Senate Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Freight, Pipelines, and Safety (Sullivan): Hearings to examine how technological advances are driving transportation innovation.

Could be used across different transportation ecosystems, and how to ensure industry has the flexibility to deploy such technologies voluntarily and in adherence with common sense principles. Over the past decade, we've seen a rise in innovative technologies that require us to reimagine how our transportation networks operate. Technology like autonomous vehicles, or AVs as we call them, a solution to mobility and safety challenges our roadways have faced for decades. AVs will provide mobility for seniors and those with disabilities while increasing the safety of our roads by drastically reducing the number of crashes that are often caused by human error. In our trucking ecosystem, in addition to safety, AVs can better secure supply chains.

While taking strain away from workers who often drive countless hours to meet deadlines. We've also seen the development of train inspection portals, which can analyze images of trains as they move throughout the country to better understand defects or other maintenance needs that a person may not be able to detect as easily or quickly. By taking the strain away from maintenance workers scouring over every railcar and maintenance bay, cars can get back on the track and continue delivering essential goods. There's also vehicle-to-everything, or V2X, technologies that can provide drivers with critical information as they travel, like where construction crews are stationed on highways or where dangerous conditions exist, potentially preventing tragic accidents. I won't go into every technology that exists, of course.

I don't want to steal the thunder of our esteemed panelists. But these are only a few of the vast suite of technologies contributing to safer and more efficient roads and tracks that may be discussed today, many of which were only a pipe dream a short time ago. They were, of course, referenced years ago in The Jetsons or Star Trek, but now many of those things are upon us. The technology ecosystem, especially within transportation, is fast and, and expanding, and it requires flexibility. The federal government has done well in the past establishing pilot projects or exemptions to test the effectiveness of certain technologies.

However, we're often slow at the federal level when it comes to expanding proven technologies past the pilot program stage. So to fully realize the benefits of these innovations, we'll need to provide certainty to the private sector and develop pathways to commercialization, especially for proven technologies. Where we've seen success, we've also seen stagnation. Enacted legislation and promulgated rules have mandated technology too nascent in its lifecycle or set rules with limited to no flexibility. For instance, over half a decade ago, regulations were effectuated that would require truck drivers to deploy warning triangles whenever they stop their truck on the side of the road.

And for a time, this rule made sense to ensure the safety of other road users and the drivers themselves. As technology advanced, however, alternative solutions were developed with the very same, if not greater, effectiveness. If there are avenues that could allow for industry to provide the same or greater level of efficacy while increasing safety, then I believe Congress should remove the red tape prohibiting this sort of innovation. I'm glad to hear of the recent waiver issued by the Department of Transportation to allow for cab-mounted warning beacons in certain instances. Eliminating the need for a driver to get out of the vehicle, especially in unsafe situations like low visibility.

But this is just one rule that's limiting the ingenuity of our private sector. Our adversaries won't wait for us to tie our shoes. If the technologies that will transform our transportation ecosystem are locked behind outdated rules or tied up in red tape, other countries will develop these solutions first, and the job revolution in manufacturing capacity will occur overseas rather than here in Michigan or Indiana. Indiana is the most manufacturing-intensive state in the country and known as the Crossroads of America. My state's ready to deliver solutions to meet the manufacturing capacity needs.

I'm sure many of my colleagues want the same opportunities for their state as well. So as Congress continues to contemplate legislation, it's imperative that we protect the innovative opportunities that will bolster our supply chains, increase safety, and deliver other workable transportation solutions to meet the needs of our economy. We've experienced— we have an experience panel covering several different modes of the transportation economy today. I'm looking forward to your testimony to better learn how we can work to advance technological innovation in our transportation ecosystem, to secure American leadership in, in the industry, and to ensure our private sector has the flexibility it needs to develop and deploy these transformative technologies. Thank you again for being here today, all of you.

And I now recognize Ranking Member Peters for his opening remarks. Well, thank you, Chairman Young, and thank you to our esteemed witnesses for being here today. Today, we're going to be hearing from witnesses across sectors about how technology is transforming our transportation system, from our vehicles to our roads to our railroads. And I have long advocated for harnessing technological innovation to combat the challenges we face in the transportation sector, from unsafe roads, harmful environmental impacts, to freight and infrastructure challenges that raise prices for everyday Americans. Our prime example is autonomous vehicles.

For years, I have said that Congress cannot continue to stand on the sidelines when it comes to these AVs. I believe we must pass a federal AV framework to harness the safety benefits of this technology, ensure that it is deployed responsibly, and cement U.S. leadership in the development, manufacturing, and deployment on our roads. But autonomous vehicles are only one piece of the technological puzzle. When I first came to the Senate, I helped push for positive train control technology that is now deployed across the rail system to prevent collisions and high-speed train derailments. Last Congress, after the East Palestine derailment, we saw firsthand the importance of wayside detection technology, and this committee authored the Railway Safety Act in response.

On our roadways, both cities and states have leveraged federal funds to deploy AI and connected vehicle technology to prevent accidents before they happen and to get first responders to the scene a whole lot faster. We've also seen passenger and commercial vehicle deploy advanced driver assistance systems to help keep both drivers and the public safe. But there's so much more to do. As we talk today about the opportunities and challenges posed by transportation technology and the role Congress should play in driving that innovation, I want to hear, I want to hear from our witnesses in 4 basic questions. First, how can we harness technology for economic growth?

Technology should not just increase efficiency, it should also increase the affordability for Americans. Second, how can this technology support and not replace our workforce? Technology has the potential to improve safety and productivity for American workers, including America's truck drivers, if we play our cards right. But technology should also create good-paying American jobs, which I believe we must develop and manufacture here at home, here in the United States. And third, how do we ensure emerging transportation technology doesn't compromise Americans' privacy or U.S. national security?

So, for example, Today's vehicle technologies have advanced sensor suites that collect and analyze a huge amount of data, which would be extremely dangerous in the wrong hands. That's why I've pushed to keep Chinese vehicles and vehicle technologies out of the United States. And I want to hear from our witnesses today about protecting data exploitation by our adversaries as well as here at home. And fourth, and most importantly, How can transportation technology be harnessed to save lives? Every year, 40,000 Americans die on our highways and nearly 1,000 die on our railroads.

And these aren't just numbers. They're families that will never be whole again. We must take action, and we know that technology is certainly part of that solution. I believe it will require government, industry,— labor and advocates coming together to address safety crisis and to ensure that technology is deployed on our transportation system in a way that benefits all Americans. I look forward to contributing to this effort through our discussion here today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Well, thank you, Senator Peters. I'd now like to introduce our witnesses for today for this hearing, the need For Speed. Again, the catchy title we have. Our first witness is Mr. Ian Jeffries. Mr. Jeffries is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Association of American Railroads.

He's led AAR since January of 2019. He has over a decade of experience in transportation policy, including roles at federal agencies and the Senate Commerce Subcommittee. Mr. Jeffries. Good morning, Chairman Young, Ranking Member Peters, other members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Today's hearing comes at an important moment for American transportation. Next year, believe it or not, freight railroads will mark their 200th anniversary. An industry grounded in history but being rapidly transformed by innovation. The modern rail network increasingly relies on AI-assisted inspections, machine vision, predictive analytics, advanced sensors, and real-time data. These tools help identify risks earlier and improve safety across the 140,000-mile network and enhance service reliability.

And the results are clear. According to the Federal Railroad Administration, 2025 was the safest year on record across key measures, including derailment rate, equipment and track-caused accidents, and importantly, employee injuries. This progress reflects sustained investment, employee expertise, and continuous innovation. And that leads to my first point. Technology is driving record safety gains and will be essential to the next leap forward.

The future of rail safety depends on detecting issues before they become failures. And we're seeing this across the industry. For example, at BNSF, systems collect real-time track data during regular service while AI-enabled tools identify defects earlier than traditional methods. And together with continuous rail temperature monitoring, they enable a fully data-driven inspection model. CSX uses advanced detection technology that combines GPS, cameras, radar, and lidar to monitor work zones to automatically stop equipment movement when risks are identified.

Norfolk Southern deploys AI-powered imaging portals that scan rail cars at track speed and flag defects in near real time. Technology now identifies 70%— 75% of mechanical defects on that railroad. Union Pacific uses machine vision and AI to analyze large data sets detect patterns, and predict maintenance needs months in advance, allowing more targeted preventive action. Other railroads are advancing similar innovations. CN uses automated inspection systems and ground penetrating radar, while CPKC applies optical technology to detect early-stage defects.

Across the industry, technology is expanding both the reach and precision of inspections, and these tools support, not replace, railroad employees, giving them better information to improve safety and operations. Which leads to my second point: when policymakers consider technology, I ask that they take a mode-neutral approach to transportation technology. Advanced tools are reshaping freight movement across not only rail, but trucking, maritime, and logistics writ large. And rail should not be treated differently simply because it's an established industry or because innovative changes challenge legacy assumptions. Federal policy should encourage innovation based on measurable outcomes, not restrict through outdated frameworks or preferences.

Third, rail regulatory— excuse me— rail needs a regulatory system to keep pace with innovation. Much of today's regulatory structure was developed 5 decades ago and does not reflect modern technologies or operating practices. Railroads now have more advanced ways to meet safety goals, yet regulations often prevent prevent those methods from being used to satisfy requirements. At the same time, we're seeing legislative proposals that could lock in legacy practices or double down on legacy practices, risking slowing down progress at a time when innovation is thriving. If we want continued safety improvements, affordability, and supply chain resilience, policy must enable investment and support development and deployment of new technologies, not discourage them.

Let data guide decisions and safety outcomes, not rigid inputs. Freight rail operates one of the world's most interconnected systems and invests roughly $23 billion annually in infrastructure, equipment, and technology. And the question is whether policy will support that progress. And this is not just about transportation. It's about American competitiveness.

Rail moves about 40% of long-haul freight and supports critical industries across the economy. These technologies being deployed today will will determine how effectively we continue to do so in the future. And so if we want a rail system that is safer, stronger, and ready for the next century, we must allow innovation to lead the way. The choices made here will determine whether progress accelerates or stalls, and let's make sure it accelerates. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Jeffries. Our second witness, uh, is Mr. Chris Spear, President and CEO of American Trucking Association. He has extensive experience in transportation and public policy, having held senior positions at Hyundai Motor Company, Honeywell International, and served as the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy at the U.S. Department of Labor. Mr. Speier, you're recognized for 5 minutes. Well, let me thank you for letting Ian go first.

I really appreciate that. Chairman Young, Ranking Member Peters, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about how Congress can keep America's trucking industry safe, competitive, and innovative. Trucking moves the vast majority of our nation's freight, connects manufacturers to markets, keeps store shelves stocked, and delivers essential goods to communities in every state. Our industry is already investing billions in technology to create a safer, more modern freight network.

Innovation-driven solutions not only improve outcomes but also help lower prices paid by consumers and businesses alike. We need Congress's support to continue building a stronger supply chain. First, Congress should repeal the 12% federal excise tax on heavy-duty trucks, trailers, and tractors. The century-old tax punishes the purchase of the very vehicles that come with the latest technologies. Adding tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of new equipment discourages fleet turnover, keeps older equipment on the road longer.

Congress has a ready solution in Chairman Young's Modern, Clean, and Safe Trucks Act, which would remove this outdated barrier and accelerate deployment of safer, cleaner, and more efficient equipment nationwide. Second, Congress should solidify the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's role as the primary authority over motor vehicle safety standards. Trucking is a national industry, and vehicle standards must remain national as well. When states or courts impose equipment standards beyond federal law, it creates a fragmented regulatory landscape that drives uncertainty for manufacturers, motor carriers, and the supply chain. Congress should reaffirm that when NHTSA acts, federal standards take precedence.

That clarity is essential if companies are going to invest confidently in new technologies and deploy them at scale. Third, Congress should establish and implement a federal framework for autonomous commercial vehicles. These systems hold real promise to enhance safety, improve productivity, and strengthen America's economic competitiveness, but only if deployment is governed by a clear national strategy. The Build America 250 Act would provide this guidance, preventing a patchwork of state rules from stifling innovation. Fourth, Congress should support technology upgrades and operational improvements at federal agencies to combat the rise of cargo theft and supply chain fraud.

Criminal networks are exploiting outdated systems, weak identity controls, and fragmented reporting structures to steal freight, impersonate legitimate carriers, and undermine trust in the supply chain. Congress can help close those gaps by supporting agency modernization, stronger registration integrity, better data sharing, and advanced fraud detection tools. Fourth, Chairman Young's Safer Transport Act would provide important tools to help DOT detect and deter fraud, while the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act would enhance and coordinate the response to organized supply chain crime. Fifth, Congress should continue promoting proven technologies while refraining from mandating technologies that have not yet matured or demonstrated effectiveness in real-world trucking operations. Congress and regulators should distinguish between rules that are ready for broad deployment and those that are still requiring development, testing, and refinement.

Sixth, Congress should support a resilient national approach to positioning, navigation, and timing without disrupting the existing technologies and services that keep freight moving. Policymakers should reject proposals such as NextNav's petition that would repurpose the lower 900 MHz band in ways that risk harmful interference to the millions of incumbent devices and systems already operating there, including technologies that support logistics, transportation, and critical infrastructure. Together, these 6 steps would send a clear signal Congress is ready to embrace technologies today and tomorrow and help the trucking industry deliver even greater safety, resilience, and economic strength for the American people. I look forward to discussing these issues with the subcommittee and answering your questions. Thank you, Mr. Spierer.

Our next witness is Ms. Laura Chase, president and CEO of the Intelligent Transportation Society of America. Also known as ITS America. Ms. Chase has led ITS America since August of 2021. She has two decades of experience developing and implementing policy, including in roles at U.S. Telecom, the American Trucking Association, Justice Department, and the White House. Ms. Chase, you're recognized for 5 minutes.

Chairman Young, Ranking Member Peters, Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on how technological advances are strengthening our nation's transportation system. This discussion comes at an important moment as Congress considers the next surface transportation reauthorization and the future direction of our transportation system. ITS America brings together the full innovation ecosystem—public agencies, private companies, and research institutions—to advance a vision of a better future transformed by technology and innovation, one that is safe, smart, and connected. Our focus is not on supporting deployment of technology for technology's sake, but on ensuring that innovation translates into real-world outcomes for the traveling public. Our transportation system has evolved.

It is no longer just concrete, asphalt, and steel. Today, transportation is increasingly defined by a combination of physical infrastructure and digital capabilities. Sensors, software, communication networks, and data systems are now embedded throughout the transportation network, creating a digital layer that allows agencies and operators to understand conditions in real time and respond more effectively. This evolution is already delivering measurable results. These developments point to a broader shift.

Digital technologies must be treated as core transportation elements. They are fundamental to how the system operates and how it performs, and how it delivers outcomes for the American public. You can't manage what you don't understand, and digital infrastructure fundamentally improves our ability to understand our transportation system. Treating technology as a core element means prioritizing it throughout entire project lifecycles, from planning and building to operating and maintaining, and funding it at meaningful levels and in the same way— dedicated way that we do our traditional physical assets. Across the country, technology applications are improving safety from smart signals and pedestrian detection systems in Bellevue, Washington, delivering a 40% reduction in near-miss conflicts at intersections to digital alerting systems in Illinois, increasing driver reaction distance and reducing harsh braking, to real-time detection technology in Indiana, keeping workers safe in work zones.

The impact on safety is real. Technologies are also improving lives and reducing costs. In Detroit, travel reliability was improved by 30% from advanced traffic management systems using real-time data to optimize signal timing and reduce congestion. Tools that provide real-time truck parking information streamline weigh station operations and improve logistics planning, also allow goods to get to your door more efficiently. Digital twins, sensors, and AI-enabled inspection systems for roads and bridges provide engineers with predictive intelligence to better maintain our infrastructure, saving agencies hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.

State and local transportation agencies are deploying these solutions today, but they are often doing so in fragmented ways that limit their full impact. To understand why that matters, it's helpful to consider a broader example. Think about the standalone computer. On its own, it delivers real value— processing information, storing data, improving productivity. But its full potential was realized when it became connected.

The internet transformed individual machines into a network that enables communication, coordination, and shared intelligence at scale. Our transportation system is now at a similar inflection point. Intelligent technologies are already delivering meaningful benefits at individual intersections, along individual corridors, and throughout individual states. But when those systems are connected through national interoperable digital infrastructure, they become something more powerful, a coordinated, responsive network that can operate as a system. Without that integration, we risk a future where deployment remains uneven and fragmented, limiting the safety, mobility, and economic benefits these technologies can deliver.

Addressing that challenge is essential to unlocking the full value of innovation. Federal leadership plays a critical role. A clear national approach to transportation technology will provide direction reduce fragmentation, and give public agencies and private partners alike greater confidence to invest. Establishing consistent national frameworks for areas such as automated vehicles, data privacy, and system interoperability can help ensure that innovation is deployed safely and at scale across the country. Just as providing funding flexibility and incurring outcomes-based approaches can help agencies deploy solutions that evolve over time and deliver measurable results.

America has an opportunity to lead the world in transportation system modernization. Digital solutions, both in infrastructure and in vehicles, are poised to provide safety and operational benefits that can unlock the next chapter of America's transportation evolution. By aligning policy, funding, and deployment strategies, this Congress can deliver to the American people the full safety, efficiency, and mobility benefits that these technologies offer. Thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to the questions.

Thank you, Ms. Chase. Our final witness is Mr. Cole Scandaglia. Mr. Scandaglia is the Deputy Director of the Department of Political and Legislative Action at the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, a union that represents over 1 million workers across numerous industries in the United States and Canada. Welcome, Mr. Scandaglia.

You are now recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you. Important topic. Teamsters represent 1.3 million hardworking people in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico, including hundreds of thousands of employees in the rail and trucking industries. For our entire history, we've evolved alongside new transportation technologies.

Our namesake refers to the men who once drove horse-drawn wagons across the country., and the first-ever transcontinental shipment of goods by truck was conducted by a team of Teamster drivers in 1912. At the core of our mission, we believe that the tool available to the American worker to best navigate the impacts of technological change is a collective bargaining agreement. Every day we use these tools to negotiate the terms of new technological deployments in a manner that ultimately benefits both our members and our employers. We do not oppose innovation. We welcome the adoption of technologies like automatic emergency braking and electronic logging devices in trucking and the deployment of positive train control in the railroad industry.

We will continue to work with Congress, regulators, and our employers on technologies which improve working conditions and increase safety on the job. Today, autonomous vehicles present enormous challenges. To date, the federal government has failed to advance an autonomous vehicles framework, and the sole unique requirement to operate an autonomous vehicle in this country is to inform the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of crashes. Continuing to permit the unfettered and unregulated operation of autonomous vehicles is a no-win situation for the country. We continue to call Congress to create a binding framework that prioritizes safety, the workforce, and goes beyond weak self-certification regimes.

We also urge members to consider the economic impacts of mass deployment of unregulated autonomous vehicles. —On both our members and your constituents. Driving a truck is the single most common occupation for men in the United States without a college degree and a top 10 occupation overall in most states. More generally, increasingly connected transportation technologies also invite risk by bad actors and foreign adversaries. Teamsters believes strongly that connected vehicles and components from China must not be imported into the United States, that Chinese companies who open shop here should never receive a penny of federal transportation dollars, And Congress must prohibit any scenario in which a person outside this country can operate or manipulate a vehicle on our roads.

In the railroad industry, we're proud to represent the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees. As two of the country's oldest unions, our rail members have adapted to extraordinary technological change. However, it is essential that Congress and the Federal Railroad Administration appreciate that tools are supplemental to our work. Not a replacement. Track geometry measurement systems, also known as ATI, automated track inspection, use advanced sensors, lasers, and machine vision to identify track defects that may not be visible to the human eye.

However, these systems are only capable of identifying certain regulatory defects, not all, which must be evaluated under current regulation. We don't oppose this technology. In fact, we've called for it to be mandatory. But combining this technology with human visual inspections conducted on a twice weekly basis, as currently prescribed in the regulations, is the equation for optimal safety outcomes. Locomotive engineers have also seen massive changes within the last 15 years, including the use of PTC as well as energy management systems like Trip Optimizer.

Again, these technologies have value if used properly. Increasingly, However, we are seeing usage which takes away a substantial amount of decision-making from crews for up to 95% of trip time. These extensive periods of time risk de-skilling of engineers who may in turn be unprepared when asked to reassert control in a scenario, uh, where the technology fails or an emergency presents itself. Minimum time spent in manual operations can combat these effects. Further, the BLET continues to sound the alarm on the use of remote control locomotives, which are generally operated by an engineer who's not physically present in the cab.

These operations carry risk already when operating in the yard environment, but are increasingly being used on mainline track and rail sidings, which invites unacceptable dangers across all modes, including those subject to this subcommittee and the full committee. The Teamsters Union continues to support strong prescriptive regulations where warranted. Innovation, regulation, and the workforce need not be in conflict with each other., and we commit to working with the committee and the subcommittee to that effect. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today and look forward to questions. Thank you, Mr. Scandaglia.

Before we dive into member questions, I'd like to recognize, uh, the ranking member of this committee, my colleague Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I, I look forward to, uh, the questions that our colleagues are asking, and I'm going to submit a statement for the record.

But I was just visited by the city of Bellevue, and they had some very interesting technology success using AI related to responding to emergencies and law enforcement. And so we'll share that with the committee, and I do think it is something, if we can improve on our transportation infrastructure in that way, it's something to consider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

I'll begin with, with Ms. Chase. Uh, thank you for your testimony, Ms. Chase. I, I appreciate you discussing how our transportation system has evolved over time and And that we should be treating technology as core transportation infrastructure in the United States. It's not just the conventional stuff. It's data and all the rest of it.

You mentioned in your written testimony, and I think you just alluded to it, that we have a need for federal leadership to scale these technologies. Technologies that will reduce travel times, lower crash rates, improve asset management on our infrastructure projects. What happens if the federal government doesn't develop national leadership? What signal might it send to the private sector? And what happens to our globally competitive position, especially as China looks to surge ahead in the deployment of some of these critical technologies?

Thank you, Senator Young, for the question. It's a very important question at this moment in time. So what would happen if we don't have federal leadership is we will continue to see fragmented, uneven deployments across the country that really struggle to deliver the system-wide benefits that we know they can to the American public. On the private sector side, right now you have a situation where the private sector is actually asking for that unified national marketplace. And if we don't create that federal leadership and don't create that national approach, the private sector is not going to invest their significant capital into our own transportation system.

If you think about it from a private sector company, it's a rational decision to go to a market where you have a unified approach and a larger market share. And so the exact outcome that we do not want to see happen is for our companies that are developing technologies right here in America to then go deploy those technologies overseas at our global competitors because they have a larger marketplace that can be addressed there. So, it's really critical that we ensure that we have federal leadership from Congress and from USDOT that can create, as I call it, national approaches to national challenges and show those federal frameworks and approaches and strategies so that the private sector sees it's worth it to invest here and that there is a long-term ROI, and then the public sector similarly can have confidence in deploying those technologies. Well, thank you. You know, in my reference to, say, China is not just, you know, I'm not trying to get people excited, I'm not trying to provoke them, I'm not trying to leverage a geopolitical competition into this, this narrow subset of policy, this could impact our, our rate over time of, of growth, which in turn allows us to fund, uh, our, our way of life, including our military.

So that is, that's the long game. We need to be using this moment in American history to optimize our system at every level, including ensuring that our laws and rules, uh, allow for the integration of the best-in-class technology so that we can outcompete anyone And that is what I was alluding to. Ms. Chase, when we discuss the integration adoption of these technologies, it is important that we contemplate ways to secure this infrastructure as well from all kinds of threats. And your testimony discusses the tangential benefits of federal leadership in unlocking a scalable marketplace for advanced tech in transportation infrastructure. Sectors.

But one of these benefits is increased cybersecurity. Can you elaborate a bit on how this leadership can build stronger cyber safeguards, and separately, um, how we can ensure our cybersecurity technologies like firewalls or IoT modules and the underlying connectivity that powers cloud software tools are actually met? In 10 words or less. A few more than 10. Uh, so Senator, if we're establishing leadership right here at home in these technologies, then we're actually also developing the most innovative cyber tools and security methods right here at home.

So that federal leadership is incredibly important, um, in ensuring that we secure these technologies, which we, um, absolutely, it's a priority for our members, um, as well. Um, and very quickly, um, right now, uh, what agencies and companies are doing to, to do that and secure these technologies, is following the existing NIST guidelines, CISA protocols, zero trust architecture, secure by design principles, and following all of those best-in-class practices when it comes to cybersecurity. But we agree with you, it is incredibly important that we create the marketplace for those cyber tools to also be developed right here in America. Well, by way of follow-up after this hearing, if you don't have an opportunity to unpack the cybersecurity best practices that you just alluded to, and if you see a role for Congress in ensuring that we're doing what we need to do, please, after this hearing, let me know, let my staff know, and we'll get to work on it. Mr. Peters.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speier, I know many of us share a commitment to moving the ball forward on a framework for autonomous vehicles, including autonomous commercial vehicles. So my question for you is, do you believe that a legislative AV framework should include commercial vehicles? And if so, could you expand on why this is important for your members and how the trucking industry would certainly benefit from guidance from Congress?

Well, quickly, absolutely, we would welcome that. I think inclusion with passenger vehicles is essential, but I'd go so far— I'm not competitive, but I would go so far to say Trucks are business to business, whereas cars are business to consumer. If you're buying a car, you're going to pick the things that you want on that car. If you don't want things that drive technology, you know, you're going to come up short on that. Businesses to businesses will design systems around moving freight more efficiently, more safely, more environmentally friendly.

These are all things that can be developed faster through our OEMs, which we only have a half dozen compared to a couple dozen auto manufacturers. So, you know, we have a lot more ability to put technology platforms in place, move freight more efficiently, more safely, more environmentally friendly. So yeah, I think having trucks equal with passenger vehicles, if not leading this platform, would be more appropriate in my opinion. Very good. Mr. Scandilia, you represent a lot of truck drivers, and as you heard in my opening comments, The views of our, the men and women who are employed in these industries are incredibly important to get their viewpoint.

So I'd like to get your perspective from your members. You mentioned in your opening testimony some ideas related to what you'd like to see, but for the committee, I would love to have you expand on what you think needs to be done in a national AV framework that addresses the concerns that we have of the men and women who work in these industries? Absolutely. Appreciate the question. I think we're thinking about this in, in three planks.

One is robust premarket standards at NHTSA, figuring out what has to be on the vehicle to make it safe before it hits the road. The second piece is substantial oversight tools at Federal Motor Carrier Administration to make sure that once there are deployments of these vehicles in a meaningful sense, that Federal Motor Carrier has an idea of how they're functioning and how they're operating, and also has the ability to severably take action and enforcement on unsafe autonomous vehicle deployments. And then inasmuch as we do see displacement of workers, that we develop an approach to address workforce concerns that may present themselves down the road, both as that relates to workers whose jobs may change For example, a mechanic who works on a diesel engine is not going to be prepared to work inherently on autonomous vehicle, at least out of the gate. And similarly, if there are to be displacements of drivers, what does the future look like for them? I think it's important that Congress gets in front of this now instead of waiting until it's too late.

Very good. Ms. Chase, I believe there are many vehicle technologies in addition to autonomous vehicles that certainly have the ability to save lives. And as regulators, we must do what we can to harness that potential. That's why I introduced the Vehicle Safety Research Act with Chair Young to codify NHTSA's parts program to accelerate advanced driver assistance systems, their research and their development. It's also why last week I introduced the Vehicle Safety Equipment Testing Act with Senator Fischer to speed the testing of vehicle safety technology so that they can be perfected, perfected and deployed quickly.

The sooner they're deployed, the more lives that are saved. And that's why I also fought to protect auto safety spectrum from the deployment of connected vehicle technology and why I and Chair Young have pushed together the Department of Transportation to lead the way on the deployment of, of CV2X. So if you could give this committee some examples of current CV2X deployments and tell the committee why you believe the biggest— what, what, what are the biggest barriers to broader deployment of these technologies? Thank you, Senator, for the question and for your ongoing support. So there are several CVX deployments in the country right now that are growing.

Atlanta, Georgia has actually the largest current deployment in the country all throughout the metro area and extending now to the Port of Savannah and actually giving freight signal priority, which is been very successful. Maricopa County, Arizona has a large deployment. Salt Lake City in Utah is coordinating with Colorado and Wyoming. And Houston, Texas. Those, those last three are all funded by USDOT grants.

And there are several in your home state of Michigan— Ann Arbor and Detroit. I'm actually going to be seeing the Detroit deployment this week. So some of the examples of what this is providing are transit signal priority, emergency vehicle preemption, freight priority and support, pedestrian and cyclist detection and alerting for safety, work zone alerting, weather warnings, and newer is VTECS tolling. And so there's actually a huge range of applications that are being leveraged as a part of these deployments. We're also seeing some network-based solutions being included now in these deployments.

The biggest barrier, I would say, is actually consistent across all technology areas, And is consistent with sort of my core message in this testimony, which is that we need to start treating technology as a core element of our transportation system and infrastructure, because that directly ties into making sure that federal transportation funding levels remain stable and that is clearly prioritized, that these technologies should be deployed and scaled throughout the system. So ensuring that we have consistent dedicated funding for these projects ensuring that we are incorporating technology and integrating it into the full lifecycle of projects. Those are some of the key barriers to both CB2X deployments, but also broader technology deployments across the country. Thank you for the answer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Moreno, you're now recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speier. Let's dig into a little bit of what you talked about in your opening statement. How much exactly of the things that American consumers buy do they get through trucks? Just over 80% of the communities in the United States depend on trucks for their day-to-day needs.

So, you know, food to fuel, you name it. So groceries, basic essentials, construction goods, you name it, right? It hits the entire economy. It's a grocery store shelf issue. Exactly.

And if costs for transportation companies rise dramatically, what is the impact on household goods? Well, it definitely translates down, no different than theft. You know, the price of fuel, inflation, all those things get transformed in the prices we pay. And we're the link between that, from the goods to the fact of when they're delivered and bought. What you pay is reflected in all those factors.

So yeah, prices definitely go up. We see that. We pass on some of those costs, but not all of them. But our goal, our goal should be to try to make it less expensive for transportation to exist in America. Would you agree?

Always. All right. So are you familiar with the advanced truck rule that we got rid of last year? So that would have mandated an electric, electric semis. How many electric semis were sold this year out of the total?

I will, I will give you the answer. It's 0.2%. Yeah, very small. But just so that we're clear, because it's Numbers can be confusing. Not 2%, 0.2%.

So of all the semis sold in the United States this year, 0.2% were electric. What would the Advanced Car Truck Rule have required us to have been selling in America had it not been repealed? Well, it would have transformed us come 2030, 10%. Yeah, what would be the number? Like, so we're, we are at 0.2%.

We got rid of the rule. What would the percentage required by law have been to have been sold as in terms of electric semis? Well, starting in 2030, 10%, it would have been about 3.5 million trucks. So a 5,000% increase in electric vehicles. Would that have cost consumers money?

It was 3.5 times more than a brand new diesel, which, by the way, emits, you know, the same amount of emissions that, that's, you know, 60 trucks in 1988 emitted. So we've come that far. So to push us toward an electric platform with infrastructure that doesn't exist would have been horrendous in terms of cost and capability. Is it hyperbolic to say it would have been catastrophic for our economy? It would have imploded our economy.

It would have imploded our economy. There wasn't a single solitary Democrat that voted to get rid of that rule. I just want to point that out. It's extremely important that we remember where we've been so we know where we're going. I want to absolutely give props to our chairman for the bill that he has to get rid of the federal excise tax.

Can you talk about again a little bit more detail what that means? What's the average age of the semi on the road today? About 2010. 2010. So 15, 16-year-old truck is the average, average, right?

Not the oldest one. In California as well. Right. So if you really want to improve fuel economy and safety, you want people driving a newer fleet. Is that accurate?

Absolutely. You want to incentivize the procurement of brand new equipment. This would do it. This is $24,000 per tractor, $6,400 per trailer. This is money that should go in the hands of drivers that are operating their own equipment to fleets.

But just beyond that, incentivizes people to buy newer semis. So if the average age went from 2010 to 2013 or '14, you're talking about dramatically better fuel economy, dramatically better safety. And this law was one that was passed a few years ago. FET, was it passed a few years ago? Uh-huh.

Yeah, it was passed, uh, 120 years ago. At the time of the Titanic sinking to fund French warfare. And by the way, it was temporary, right? It's the highest federal excise tax that we have in the government. And it's the only one of that grouping that funded trench warfare that still exists today.

But it was supposed to be a temporary tax. Yeah, it's not. And here we are 120 years later. It's incentive. So, uh, obviously, We need to get Senator Young's bill across the finish line and get that done.

I think again, it goes back to the connected, the advanced truck rule. We need to lower the cost to transportation companies. Senator, I point out too, beyond safety and environmental gains, this is a jobs gain. Those 6 manufacturers that we have, far less than autos, are here in the United States, a little bit in Mexico. This is a union job issue right here.

This is going to help union jobs. You must be referring to the Fantastic factory in Chillicothe, Ohio. Absolutely. Brand new Kenworths. So the other one is, Ms. Chase, I don't want you to be ignored.

Connected Vehicle Security Act. It's a bill that Senator Slotkin and I put together. I applaud the ranking member. Senator Peters has been after this topic for a long time of making certain that we don't allow Chinese vehicles into this market. Talk about from your perspective, what could go wrong by having a company that's a Chinese defense contractor, BYD, allowed to sell cars in the United States that transmit high-definition photos, videos, and location data back to the Communist Party.

Thank you, Senator Rayner, for the question. We fully agree with your concern and your approach to ensuring that Chinese connected vehicles do not come into America. We were heavily involved, actually, ITS America was heavily involved in the Department of Commerce BIS ruling. And in understanding that we are all aligned in the need for secure supply chains, also protecting the privacy of Americans, and ensuring that we have the domestic and allied supply chains to do so. I think the risk, it goes to data privacy and national security.

And so we have to make sure that we're protecting American consumers' data, that we're protecting all of our national security assets, and that we are ensuring that it's American-made technology that is, uh, in these vehicles that are driving on American roadways. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moreno, uh, and, and thanks for your help on the federal excise tax repeal. We're going to get that done. Thank you, Mr.

Spear. Uh, Mr. Kim, you're now recognized. Thank you, Chairman. Uh, Mr. Jeffries, I wanted to start with you.

Um, I just want to make sure I, I kind of level set here on the numbers I'm seeing in, in terms of just annual concerns that we have about 1,000 to 1,200 derailments, 1,600 train accidents annually, about 900 to 1,000 fatalities. Does that kind of mesh with your understanding on the safety concerns? So when you talk about specific derailments, I think there are— I can't give you the exact numbers. I think it was in the mid-900s 2 years ago, and about 70% of those occur within yards. So think about, you know, a wheel coming off the line.

About 20% of those occur out on the main line. Otherwise known kind of the Interstate Railroad. Um, when you think about 1,000 deaths on the railroad, approximately 95% of those are due to two issues. One is trespassers and the other is grade crossing collisions. And, um, that's why we work so hard to ensure our employees stay safe, and we're proud of the fact that 2025 was the lowest employee injury rate in the industry's 199-year history.

And I'm glad to see that progress as well. Absolutely. I think we can all agree though, we of more work to be done. Of course, always, until we're at zero. And as you talked about, you know, automated track inspection, ATI, I mean, I think all of us in this room embrace technology, want to make sure that we're using everything to be able to push on it.

I guess I want to get a sense from you, just as we're thinking and making decisions here, what are some of the limitations of this type of technology in terms of what it's not able to identify, things that we would want to make sure we're using other tools, including human inspection. Of course. So let's think about the regulation that's on the books right now. It requires, you know, periodic naked-eye inspections of individuals walking on the tracks. After years of pilot and waiver programs by several individual railroads who deployed autonomous track inspection in lieu of certain manual inspections— so right now I think the manual inspections require twice a week, the tracks be walked.

Um, the pilot programs that were in place over several years reduced that to once every 2 weeks because ATI can identify up to 200% higher defects than the naked eye. And during those pilot programs, the safety outcomes were dramatic. It's significantly higher safety result that occurred. And so when you look at what the regulation, um, that's being contemplated right now, is reducing visual inspections to once per week and letting ATI continuously inspect that track with a performance standard that must be met that is significantly more rigorous than what's on the regulations in the book. So you're guaranteeing a higher safety outcome.

If you don't hit that, you have to go back to the old ways of doing things. To your point about what—. I just want to pause you on that one. I wanted to get another perspective. Mr. And Aglia, I wanted to turn to you because in your statement here, you're saying that some of these systems are only capable identifying some but not all of the types of regulatory defects that, that we can get and pick up through visual inspection.

Can you go into a little bit more of just like what are— what would be missing from just doing the tech only or just mostly relying on the tech? Yeah, current regulations require inspections to look at 23 total defect categories. ATI is primarily looking at track geometry issues, which encompasses about 6 of those categories. Um, I mean, to Mr. Jeffrey's point, we're not surprised that ATI used well will increase safety. Again, as I said in my, my opening statement, we've called for it to be mandatory.

We think it's a really good tool. With that said, given the state of its capabilities at this hour, what it can and cannot do, Um, we still believe strongly that the best way to deploy this technology is in keeping with the currently mandated visual inspection standards. Mr. Jeffries, I mean, what Mr. Scandaglia put into his testimony here, that this technology is incapable of identifying issues with ballast, rail wear, rail joint gaps, tie plate conditions, switch components, vegetation obstructions, in the right of way. Is that correct? So one, track geometry is an indicator of overall track health.

And I don't disagree that there are things that ATI doesn't detect. And that's, you know, for example, vegetation growth, etc. And that's why we think the balance is right to still have once a week individuals walking the track looking for those very things. And I think we should focus on the outcome. 2025, With the lowest number of track-related incidents in the industry's history.

And that's largely due to a broader deployment of new technologies that can identify more defects because—. I don't disagree that the progress is being made. But again, like, I think all of us here, we want to make sure we can look our constituents in the eye and guarantee that safety that is there. We're not there yet with what we have. We're not there yet with the combination of visual inspection as well as the technology.

And I'll be honest with you, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that without achieving what we actually want to get to, that we would be potentially taking tools off the table, uh, at this important way. I agree with you, let's let the data decide and guide our decisions. I just don't see that data right now just yet. And with that, I'll yield back.

Ms. Lummis, you're now recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome panel. I want to start with Chris Speer. Welcome, Chris.

As you know, I'm a strong advocate for autonomous vehicles, including the Autonomous Vehicle Acceleration Act, because I think it's a tool that can help evolve the industry. And I look at it as a person who has had— I live in a state where an ambulance driver was killed by an illegal trucker who could not read signs. We had another incident, multiple casualties, multiple deaths in the I-80 tunnel by Green River, Wyoming, again caused by an illegal who was driving an 18-wheeler. And that was an absolutely horrific, deadly fire in a tunnel that killed multiple people. So what outdated requirements are holding back safe autonomous trucking deployment?

And what standards should Congress consider to ensure those deployments improve safety, strengthen supply chain efficiency, and benefit the trucking workforce? I, I see two things in this. You know, for autonomous vehicles, you currently have 26 states that have permissive environments for this type of technology. We don't stop at state lines. We go from Green River right into Salt Lake.

Okay, we're doing multiple states, every truck, every day. So we need a national framework. If you're going to invest in this technology, grow it nationally, not by state, or we're conceding this to China. They will take this technology, they will run with it, and then we will be reacting to that platform. It's that simple.

That's a performance-based approach. It's about innovation. It's about technology solving solutions. You want a prescriptive environment. You know, compared to phones, if we had that in place right now, we'd still be working on BlackBerrys, okay?

Everybody else around the world would have an iPhone or a Droid. So you've got to have a performance-based metric, not a prescriptive. And that's going to allow the agencies to work with tech solutions that are going to constantly evolve year over year and make certain that this platform is sound. The second piece of it that you meant on the illegal driver, Look at the SAFER Act that Chairman Young has. It is enabling the FMCSA at DOT to do the right things in going after these criminals that shouldn't be on the road in the first place.

A lot of these companies are chameleon carriers. They're bad actors. They get busted. They drop off the registry and they re-register in another name. So they've replaced this last month with a system called MODIS.

MODIS is taking a little time to get up and running, but when it does, It is gonna rid a lot of the bad actors that we're seeing. English language proficiency, testing. These are done in all states to have a baseline standard in every state to make sure that when you get a CDL, you have met the minimum, minimum criteria, which should be several weeks of training, not 2 days over the internet. So I applaud what they're doing. I wanna see it made permanent.

So I love the bill that you have. I think that'll solve that problem in kind. Well, thank you for that, Mr. Young. And, uh, Ms. Chase, uh, I want to ask you some questions about digital twins and permitting reform. Um, it looks like digital twins already exist, am I correct?

Yes. So what is preventing the broader adoption across federal infrastructure reviews and permitting processes, and what should Congress do to ensure agencies are able to review digital twins to deliver projects faster, cheaper? Thank you, Senator, for the question. So you're really referencing this generational shift from paper plans and paper— the use of 2D plans to 3D digital twins and digital documents. So Congress could do a couple of things in this instance.

Congress should encourage the use of digital technologies to support project delivery. This can be through explicit eligibility criteria on grants or formula funding programs, through guidance from USDOT. The ADCMS grant program is a great initiative in this area that has really incentivized digital delivery. And to your point, we should encourage recipients of DOT funds to utilize digital platforms when carrying out environmental reviews. In other words, we have to be able to submit those review documents digitally and for the agencies to accept them digitally.

Ultimately, what we would believe Congress can do is consistent with my testimony in whole, which is treating technology as a core element of transportation across all of the various lifecycles of technology, project delivery, construction, operations, maintenance, is critical to ensuring that we actually aid this digital transformation in a comprehensive way. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, permission to ask one more? Please proceed.

Thank you. Mr. Jeffries, can you explain how mandates like the two-man crew requirement or more strict high-hazard train definitions could affect the movement of, say, Wyoming coal or other American energy products by rail? Sure. So I think it leads to a bigger question about locking in current operating requirements without any evidence to to prove that those requirements result in a higher safety outcome, because that's what we should be focused on, safety outcomes, period. And when you lock in current ways of doing things or you add new requirements that cannot be justified, the result is you undermine the ability for the network to remain fluid, you reduce service, you increase congestion, all without a positive safety outcome.

And so if we can't draw a direct line to a positive safety outcome, we shouldn't be doing things. And I think that's why so many different groups outside of railroads, such as the coal industry, such as the ag industry, have expressed serious concerns about some of these proposals. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, thank you, Senator Lummis. Mr. Lujan, you're now recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jeffries, would you find it acceptable if 10,000 lives were lost per year in America on trains? With train crashes? Absolutely not. Mr. Speier?

Absolutely not. Ms. Chase? No, Senator. Mr. Zaglia?

No, Senator. Mr. Jeffries, would you find it acceptable if 10,000 lives were lost in America on airline crashes a year? Absolutely not. Mr. Speier? Definitely not.

Ms. Chase? No. Mr. Zaglia? We would not. Mr. Jeffries, do you find it acceptable that in America we lose 10,000 lives a year with car crashes based on DWI?

Absolutely not. Mr. Speier? No. Ms. Chase? No.

Mr. Scalia? No. Look, I know NHTSA is not here today and Department of Transportation is not here today. We're here to talk about technology and vehicles. You all support technological advances in modes of transportation.

Mr. Jeffries? Yes, indeed. Mr. Speier? Absolutely. Ms. Chase?

Yes, I do. Scalia? One of my colleagues was just talking about autonomous vehicles. That takes technology. There's investments, there's companies that hold patents, there's tier 1 suppliers in the automotive space that hold patents in this, in this area.

The market's working because there's signals to the market to say make investments in this space. Now, I also agree with one of my colleagues who is here today. When there's sunken costs and there's still technology out there that's not doing a damn thing. And there's one technology when it comes to preventing drunk driving crashes that's gotten appropriations from Congress, has gotten millions and millions of dollars from the auto industry, and they're still operating out of a little garage somewhere in Virginia, if I'm not mistaken. And they've not come up with a solution.

Now, all my colleagues don't agree with me when I say we should stop drunk driving deaths and impaired crashes in America. We have autonomous vehicles. There's self-driving taxis now. I mean, there's all kinds of incredible tools that are out there. And these— I've been in cars that do this.

In Europe, there's cars being sold to those consumers that already say, hey, if there's some impaired problems on here, we're going to warn you. We're going to slow you down. If you have a heart attack, you have a stroke, we're not going to let you kill someone else. You know, every one of us has a phone in our pockets, or most of us do, that also has GPS in it and whatnot tells you which way you're going, which way you shouldn't go. When I'm on my mountain bike, my, my phone tells me if I start going down a wrong trail that I shouldn't be going down.

I don't understand why this is so hard for vehicles. My colleagues know in the early 1990s I was hit head-on by a drunk driver less than half a mile from my house, and I walked away from the damn thing. Not all my constituents can say that. I've been to a lot of funerals, and I think other colleagues have been as well.

It might make things a little more expensive to purchase a vehicle, but what happens if there's technology in a car that saves your kid?

Says your mom or dad. Says your brother or sister.

We can do that in America today. And look, I get this here, and there's no one here on the panel with cars and car safety or from NHTSA or from the Department of Transportation. We've had witness after witness from the Department of Transportation, from NHTSA here saying, no, we're going to do something. We're going to do something. And they just issued a report that said, oh, the technology is not ready.

If there were 10,000 Americans dying on an airplane every year, you bet your life that they would come up with technology to save them. If it was happening on trains, you know that they would move mountains to save lives. But if you or I get killed on a paved road because we're driving a car, I guess we really don't matter. And I'm just beside myself that one of my colleagues out of Texas in the House of Representatives just passed an amendment that said his constituents, he really doesn't give a shit about them if they get killed because someone's been drinking or they're impaired on the damn roads in Texas. Well, in New Mexico, we care about people, and I certainly hope that my We can find a way to get this done.

If my colleagues are— have one objection or another, let's talk about it. This isn't about privacy. You know, a bunch of folks out there saying they're going to steal privacy from you. Well, what about the autonomous cars? What about the airplanes?

What about the rails? That's not what this is about. Let's find a way in America where we can drive innovation and save people's lives. I don't know why this is so hard. I'm beside myself this morning as we come together, and I just recently read that report.

Democrat, Republican, no matter, man. My libertarian friends, to all the smart staff that are in this room, let's find a way to do something, man. Let's save some people. I worked on this with Rick Scott. Rick's not a liberal.

You know, there's a way to work together, y'all. Let's find a way to do that so that if someone gets behind a wheel that shouldn't be, that there's a way to keep them alive for their loved ones. And anyone that they might meet on the drive to wherever they're headed. And I certainly hope we can do that, Mr. Chairman. I'm open to ideas.

I want to thank the Mothers Against Drunk Driving who have led this effort across America, and every survivor of a drunk crash and an impaired crash that has been willing to come and lend their voices. Mrs. Dole as well. I want to thank her for the work that she's been doing with MADD and everyone else. So I hope to God that we can find a way past differences. And whoever the next administration is, because this one's not going to do it— the Biden administration didn't get it across the finish line— whoever the next administration is, let's find a way to bring everyone together and save more people's lives.

I appreciate the time today, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lujan. Mr. Speier, uh, thank you for your words throughout this hearing, uh, in support of and, and for for your collaboration on the repeal of the federal excise tax by legislation, the Modern, Clean, and Safe Trucks Act.

I think this legislation is notable in this hearing because the subtitle of this hearing is How Technological Advances Are Driving Transportation Innovation. I'd like you to unpack for those who are watching this hearing how passing this legislation could actually better incentivize investments in the most technologically advanced vehicles? I think the FET repeal is a no-brainer. Fact is, it's, it's, it's, it's gonna put the newest, latest, greatest technology on the roads. It's gonna replace those 2010s that Senator Marino talked about.

And, you know, the California rules that were gonna electrify us, if they just focused on getting the 2010 or older trucks off the roads in California, they would have exponentially reduced emissions. They could have done that right now without turning on electricity, which they don't have, and turning our industry into an electric freight mover. So this, this was, you know, something that we pointed out year over year. The FET repeal is good for safety. It's good for environment, it's good for union jobs.

There's something in this for everybody. And, you know, candidly, I think putting money in our industry's pockets— $24,000 per truck, $6,400 per trailer— that's money that can be invested in other things: driver pay, training. But beyond that, putting that newer equipment out there is good for everybody, for innovation, right? The newest equipment, 100%, right? Uh, the newest equipment with the latest safety upgrades, uh, with the latest performance upgrades.

Efficiency tools, on and on. So thank you for your help on that. I'm going to turn to Mr. Jeffries. Mr. Jeffries, you alluded earlier to challenges with deployment of latest technologies in, in the rail sector. How should performance-based regulations look across a multitude of different technologies?

Well, thank you for the question. So, you know, I think all of this talk of innovation and automation is fantastic. Autonomous trucks, autonomous cars. We operate on a regulatory structure that was developed in the early 1970s and very prescriptive, very manual-based. And like every other industry out there, we have advanced dramatically when it comes to technological deployment, innovative new tools, etc., that have advanced safety outcomes, service outcomes, efficiency outcomes.

And other agencies in the DOT have embraced performance-based regulations, whether it's FAA, whether it's FHWA, whether it's FTA. The FRA, for some reason, has not, you know, really come around to that concept. And when we're talking about automation, when we're talking about autonomous trucks, when we're reading articles about driverless trucks delivering Dr Pepper and Pepsi to stores in Texas today and operating out on the interstates, which, by the way, I do not begrudge at all. I think it's fantastic. I just think we should be operating on a mode-neutral tech policy that drives outcomes versus inputs.

So tell me where you want us to be. Tell me the outcome we need to achieve and let us find the best path there. Can I stop you there? Yes. I think all of our witnesses were listening to your last statement.

Let's focus on outcomes, not on, on process. Mr. Speier. Do you agree? Absolutely. With that approach, you need a performance-based system.

If you— this is a technology hearing. Yes. Let's breed it. Okay. Let it unbridled and not prescribe everything.

Ms. Chase, do you agree with that approach? Absolutely agree. Okay. Mr. Scandaglia, do you agree with that approach?

Not inherently, no. And why is that? When we're talking about performance-based standards, part of the consideration of that conversation is will the method of compliance result in the outcome that we have prescribed. And frankly, if you speak to our members who do—. But if you judge based on outcomes, especially over time, wouldn't that address that concern?

You might have some high-profile and politically resonant, I would add, examples of suboptimal outcomes along the way, even those involving safety. But over time, if you're, uh, if you're improving more lives, if you're saving more lives, isn't that how you would measure success of a regime or not? Is that utilitarian sort of approach not one that we should be adopting? I think if we're talking broadly in the concept of saving lives, I think that's obviously something we all support. But when we're starting to talk more specifically about the outcome of a specific specific regulation, talk about automated track inspection.

Part of our concern inherently here too is when we move, if we move entirely to a performance-based system, we're also then relying on the information and data that is provided by the regulated entity. And to speak candidly, my members don't trust it. Give me an example of bad, bad information that the regulated entity, is, is operating under? Because I, I thought this is how we have to judge under the current regime regardless, in the absence of outcome-based, um, performance measurement. The concern is not specific— the concern actually is not specific to either performance-based or existing regimes.

I think when we are looking at the way that industry has provided data to, uh, to regulators and the characterizations that can be made as the result of that data. Frequently, that does not align with our members' experience on the job. Um, I would offer to, to any member of this committee, um, if you would like to go out and meet, say, the railroaders that I represent. Yes. And ask them about, do they agree that we are in, uh, an era of unprecedented safety?

Um, I, they will tell you no to the, to the, to the man or woman. And I make that offer to any senator who would like to do that. I would invite them to do so. I think that's, that's data too. That should be, that should of course be part of what we are balancing.

And perhaps we capture that data. But in the end, you're— then it becomes a debate over what outcomes you're looking at. If your sole outcome is your membership, which, you know, Our perspectives are shaped by where we sit. So maybe yours is. But I think societally, most Americans would say we should look at a broader array of data rather than just member feedback.

I don't think we would disagree there either. Right. Okay. Thank you for indulging me, everyone, on that. Senator Cruz is recognized for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. Uh, Mr. Spear, let's start with you. Mr. Spear, you said that the integration of AV trucks will mean, quote, an evolution, not an elimination of the job.

I suspect that many people will find that statement surprising or even contradictory since they assume that an AV truck wouldn't have a driver sitting in it. Mr. Spear, can you please explain what you mean when you say AV trucks will bring an evolution, not an elimination of the trucker? Well, I don't think it's a generality. We look at things from a number of perspectives.

First and foremost, from an economic viewpoint, we're moving 11.4 billion tons a year. That's 73% of everything that's moved in freight is moved by truck. So everything you drink, I drink, eat, wear came off a truck. Mom, dad, husband, wife, they made that happen. Okay, over the next 10 years, just to keep pace with current economic growth in this country, We've gotta move another 2.7 billion tons of freight.

I need more drivers, I need more trucks, and I need innovation. I need all of it. And running autonomous vehicles, Levels 1 through 4, which still require a driver, make drivers smarter, make technicians smarter. They're all gonna benefit from this. You'll probably see some Level 5 from Texas to Southern California.

It may not be ready for prime time yet, But in addition to more drivers, more technicians, more inspectors, dispatchers, trainers, we're going to hire more people with this technology just to keep pace with current economic growth. So I look at this as a win-win all across the board. Mr. Scandalea, what, what do the Teamsters think about AV trucks? It is.

I would like to kind of jump off where Mr. Speier left off, which is I don't think we disagree with the notion that we are not going to see an influx of driverless trucks in every fleet across America tomorrow. We're not going to see hundreds of thousands of people lose their job next week. I think anyone who's being rational about that can agree. Where I think we disagree somewhat is if this technology does hit the prime time, whatever point that may be. We are concerned that we're not going to talk about, well, we're just going to automate for whatever the delta of the purported driver shortage might be, or we're just going to automate in this nice strip of road through your home state.

I think it is ahistoric to suggest that employers at some point in time will have the ability to eliminate their labor cost in totality or in large part and decide not to do it. That's what concerns my members. I very much hope this committee will move a surface transportation bill this year. We are hard at work on it, and one of the important elements of that bill, I hope, will be an AV title. I think AV is probably the most important automotive and trucking innovation that we are facing.

We had initially discussed focusing that AV title on automobiles rather than trucks. I have since been told that the Teamsters have expressed a pretty strong desire that trucks be included in any AV title. Is that right? And if so, can you articulate your views? Yeah, that's absolutely correct.

I think at one point in time when this kind of all seemed like a magical fairy tale, we were uninterested in the conversation. I don't think that's a conversation we can rationally have today. There are numerous testing and deployments. We have in-revenue service on automated companies, automated trucks. So I think the time to continue to pretend like this isn't going to happen has, has passed us on.

But with that said, continuing to exist in an environment, as I said earlier, where we have created no unique federal requirements other than you tell NHTSA when you get into —kind of crash is inappropriate. So we are very much committed to including AV trucks in that conversation. We want that to be a predicate for this bill, and we're very committed to working with the committee to get that done. Good. Well, we will look forward to working with you closely on that and trying to reach a resolution that hopefully incorporates the views of stakeholders across the spectrum.

Thank you. Let's turn to a second topic, which is freight fraud and chameleon carriers. This committee's taken testimony on the scourge of freight fraud and is prepared to legislate to address it. I want to thank Senator Young for his leadership on the Safer Transport Act, which is going to help stop freight fraud if enacted. Chameleon characters, meaning carriers with poor safety records that go out of business and then reincarnate as new carriers with clean records, are particularly problematic for fraudulent activities and poor safety records.

Mr. Speier and Mr. Span— uh, Scandaglia, can you elaborate on the chameleon carrier problem and what Congress should do to address it? Mr. Speier. I think Chairman Young, this subcommittee has a bill called the SAFER Act that would enable FMCSA at DOT, uh, the tools regardless of administration. They would be focused on cleaning up the registry.

Which is the breeding ground for chameleon carriers. They shouldn't get busted, go under, and then repost under a new number. We're enforcing the law on the same people over and over. We need to get them out of the industry. These are bad people.

I think also beyond that, fraud detection in your bill is really outstanding. This is a DOT-specific issue that I think would add a lot of certainty within our industry. With the agency overseeing us, I'd like to make it permanent. I don't want it to just be another 2, 2.5 years. I want this— this is exactly what the agency should be doing.

I'm glad to see it being done now, and I'm glad to see you putting forth legislation that would make that permanent. And beyond that, I think the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act— I really want to share my appreciation for the heavy bipartisan support in the Senate, but in the House, this passed the House Judiciary Committee unanimously. Nothing goes through that committee unanimously. It went off the House floor with 145 Democrats. This is going to bring the federal government—DHS, DOJ, DOT—to the table, where states, localities, and our industry do not have the ability to go after transnational organizations from Eastern Europe, Russia, other parts of the world.

This is $18 million a day costing my industry. $6.6 Billion a year. I applaud you all for taking this bill up. It's sitting in the Senate right now, and the president's waiting to sign it. This could be done very quickly and would bring the federal government to the table.

We can combat this. Good, that's helpful. Uh, Mr. Scandalea? Yeah, I largely associate myself with, um, we've had this problem for, for decades and decades, and I think unfortunately have just continued to throw our hands up in the air and say it's it's complicated and not made progress.

I also agree that we have a small number of fleets and operators who are contributing to a large percentage of this problem. And so we're encouraged by, by efforts to finally deal with this, both efforts that the DOT is taking. We appreciate consideration in Safer Transport for using new technology tools at Federal Motor Carrier to assess their datasets to look for patterns that are not currently being found. So we are, we are all in in this regard. I think it's a very important initiative.

Great. Thank you. Senator Moran, you're recognized for your second tranche of questions. Thank you, Ms. Chase. You talked about the importance of making certain that we don't have Chinese automobiles in the market from a national security perspective.

Mr. Spear, from your perspective, from the Trucking Association's perspective, How important is it to make certain that we get that clear before we start talking about autonomous vehicles? Because obviously that would leave a gaping hole. I think most Americans would be probably think it's a conspiracy theory to think that manufacturers can remote access vehicles and take control of them. And of course, having Chinese Communist Party defense contractors allowed to sell cars in the US.

Can you talk about just expand from what Mrs. Chay said about the importance of national security? Happy to. I'd also dial back to past experiences of working in a tech manufacturer, global tech manufacturer. We had an 80/20 rule at that time where you invest in China, you'll put 80%, but you always hold 20% back because in 6 to 12 months, they're a half mile down the road taking your technology and replicating it. They're that good, they're that fast.

So yeah, our conceding on a lot of these things hands the baton to China to take control of it. So we look at our industry a little bit different than passenger vehicles. Having our roughly half dozen manufacturers in the US, Mexico, we have better controls, I believe, about what's in a vehicle. They're not selling trucks in the US, but we do have Chinese parts in trucks. I think in working with BIS at Commerce Department, we were able to separate it from passenger vehicles.

And look at our trucks as to what was a safety security concern. I think it's a bit less than cars, but I'm 100% wedded to what you're trying to do. My team's been working with yours, and I think there's some steps forward where we can get that rulemaking done at BIS and accomplish exactly what your bill proposes. Yeah, exactly. So again, the point being that let's make certain we solve the Chinese threat before we start thinking about autonomous vehicles.

Because if we did one before the other, you could have a huge problem. So obviously we understand the national security threat. We talked about that. Mr. Scandaglia, I think, uh, you and, and, um, your president, uh, wake up every day thinking about working Americans, making certain that you can have a mom or a dad have one job where they can provide for their family. And that's where I think there should be commonality between Republicans and Democrats, that that should be our goal.

How do we build a and strengthen our working class in this country. So, so two points for you, uh, expand kind of what we talk— we're talking about. So we understand the national security threat. What's the economic threat to having Chinese automobiles in the United States from your perspective? So one of the, the substantial threats that we see is, is safety for the actual operating workforce.

We were extremely disturbed when the committee held a hearing on autonomous vehicles in February, when the witness from, from Waymo suggested that they had individuals located in the Philippines capable of manipulating those vehicles on our roads. That's really horrifying. The idea that you could have a driver in, say, a Level 4 automated truck, and someone in China could press a button and make that truck take a turn or accelerate is really horrifying to our membership and puts our members at risk. The other thing I would, I would mention too, not so much about Chinese vehicles themselves being imported, but about Chinese companies setting up shop in America and then receiving the benefit of federal transportation dollars. We're very proud to represent the employees of Gillig, who manufacture heavy-duty transit buses in Lancaster, California.

They continue to be under an existential threat from BYD, who came to this country, opened up manufacturing facilities while being entirely funded by the Chinese government and supported by the Chinese government. We can't compete that way. And it would be a really horrible solution or horrible answer if our members and the company we represent was driven out of business by a Chinese-owned company that's uninterested, at least for the time being, in whether or not they make a profit, but wants to dominated domestic market. Yeah, and obviously the auto industry, take that exact analysis that you just gave, multiply it by 100, right? Ford, General Motors can compete with any company on Earth, but they can't compete with a country.

And so when you come into a market in a predatory way, in a way that these cars are dramatically less expensive, not because they're more innovative, but they're willing to lose hundreds of billions of dollars to basically destroy the Western auto world, that we would have to be decently dumb to allow that to happen, right? I would agree. All right, so we shouldn't be decently dumb. So the last question I have for, for you, Mr. Scandaglia, is we talked about some of the framework that we're trying to do. Talk about what it means to your members to have to share the road with others who are here illegally, who don't speak the language, who don't have to go through the rigor that your members do.

What, what does that do for them on a day-to-day basis, having to be vigilant not knowing, uh, who's in these other trucks? Yeah, there's, there's certainly vigilance on the road, um, regardless of, of why someone specifically is unqualified. But potentially in those circumstances, our members, their workplace are the roads, uh, so having someone who's sharing that road with them who should not be, uh, is, is concerning on a day-to-day safety perspective. The other thing that is equally worth mentioning though is whether or not those jobs exist. I mean, we're competing against people and competing against companies who are operating in, uh, through low-road systems, through, uh, having drivers who are not trained, uh, who are not here lawfully.

Um, it presents a safety concern and presents a competition concern that relates to whether our jobs even continue to exist. Right. And the main job of government should be to make certain that, that something like that doesn't happen. Would you agree? Absolutely.

And Mr. Chairman, given what Indiana did to Ohio State, do you mind if I ask one more question?

Uh, given that, yes, go ahead. Perfect, perfect. All of a sudden Indiana is a football town. Who knows? I'm concerned that this will be a precedent, right?

This will continue, I think. But well, that probably won't. The football part, no. Uh, so Mr. Speier, one of the things that we haven't about, which I think is critical. So you talked about how the reversing the advanced truck rule saved the trucking industry in an apocalyptic scenario from our economy.

We talked about the importance of jobs. We talked the importance of banning Chinese vehicles. But there's another threat to your industry, which is completely out of control litigation. I think it's important to just give you some time to talk about that and what's that— what that means to your members and the companies. Yeah, I think, and different to this hearing, which has got a really good bipartisan tone, a lot of bipartisan legislation, very good thought put into these proposals.

California Air Resources Board does not sit down with our industry. They don't care what our industry has to say. Their attitude is, you'll figure it out. So if you're going to electrify our industry in a matter of 5 years with no infrastructure, no power, and I don't care where it comes from, could be coal, nuclear, could be wind, solar, uh, hydro, maybe a combination of all of them. But this is a state that already suffers from rolling blackouts.

So to say you're going to have the power to go through it if you had the infrastructure, which you don't— you don't have the minerals, they're coming from China and the Congo. We have them here, but it would take 10 years to get to them. Environmentalists won't let us do that either. The cost parity, 3.5 times more than a diesel truck, which emits 98.5% less than a diesel truck did in 1988. You know, one truck today, you know, is, is, is so efficient compared to all the trucks.

60, You know, trucks today on the road, brand new diesels emit what one truck emitted in 1988. That's how far we've come. They didn't take that into account. Thank you, Cummins Engines. They're fantastic.

Yeah, I've been to that plant. It's fantastic. And then you look at the operational parity. It takes 15 minutes to fill a diesel to go 1,200 miles. It takes 6 to 8 hours to charge an electric truck to go 200 miles.

So we're going to need more drivers, more trucks. It's just colossal. It was one of the dumbest ideas I have ever seen put forward by anyone, including California, which I refer to as the breeding ground of all bad public policy. I mean, they just don't think things through. They don't care.

So, uh, thank you. Uh, thank you. On, on, on that note, uh, because it has been, I think, a, a constructive and thoughtful exchange, uh, from all of our witnesses. Thank you so much. And our members, um, we've learned a lot this hearing.

So, um, before we wrap up, I want to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from from the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association and the Intermodal Association of North America. Without objection. So ordered. Thank you to all our witnesses for their important testimony today. Senators will have until the close of business on June 16th to submit questions for the record.

The witnesses will have until close of business on June 30th to respond to those questions. This concludes today's hearing. The committee stands adjourned.