network. of course we and our partners and ultimately our customers need government to keep up by providing adequate funding innovative policies and balanced regulation. thank you for allowing me to testify. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. mr. fox, welcome. >> thank you very much for the opportunity. my name is greg fox executive vice president of operations for bnsf railway. what i would like to do today is really walk through how it is utilizeing technology. it is, as most of you know a large western railroad. 32,000 route miles and 47,000 employees. my team runs the railroad. in my 31 years at the railroad i have seen safety improve year after year. in 2014, the rail industry achieved best ever safety results. and you can see the trend that we have achieved over the last decade. technology has cleared played a role in this success. while technology is the focus of today's hearing, infrastructure and exclusive safety culture for all employees are critical contributions as well to our safety results. investment and maintenance and renewal of the railroad the orange bars you see on this chart, is an important piece of safety. bnsf invests significant capital into our network to contribute directly to safe operations as well as to ensure reliability of our network for our customers. this is the largest component of our $6 billion of capital spending in 2015. the nation's rail operations are basically 140,000 mile outdoor production line. this scope and complexity means infrastructure and equipment sometimes fails. or that human error can occur. because of this, bnsf focusing on a risk-based initiative for all aspects of our operations. this slide shows the categories of incident causes and examples of the kinds of counter measures we put in place to reduce risk. there are a combination of critical safety processes as well as technology. while you're very familiar with positive train control, i would now like to share a brief video that illustrates the numerous other detection technologies to produce safety benefits. these technologies include track geometry vehicles. they use optical technology to monitor track geometry at a point or over a distance. rail defect detention systems. they use ultrasonic to determine rail defects. wheel temperature detectors that use infrared technology to identify wheel bearing machine and machine visioning systems that inspect for passing trains. bnsf is deploying unmanned aircraft or drones for supplemental track and bridge inspections in ava right of conditions. also earlier this year we were one of three companies awarded the pathfinder program status from faa for extended on flights. d.o.t. has been a valuable partner in advancing the use of drone technology in our safety program. all of these technologies as you might expect, generate a tremendous amount of inspection data. leveraging this data through advanced analytics is where we are headed next. bnsf is working with ibm on an advanced initiative to take the information that we already use to detect standard deviations to ultimately drive further understanding of factors that accuse these deviations in the first place. our goal is to drive proactive safety practices that ultimately prevent derailments from occurring. let's take a look at one example. i'll walk you through how we are using advanced analytics to improve rail equipment safety. you saw the equipment detectors in the earier. we have 2,000 trackside detectors located along our 32,000 mile network. they continually monitor the overall equipment health of passing trains using a combination of thermal acoustics, visioning and other technologies. today these systems identify on detective equipment and actions taken to address these defects as they are identified. our goal is is to move to a more proactive and prevent active type of response. we'll go from focusing on absolute alarms really to understanding composite alarms that tell us when a combination of factors have been combined in such a way a that unsafe condition could occur. big data analytics will allow us to monitor equipment health, over geography and across railroads and ultimately assist in extending asset life, improve will capacity and safety. as you can see the current breadth of technology and the potential here is tremendous as long as we have a regulatory framework that encourages innovation. the technologies and the advanced analytics themselves are very complex and evolving at a very fast pace. this means that the regulatory focus should be on the safety outcomes they focus on producing. one of the most significant things congress can do for us is ensure that we have the right regulatory framework for railroads. if it does it will continue to deploy technology in support of risk reduction and invest adequately in maintenance renew al. thank you for allowing me to testify today. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. fox. mr. christensen, welcome. >> madam chair man, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. technology will help us address the unprecedented challenges that are facing our industry which i believe are as revolutionary as advent of containerization was years ago. big ships and ocean carrier lineses are game changers. i'll spend the next few minutes talking about specific technologies and strategies that we're implementing to meet these challenges. modernizing our infrastructure is the first strategy. no port in the united states is investing more than the port of long beach in our $4 billion capitol improvement program. $1.3 billion middle harbor term knoll is the port of the future. it's the greenest most sustainable container cargo terminal in the united states that can accommodate the world's biggest, greenest ships up to 22,000 20-foot equivalents or teus. middle harbor will strengthen our ability to compete against canada and mexico for the trade that sends cargo to every congressional district in the united states and supports a million and a half american jobs. the terminal -- this terminal by itself would be the fourth largest port in the nation. and it will boost the capacity for the port of long beach by 20%. long shore jobs at the terminal will also be modernized and will shift to technical occupations with long shore labor actually increasing over current levels when the terminal reaches full capacity. now, these advanced technologies will help improve efficiency and help reduce air pollution, but they will also demand a great deal more electricity. so how will we deal with this increased demand for reliable electric power? the answer is our energy island initiative. the technology-driven strategy for transitioning energy at the port to resilient and sustainable self-generation systems and renewable power sources. so i've talked about the infrastructure or let's call it the hardware strategy. but what the software? well, it will not be possible to meet the challenges we face without changing the way the port operates. we have joined our neighbor, the port of los angeles in a federal maritime commission sanctioned joint port initiative that will be aimed at enhancing the velocity and the reliability of shipments that come through the san pedro bay gateway. and we're making progress on this active -- with the active involvement of stakeholders, which include the full range of benefit cardinal owners ocean carriers, marine terminal operators, licensed motor carriers that take it to the destination, chassis, railroad partners, labor and management. now, a few things have already come out of this joint port initiative. the supply chain optimization will largely be data driven. the current highly proprietary and silo supply chain suffers from an in adequate data sharing. san pedro bay port authorities are examining new roles to gather filter and distribute reliable data to the benefit of the entire supply chain. promising entrepreneurial software is also appearing and holding great potential. one example is a software called cargomatic. it operates on a smartphone. it is an uber-like operation. it is being used as a pilot study in san pedro bay. they move containers to inland port as much as as taxi driver would move passengers from an airport. u.s. department of transportations freight advanced traveler information system or fratis is showing great promise in transferring information in real-time between marine terminals and trucking operations. so stay tuned for much more that will be coming from this joint port initiative. in conclusion our supply chain optimization efforts are all heavily relying on technology in order to meet our objectives of not only good but world class velocity and reliability. as local public agencies, san bead row bay ports are shifting from traditional landlord role to one of active supply chain participant. we hope to see the federal government support us in this new role by engaging with us and in setting effective goods movement policy that recognizes the value of sea ports and by creating infrastructure and energy funding that support the land and the water side investments required to accommodate much needed growth in international trade. we look forward to working with our federal partners in this exciting venture. thank you for your attention, and i look forward to answering any questions. >> thank you all very much. we will begin our round of questioning at this time. ms. alt some research on the autonomous truck estimates that by 2020 to 2022 we will see level 3 autonomous truck technologies introduced in certain states. a at level 3, drivers still are required to be in the vehicle. but the truck can be switched is into an autopilot mode when circumstances permit. when do you think that we're going to see trucks equipped with that level 3 driving technology on american highways? and can you go into it a little bit more on how that all works? >> you said that you read something that it was going to be available in 2020. so we are -- it says five years from now. and you said in certain states. >> right. >> that's possible. there are states that have more flexible laws to allow for testing. the challenge of course, the products we build go across the state. so we really need to have some sort of federal standard. the technology actually is leading the society. the technology for two vehicles to talk to each other where the lead truck or the pilot truck is leading the trucks behind it and that's your level 3. that technology is not that far away in terms of the actual technology. the challenge is then how can it be accepted which roads can it be driven on. and are you going to be comfortable in your vehicle with 160,000 pounds of freight moving inside you with a driver that's not -- they're in control but they're not fully in control. so i think that the technology is possible but the society al changes will have to be alerted to us. and we'll need a standard across the nation because our vehicles don't operate in one state at a time. >> i understand in the united kingdom they have the least restrictive regulations with regard to the autonomous vehicles. within the united kingdom they're not restricted, then by the boundaries, right? >> i don't think so. i don't know the answer to that fully. sorry. >> do they -- it's my understanding they don't need special permits or even special insurance in the united kingdom to be able to do that. i know that many companies are planning on doing some testing in the united kingdom on british roads for that reason specifically. what do you think we need to do here in the united states? is it possible for the federal government to move forward with regulations if society is not ready for it yet? >> yeah. so it's a balance isn't it? you don't want to be forcing -- or identifying which technology to use and then putting that into some sort of federal regulation. you want the market to establish that. but it's a new world that we're in. in the regulations, even putting terms like what is a driver. is the driver the system that's moving the vehicle? is the driver the guy or gal sitting behind the truck -- or the driving wheel. what is a system. there are so many semantics we have to think about as we put the legislation into place. what we have to do differently is look at what can we do across all the states so that when we design these vehicles they can operate in all of the states. so we need standardization of simple things like the terminology i think is one step. >> how close are we? >> we're a long way away from that. >> okay. mr. fox, in january this committee heard testimony from the u.p. regarding the importance of performance-based standards in regulation. in performance standards they move government away from design-based standards towards a goal of oriented approach to achieving that outcome. for example, the fra mandates that intervals between certain types of locomotive inspections. do you believe that performance-based standards could help foster innovation and technology driven safety advances better than the design-based standards? >> yeah. we absolutely believe performance-based standards are the way we need to progress. because performance-based standards are really focused more on the outcome versus the method. by focusing on the outcomes we're fry to innovate with technology or process changes. we have had some great examples of working with our safety regulator on performance-based standards through waivers. the predecessor of the ptc system was an example of that on the bnsf. so it can work. it can drive innovation, absolutely. >> and how effective have they been? >> we have made some progress on waivers. and at the same time going through the waiver process does take time. and at times it is pretty frustrating. >> thank you. senator booker? >> thank you, chairwoman. ms. alt i'm concerned that you -- first of all, i'm confident you and i share the goals, the same goals of increasing safety on the nation's highways. i appreciate your work and i appreciate the things your company does. i'm just really kind of concerned when i read your written testimony. you refer to the legislation i introduced with senator rubio in it. and i was actually pretty shocked at what i read. the wi-fi act which is bipartisan in both house and senate piece of legislation or bill for those who read it places timelines and guidelines in place for the fcc to test the 5 gigahertz spectrum band in consultation with the department of transportation. some of the testing has already happened. we're excite build that. but our bill provides further structure for testing alone. i can understand why a lot of people in the industry want to attack, as you did in your written testimony and maybe even mislead people. because the industry has been sitting on this spectrum since 1990. i want to be clear what this bill does for you and for others. for over a decade the industry has been working on new technology while at the same time other technologies using radar sensors -- radars and sensors have evolved without using dedicated spectrum. over a billion dollars in tax payer dollars, money has been spent on this r&d. and our bill simply asks for testing to see whether this limited resource this precious resource that you indicated can be shared. it is a fact-finding bill, and that is all. it's not -- if it's not safe to share, i agree. and the bill clearly says there will be no sharing. but if it can be safely shared, now other technologies are evolving, i'm sure people will agree it should be. so i'm disappointed in the portrayal of my and senator rubio's legislation in your testimony. i'm shocked. i've only been in the senate a short time. but i have never seen something so misleading in the shore time i've been in the senate. i worked closely with stakeholders across the board, secretary fox to advance safety and supporters of the v to vtech technology. safety should come first. but i'm disappointed by these exaggerated attacks. did you read our legislation, yes or no? >> no. >> so if you didn't read the legislation, but you open this up, that is not true. that is a false statement. and that is very frustrating. 6 and so when i have mayor i said in god we trust. but everybody else bring me data. bring me facts. everybody wants to obscure them. but the truth should come through. but the fact-finding bill that looks at what is the best way to achieve the safety goals that your company puts first this senator and i'm sure the whole panel puts first. so i'm just curious, my last question to you is, i believe consumers should have all options on the table that should advocate safety. and i'm wondering if you agree our transportation policy should be technology neutral? it should be about what is best to ensure that policy and safety don't lag behind the best cutting-edge technology. do you agree with that? >> of course i agree with that. >> okay. so, again -- >> and may i respond to some of your comments then? >> you certainly may. >> so i think we're on the same page with that. the unlicensed wi-fi doesn't have a governance structure like a licensed frequency does. and the ieee the industrial electronic engineers group that is the group that has put two proposals forward. they have not come to conclusion. so our position is that the legislation is simply premature. >> ms. alt, i'm sorry. i can believe your testimony that you submitted to the united states senate which doesn't say what you just said. it indicates that you are against this bill because it would -- and i quote, it would open up 5.9 gigahertz frequency spectrum. that is not true. and you have agreed with that. what the bill and i hope you read it is saying is let's have a fact-finding in defer that better understands the usage of this spectrum. can it poeubl be shared without infringing on safety. so attacking the bill on clearly false standings is insulting. my time has run out. >> thank you senator booker. i welcome our ranking member today from the committee senator nelson. >> thank you madam chair man. what about it, ms. alt. what about what senator booker said? >> we do not want to see the spectrum shared with other technologies until and unless the governing bodies are sure there is no interference from other technology. >> do you think that technology is practical to basically the spectrum -- do you think the spectrum is practical to be used by the automobile industry any time in the near future? >> i don't know the answer to that, if it can be shared. that's really the position is can it be shared with other technologies. the governing bodies have not come to a conclusion after putting forward two proposals. >> there are 4,000 crashes -- no. there are 4,000 people that are killed each year from serious truck crashes. how would you suggest technology is used to lessen that? >> the more that vehicles can speak to each other, vehicle to vehicle, this is trucks talk to go trucks and/or trucks talk to go cars the more that they can talk to each other to let the other one know hey i'm here you need to stop that is a technology to help reduce crashes. >> over last week i met with a grieving mom whose daughter on her honeymoon when the traffic had stopped on interstate 95. and it literally had come to a stop. and her new son-in-law and daughter were in the traffic stopped but a truck with the driver not having had a lot of sleep because of his company requiring a round trip trip within the state of florida in the same day of 16 hours, the truck driver was basically sound asleep. and so she is a grieving mom because of that truck plowing into the back of all of those stopped vehicles. how would you think technology could address the issue of truck driver safety? >> yeah that's a great question. i'm a mom. i would grieve with her. obviously that's horrible. there are electronic on board recording systems that would record the hours of service that a driver can drive. perhaps if there were a technology that would shut down the truck if he went beyond his hours possibly. but having the trucks have these on-board recorders. this technology is available. and i believe it's close to being ledge slated. those are things that can help. >> and this particular trust was intrastate not interstate. so what rules we have up here for example, we don't allow the tandem trucks in our rules more than 28 feet. but they are allowing two tandem trucks on intrastate, inside the state, of 33 feet. which is an issue that will be in front of this committee with regard to truck safety. let me ask you mr. christensen, you all have accommodated the big ships from asia. and soon, in a year or two when the panama is complete indeed its expansion, they will come to the east coast. you want to give any quick pointers what we could do that you've learned, lessons learned on handling those huge, huge container ships? >> senator nelson, thank you for the question. it is doctor they are a game changer. but the term of big ship is a changing term. when i started working in the port about 10 years ago a big ship was 8,000 teus. in 2012 the port of long beach started handling 14,000 teu ships. about the same time, the new locks in the panama canal were going into construction, which can accommodate a 13000 teu ship. the ships we're handling now in the san pedro bay ports will not fit in the new locks on the new panama canal. we are customers at the port of long beach are now ordering 20,000 teu ships. so it is a very much a moving target to our colleagues on the east coast. they are already dealing with this with ships that are transiting the suez canal. and it really has to do with depth of channel to get them there. but once they're there dealing with how those ships are stowed and how the ships are unloaded. and that is exactly the focus of our joint working groups, is to figure out a whole new way to operate our ports so that we can deal with a very large amount of relatively unsorted containers coming across the wharf and hitting us in ways we have never had to deal with before. >> the question was what are the lessons learned that you could share with the other ports? >> the lessons -- we're still learning, senator. and they really have to do with having adequate supplies of chassises, which has to do with an inneroperable chassis pool. it has to do with working closer with the steamship lines in putting more discipline in their stowage of the vessel, which has been thrown aside because of the way that those vessels vessel. and the way the shipping alliances are working. it has to do with working much much more closely with the communication of data which we're again finding extraordinarily siloed within the supply chain being able to provide an operator with information more than two days before that vessel hits their terminal. these are all lessons we're learning. i'm not sure we could tell more to our friends on the east coast beyond that for dealing with that. >> thanks, madam chair. thanks for holding this hearing. congrat congratulations on 20 years. it seems just like yesterday and definitely would say the transformation of delivery of goods and services has been quite impressive. i didn't hear your testimony discussion about the drone issue from a technology perspective. clearly this committee, the larger full committee has had testimony on that and it's one area of continuing to move forward on technology and delivering the product. mr. christianson loved everything that you said, except would have been great if you said it was about seattle-tacoma instead of l.a.-long beach. still happy to hear about your description of the economic opportunity before the united states that we can increase the cargo shipments because there is that demand and product to be shipped shipped. we have to continue to make improvements and this is something we see in seattle as well that somebody estimated instead of 3 million cargo containers we can do something like six. you described that. you described that would be good for long shoremen even though you're making technology investments. you're talking about efficiencies. my question is, even though we're talking about technology that helps us move and be more knowledgeable about the product do we still need to make investments in freight mobility from a federal perspective to make sure as those products are being moved around that our technology isn't measuring stuck in congestion and making us less competitive? >> senator cantwell i appreciate that very much and thank you for the congratulations. i've only been here for 15 of those 20 years. i think we are looking for innovative policies. you've introduced a bill that proposes such policies. we congratulate you for that bill. if anything it can be broader. can be applied to morthan multimodal freight. but that kind of thinking and -- mr. christianson mentioned commune caution ofication of data. also communication among stakeholders. that's a big part to get the stakeholders talking and figure out innovative solutions. we're fans of data. that's something we're doing with the usps. big component of our interaction with them is making insure they get forecasts of what we're seeing, what we're going to be shipping. and that is particularly important for sunday delivery to have the -- most efficient routes. >> you're a global business. mr. christianson has fixed cost if you will. he mentioned the magic words, panama and canada. this is about competition. this is about if we're going to make improvements necessary to move our product cost effectively or whether that business is going to go to can do or via the panama canal. do you support further freight efforts at the federal level? >> just as surely as we're sitting here, as we see international trade continue to increase and we are now at levels that are peaking over the pre-recession levels, we'll certainly be seeing bottlenecks develop. as i mentioned in my testimony the strategies are infrastructure efficiency with technology infused along with operational efficiency. i believe the legislation is timely. it's critical to the future of our supply chain optimization and we would hope to be able to continue to collaborate with you and your team on that because it's it's critical to be looking ahead. infrastructure bottlenecks don't go away after you recognize them. it takes years of funding and policy to solve these bottlenecks as they come up. >> your testimony, i really appreciate it because you described what the future opportunity was. not just in jobs but automation. how do we tell the story on a national basis. is this data the supply chains from our reports have? >> it's data but fractured data. it's critically important that we bring this data in to a -- through a reliable gateway and make it transparent in the public. we have challenges ahead. as seattle-tacoma has worked very hard on their joint port efforts as well. we watch and benchmark what's going on up there very closely. there are opportunities but there's a lot of opportunities ahead of us but a lot of work to be done. >> thank you madam chair. >> senator klobuchar. >> thanks for holding this hearing. thanks for the witnesses. mr. fox, december 2013 government accountability office report found the fra faces a lot of challenges. rail sauft challenges, including the inspector only has the capacity to inspect less than 1% of all railroad activities. i come from a state where we're an entry point to oil from canada and agriculture products from everywhere. we have had an enormous increase in rail. as you know, the fra partners with states to oversee the inspection of signals, tracks and mechanical operations. in april, i sent a letter to the appropriations committee asking for increased funding for rails. i'd like to hear about what technology bnsf uses. do you think there's better technology that would get us through this? >> i think we've shown as an industry that we continue to leverage technology and the results have clearly been best ever safety results last year from an employee safety and derailment perspective. beyond that there's opportunity. there's tremendous opportunity. again, i think as we talk about regulation, part of our challenge today is regulation based on a design standard. as we look at focus on outcomes, again, that will allow the industry to innovate. innovate with technology, process changes -- >> what kind of technology would help with this? >> as we look forward, as i mentioned in my testimony, i think this drone technology very early in practice has a real potential. this pathfinder program with faa will move beyond line of sight to where we can use drones to travel along our private network for hundreds of miles a day taiking high-speed images, high definition images of our network down to a quarter inch accuracy. post processing that data will help us understand exceptions. >> and i was just in the last week up in international falls minnesota. this is not a burlington northern issue where -- >> i was in trouble. >> it's where a bridge collapsed, small railroad bridge, but it happens to be the biggest entry point on the canadian border into the u.s. and right by international falls which is a larger town. one of the things we've talked about, this was a canadian national rail issue and in addition to the bridge collapsing and some issues they've been having with that railroad and workers not allowing us to cross the railroad, the issue was they've been having a lot of gray crossing issues there. 8 to 10 hours a day the trains are in the middle of the town. that's a lot of time and people have to drive 2 1/2 miles around the town. what i wondered about is the railroad safety institute of the university of minnesota is studying train delays to more accurately investigate train delays at railroad crossings. they have a signal for the people, whether they are deciding to take the 2 1/2-mile route or go into town. some kind of technology so it would empower drivers to know what to do. i wonder if you have any ideas about that crossing issue. i did an amendment on the rail bill we just passed through and this was brought home to me this week why we did it. >> when we talk about federal funds supporting freight projects, it clearly needs to be part of that. and, obviously, we've been active in that area with contributions against those great separations. i also think when we're tacklking about train headlites at the crossing we need to be looking at taillights. more federal funding for grade separations seems to be part of the answer. >> and the side tracks. if the trains could wait somewhere else. i think they are building one, then they wouldn't be waiting in the middle of the town. >> we all have requirements on how long we can block -- >> thank you. and just if i could, just one more question on distracted driving. right now only one state received our funding for the distracted driving grant which we would really like to have changed. there's a ton of money sitting there and we have an emerging problem. that's why senator hoven and i have sponsored a bill with senator booker to change that criteria to get that money out to states for engsducation efforts. i thought i'd ask you, ms. ault, what's kinds of technology? we know that's drivers are doing things they shouldn't do in the cars. a lot of them have admitted to this in sorry have as and ss ss -- survey surveys. we've had more than 3,000 people killed that we know of from distracted driving. again, these are individuals making decisions on their own. are there any technologies you think from the car companies that could be helpful with this? >> i can speak not from the car companies. the gropup i'm with, we make everything but cars. the heavy cute truck side we have alerts blts ss built in for a driver to wake them up if their eyes begin to dim. it's some sort of vibration in the seat or loud sound. it's from a heavy duty perspective. of cors there's lots of regoolgs regulations because they're commercial drivers. >> okay. well i think as we know, and i appreciate your word on trucks. this is an issue for all vehicles if we try to figure out if there's anything to create shutdown of technology when people are in the car or while someone is driving they stop doing it because it's just a growing problem. all right. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator klobuchar. we'll have a second round of questions in case any other senators are still trying to get here to the committee hearing. and i would like to begin with mr. misener. on your video if you could have had the teddy bear delivered to nebraska or new jersey, that would have been a great ending for the little guy. >> we're happy to -- >> we can do this. we're multitalented up here. as we look at more logistic networks out there how do you think that will benefit consumers? >> thank you, madam chair very much. that logistics -- the improvement of logistings with the more broad transportation infrastructure is important. it affects how they receive the goods they purchase online. we've been trying to improve this for at least 20 years. automation has always been a big part of the amazon solution to this challenge. increasing automation is going to be helpful to making sure consumers get the goods when they need them, but they have a choice. it's a choice at various speeds. we talked about drones. they were really only the way we figured out how to get goods to consumers in less than 30 minutes. we are also offering our customers now a slow delivery alternative that gives them additional benefits. if they are willing to accept it whenever it comes. if you are ambivalent to whether it comes in two days or two weeks, they can get an additional benefit from us. it's about providing our customers the choice. it applies more broadly to american consumers. >> how i would love to talk more about drones. we share a passion for that and a desire for the united states to catch up to the rest of the world. sadly i'm coming back down to earth to talk about trucks. your testimony recommends the use of ten feet longer trucks known as twin 33s. the department of transportation came out with a study showing it takes these trucks about 22 feet longer to stop. that's a car length and a half. the larger and heavier trucks are the greater -- where the greater destruction occurs when accidents happen. i have a couple of questions on that. has your company done an analysis of the impact of safety? how will these impact the number of crashes and fatalities? >> we've been persuadesed by the carriers that the 33-foot trucks are going to be safer because there will be fewer on the road driving fewer erer miles. it's a balancing of fact. i get that. there's not any particular magic to 33 over 32 or 34 or the current number which is 28. we're trying to find a solution that will improve efficiencies for sure. at the same time if we can drive down the number of miles driven. the increase in length without increasing the weight capacity or the total weight of the trucks because the weight is what goes into the inertia and kinetic energy. weight times velocity is the inertia, not the weight of the truck. >> safety should be the first but also the impact on the infrastructure. those heavier trucks would they tear up more of the roads. >> not increasing the weight limit at all. increasing the length can help it because going over a bridge, the weight is less concentrated and, therefore easier on the bridge. >> lastly another balancing act is you want greater safety but you also want to see what the least necessary burden on businesses and how they operate. the big issue of minimum insurance is one that i have some concerns about. i'd love you to give me your thoughts. the truck size and weight, we realize the trucks are causing more accidents over the last 20, 30 years and the minimum insurance has not been raised since the 1980s. do you think there's a needed minimum insurance level increase or at least pegging it somehow that it's elevated on an ongoing basis? >> the carriers we use are going to be directly aficted by that. the carriers are reputable ones. we'd not want our products traveling over problematic or difficult carriers. i'm not sure i have a direct answer because that wouldn't be directly affecting us at this point. >> thank you very much. meet me out by the capitol with the drone. i'll be there. >> thank you senator booker. the hearing record will remain open for two weeks. during that time senators are asked to submit any questions for the record. upon receipt, the witnesses are requested to submit their written requests to the committee as soon as possible. i'd like to thank the witnesses for being here, and i thank my colleagues who attended the hearing. thank you all. we're adjourned. on our next "washington journal," we'll talk to texas congressman louie gohmert. one-third of americans are working two or three jobs in what's been called the gig economy. virginia senator mark warner joins us to discuss this economic trend. he serves on the budget and finance committees. later, a conversation on some of the challenges ss facing self-employed workers who hold multiple jobs. katie vlietstra is our guest. "washington journal" is live each morning on c-span at 7:00 a.m. eastern. by a vote of 37-3, the south carolina state senate voted to approve a bill to remove the confederate flag from the statehouse. the bill if it passes the house, hases to the desk of governor nikki haley. you can see the debate in the house live wednesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. this week on first ladies influence and image we learn about lecretia garfield. she was an educated woman and a believer in women's rights. when her husband was assassinated, she returned to ohio and made their home into an early version of a presidential library. chester arthur, a widower becomes president and his sister mary arthur mcelway fulfills the role of first lady. garfield and mary arthur mcelroy this sunday night at 8:00 p.m. on "first ladies: influence and image." examining the women who filled the position of first lady. from martha washington to michelle obama. sundays at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3. next a discussion on the planned changes to overtime announced by the white house andator the propose impact. from "washington journal," this is 45 minutes.d plan t >> we're joined now on a tuesday roundtable to talk about requ president obama's change to overtime eligibility. we're joined for this discussion by beth of the national federation of independent business and christine owens of in the d the national employment law project. to begin the discussion, remind xactly viewers what exactly the president has proposed and what t: he wants to do here and the reasoning behind it. >> great. thanks for the opportunity to have this discussion. so, the president about a year ago directed the labor department to take a look at the current rules that exempt from the certain workers from the overtime pay requirement. from the requirement for time and a half for hours over 40 rtain hours a week. specifically what he asked the labor department to do is look at what we call the white collar exemptions.amount those are the exemptions for o certain executive administrative and professional employees who make above a certain amount of money each year, who are paid on a salary basis, not an hourly basis, and who meet certain duties. 2004. the last time these rules were revised was in 2004. they were revised seven or eight times since they were first passed in 1938. in 2004, the bush administration set the salary threshold at $23,400 a year and prescribed certain duties tests for each of these exemptions. was that's where it's sat since 2004. what the president asked the labor department to do was look at the salary test the duties test anything else that might be relevant to updating these exemptions to determine whether or not white collar employees more t should be exempt from overtime pay requirements or if they work more than 40 hours a week, they should get overtime pay. that's exactly what the labor department's proposal does. it looks at -- it takes a very simple approach in establishing that in a bright line test that says in 2016 if an employee makes less ss than around $50,000 a year, thated ace employee, regardless of his or her duties, would be eligible for overtime pay.e, the e above that bright line of $50,000 a year, then the employer would have to apply would these duty tests to see if they be would be eligible for overtime host pay or exempt. >> this proposal, the nfib says may sound well meaning but couldould hurt workers. hurt wo explain. expla >> yes. thank you for inviting me to be here today. like a lot of proposals to come ls, th out of washington and some of the state capitals, there are conse unintended consequences. what sounds good on paper and coming out of the souths of government politicians and bureaucrats does not always play out well in the business environment. particularly for the small businesses in this country who are going to bear a oubling disproportionate burden when you talk about doubling the salaries in some instances for managers es and retail and restaurants, those things, too. too often bureaucrats look at businesses as a monolithic group. small businesses are going to be hit b disproportionately hit by this y rule if it goes through next yearas. it will be problematic. >> we're asking our viewers to vie weigh in as well on this round table discussion. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents 202-748-8002. christine, why is this rule necessary?what was what was happening that the obama administration saw a need to change after 11 years? >> let's put it in some perspective. one thing is the legislation -- the law, has always contemplated the labor department would update its regulations to take into account changes in the economy. wage growth generally, cost of living, et cetera. and in general, that just hasn'tar. happened. the salary threshold has not as been indexed to rise with inflation every year. when a salary threshold is set, as it was in 1975, and then nothing happened until 2004, more and more people fall into do no the exemption, meaning they don't get overtime pay just because inflation causes wages to rise eats away at people's incomes.nake a loo so, it's perfectly -- it's not only reasonable and s. authorized, it's responsible for the government to take a look at these salary thresholds. let's put in context what it ns aroun means if someone earns around $24,000 a year. it means they earn less than the poverty level for a family of four. you have a lot of assistant managers in fast food c. who m restaurants, restaurants, people working in banks, the finance industry, retail, et cetera, who may earn, let's say, $24,000 to $35,000 a year. they may work as many as 60 hours a week because they're classified as exempt. they not only don't get overtime pay for those extra hours, they don't get any pay at all for those extra hours. i think that gets lost in this discussion.me pay, but if someone is exempt from overtime pay, if they work overtime hours, they do not get paid at all, not even the minimum wage for those hours. for tho as a practical matter, a lot of folks, relatively low paid folks, classified as white collar, earn less than some of their hourly employees. and sometimes could earn even less than the minimum wage. the exemption is supposed to contemplate these are folks with a lot of discretion in their job.heir they have sort of high-level duties that they perform most of the time. they may occasionally do routine duties but most are high-level duties.all they speak for the company. they're on call for the company all of the time. and yet many of them earn midd essentially poverty level wages, not really a middle class wage. >> beth, do you agree there are folks being taken advantage of? if so, how would you address that if not this solution? >> yeah, i mean, by and large the members who i represent, the small businesses who employ about 48% of the private sector workforce in this country, by e in thi and large want to do right by ri their employees and are offeringgh a fair wage for a fair day's work. you know, the assistant manager, a manager who is in the exempt o category may not be getting overtime, they are getting other things, like increased flexibility, benefits, and think promotion potential which is very important. particularly when you're talking about an assistant manager in a fast food restaurant or retail store. the thought of paying a 19 or 20-year-old an assistant manager in a restaurant over $50,000 is a hard thing for a small business owner to, you know -- cost for a small business owner to absorb. they just can't do it. timate >> the obama administration s estimating this will cost between $240 and $255 million if these rules go into place. who pays that? do you think that cost estimate is accurate? i think the cost estimate is he cost actually low. that's something nfib will be commenting on. this is not a final rule. the dol has opened -- the department of labor has opened we it up for comments for the next 60 days. we'll be commenting there. i think the estimate is very on smal low. as i said earlier, it's going tontry, have a disproportionate impact on the small businesses in this country. especially rural areas. you can't compare what a small business is doing to like a costco or target or walmart. chri >> our guests in this roundtable, beth of the national federation of independent business, and christine owens, executive director of national employment law project. happy to get your thoughts and questions. we'll begin with joe calling in from ohio. line for independents. joe, good morning.mornin >> caller: good morning. my problem with the whole issue is that the whole nation receives -- receives a 50% rease increase in wages. what is that going to do to y union workers or somebody that established a decent wage in a skilled trade? they're not going to get a 50% increase. cut that's going to be like taking a huge wage cut. t >> thanks for your call, joe.will s i don't think there's much cause for concern there.y what the unions in general are s supportive of this proposal, as they have been historically of overtime pay proposals. a generally what happens is union contracts contemplate what the overtime pay rates are and then they make some adaptations for union members. i don't think there will be a negative impact on union members me at all.be a >> beth, thoughts? gues >> i would disagree.y i think, you know, there's not a money tree in the backyard of businesses where they can just go out and pick off more money. and i think joe has a valid concern there. not be that i think employers are not e all of a sudden going to be able to increase their salaries or payrolls 50%. they're going to look for ways d ensure to cut. they're going to ensure ' there's not overtime taken by employees. they're going to cut the assistant management and supervisory positions. que >> let's head up to vermont. timothy is waiting. good morning. you're on "the washington journal." >> caller: good morning.est: let me take it off speaker. yes. my question, quite simply is, how is this going to affect the eg seasonal employee? >> do you want to start on this work one? >> well, for some of the -- for e of some categories of workers, this is pointed out in the rule from eady department of labor, too, there are already exemptions in place, so they would not be entitled tompt -- any additional overtime because they're exempt from -- exempt categorically exempt from overtime. seasonal, recreational, amusement workers.worker there's a whole host of categories. teachers, for example, are exempt from the overtime b requirements. >> i would just add -- i agree with beth completely, but if a seasonal employee is not exempt for some reason, depending on the nature of the work, and if employe that employee is a white color exempt employee, which is not , they always the case or not often the case for seasonal employees, but assuming someone is, then they would be covered under the rule if it takes effect or the revised rule. but i think the impact will likely be fairly limited, both because of the exemption of ffect -- seasonal employees and the fact that many, if not most, seasonalle if employees are not going to be workers who are covered by that exemption anyway. >> we've noted this is a proposed rule. how long does the process take? t and does congress get a final he say at the end of this process? >> so, the department has set 60 days for commenting on the rule. i think the federal register has now published the rule, and so that time period has begun. after that happens, the comment period, the labor department t will take into account what the comments have been. and then at some point issue a final rule. at that point congress has an official right to weigh in under the congressional review act. con i think it's possible congress c might consider certain appropriations or riders that could slow down the rule or affect it's impact or implementation.affect yes, there are far more ways in which congress has a right to weigh in at some point. >> beth, your reading of congressional reaction so far reaction since last week when the esident president spoke about this proposed change? >> certainly concern from, you know, from leaders on the hill he hill. that, you know, are going to take a close look at the rule and are eager to hear from constituents and, you know, other, you know, interests, from folks that will be impacted from this. so, they want to hear from people out there.e want >> just like we want to hear from people out there this morning on the "washington journal" and our roundtable, phone lines are open. republicans, democrats, ndta independents. waiting we'll put the numbers on the screen for you. we'll go to our line for democrats. john is waiting, butler, missouri. good morning. >> caller: good morning. my question has to do with truck drivers. we're paid by the mile yet we're on duty 70 hours a week. there we could be sitting out there waiting for a load and we don't get paid for it. are they going to adjust that and look at that as being on duty, the duty hours? >> john, thanks for your . question. again, this rule, when it takes effect, will only apply to fall people who fall within -- withi potentially fall within the white collar exemption, which is executives, administrators and professionals. it is not likely to apply to any truck drivers. there are some other laws that regulate wages in trucking. i don't know of any immediate plans to address those laws, but i don't think that this rule will have any impact on you, john. for yo >> we're looking for your tweetsur as well. you can follow along the panwj conversation @cspanwj. mary writes, i'm so happy for department heads, production s assistants in the theater world who routinely get taken uction advantage of by organizations with salary and no overtime. we to want hear your thoughts.h salary mike is up next. thompson, pennsylvania. line four, independents. mike, good morning. >> caller: good morning. and thank you for c-span.o find o >> go ahead, mike.ut >> caller: i wanted to find out from your panel the history of's, the overtime law. seems to me back in the '80s i was working, getting overtime, and under reagan in 1986 i became an executive. it cost me about -- back at that time cost me about half of my salary salary. i was in a service job and i became a manager or executive. and lost my overtime. can somebody comment on the history of that action? o thank you. >> beth, you want to start? >> absolutely, i'll start off by saying, the idea behind -- you wh know, the white collar exemption is you're being paid for your job. not for the hours worked. so, you're engaging in, you know, management, discretionary ersee duties, those sort of things that, you know, you oversee other employees.yo i think you mentioned the word you became a manager, so, again, you were being paid for a job. not for the hours worked. and that is part and parcel with the white-collar exemption, the overtime. thres it's also based on the duties ho and the salary threshold there. so, it goes hand in hand, the two components there. and that is the thought behind the white-collar exemption. you're being paid for the job, not the hours worked. >> christine, if you could weigh we in on the history of that act and how it came into play and its impact here. >> sure. so, the fair labor standards act was passed in 1938. it was a piece of new deal legislation. really promoted by the first secretary of labor, the first woman in the cabinet, frances perkins, signed by franklin ure th roosevelt. the purpose behind the overtime provision, there were really two reasons for it. one was to ensure that people who worked long hours would greate actually get overtime pay, to were m sort of represent the greater reason commitment of time they were , making to their job. but the other reason, which is it wa important even today, was that it was intended to help create jobs. that instead of employers working employees super long hours, they would actually hire e additional employees. so, those are the two purposes that have always undergurded thedled federal overtime requirements the under the federal fair labor act. as i mentioned earlier, the salary threshold has been updated seven times since the last -- since 1938. i can't do the math. but i think that's almost 75 t upda years.te 2004 maybe exactly 75.. it was last updated in 2004. and then before that it was updated in 1975.uld ha and so, i think, mike, what case, could have happened in your case, in addition to becoming a manager, which might have made you exempt, because the fair labor -- the salary threshold ot had not been changed since 1975, and it's not indexed to rise each year with the cost of wi living or with average wage th growth, it becomes worth less worth every single year. so, more and more employees are potentially captured under the exemption simply because the threshold is frozen. if you think about if you were paid the same amount of money every year that money would be h year worth less each year because the cost of living goes up each year. i that's what happens with the labo salary threshhold. one of the important parts of ththe proposal is that it would be indexed to rise each year and the department has invited proper comment on what the proper measure of indexing should be whether it should be an inflation measure of some sort or whether the salary threshold mporta should rise with average salary increases. but that is a very important new part of this proposal and one that if we had had since 1975, we wouldn't be having this discussion today. >> perhaps concerned that this effort might go too far. is what we need a mandatory cap all on all salaries to make sure everyone is equal? >> we don't all have equal jobs not a out there? this, with this you're going from $23 $23,000 up to $50,000. you're more than doubling it. for a small business that's an articu enormous jumpla and something they can't absorb, particularly in rural areas. we're sitting here in . washington, d.c. the pay for a restaurant manager in washington d.c. as opposed red to to in west virginia that's very different. cost of living differs throughout the country. alhol things are not equal when it comes to jobs and salaries. >> the national federation of independent businesses is nfib.com.ristine if you want to check out their my for work. we're taking your calls. steve is up next.nk you f oil city, pennsylvania, steve, good morning.ive in >> caller: thank you for taking ule my call. >> go ahead. >> caller: i live in a rural m area. i'veis been listening to her say how this is going to help people who live in rural areas.people, it is not uncommon for people in this dwrirarea to have to work two jobs to meet expenses. households have two people anothe working one job and at least one other person working a job. if youov are working a job you're expected to be there well over th 40 hours, you are unable to go get a second job. so it impacts the rural areas just as much as it impacts any place else. >> and there's no denying there are certainly businesses out there that are not following the existing rules. the department of labor has estimated about 70% of employers are out of compliance with existing rules. to th to throw out existing rules ot wor rather than focus on educating -- business owners and work og compliance with existing rules les ma would make more sense rather than potentially doubling the salary. i'mhear hearing from a lot of callers. this may mean i'm going to see an increase in my paycheck. the businesses can't go c out to the money tree in the backyard and same double their payroll. c they'll find ways to make sure host their bottom line stays the o we kno same. >> christine owens, how do we know there's going to be any more compliance under new rules if they eventually come out and e this proposal process goes through? any better way to ensure compliance? >> i think there will be more and more litigation.besi one of the problems with the existing rule aside from the low salary threshold. someone makes $24,000 a year, which is poverty level for a family of four and either is week working 50 or 60 hours a week or is on call all the time because he or she is classified a imagina manager. that's not a middle class income by any stretch of the imagination and not what the fair labor standards act contemplates when it talks about managers and professionals. it's obscene. it has to be changed. i think that compliance will be easier because of a bright line mpliance test. one of the difficulties with compliance right now is in d addition to having to meet the salary threshold, an employer has to determine whether the duties test apply to the individual that the employer strati wants to classify as exempt.up while the bush administration made some effort to be clear and tighten up those duties tests, they are very vague. they don't any longer say of he someone has tor spend at least 80% of her time doing managerial work in order to be considered a manager. in retail and fast food and other low-wage service kind of industries, they have someone time who spends as much as half or more of his or her time doing the same things all the people she supervises are doing and yetssifie because she's classified as a she is manager she doesn't get overtime is on call all the time and may . make less money than the people she supervises. michael, good morning. >> caller: i have a comment and commen question and please let me s articulate both of them. ms. molito is disingenuous in her presentation because she's alluding to this rule forcing employers to double the salary desi of people they've designated as managers. that's not true. all it is, if you don't make $50,000 or whatever the level is, you have to pay overtime end of story. and my question is to her specifically, if these businesses can't afford or can't survive without forcing people lave w toag work 60 and 70 hours a week for slave wages maybe they and b should go under the capitalist model out of business and be done with it and maybe someone else will have a better idea who can pay their employees decent wages and still make a profit. >> the businesses who i work with do pay decent wages, in my opinion, and this rule is not going to force employers to pay overtime if they can't pay $50,000. there. that's just incorrect. what it's going to do is businesses particularly small exami businesses are going tneo have to re-examine their business model there. and they cannot afford overtime.ord in a lot of businesses, overtime is already limited there or prohibited in many instances with smallth businesses and larger businesses, too. you'll see more of that too. you're not going to see u will businesses s hiring additional workers. you'll see small businesses.ca the business ownernn is going to talk over the duties there. they can't afford to hire host additional workers or pay overtime, time and a half and they can't in all instances es afford to pay $50,000. >> the obama administration saying these new rules would impact some 5 million workers. tho we're talking about the rules this morning on "washington journal."ing. jenny is up next. indianapolis indiana line for ller: democrats. >> caller: good morning. my question is isn't this a discussion that we have all the time when there's a desire raise the minimum wage that it's going to cost employers more to pay this additional income and so they'l

Related Keywords

Moscow , Moskva , Russia , Canada , Japan , San Pedro Bay , Florida , United States , Missouri , Texas , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Vermont , Minnesota , California , Virginia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Seattle , United Kingdom , West Virginia , Mexico , Burlington , Newfoundland , Nebraska , Ohio , Panama Canal , Panama General , Panama , Americans , America , Canadian , American , Greg Fox , Mary Arthur Mcelroy , Louie Gohmert , Nikki Haley , Michelle Obama , Los Angeles , Christine Owens , Mary Arthur , Frances Perkins , Chester Arthur , Michelle Lee ,