Markup of 12 Bills

[Gavel sounds.] The subcommittee will come to order. The chairman recognizes himself for an opening statement. Good morning, everyone, and welcome. Today, we will be advancing legislation aimed at modernizing and ensuring motor vehicle safety, promoting innovation, and ensuring affordability. The members of this subcommittee understand better than anyone else that this is a no-partisan way to save lives. There is no partisan way to save lives, folks. In 2024, nearly 40,000 people died on our roadways. That number is staggering, but what matters most is what it represents: families forever changed, milestones never reached, and seats left empty around the kitchen tables. That reality should drive our work here today. Meeting this moment requires practical solutions to strengthen motor vehicle safety and empower NHTSA to succeed in its mission. I'd like to highlight three solutions to bolster motor vehicle safety. First, we must address the growing risks that electric vehicle battery fires present to vehicle occupants, firefighters, and the public at large. These fires have led to serious fatalities and created dangerous conditions for firefighters, made worse by inconsistent vehicle designs and a lack of standardized response protocols. This is an area where Congress can and must bring together first responders, safety experts, NHTSA, and industry to develop real solutions. This issue has had tragic consequences, and I want to thank, again, I want to thank the Florida representative, Representative Meg Weinberger, a good friend of mine who I've worked with. I want to thank her for her leadership in bringing attention to this particular problem and working with me on potential solutions. I'm grateful to the chairman for partnering with me to include a new provision in the Motor Vehicle Modernization Act that strengthens fire rescue capabilities and improves safety for first responders on the front lines. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it so very much. Second, we are considering the SELF DRIVE Act, which establishes a federal framework for the safe deployment of autonomous vehicles. I want to commend, of course, Representative Latta, Chairman Latta, for his years of dedication to this particular issue. Autonomous vehicles hold enormous potential, not just as a technological advancement, but as a tool to save lives by reducing human error, which is responsible for most crashes. AVs can prevent accidents before they happen. They also offer new mobility and independence for seniors and people with disabilities. Finally, accessibility must remain central to our approach to mobility. Today, millions of wheelchair users rely on outdated and non-standardized securement systems that are often unreliable. This has led to preventable injuries, restricted travel, and unnecessary dependence on caregivers. The Motor Vehicle Modernization Act takes an important step forward by directing NHTSA to prioritize research into automated wheelchair securement systems. I thank the chairman again, Chairman Guthrie, for recognizing the importance of this particular issue and including this impactful provision. I'm confident that working together, we can advance legislation that prioritizes safety, accessibility, and American automotive leadership. I look forward to our discussion today on how we can achieve these goals by moving these bills to the next stage of the legislative process. So, with that, I will yield five minutes to the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Schakowsky. You're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I certainly agree with much of what you have said. We have got to reduce the number of people that lose their lives on the road. We now have about 40,000, is that right? 40,000 people who die on our roads. This is not a number that has changed all that much, and it's too many. And so we have to do better. And we know that we can do that, and we should do that. We need the new resources to make sure that we can achieve that success and make sure that people are safer on the road. And this is innovation and safety. Yeah, we need more innovation, we need more safety, and we absolutely can achieve that. So we need to work together to make that happen. And we have to make sure that safety, I mean, there's a lot of issues when we're dealing with cars and moving forward, and there are changes going forward, but we need to make sure that safety is in the front line to make sure that our people are doing well. And with that, I yield.

Gentlelady yields back. Now I recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Guthrie, for his five minutes. You're recognized, sir.

Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Bilirakis, for the convening the subcommittee today. And we are here to advance proposals to modernize the automotive industry, strengthen motor vehicle safety, and ensure the agency responsible for that mission, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, has the tools it needs to succeed. I want to begin by recognizing my good friend, the ranking member, Frank Pallone. We share an understanding that when this committee works across the aisle, the results are lasting and durable, and hope that we can bring that bipartisan spirit to the work before us today. The importance of this legislation cannot be overstated. The automotive sector is America's largest manufacturing base, supporting over 10 million jobs and contributing to more than $1 trillion to our economy, and its impact on our cultural identity is undeniable. I know firsthand the economic impact the auto industry has in Kentucky and across the country. This is an industry that spurs kitchen table conversations in our constituents' homes. On the global stage, our strategic competitors, particularly China, are speeding ahead to expand vehicle production and accelerate innovation. As American manufacturers work hard to stay ahead, Congress must help clear the road so they can maintain their global leadership. Many of the proposals before us today do exactly that. They are designed to improve safety, promote affordability, and cement America global leadership, automotive leadership in the years to come. This includes efforts to reform NHTSA by modernizing its research and regulatory mission, strengthening key motor vehicle programs, and advancing legislation to establish a federal framework for safety deployment of autonomous vehicles. As we move these bills forward today, there's still more work to be done, but I appreciate the opportunity to take another step in the process. Our goal is simple: to provide a set of clear, predictable solutions that allow the automotive industry to build the safest, most advanced, and most affordable cars in the world, right here at home. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to advance proposals that get this right. Thank you again, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. I appreciate that. Now I recognize the ranking member, Mr. Pallone, for his opening statement.

Thank you, Chairman Bilirakis. I want to start where we can all agree that 40,000 people a year dying on our roads is unacceptable. And that's why this upcoming surface transportation reauthorization matters so much. It's an opportunity to save lives and put safety first. We must make progress on reducing roadway deaths. Progress requires action, not the inaction we've seen from the Trump administration over the last year. Many of the critical safety provisions of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law remain unimplemented. They must be completed to protect lives. The cost of inaction and delay is not only lost lives. Car crashes cost the United States more than $390 billion annually, and that price is paid by consumers. Safety is the most affordable option we have. That's why my Safety is Not for Sale Act advances both safety and affordability by letting consumers choose the safety features they need to protect themselves and their families without requiring them to pay for expensive luxury packages. I'm also pleased to see other bills from Democratic members included in this markup. Deaths among pedestrians and cyclists are near all-time highs. Representative Clarke's bill, the Magnus White and Safe Streets for Everyone Act, honors Magnus White, a 17-year-old U.S. national cycling champion who was tragically killed on a designated bike path while training to represent the United States. This bill ensures that essential crash avoidance technology protects every person on our streets regardless of who they are, what they wear, or their mode of transportation. Representative Mullin's bill, the Driver Technology and Pedestrian Safety Act, addresses the scourge of driver distraction and the impact of touchscreens on car crashes. Representative Schrier's Know Before You Drive Act ensures car buyers know the actual capabilities of their cars' automation rather than misleading marketing claims. Representative Kelly's Safe Exit Act will end the terrifying and unnecessary deaths caused by consumers being trapped in their cars during emergencies when power is lost. And then finally, we have Representative Dingell's Safe Access for Survivors Act, which helps ensure that survivors are not tracked by their abusers through the increasing amount of data that vehicles collect. Through these bills and the surface transportation reauthorization, we have an opportunity to make choices that make our roads safer for the American people. Safety is not a partisan issue, as we know, Mr. Chairman. We must all protect our constituents, and I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis with you, with Chairman Guthrie, and members of the committee on a strong automobile safety title for the surface transportation reauthorization. And with that, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. I appreciate that. The chair reminds members that pursuant to the committee rules, all members' opening statements will be made part of the record. Are there further opening statements? Yes, Representative Dunn, you're recognized for three minutes for your opening statement.

Thank you. I want to thank Chairman Guthrie and Chairman Bilirakis for their leadership in holding this markup today, working on behalf of Americans and with independent repair shop owners, independent dealership owners, and the aftermarket industry. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been impactful over the last decade of my career in Congress. Today's markup is a culmination of years of critical work on the automotive repair industry. I'm looking forward to passing my bipartisan bill, H.R. 1566, the Right to Equitable and Professional Auto Industry Repair Act. This bill preserves consumer choice, enhances automotive safety issues affecting every American. If you own a car, a truck, or a motorcycle, this matters to you. I applaud my colleagues on E&C for supporting my legislation. It's one of the most bipartisan bills in Congress this year, and a bipartisan Senate bill accompanies it for the first time. I want to thank my colleagues sitting on this subcommittee, Representatives Diana Harshbarger, Cliff Bentz, Craig Goldman, Kevin Mullin, and Dr. Kim Schrier, for co-sponsoring this year. For most Floridians, car ownership is essential. As cars continue to become increasingly complex, they've turned into computers on wheels, which is great for innovation, but it's imperative we protect consumer choice about where we take our cars for repairs or repair it ourselves. My bill is motivated by the preservation of consumer choice as well as the restoration of a fair and open marketplace in the automotive repair industry. I look forward to having a healthy discussion about the details of this bill during the markup today. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Are there further opening statements? Yes, Ms. Dingell, you're recognized for three minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've spent my life at the heart of the American auto industry, as a child to where I am now, from many different perspectives. I'm a car girl as a core part of my identity. Our industry has long been treated like a ping-pong ball, bouncing from administration to administration. And this uncertainty puts us at a disadvantage and does not support long-term investment, protect American jobs, or keep our industry competitive as the world continues to move toward electrification and next-generation vehicle technologies. Every day we delay, global competitors and foreign adversaries, including China, or most especially China, pull further ahead in EVs, autonomous vehicles, and connected technologies. Congress must act to give our industry certainty, to strengthen domestic manufacturing, and ensure that American workers are part of the future. We need a fully functioning NHTSA, and we must reauthorize critical safety programs in a bipartisan manner. NHTSA must finalize its congressionally mandated safety rules to prevent crashes, injuries, and death. And at the same time, autonomous vehicles and connected vehicles are not part of the far-off future. They are here today, and without strong oversight, gaps in regulation will be exploited by bad actors, foreign competitors, putting safety, privacy, and American jobs at risk. Safety should never be partisan. NHTSA must have tools, resources, and authority to oversee today's technologies. This includes protecting consumers, ensuring safe repair access, making life-saving technologies accessible, addressing catalytic converter theft, and safeguarding survivors from the misuse of connected vehicle technologies. For decades, this committee has delivered results by working across the aisle. Today, we must protect consumers, support innovation, and keep the American auto industry a global leader. I look forward to working on all of these bills, keeping our roads safe while ensuring that the American auto industry continues to prosper. And I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. And are there further opening statements? None on the Republican side? Democrat side? Further opening statements? All right. Well, then, we're going to go ahead. The chair calls up H.R. 1566 and asks the clerk to report.

H.R. 1566, a bill to ensure consumers have access to data relating to motor vehicles.

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? Dr. Dunn, you're recognized, yes, to speak on the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word on my bill, H.R. 1566.

You're recognized for five minutes.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I mentioned earlier, I'm incredibly proud to pass my bipartisan bill, H.R. 1566, the REPAIR Act, today. I applaud my colleagues on E&C for supporting my legislation. It's one of the most bipartisan bills in Congress this year and includes a bipartisan Senate bill as well. However, our automotive sector is facing significant marketplace and regulatory challenges. My bill is motivated by the preservation of consumer choice as well as the restoration of a fair and open marketplace in the automobile repair industry. Where traditionally independent repair technicians could plug into the OBD port or easily analyze critical repair and maintenance data, the phase-out of this tool in newer vehicles and connected vehicles is incredibly problematic among other tech restrictions. If you own your car, then you should own the data generated by your car, specifically critical repair, maintenance, wear and tear, calibration, and recalibration of parts. This is the basic concept of ownership. I have worked with both independent repair industry and auto manufacturers, as well as dozens of other stakeholders from the autonomous vehicle industry, rental car industry, heavy-duty vehicle industry, and independent business groups and consumer advocates. This legislation has been improved through this process, incorporates many suggestions from the automakers and franchise dealers alike. I'm committed to advancing this legislation in a way that gets it included in the safety title of the highway bill. I'm also committed to working with my colleagues should they have concerns with my legislation. We need to get this done right, get it done now, and finally ensure that if you own the car, you own the data it generates. Furthermore, I feel the need to address a concern often brought up by the automakers and dealers that somehow consumers choosing to get their repairs performed at an independent shop are choosing a riskier, less safe option than the dealership repairs. To be blunt, this unwarranted and unfounded claim makes my blood boil. Who's going to repair my 1968 military Jeep manufactured by Ford in 1968? They stopped making parts for that thing 50 years ago. I'm one of the millions of vehicle owners who choose to support my local businesses. I'm offended that automakers would claim I'm making an uninformed or unsafe decision for me, my children, my grandchildren who ride in my vehicle. The simple fact is that local repair shops have less expensive repair because they offer safe, fast, accessible, and a very competitive environment in the automotive aftermarket industry, and that drives innovation and also drives costs down. The attempt to obfuscate this fact by belittling these workers and business owners does not sit well with me. Next, I recall that Stellantis, formerly Chrysler, had established an entirely new vision of its company to monetize data that the department expected revenue to be close to $20 billion annually by 2030. So, you know, I know there have been actions taken against other manufacturers for selling data without owners' knowledge or notice. These kinds of dollars are at stake, and that's no surprise, I suppose, that the automakers would spend unlimited money to protect such a cash cow. Well, I think the process of collecting and selling this data is one that we should look at. My friend from Tennessee has authorized legislation to do so. I would point out my REPAIR Act only requires repair and maintenance data, say again, only repair and maintenance data be made available for aftermarket. To set the record straight, the REPAIR Act has provisions under Section 2 to protect intellectual property, cybersecurity, and trade secrets. This bill also grants parity between the independent shops and the dealers by requiring the shops to purchase the repair and maintenance data to fix a car. Nothing in this bill grants information for free. I look forward to addressing the concerns with the rest of my colleagues. And lastly, I'd like to yield any of the few seconds I have left to... no? Okay. Thank you. I yield.

Gentleman yields back. Now I recognize Mrs. Dingell for five minutes to speak on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word.

You're recognized. You're recognized.

I want to start by being very clear that I love my colleague, and you and I both agree that consumers should have control of their data, and I hope we can get a privacy bill done in this committee that does that. And I also want to say I support the right to repair. Consumers should be able to fix their vehicles where and how they choose, including at independent repair shops. And in fact, first time I've ever admitted it publicly, I take my Michigan-made vehicle that I have here to an independent repair shop because it's closer to my house and easier. But what I cannot support is H.R. 1566 in its current form. The bill is overly broad and risks unintended consequences for consumers and vehicle safety. Independent repair shops already have access to the same diagnostic and repair information as franchise dealers through a national memorandum of understanding between automakers and the aftermarket repair community. This MOU, in place for more than 10 years, ensures that the independent shops receive the tools, technical data, and repair instructions they need to diagnose, maintain, and repair vehicles just as dealers do. Roughly 70 percent of out-of-warranty repairs already happen at these independent facilities, showing that the system works. However, this is where my colleague and I, I want to work with him. The REPAIR Act goes far beyond ensuring access to repair information. It could force disclosure of proprietary data, raising serious risks to cybersecurity, vehicle safety, and consumer privacy. Even NHTSA, Republican NHTSA, has flagged concerns, warning in formal technical assistance that the bill's language could create safety and privacy risks and expose consumers to harm. This bill as drafted could also limit consumer choice, undermine manufacturers' repair procedures, and complicate insurance claims after a crash when families just need a straightforward and simple process. We need to ask who is really benefiting here. Is it consumers, or is it bad actors looking to exploit and access sensitive data and systems? The MOU has worked for over a decade, so I don't understand why we overhaul a system that's already working. Consumers have choices, and independent repair shops already have the tools and information they need to do their job safely. But I want to continue working with my colleague to get this right. In its current form, I can't support it, but I'd love to be able to get there by full committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Gentlelady yields back. Now I recognize Mr. Fulcher, the vice chairman of the subcommittee, for your five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to my good friends from the state of Florida and Washington for their work on this. I too have some, just some questions moving forward on this legislation. I've got a concern on the personal data ownership, the personal data exposure, who might have access to that. The broadness of the availability of that data and who that could go to, and whether or not it could be sold or not. It's just some of those things that are concerning to me about it. However, this issue needs to be addressed. It needs to be brought up. And I think our good friends in Florida and Washington are rightfully doing so. I did do some of my own homework as well on this, and there is good access for independent repair currently, and most post-warranty repairs are done through independent shops. And so it may not be as big of a concern as our sponsors think. However, it does need to be addressed. I'm basically presenting notice that I'm going to want to have some further discussions before we take this through full committee. Data privacy and data access is the biggest reason for that concern. But again, this is a very worthy, a very worthy issue to command some committee time. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the bill? Okay. Let's move to the amendatory process. Are there amendments to the bill? Mr. Bentz, you're recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.

I strike the last word, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I share Mr. Fulcher's concerns, but I support this bill. And I realize it's not perfect, but I do want to offer for the record three articles that address the need for the bill. First, the Breitbart News article dated November 5, 2025, entitled 'Study: 155 Million Vehicle Owners Face $34 Billion in Added Costs Without a Right to Repair Law.' Second, a letter to Chair Guthrie and Ranking Member Pallone dated August 18, 2025, from 22 vehicle repair-oriented organizations supporting H.R. 1566. And finally, an opinion piece from the Washington Times dated October 6, 2025, entitled 'Congress Can Help Auto Repair Shops Keep America Running.' I offer those for the record, Mr. Chair. Yield back.

Without objection, so ordered. Anyone else wish to speak on the bill? All right. Then let's move through the amendatory process. Are there amendments to the bill? Ms. Houchin, you're recognized.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

You're recognized. Why don't we go ahead and have the clerk read the amendment? Can she specify which one?

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous... Oh, 81, Houchin 81.

Amendment to H.R. 1566 offered by Ms. Houchin of Indiana. Page 21, strike lines 19...

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment. ...of right to repair. Consumers deserve choice, transparency, and the ability to maintain the products they own. That said, as I've heard from stakeholders in my district and state, I am increasingly concerned that the Repair Act, as it is drafted, sweeps more broadly than intended, particularly when it comes to recreation vehicles. RVs are not simply automobiles; they are complex units that combine a vehicle with temporary living quarters. And for that reason, they have long been treated differently under the law. States have consistently exempted RVs from right to repair statutes, including Massachusetts' 2013 law, and the industry MOU that followed also explicitly excluded RVs from the motor vehicle definition. The reason is practical. RVs include non-automotive systems: kitchens, bathrooms, HVAC, electrical, and plumbing components, often manufactured and warranted by third-party suppliers. RV manufacturers do not have access to all of the real-time data or repair information for those components, nor do they control the warranties attached to them. Yet H.R. 1566 assumes they do and places obligations on OEMs that, in this context, are simply unworkable. This amendment is narrowly focused. It does not weaken the right to repair for automobiles; it clarifies that federal auto right to repair requirements should not be extended to RVs, where the structure, supply chain, and warranty framework are fundamentally different. I appreciate the chairman's willingness to continue working with us on these issues, and I look forward to further discussions with the committee and with Dr. Dunn as we work to refine the legislation. And I yield back.

Very good. Anyone else wish to speak on the amendment? Ms. Dingell on this particular amendment? Okay. All right. Yes, yes. The gentleman is recognized. Dr. Dunn, you're recognized to speak on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word of the gentlelady's amendment.

You are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Recreation vehicles, RVs, are invaluable for many families. In fact, I own an RV myself, and I use independent repair specialists to fix my family's RV. I'll be happy to work on a path forward with you, Ms. Houchin, before we bring the bill to a full committee markup. But I need to be clear that Americans and fleet owners need the ability to repair their RVs and their trucks. We drive our RV to very, very remote areas. That's kind of what you do with them. And you know, there's simply no dealerships anywhere around when you're out there in Alaska and New Mexico. I'd be happy to look at the specifics around the RVs as you provided in your amendment, see what the best solution is. Thank you. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. I'll recognize Ms. Houchin.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Dr. Dunn's willingness to keep talking about this. I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

All right. Very good. The gentlelady withdraws the amendment without objection. The amendment is withdrawn. Now I'll recognize, I believe Ms. Dingell, you have an amendment at the desk. Is that correct?

Yes, Mr. Chair. I do.

You're recognized.

It's Dingell, Michigan. I think you've got the amendment. Like I've said, and I really do mean, I support the right to repair.

Oh. Yeah, you've got it. The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to H.R. 1566 offered by Ms. Dingell of Michigan. Beginning on page 2, line 2, strike 'employ any technological barrier' as specified in line 2 that impairs the ability of and insert 'prohibit'. Page 6, line 8...

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in support of her amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I have said, I support the right to repair. But I oppose the current language in the Repair Act and have real concerns with this bill. I'm concerned about how H.R. 1566 is drafted and the unintended consequences it could create. That is why I am offering an amendment to add clear protections for intellectual property. Strong IP protections are essential to innovation, cybersecurity, and vehicle safety, and nothing in this bill should undermine those safeguards. My amendment preserves existing intellectual property protections by clarifying that this legislation will not expand or limit patent, copyright, or trade secret rights under current law. It prevents the forced disclosure or licensing of proprietary materials. It also affirms that manufacturers may continue to use appropriate technological protections to secure vehicle data and safety-critical systems. I believe these provisions provide necessary clarity and guardrails, ensuring that efforts to address repair issues do not weaken IP protections or compromise safety and security. I will not be requesting a vote on my amendment today, but I ask Representative Dunn if he will work with me to address these IP concerns. And if he will, which I think he will, I will withdraw these.

Representative Dunn, you're recognized.

Mr. Chairman, move to strike the last word on the gentlelady's amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With the advancements, let me say I'm very happy to work with Ms. Dingell on this. With the advancements in technology, vehicle manufacturers now have the ability to limit parts availability by using technology that creates barriers which are not otherwise protected by intellectual property. One of the many examples, a vehicle manufacturer can configure the network to send out authenticating pings to all parts with chips and block all parts in the vehicle that don't respond with the correct response. With the proposed changes to the bill, vehicle manufacturers are free to implement such artificial monopolies today, and in some cases, they already have. Consumers benefit from an even playing field between vehicle manufacturers and the aftermarket ecosystem, and I want to make sure any changes we make to the bill do not strip the original intent. However, I value all my colleagues' opinions, and I look forward to working with Representative Dingell ahead of the full congressional markup to committee markup to make the necessary changes to the bill. Thank you, and I yield back.

Thank you. Well, do you yield to Ms. Dingell? Does the gentleman yield to Ms. Dingell? Okay. Very good.

You're recognized, Ms. Dingell. I look forward to working with my colleague, and with, and we will work together to get this to the right place. And with that, I withdraw my amendment and yield back, Mr. Chair.

The gentlelady withdraws the amendment. Yield. All right. Any further amendments? Yes, Ms. Houchin, you're recognized.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. All right. That is Houchin 080.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to H.R. 1566 offered by Ms. Houchin of Indiana.

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes in support of her amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I have previously said, I certainly support the principle of right to repair and the work that Dr. Dunn has done on the legislation. The goal should be to empower consumers to make informed decisions that are right for them. This amendment is narrowly focused on clarifying how consumer choice operates in a post-collision context. It ensures that repair decisions are driven by safety, transparency, and informed consent, not by default insurance practices or financial pressure that might not always align with the vehicle owner's best interest. Specifically, the language makes clear that the vehicle owner should not be penalized for choosing their repair facility, following documented manufacturer repair procedures, selecting replacement equipment, or obtaining an independent appraisal. The amendment also establishes basic guardrails around consumer consent. If a requested repair procedure or replacement part is not reasonably available, the vehicle owner must receive written notice and provide affirmative consent before an alternative is used. This preserves flexibility while ensuring transparency about the safety implications of those decisions. Importantly, this amendment does not mandate parts, prices, labor rates, or insurance practices. It is an information and transparency fix designed to get repairs right the first time, reduce repeat repairs and downstream liability, and ensure that a right to repair bill ultimately protects both consumer choice and vehicle safety. I appreciate the chairman's willingness to continue working with us on these issues. I look forward to continuing the conversations with the chairman and with Dr. Dunn on this amendment. And I yield back.

Dr. Dunn, you're recognized.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word on the gentlelady's amendment.

You're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm currently reviewing the full nine-page amendment submitted by Ms. Houchin this morning just before the reading. I haven't had a chance to honestly read it, but I'm very happy to discuss a path forward. I'm not sure that if taking the automakers' bill text that combats the Repair Act is the best place to start, which it seems like this amendment does. I understand that continued conversations around intellectual property, barriers to repair, consumer choice, among other provisions in the amendment, is important to other members of this committee, and I'm happy to work with you on that, and we'll have candid conversations with each of you after this hearing. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, do you yield to Ms. Houchin?

Does the gentleman yield to Ms. Houchin? Okay. Very good.

You're recognized, Ms. Dingell.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to be brief, but we all know I've got some concerns here. And this bill's broad approach could impose so-called repair mandates that limit consumer choice, undermine manufacturer documented repair procedures, and create confusion for vehicle owners navigating the claims and repair process after collision, which is why I strongly support Representative Houchin's amendment to establish clear prohibitions on certain repair mandates. This amendment would prevent penalizing vehicle owners for choosing a repair facility, authorizing repairs that follow manufacturer documented procedures, selecting appropriate replacement equipment, or seeking an independent appraisal to determine the true cost of repairs. It promotes transparency and informed consent by requiring repair facilities to notify vehicle owners when requested replacement equipment or repair procedures do not exist. It also clarifies that vehicle owners should not be forced to accept a total loss determination when a vehicle can be safely and legally repaired for less than its actual cash value and the owner authorizes those repairs. I think that these are very common-sense guardrails that protect consumers without imposing mandates.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Of course.

Thank you. I appreciate your support for the amendment. I would just like to note that I think the amendment is in line with consumer choice because it does not, it leaves it up to the vehicle owner and not in an insurance issue where they may or may not cover the part that the vehicle owner would like to use. And I appreciate your support for the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to working with Dr. Dunn on these issues, and I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment at this time.

Gentlelady withdraws the amendment. Does Ms...

Yield back to the gentleman.

Yields back. All right. Very good. I don't feel there are any other amendments. Are there any other amendments to the bill? All right. I would like to enter a statement for the record for my colleague, Representative Kean, on the Repair Act. Representative Kean is unable to be here today, but would like to enter his concerns with the Repair Act into the record. So ordered. There are no objections. So this is Mr. Kean, not myself. 'I'm concerned the Repair Act undermines...' I don't have to read it. All right. Then I won't read it, but we're going to enter it into the record. And now I'll recognize Chairman Guthrie, if there's not anyone else. Chairman Guthrie would like to speak on the bill.

Yes, I'd like to ask my good friend from Florida a question, if he'd yield to a question. So I commend Dr. Dunn for his passion for this issue and his work on this bill. He's been very persistent in working on this bill, and I appreciate it very much. It's important to members of this subcommittee, members of the committee, and deeply important, it's a deeply important issue, and there are many diverse, strongly held perspectives, including very vocal support for and, as we've heard, concerns with the Repair Act. And I appreciate my friend from Florida working with all sides, making progress on the Repair Act. And I ask the gentleman, would he agree to work with me and all the stakeholders at the table to work in good faith and to address concerns with the bill and find a path forward?

I would be delighted, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the honor of the request.

My dear friend. And vehicle ownership is fundamentally important to Americans, and safety and maintenance of those vehicles goes hand in hand. And with that, I thank you for your hard work and your willingness to work together, and I will yield back.

The gentleman yields back. Anyone on the Democrat side that wishes to speak on the bill? Seeing none. Anyone on the Republican side? No. Seeing none. The question now occurs on forwarding H.R. 1566 to the full committee. All those in favor say aye. [Ayes.] All those opposed say no. All right. The ayes have it, and the bill's agreed to and forwarded to the committee. Very good. Okay. We've got next is the chair calls up H.R. 7390 and asks the clerk to report.

H.R. 7390, a bill to amend Title 49, United States Code, regarding the authority...

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. I recognize myself for five minutes to speak in support of the underlying bill, H.R. 7390, the Self Drive Act, is a vital piece of legislation that establishes a federal framework for the safe deployment of autonomous vehicles, or AVs. Make no mistake, the first and foremost priority of the Self Drive Act is safety. Through a safety case rulemaking and the AV data repository, this bill directs NHTSA to advance AV deployment in the safest way possible. Ensuring the advancement of AVs is critical to our country. As I mentioned in my opening statement, AVs hold enormous potential as technological advancements to save and improve lives. Whether it is reducing traffic crashes and fatalities caused by human error or returning mobility and independence to seniors and people with disabilities, AVs hold hope for a safer and more accessible future for our country. We have the chance to secure that future with the bill before us. We cannot delay and let this moment, and this is life-saving technology, folks. We can't let this moment pass by. No one understands this better than my good friend Bob Latta, chairman of the Energy Committee, the sponsor of this bill as well and a champion of advancing AVs. Thank you, Bob, of course, for your years of hard work and commitment to getting this done. While this bill is only sponsored by Mr. Latta, in the past it has largely been a bipartisan effort, and I expect it will be. I know we were close this time around, so I hope we can find that bipartisanship that we have had before. Let's get this done, folks. We've got to do it right, though, for our constituents and for the American people. It's long overdue. I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill, and I yield back. Is there anyone on the Democrat side that wishes to speak on the bill?

Ms. Dingell, you're recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word.

You are recognized.

First, I want to thank my friend and colleague, Representative Latta, for his tireless work with me on autonomous vehicle legislation over the years. We've been at this together for a decade, and I truly believe that we are going to get to a bipartisan AV framework signed into law. I am not giving up until that happens. We have literally probably had over 8,000 meetings with stakeholders over the last few years. And we're really, really trying. We've worked hard to make progress on this framework, and we should be building from where we left off, not taking a step back. And I want to emphasize the importance of continuing this work and keep every stakeholder at the table. In 2017, this committee passed a bipartisan AV bill that cleared the House. A decade later, despite technological advances and real-world deployments, Congress has yet to pass a federal framework. Autonomous vehicles are no longer just a concept. They're on our streets in cities and communities and congressional districts across the country. Yet in 2024, we're still relying on a patchwork of state laws and outdated guidance that does not reflect the realities of today's technology. Every day that we delay, American leadership, jobs, and safety are at risk. Meanwhile, our competitors are moving fast. China has a coordinated national strategy for AVs. It's deploying robotaxis, automated freight, and large-scale testing zones. Chinese automakers are expanding into Canada and Mexico and looking for partners here, and it's only a matter of time before they really get into the U.S. market. China is positioning itself to dominate the global market and undercut American manufacturers, supply chains, and workers, and wants to put us out of business. And at the same time, Chinese AVs and AV technology are already in the U.S., and they're collecting data while American companies aren't allowed to be on their roads or to test and compete abroad. Here at home, without a clear federal framework, bad actors can market vehicles in ways that mislead consumers into believing they are fully autonomous when they are not, and we have seen those accidents. That confusion is unsafe, unacceptable, and entirely preventable. But Congress cannot sit on the sidelines. If we fail to act, our competitors will define the technology and its standards, putting the American industry and American jobs at risk. And I say this to my staff every single day: whatever we do, people must be safe. We have to make sure safety is of the utmost importance. Human error contributes to roughly 94 percent of the car crashes in this country. More than 40,000 people die on our roads each year. That's 100 deaths every single day. AV technology, if deployed safely and responsibly, will reduce those numbers and save lives. Congressional inaction will not make people safer. And that's why this committee and Congress must act to establish a strong federal framework that prioritizes safety, protects consumer privacy, strengthens domestic manufacturing and jobs, and secures American supply chains. Strong federal leadership is necessary to prevent bad actors from exploiting regulatory gaps and to ensure that innovation happens responsibly here in the United States with American workers and American values. Representative Latta and I have worked closely with stakeholders, every stakeholder, to develop a bipartisan discussion draft, which was the focus of the January hearing. While today's introduced bill has provisions we can build on, our bipartisan negotiations reflect years of progress. I am committed to working with my Democratic and Republican colleagues and with all of the stakeholders who are serious about wanting to get this done to finalize a bipartisan AV framework this Congress. The safe deployment of autonomous vehicles in this country is urgent and necessary, and we must get this done. It's a safety issue, it's a national security issue, it's a competitive issue, it's an economic issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Can't agree more. All right. Anyone else here on the Republican side want to talk about the bill? Anybody? Yes. You're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Self Drive Act takes a clear approach to regulating autonomous vehicles by pairing innovation with clear enforceable safety expectations. At the core of the bill is a requirement that manufacturers develop and document a safety case for their autonomous vehicles backed by engineering data and evidence demonstrating their ability to operate safely. That includes complying with traffic laws, protecting vulnerable road users, responding to emergency vehicles, maintaining cybersecurity, and operating only within approved parameters. These requirements are enforced by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and subject to its civil penalty authority. The bill also modernizes vehicle design rules by allowing the removal of unnecessary manual controls while still requiring a stop mechanism for occupants. It strengthens transparency by establishing an autonomous vehicle safety data repository so the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration receives timely crash and incident data. Importantly, the legislation allows limited commercial deployment under strict federal oversight while preserving state and local authority over traffic laws, insurance, and consumer protection. China is surging, flooding the global markets with advanced AV technology while the U.S. falls behind due to fragmented federal guidance. The Self Drive Act is a vital national security and important imperative. It saves countless lives, enhances mobility for all Americans, and fuels job creation. As we've heard, human error drivers is 94 percent of crashes that have claimed nearly 40,000 lives each year. AVs can slash this tragedy by design. Visionary states like mine in Texas are pioneering AV-friendly policies, such as chaotic web and over 30 state laws, but a chaotic web of over 30 state laws breeds confusion, stalls deployment, undermines consistent safety, and erodes consumer confidence. The Self Drive Act cuts through this red tape with a unified national framework, unleashing innovation nationwide. Autonomous vehicles aren't just a future; they're a job engine for America. We know this in Texas, generating high-wage opportunities in manufacturing, software development, testing, maintenance, and resilient supply chains. By keeping innovation and production on U.S. soil, the Self Drive Act safeguards our economic edge against foreign rivals like China. Delaying this progress means forfeiting billions in growth and thousands of good-paying jobs in an industry exploding with incredible potential. This is a balanced framework, Mr. Chairman, that prioritizes safety, accountability, and regulatory clarity, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Goldman yields back. Appreciated. Now anyone on the Democrat side? Mr. Soto, you're recognized to speak on the bill.

Thank you, Chairman. Autonomous vehicles are a key part of the future of transportation. We know we need to ensure strong automobile safety and data collection standards. That was something that was discussed in the committee and in, and make sure we're improving mobility for seniors, people with disabilities, our young people, our families. In Central Florida, we have SunRail, Lynx, Brightline, Beep, even Waymo's coming. And in a place like Central Florida where Orange County's a thousand square miles and Osceola is 1,500 square miles and this tourism capital, we need an all-of-the-above strategy, and AVs will definitely be part of it. My own state of Florida has put forward some bills to address liability, and they, they should not be wholly preempted. And I know there's also deep concerns in this committee about 25 percent cuts to NHTSA, our vehicle safety agency, at a time when we want to go forward with a lot of this. I support the Bilirakis amendment that'll come up soon, which puts back in the safety requirements that right now are being pulled out, especially with regard to level 3, 4, and 5 automated driving systems. We need to make sure we're not preempting dealer franchise laws on the, on the state level, and we also need to evolve our workforce. As some folks may go from being drivers to operators of a lot of these vehicles. And so we're part of trying to get to yes, and may not be here today, but are here in good faith to hopefully see some of these changes that will be represented in the Bilirakis amendment. And I yield back.

Thank you. Gentleman yields back. Appreciate that. And anyone on the Republican side wish to speak on the bill? No? Okay. Anyone on the Democrat side? You're recognized, Ms. Trahan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Five minutes on the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. I support restoring self-drive to a bipartisan project. Without a bipartisan multi-stakeholder process, any hope for good policy is lost, and we've seen that all too often on this committee. So for a couple minutes, I'd just like to focus on our process because process matters when we're talking about technology that will shape transportation and public safety. The bill before us is Republican-only draft led by Representative Latta, and I respect his work. But I have to say that I am disappointed that we moved away from the bipartisan approach that he and Representative Dingell championed in their earlier discussion draft. That collaboration gave this committee credibility and showed the public that we could tackle complex issues together, even if that draft needed further work. Autonomous vehicles are not a partisan issue. They're already on some of our roads, and early data from companies leading on safety, like Waymo, suggest that these systems can reduce serious crashes compared to human drivers. That's why Congress needs to act. But how we act will determine what we pass. If we want a durable federal frame... ...framework, we need a process that invites both sides to the table, asks tough questions, and builds consensus. That means conversations where a diversity of stakeholders can weigh in. It means transparency on the regulatory model so that we know how safety cases will be produced, updated, and evaluated, and whether a safety case is even the best model, not just because it's the industry's current approach. It means certainty on liability, knowing accidents with AVs can and will happen, and clarity on preemption so that states can fill the regulatory gaps in ways that make sense. And it means real discourse on the impacts of AVs on labor, public transportation, and cybersecurity, even if answers aren't readily available. Rushing a partisan bill through markup without this strong foundation risks creating gaps and eroding trust. So I urge my colleagues, let's just recommit to a bipartisan path. Let's avoid ceding our leadership on this issue to the Senate simply because we can't work in a bipartisan fashion. Let's take the time to get this right because the public deserves a framework that is thoughtful, balanced, and built to last. Thank you, I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Anybody on the Republican side wish to speak on the bill? All right, Ms. Kelly, you are recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. I so appreciate my colleagues' efforts to advance a federal framework for autonomous vehicles. While I have concerns with the SELF DRIVE Act as written, I believe our committee does have an important role to play in setting federal standards to ensure a continued safe deployment of autonomous vehicles. Without Congress acting in a bipartisan way to address this issue, I too worry we will see leadership on autonomous vehicles to our foreign competitors and make the further deployment of these vehicles less safe. While there are some differences that remain, I'm hopeful my colleagues on this subcommittee, industry, safety groups, and all others serious about the deployment of autonomous vehicles can continue to work in good faith to address these timely issues. I look forward to continued discussion on this topic. We must be sure that a federal autonomous vehicle framework provides opportunity for innovation and American leadership while not jeopardizing the safety of vehicle occupants, other road users, and pedestrians. In the event of a crash, we must ensure any bill moving forward will hold responsible parties accountable and protect consumers who choose to seek legal recourse for any harm they've experienced. Further, it's imperative we strengthen data collection and transparent reporting at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration so the American public has trust in the safety of these vehicles and Congress can maintain its oversight responsibilities. This is a very important issue. With almost 40,000 people dying on our roadways each year, we must look at all opportunities to improve the safety of our vehicles and strengthen our American industries. I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. I'll recognize, I believe, yeah, Chairman Guthrie, you're recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.

Thank you. I just want to make sure the tone's right here is that the Republicans did not walk away from a bipartisan effort to do this bill. That is absolutely not what happened, and if people are leaving that impression, it's just wrong. Mr. Latta and others have worked very, very long on this process. We are trying to get to the right answer. We do know that the surface transportation bill is coming up, and it's a time limit we're trying to meet. So I think you're going to hear from the tone from us today is that we are moving the bill that we have before us. We are absolutely committed to working in a bipartisan way. I think members on the other side of the aisle that have expressed interest in working on bipartisan on this will agree to that. And so the tone that we're just walking away with a partisan bill just is not accurate. It's not what happened. It doesn't reflect the efforts that we've made, and I really hope that we will come to a bipartisan solution as it comes to full committee so we can move forward on this legislation. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Anyone on the Democrat side? Mr. Veasey, you're recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The district that I represent in the North Texas region has truly become one of the autonomous vehicles' key hubs for testing and deployment. And so the constituents that I serve are increasingly accustomed to seeing this technology on the road. And I believe this technology has the opportunity to grow our economy and save lives. Texas has not had a day without a fatality since 2000, and it's time that this terrible streak come to an end. And while 7390, the SELF DRIVE Act, may still need some work, I really do believe it's critical that we show leadership and create a federal framework for autonomous vehicle deployment. This framework will, I believe, really help the public gain some trust in this industry. There's just so much out there right now with AI and AV, and the world is changing, and we need to show people that we're on top of this. And additionally, I've seen the firsthand potential for this technology. I believe that it is going to help enhance American national security and keep our warfighters out of harm's way. And I really do think that this is a true dual-use technology. The same advancements that we see on the roadways are also going to be very critical in making sure that our military gains a cutting edge. And so I'm happy to see that the many stakeholders that have been brought, including our unions that are here today, I know the 276 that makes the leadership cars, the Suburbans in Arlington, Texas, that they're here today. I hope, really do hope, that we can continue to work in a collaborative and bipartisan manner. So Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back. Thank you.

Gentleman yields back. Anybody on the Republican side? Democrat side? All right. I have an amendment at the desk titled Bilirakis Florida 049. So again, we, the clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7390 offered by Mr. Bilirakis.

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and I recognize myself for five minutes in support of the amendment. This AINS is a product of continued discussion with numerous stakeholders to further refine the SELF DRIVE Act and require enforceable standards and reporting requirements for autonomous vehicles. The AINS includes provisions to further strengthen the safety case, bolster crash reporting requirements, and make technical clarifications. The AINS also clarifies the application of the Safety Act's make inoperative prohibition. We will work with stakeholders to continue to refine this provision. Finally, the AINS makes several changes to preemption. The AINS clarifies that the laws regulating motor vehicle operations, dealer franchise laws, and laws regulating the sale of motor vehicles will not be preempted by the bill. While I intend to withdraw the AINS, the changes it contains represent important improvements to the bill, and I hope they will be considered as negotiations continue. I look forward to working with my colleagues and stakeholders to further this discussion and move forward towards a bipartisan final product. And I know that Mr. Latta, who is not on this subcommittee, has worked in a bipartisan fashion, and Ms. Dingell can attest to that, and she has. So anyway, I'll yield back and I wish to withdraw the amendment at this particular time. I wish to withdraw the amendment at this particular time. Yes, Ms. Dingell, you're recognized to speak on the bill now because I withdrew the amendment.

Okay, then I'm not, I was going to support and thank you.

Yeah, go ahead, go ahead.

That's okay, you withdrew it. They'll thank me for nothing.

All right, no problem. I know we're going to get there, right? I know we will. All right, does anyone seek any more, anyone who wants to speak on the bill? Okay, well we have an amendment. Oh yeah, Mr. Mullin, you're recognized to propose your amendment, offer your amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment, pardon me, I have an amendment at the desk, Mullin CA_059. The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to H.R. 7390 offered by Mr. Mullin of California.

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment.

And I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chair, I want to acknowledge the years of work that Representatives Latta and Dingell have put into this important legislative effort. I do support a bipartisan effort to establish a federal framework that protects passengers, human drivers, and pedestrians and creates certainty for the industry. My district in the San Francisco Bay Area is very much an epicenter of AV technology. We have a significant number of AVs operating in commercial service on public roads in this district. In other words, my human constituents will be immediately affected by what we do today. So to be clear, I am bullish on this technology. I have ridden in AVs and they are remarkable, and I'm proud to have some AV companies headquartered in my district. I hope one day they lead to a dramatic decrease in traffic deaths. But we are not there yet, and to know if we are getting there, we need the data. That is why for more than two years I have been calling on NHTSA to require more data from AV operators. Unfortunately, this bill includes no meaningful data reporting requirements beyond what NHTSA is already collecting about collisions, which I believe is insufficient. First, reporting on collisions alone tells us almost nothing about how safe different types of AVs are. Of course, human drivers get into accidents too, that's why we need the denominator so we can actually calculate collisions per miles driven. While this bill does mention the need to collect vehicle miles traveled, this is meaningless without specifying that they must be miles traveled on public roads. Companies should not be able to report miles driven on test tracks or in the middle of a wide open desert. We also need an additional level of detail about where and how the miles were driven to understand the safety record of vehicles compared both to human drivers and peer companies. Second, collisions are not the only type of hazard that AVs cause. Called unplanned stoppages, sometimes AVs stop in the middle of roads and intersections and require manual intervention, causing traffic jams, blocking transit lanes, and preventing first responders from getting by. We have been experiencing hundreds of incidents like this in and around my district in San Francisco and the Peninsula for years now. And they are happening wherever they are being tested, yet they aren't comprehensively reported anywhere. We have no idea if the problem is getting worse or maybe even getting better. While AV companies have touted their driving record in press releases and op-eds, that is no substitute for reporting comprehensive data to a government regulator and the public. As a reminder, while the industry has touted that AVs have driven more than 145 million miles in the U.S. so far, for comparison, Californians alone drive 340 billion miles every year. That is why we need the data. To that end, my amendment would add provisions of my AV Safety Data Act to the SELF DRIVE Act to address the gaps in data reporting I have identified. However, I will withdraw my amendment as a sign of good faith interest in working together with my colleagues to improve the underlying bill. So Mr. Chair, I would just ask, will you and your colleagues commit to working with me to address these concerns and incorporate the solutions proposed by my AV Safety Data Act as work and discussions continue on the SELF DRIVE Act moving forward?

We most definitely will.

Thank you, sir. Gentleman withdraws the amendment. With that, I yield back. All right, any other amendments at the desk? Mr. Mullin, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have another amendment at the desk, Mullin CA_058. The clerk will report.

Amendment to H.R. 7390 offered by Mr. Mullin of California.

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment.

And I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I again want to thank Representatives Latta and Dingell for their work on the SELF DRIVE Act. In offering this amendment, I want to highlight another issue that I feel is currently unaddressed in the bill as written. Police, fire, and EMS personnel are often on the front lines in dealing with autonomous vehicles that break down or simply have some type of emergency. Yet these first responders, as well as follow-up second responder personnel such as tow trucks, have very little information about how to deal with this novel technology. They arrive on the scene following a collision or when an AV is blocking an intersection, blocking a driveway, or standing in the middle of traffic. For example, a little over a month ago, there was a power outage in San Francisco that led to more than 1,500 unplanned stoppages across the city, according to the AV company itself. Emergency responders had to deploy dozens of vehicles with little information about what to do and no clear plan. While this was an extreme case, public officials have been dealing with these issues for years in and around my district. There have also been various documented cases of AVs driving through construction zones or areas cornered off by police during an active shooter situation. These are understandably complicated situations for a computer to quickly react to, but they do need to be addressed. In the best case scenario, AV companies and first responder agencies are working closely together to prepare for these kinds of scenarios, but we know that whatever is currently happening is not enough, and soon many parts of the country will face the same issues. Without clear protocols for coordination, emergency responders are operating in the dark, which makes us less safe. To that end, my amendment would bolster the SELF DRIVE Act by requiring AV companies to develop clear protocols for how emergency responders can work with their vehicles in an emergency, communicate with AV companies in real time by establishing a 24/7 hotline, and issue requests for AVs to avoid certain areas for a period of time during an actual emergency. This amendment would also require NHTSA to establish uniform emergency response standards in the coming years so first and second responders don't have to keep track of different protocols for different operators. Again, I will withdraw my amendment as a sign of good faith interest in working together with my colleagues to improve the underlying bill. And Mr. Chair, will you and your colleagues commit to working with me on incorporating provisions of my amendment on emergency response coordination in SELF DRIVE into discussions moving forward?

We certainly will. We certainly will. And I know Representative Latta is looking forward to it, so thank you.

Thank you, sir. Gentleman withdraws the amendment. Any further amendments? Seeing none, now if there are no further discussions on the bill, seeing none, the vote occurs on the final passage of the bill. All in favor, say aye.

Aye. Aye.

All opposed, no.

No.

We want a roll call, Mr. Chairman.

Oh, you want a roll call. Okay. So a roll call has been requested. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Fulcher.

Aye.

Mr. Dunn.

Aye.

Mrs. Cammack.

Aye.

Mr. Obernolte.

Aye.

Mr. James.

Aye.

Mr. Bentz.

Aye.

Mrs. Houchin.

Aye.

Mr. Fry.

Aye.

Ms. Lee.

Aye.

Mr. Kean.

Aye.

Mr. Evans.

Aye.

Mr. Goldman.

Aye.

Mr. Guthrie.

Aye.

Ms. Schakowsky.

No.

Ms. Castor.

No.

Mr. Soto.

No.

Ms. Trahan.

No.

Mr. Mullin.

No.

Ms. Clarke.

No.

Mrs. Dingell.

No.

Mr. Veasey.

No.

Ms. Kelly.

No.

Ms. Schrier.

No.

Mr. Pallone.

No.

Mr. Bilirakis.

Yes. How's Fulcher recorded?

Mr. Fulcher is not recorded.

Fulcher's aye.

Mr. Fulcher votes aye.

How is Dr. Dunn recorded?

Mr. Dunn is not recorded.

Aye.

Mr. Dunn votes aye.

How is Mr. Bentz recorded?

Mr. Bentz is not recorded.

Aye.

Mr. Bentz votes aye.

[Recess.] The clerk will report the vote.

Mr. Chairman, on that vote, there were 12 ayes and 11 noes.

The ayes have it, the bill is adopted. I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for five minutes for a point of personal privilege.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to acknowledge the years of leadership on autonomous vehicles policy by Representative Dingell and Representative Latta and to thank them for their work. This is an important and challenging issue, and it's going to take time to get this right. Now, I voted no on the SELF DRIVE Act because of concerns related to the breadth of preemption, whether the safety case in the introduced bill can meet the mark for safety, if the data collection provisions are strong enough to provide transparency, and the grant of exemptions for commercial operations. So I can't support the bill today, but I can commit to working with Chairman Guthrie, Mrs. Dingell, and Mr. Latta on a bipartisan path forward for a federal AV framework later this year. So Mr. Chairman, I suggest that, and this is to Mr. Guthrie, the chairman of the full committee, I would suggest that we dedicate time to this issue this summer. Summer may seem far away right now, but it really isn't. And that will give us enough time to first handle the other bills before us today, including coming to agreement on a bipartisan safety title. So I was going to ask Chairman Guthrie, can we agree to work together on AVs this summer? Sooner if possible, but probably not till the summer.

Thank you, thank you, Ranking Member Pallone. And I first want to say that we have been working on this for quite a bit. Today wasn't a partisan exercise as has been suggested. We have been working together, and I understand your concerns, and we've been talking about your concerns with the SELF DRIVE Act as drafted. And I agree this bill will need more time. That said, I believe there remains a path forward for us to come together and continue to work on the legislation into the summer. And I want to thank Mr. Latta and Ms. Dingell for working together for so many years on this issue, and their sustained engagement reflects the importance of the policy and the care required to get it right. The subcommittee is currently managing a full agenda with several significant priorities requiring our attention. This particular matter is a complex issue requiring adequate attention to be resolved, and once we're able to complete work on these items, I commit to turning to this issue and working for a path forward. I yield back.

I appreciate that. I have to tell you that it seems so cold, it's hard to imagine a lead-up to the summer, but we're certainly committed to it, and I appreciate what the chairman said. I yield back, Chairman Bilirakis.

Gentleman yields back. The chair calls up H.R. 7389 and asks the clerk to report. [Recess.] H.R. 7389, a bill to modernize the motor vehicle safety programs of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the particular bill? Chairman Guthrie, you're recognized. Thank you, Chairman. Our primary task here today are to strengthen the motor vehicle safety, modernize NHTSA, and unlock innovation in the automotive industry. The Motor Vehicle Modernization Act advances all three of these objectives. First, the bill improves roadway safety by revamping New Car Assessment Program to incentivize automakers to deploy new safety technology, ensure efficient and effective vehicle recall process, and improve consumer understanding of vehicle automation technology. Second, we modernize the agency responsible for vehicle safety, NHTSA, by requiring the agency to clearly plan and prioritize its vehicle safety research and rulemaking work, regular review regulations and updates, and reduce unnecessary paperwork. And third, the bill supports a continued strength of the U.S. automotive industry by streamlining and bolstering the general exemption process and modernizing an agency critical to the success of the industry. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue, and I will yield back. Gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the bill? Representative, of course, Ranking Member Pallone, you're recognized. Chairman Bilirakis, I move to strike the last word to speak in opposition to H.R. 7389. You are recognized. Thank you. Obviously, the surface transportation reauthorization is an opportunity to double down on safety, and I know we share the goal of keeping Americans safe on our roads. But I am concerned that several provisions in this act may lead us in the wrong direction. And that includes the unprecedented expansion of exemptions from 2,500 vehicles to a whopping 90,000 vehicles, also permitting equipment with known defects to remain on the road, and self-testing of safety features by industry, and establishing a deregulatory process to roll back existing safety standards. So I look forward to bipartisan conversations on these issues and more, including how to address resource challenges at NHTSA, encourage completion of existing rulemakings, and focusing on emergency safety issues, including through the bills before us today. So at this time, I am in opposition, but I do think that we can work together. And I yield back the remainder of my time. Gentleman yields back. Anybody on the Republican side wish to speak on the bill? On the Democrat side? Yes, you're recognized, Ms. Castor, for five minutes on the bill. Well, thank you, Chair Bilirakis. I move to strike the last word. You are recognized. First of all, thank you for holding today's markup. I think autonomous vehicles have the potential to be a transformative technology, but they must be deployed in a way that keeps the public safe. And that's kind of the crux of the matter with this, with this bill. For years, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been charged with setting motor vehicle safety standards for all new cars. They are, these safety standards are vital to keep, to keep folks safe on the road. But autonomous vehicles, like regular vehicles, must comply with the motor vehicle safety standards unless a manufacturer is granted an exemption. You can have a manufacturer can ask for an exemption for 2,500 vehicles. That gives them the ability to test and experiment for a limited period of time. The Motor Vehicle Modernization Act by Chair Guthrie contains a provision that would expand NHTSA's exemption authority by 35 times, what Ranking Member Pallone just called a whopping 90,000 new cars potentially operating on our roads that do not meet basic safety standards. I think that's just a bridge too far. That's just too many out there on the road. Scaling, scaling so quickly would introduce risks that NHTSA will not be able to control, would magnify consequences of any flaw. And often when you're talking about AVs, you're talking about software, so think about that flaw would likely be replicated too quickly and it could speed faster than NHTSA's ability to respond. An exemption is meant for experimentation, not for mass deployment. New car designs and systems are welcome. We need to continue innovation in America, but they must be implemented intentionally and safely. So I urge the chair to reconsider this provision, and with that, I yield back my time. Gentlelady yields back. Anybody on the Republican side wish to speak on the bill? Seeing none. Any Democrats? Seeing none. Okay, we'll move to the amendatory process. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report, but go ahead, yeah, if you... Fry 119. Amendment to H.R. 7389 offered by Mr. Fry of South Carolina. At the end of the bill, insert the following. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment seeks to bring the federal motor vehicle safety standards for tires into the 21st century. Specifically, the amendment removes outdated tire testing requirements that inhibit domestic manufacturing of and consumer access to the safest and most innovative tires on the road. This amendment addresses a simple but crucial problem. Today, we are using tests designed in the 1960s that replicate common issues exclusively experienced by bias-ply tires, which are different than the radial tires that we have today. To test modern, high-performing tires of today. Utilizing these tests for radial tires does not provide regulators or tire manufacturers with any data of value to demonstrate tire...

...tire safety. These tests and current definitions force tire engineers in the U.S. to design radial tires to pass irrelevant standards, leaving them unable to bring the safest and most innovative radial tires already available on the global market to the to U.S. consumers. This amendment does three things. First, it eliminates the bead unseating and plunger energy tests for radial tires. Second, it refines the definition of chunking in tire endurance testing to distinguish between actual structural failures and superficial wear and tear created by laboratory equipment. And third, this amendment maintains robust safety standards. I want to be clear that this amendment does not eliminate safety testing of tire performance. In fact, safety for tire consumers is of my utmost concern. Our state relies on it. South Carolina is the top tire manufacturing state in the country, with 17 facilities across the state. In my district alone, the industry creates almost 6,000 well-paying jobs and contributes $1 billion in economic output. For the industry to continue its success in South Carolina and the United States, tire manufacturers need to continue offering consumers safe, innovative tires. But these aren't the but these aren't the tests that get us there. Instead, tire manufacturers conduct more rigorous safety tests on every tire on the road. High-speed performance, tire endurance, and low inflation pressure performance standards are thorough safety tests under existing regulations that provide clear, ample, reliable data on how modern tires perform in real-world conditions. This information provides NHTSA and tire manufacturers in South Carolina and elsewhere with the data they need to reliably evaluate tire safety. Our global competitors have already recognized this problem and are outpacing us in tire innovation and safety. Japan, for an example, eliminated these obsolete tests in 2005. The EU, the king of all regulators, and Australia don't require them at all. And Canada, Canada, our our friends to the north, are finalizing similar changes right now. And data show that countries that adopted these changes more recently to conform with global norms and standards, like Japan, have seen traffic fatalities drop nearly 50 percent. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the amendment? On Democrat side, Mrs. Dingell, you're recognized for five minutes on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word.

You're recognized.

NHTSA has spent decades creating automobile safety standards to protect consumers on the roads. Those standards have saved more than 860,000 lives and provided the United States $17 trillion in benefit since the first standard was created. They should not be rolled back without careful consideration of safety impacts by the subject matter experts at NHTSA and a plan to mitigate those impacts. That is why I have to oppose Representative Fry's amendment. This amendment would roll back such standards without sufficient NHTSA consideration, and I cannot support it. Bypassing NHTSA's expertise and process is not the way to protect the American people and make our roads safer. Thank you, and I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Further discussion on the amendment?

Chairman, I have unanimous consent to submit to the record three letters of support for this amendment from the U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association, the Tire Industry Association, and the American Trucking Associations. These groups represent the entire life cycle of a tire, from the manufacturer's responsible creation of the tire to the retailers who rely on safe and dependable inventory, and of course to the people who use it the most, the American truckers, in support of this amendment.

Without objection, so ordered. Further discussion on the amendment on Democrat side? No. Republican side? Okay, if there's no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. All those opposed, nay.

Nay.

The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. Are there further amendments? Gentleman is recognized.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk titled Fry 120.

Clerk will report.

Amendment to H.R. 7389 offered by Mr. Fry of South Carolina. At the end of the bill, insert the following.

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to withdraw this amendment at the appropriate time, but before so, I want to speak to it. This amendment takes a measured, data-driven approach to provide regulatory clarity regarding a proven vehicle safety technology: pulsating high-mounted stop lamps. We all know the figures regarding the increase in driver distraction on American roads. With distracted driving, whether texting or watching videos behind the wheel, we've seen a troubling rise in vehicle crashes, pedestrian injuries, and even fatalities. This amendment does not mandate the use of any device. Instead, it ensures that Department of Transportation acts promptly and transparently once independent research is concluded that Congress itself directed several years ago. In fact, this amendment was drafted by 45 members on both sides of the aisle, including bipartisan members of this committee who are co-sponsors of the Collision Avoidance Systems Act, H.R. 1361. For context, which I think is important, in June of 2019, Congress directed the Department of Transportation to study pulsating brake lights, recognizing early on that this technology merited formal evaluation. Despite that direction, the agency did not initiate research until September of 2024, five years later, when it awarded the research project to Virginia Tech. This amendment requires the Secretary of Transportation to review that Virginia Tech study within 90 days of completion and make a clear evidence-based determination. It directs the Department of Transportation Secretary to either follow the technology to proceed to update regulations accordingly as needed or to explain in writing to members of this committee why such technology would create an overall safety risk. This is a fair and balanced compromise that reflects agency expertise, preserves the research process that Congress directed, and finally puts an end to uncertainty about this proven safety technology. The technology we're talking about is not new or experimental. It has been on the market for 25 years, installed in approximately 4 million vehicles, and has been shown to reduce rear-end collisions by more than 30 percent. Several states, including California, Maryland, Tennessee, and Texas, have already authorized or approved its use. When states with very different regulatory philosophies arrive at the same safety conclusion, that tells us something important. Federal agencies agree. The Department of Transportation's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has approved this technology for certain trucking fleets, largely because of the proven data showing significant reduction in rear-end collisions. This amendment promotes regulatory clarity, consumer choice, and roadway safety without new mandates, taxpayer costs, or picking winners. Most importantly, it reflects a bipartisan principle we should all share. When a safety technology demonstrably saves lives, the government should not stand in the way of updating outdated regulatory requirements. I urge my colleagues, hopefully to work in bipartisan fashion, to come up with a solution of on this on this issue. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield and withdraw my amendment.

Gentleman withdraws his amendment. Any further amendments to this particular bill? Okay, the question now occurs on forwarding H.R. 7389 as amended to the full committee. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is agreed to and forwarded to the full committee. Next, we'll call up H.R. 5221 and ask the clerk to report.

H.R. 5221, a bill to prevent the theft of catalytic converters and other precious metal parts, and for other purposes.

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone seek any anyone want to speak on the bill? Yes, Mr. Evans, you're recognized for five minutes on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member, for holding this important markup today. I just wanted to take a moment to briefly speak in favor of the bipartisan Preventing Auto Recycling Thefts Act, or PART Act. This important bill would provide law enforcement with the tools to trace stolen catalytic converters back to the source. Currently, catalytic converters are not one of the 18 vehicle parts required to be marked with a VIN or a number traceable to a VIN. Law enforcement groups have gone on the record to state that including that tracing in legislation is critical to helping defer the theft and trafficking of stolen catalytic converters, which makes it easier to prosecute the criminals that are committing these crimes. Catalytic converter theft is an issue my home state of Colorado has grappled with, in addition to car thefts, as a result of statewide soft-on-crime policies. In fact, our Attorney General Phil Weiser just a few years ago remarked that car thieves should be kept in jail only after, quote, "someone commits a third or a fourth car theft in three months," end quote. He went on to identify the best way of combating catalytic converter theft as, quote, "purchasing insurance that covers your catalytic converter if stolen," end quote. As a police officer in the Denver metro area for over 10 years, I saw the results of this soft-on-crime approach. It's partly why insurance costs have skyrocketed in Colorado, making our state the fifth most expensive state for auto insurance. Additionally, vehicles typically can't be driven without a catalytic converter. And supply chain backlogs, coupled with heavy-handed bureaucratic red tape and overregulation, can result in a nine-month delay in getting a replacement catalytic converter. I've seen it happen. Lack of transportation results in missed doctor's appointments, lost wages, difficulty getting kids to school, and so many other negative outcomes. In contrast to a soft-on-crime approach, this bill takes the problem seriously by actually increasing criminal penalties for this kind of crime, while also providing assistance to eligible entities like auto repair shops and service centers to be able to stamp the VIN on catalytic converters, which helps law enforcement track that stolen piece of equipment. My constituents deserve real solutions, which the PART Act helps to deliver with a national framework to combat catalytic converter theft. I'm proud to support this bipartisan bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me today in voting it out of committee. Thank you, and yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on this particular bill? Mrs. Dingell, you're recognized for five minutes on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word.

You're recognized.

Catalytic converter theft, thank you for that. Catalytic converter theft has surged in recent years, driven by the skyrocketing value of precious metals. Since the pandemic, thieves have targeted vehicles in neighborhoods, parking lots, and driveways, often stealing converters in just minutes. These crimes are costly, disruptive, and quite frankly, what's becoming very worrisome, they're turning violent. They also frequently cross state lines, making investigation and prosecution difficult for local law enforcement. For criminals, a stolen catalytic converter brings in $20 to $350 on the black market. For consumers, the cost is far higher. Replacing that stolen converter can exceed $2,500, and repair costs often rise due to the additional vehicle damage. Many victims also never report these crimes because insurance deductibles or premium increases outweigh the value of a claim. As a result, this burden falls hardest on people who can least afford it. The bipartisan PART Act offers a common-sense solution. It requires new vehicles have catalytic converters stamped with unique, traceable identifying numbers, establishes a grant program to mark converters already on the road at no cost to consumers, and creates clear federal criminal penalties for the theft, sale, or trafficking of stolen catalytic converters. By improving traceability and transparency in the resale market, this will help deter theft, protect consumers, and equip law enforcement with the tools they need. I urge all of my colleagues to support the PART Act. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Anyone further on the bill? No further discussion on both sides. All right. No amendments, I understand no amendments, is that correct? No one wishes to offer amendments. Okay. The question now occurs on forwarding H.R. 5221 to the full committee. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is agreed to and forwarded to the full committee. Next, we're going to call up H.R. 2110 and ask the clerk to report.

H.R. 2110, a bill to establish a process for survivors to request the termination or disabling of connected vehicle services that abusers misuse, and for other purposes.

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone wish to speak on the bill? Yes, you're recognized. Ms. Lee is recognized for five minutes on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I speak in support of H.R. 2110, the Safe Vehicle Access for Survivors Act, led by my colleagues Mrs. Dingell and Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you both for your bipartisan leadership on this incredibly important issue. The Safe Vehicle Access for Survivors Act requires manufacturers who produce connected vehicles to terminate or disable a domestic abuser's access to a vehicle's connected capabilities and data at the request of a domestic violence survivor. This bill takes a concrete step to protect and empower survivors of domestic violence to step away from their abusers. The freedom of a vehicle can be literally life-saving for a victim. And any abuser access to the connected capabilities or data can put that victim's life in danger. Being able to cut off that access is critical, and this bill will help and save domestic violence victims across the country. I am proud to support this bill, and again, I thank the co-sponsors for their leadership on such a profoundly important issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Gentlelady yields back. We appreciate that. Mrs. Dingell, you're recognized for five minutes on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word.

You are recognized.

Thank you, and I thank my colleague for your support and for speaking for this. As vehicles become more connected and increasingly reliant on wireless technologies, we have to be clear-eyed on how these tools can be misused, especially against survivors of domestic violence. While connected vehicle services can improve convenience and safety, survivors have reported abusers exploiting these technologies to track their movements, monitor where they go, and even remotely lock or disable their vehicles. These are not hypothetical risks. They are real and they are frightening experiences that place survivors in immediate danger. Yet today, there is no clear, confidential, or survivor-centered process for someone to cut off an abuser's access to connected vehicle technologies. This gap leaves survivors incredibly vulnerable. It also puts automakers and service providers in an impossible position without guidance on how to respond quickly and responsibly. That is why I introduced the bipartisan Safe Vehicle Access for Survivors Act with my colleague and friend Representative Crenshaw. This legislation is about putting survivors first. It creates secure, survivor-centered pathway to disable connected vehicle access when it is being used as a tool of cohesion, stalking, or control, while respecting privacy, due process, and providing clarity for the industry. I have spent my life and my career standing with survivors of domestic violence. I know what it's like, that fear when someone wants to do harm. And I believe deeply that safety must come first. Innovation should never come at the expense of someone's ability to escape abuse and live without fear. As connected vehicle technologies continue to expand, the risk of misuse will only grow if we fail to act. This bill ensures that survivor safety is built into the future of mobility, and I urge my colleagues to support the Safe Vehicle Access for Survivors Act. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Any further on the bill? No. Okay, the question now occurs on forwarding H.R. 2110 to the full committee. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is agreed to and forwarded to the full committee. The chair calls up H.R. 6688 and asks the clerk to report.

H.R. 6688, a bill to require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to establish guidelines for advanced driver...

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Anyone seek recognition on the bill? Mrs. Dingell, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word.

You are recognized.

The ADAS and Functionality and Integrity Act directs DOT to study the cost, safety needs, and feasibility of establishing standards related to the calibration and functionality of advanced driver assistance systems following vehicle modification, and then instructs NHTSA to issue enforce and enforce related guidelines. While I appreciate the bill's intent as vehicle technology continues to become more complex, there are important questions we should work through to ensure any approach strengthens safety. ADAS performance can vary significantly based on system integration, vehicle configuration, and operating conditions, which makes it difficult to anticipate outcomes across modification scenarios. In many cases, the data needed to support prescriptive requirement does not yet exist, and a uniform one-size-fits-all framework could risk improper calibration or unintended safety consequences. These requirements could result in the broad distribution of sensitive information that again raises real privacy and security considerations. I would ask that I could work on this bill with Representatives Harshbarger and Obernolte as it moves through the committee process to just make sure we're getting it right. Thank you, and I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Anyone any further discussion on the bill? All right, any amendments to the bill? If there are no amendments, the question now occurs on forwarding H.R. 6688 to the full committee. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is agreed to and forwarded to the full committee. Now we're rolling. Okay. The chair calls up H.R. 3360 and asks the clerk to report.

H.R. 3360, a bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to conduct the study on the...

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone wish to speak on the bill? Yes, Representative Mullin, you're recognized. Speak on the bill.

Move to strike the last word.

You are recognized.

I want to thank the chair, ranking member, and both majority and minority committee staff for their work on helping us come to a bipartisan agreement on H.R. 3360, the Driver Technology and Pedestrian Safety Act. And I also extend my gratitude to Representative Kean for his partnership on this and welcome his amendment. The Driver Technology and Pedestrian Safety Act is a straightforward bill that would direct NHTSA to study the effects of in-vehicle technology changes and their possible impact on driver distraction and pedestrian safety. We know that the driver experience has been changing. Knobs, switches, and dials used to be the norm. Now, large screens control everything from climate control, the radio, podcasts, navigation, phone calls, and car performance monitoring. We have been telling drivers for years to put their phone screens down, and yet now ever-present screens in the face of every driver has quickly become the norm. We do not yet know what the effect this has on driver behavior or if there are ways to improve the experience. Under my bill, NHTSA would be required to research touchscreen technologies, user interface design, and other changing conditions on traffic injuries and fatalities, and report back to Congress on any recommendations the agency may have to address its findings. There is a growing realization in the field that we may be inadvertently increasing distraction when drivers are forced to rely on screens too heavily. Just last year, the European New Car Assessment Program started encouraging carmakers to maintain physical controls for key functions. The reality is we do not yet know what impact touchscreens have or whether there are certain user interfaces that work better than others. What we do know is that more research is needed. That is why I urge passage of the Driver Technology and Pedestrian Safety Act. And before closing, I also want to thank the organizations that have either supported this effort or provided invaluable technical assistance, including AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, National Safety Council, Center for Auto Safety, Consumer Reports, and the National Academies. With that, I encourage all my colleagues to support this effort as well, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the bill? Seeing none. Mr. Chairman, for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk titled Kean 047.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3360 offered by Mr. Kean of New Jersey.

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment in the nature of a substitute reflects a bipartisan agreement on Mr. Mullin's bill, and I am happy to introduce this amendment and move forward with a strong bipartisan product. The underlying bill gets at a critical issue: driver distraction. All too often, drivers get distracted. And while typically we think of phones or other things being the source of distraction, it's crucial that we evaluate driver control technology inside the vehicle as a potential source of distraction. Directing NHTSA to study and report on these technologies is a common-sense step in evaluating driver distraction. The amendment makes some simple but important changes to how we direct NHTSA to examine this. First, we clarify the scope of the study to make sure that NHTSA accounts for different ages and levels of experiences of the drivers, the number of passenger motor vehicles on the road, and any existing relevant information studies or resources that may aid the study. Second, we are careful not to be too prescriptive or proscriptive in what the report should include. By providing NHTSA flexibility, we don't prejudice the results of the study, ensuring that the results are truly based on proven scientific research. With these changes and the common-sense nature of the underlying bill, the following product will speak for itself: a strong, bipartisan, thorough approach to addressing driver distraction and keeping our roads safe. And I want to thank my colleague Mr. Mullin for working across the aisle with us on this important issue, and I'm looking forward to seeing this sensible legislation move forward. I encourage all of my colleagues to support the amendment and the underlying bill. Thank you.

Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Appreciate the doctor and support the AINS, obviously. Anyone else want to speak on the AINS? Okay, is there further discussion? No. If there's no further discussion on the AINS, the vote occurs on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. Okay, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. Any further amendments on the particular bill? No. All right. So we will vote on the bill. The question now occurs on forwarding H.R. 3360 as amended to the full committee. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is agreed to and forwarded to the full committee. The chair calls up H.R. 3385 and asks the clerk to report.

H.R. 3385, a bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue certain regulations to update the definition of a motorcycle, and for other purposes.

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Anyone want to talk on the bill? [Crosstalk.] Discussion on the bill? No. Anybody see any amendments offered on the bill? No amendments. All right. The question now occurs on forwarding H.R. 3385 to the full committee. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed say no. The ayes have it, and the bill is agreed to and forwarded to the full committee. ...calls up H.R. 7372 and asks the clerk to report.

H.R. 7372, a bill to ensure that life-saving motor safety vehicle features are offered independently of convenience and luxury features, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by...

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Anyone wish to speak on the bill? Yes, Mr. Pallone, you're recognized for five minutes on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Safety is Not for Sale Act will make safety features more accessible and affordable for American consumers. Research by Consumer Reports and the National Consumers League has found that life-saving car safety features are often sold only on luxury models or as part of expensive add-on packages with other features like heated seats. At a time when Americans are struggling with rising costs, the status quo puts car buyers in an impossible situation, forced to sacrifice safety in order to afford the purchase of a car. So my proposal, the Safety is Not for Sale Act, promotes affordability and consumer choice. It lets consumers buying a new car choose proven safety features to protect their families without having to pay for luxury finishes or convenience features like leather seats or a moonroof. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ensure that auto safety does not become a victim in our current affordability crisis. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. I wish to speak on the bill. We support increasing transparency so consumers understand which features are included and excluded when they purchase a vehicle. I'm speaking on behalf of myself and the Republicans on my side of the aisle. There is no evidence that separating the sale of safety and convenience features will incentivize consumers to purchase safety features. In fact, it could disincentivize consumers from adopting safety features as some consumers may choose to purchase only convenience features rather than safety features. Further, the bill allows the FTC to define a safety feature, an area outside the FTC's core expertise. Finally, any legislation in this space should set a clear national standard to prevent a patchwork of conflicting state laws. To prevent unintended consequences, we need to first evaluate the impact of this concept before imposing a new requirement. While we have concerns with this legislation, we will continue to work in good faith with our minority colleagues on this particular issue ahead of full committee markup. Anyone else wish to speak? Yes, Mrs. Dingell, you're recognized to speak on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word.

Absolutely. You're recognized.

Thank you. Many proven safety technologies, like blind spot warning, lane keeping assist, and collision warnings, save lives by reducing crashes, injuries, and fatalities. Yet far too often, automakers sell these life-saving features as part of... you can only get it as part of expensive option or trim packages, forcing consumers to pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars just to access basic protections. Bundling safety features with luxury or convenience upgrades limits access for everyday drivers and treats essential technologies as optional perks. Too many consumers are forced to choose between safety and affordability, and many go without these protections because they cannot afford the packages. The Safety is Not for Sale Act addresses this problem. It requires that optional safety features be offered separately or included as standard equipment. It also ensures clear disclosure of costs and gives enforcement authority to the FTC and the state attorneys general. By making safety features accessible to all drivers, this legislation protects families and encourages safer vehicles on the roads. Safety should never be optional, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Any further discussion on the bill? Any amendments to the bill? Seeing none, the question now occurs on forwarding H.R. 7372 to the full committee. All those in favor say aye. [Chorus of ayes.] Those opposed, no. [Chorus of noes.] The ayes have it, and the bill is agreed to and forwarded to the full committee. Next. The chair calls up H.R. 7377 and asks the clerk to report.

H.R. 7377, a bill to inform consumers about the capabilities and limitations of partially...

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? Ms. Schrier, you're recognized for five minutes on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member, for including the Know Before You Drive Act in the markup today. Road safety continues to be a serious concern for communities across the country and for Washington state. And while the rates of fatal car crashes are thankfully in decline, that decline is nowhere near fast enough. In 2024, NHTSA estimates that there were over 39,000 deaths from car crashes across the U.S., and 731 of those were in Washington state. There is so much more that we can do to save lives on the road, and driver assistance technology can play a big role. Automated driver assistance systems, or ADAS, can be very effective tools when used correctly. ADAS systems are increasingly common safety features like collision warnings, collision interventions, and adaptive cruise control. But these systems are only safe if drivers know how to use them properly. They're meant to support drivers, not to replace them. And so over-reliance on these safety features can be really dangerous. And we've already seen crashes and fatalities happen when drivers rely too heavily on their ADAS features. What's even worse is that some manufacturers have exaggerated the capability and level of autonomy that these ADAS systems provide, suggesting that a combination of systems like automatic emergency braking and lane control are effectively driving the car themselves is both dangerous and irresponsible. And that's why the Know Before You Drive Act makes it explicitly illegal for manufacturers to exaggerate the capabilities of their safety systems. My bill also requires manufacturers to provide clear, easy-to-understand explanations of what these automated systems are capable of and what drivers are still responsible for on the road when these systems are operating. Giving consumers a better understanding of the safety technology that they're using will make them safer drivers and prevent avoidable crashes and fatalities. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill and empower drivers with the information they need to use these tools and drive safely. Thank you. I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. I'll recognize myself to speak on the bill. I'd like to speak on this particular bill. We support efforts to help drivers better understand what their cars can do and what they can't do. However, labels alone will not fix confusion about complex technology. Rapid technological changes in vehicle risk making the notification procedures obsolete shortly after the vehicle is sold. Instead of imposing a rigid FTC requirement, NHTSA should convene stakeholders to develop a strategy and solutions to educate consumers about the limitations and capabilities of motor vehicles with automation. While we have concerns with this legislation, we will continue to work in good faith with our minority colleagues on this particular issue. And I yield back. Discuss the bill. Anyone further? Yes, Mrs. Dingell, you're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On the bill? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word.

You are recognized.

Thank you. The Know Before You Drive Act is an important step to protect consumers and it improves vehicle safety. As advanced driver assistance systems, or ADAS, become more common, it can be difficult for drivers to understand what these technologies can and cannot do. Some systems provide helpful features like lane keeping or adaptive cruise control, but people do not understand they are not fully automated driving systems. Misunderstanding these capabilities can put drivers, passengers, and others on the road at risk. This bill requires manufacturers to clearly disclose the features and limitations of ADAS before a sale so consumers know exactly what they are getting. It also prohibits marketing that could lead a reasonable person to believe a car can drive itself, which is of concern and we've seen this in widely advertised systems. By improving... I mean, it is resulting in accidents. By improving transparency, the Know Before You Drive Act allows drivers to make informed decisions, prevents dangerous misuse of technology, and gives regulators the tools to enforce these protections. Regulators need that ability. Drivers deserve to know what their vehicles can safely do. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Thank you, and I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Any further discussion on the bill? Seeing none. Amendments to the bill? Seeing none. The question now occurs on forwarding H.R. 7377 to the full committee. All those in favor say aye. [Chorus of ayes.] All those opposed, no. [Chorus of noes.] The ayes have it, and the bill is agreed to and forwarded to the full committee. The chair calls up H.R. 6947 and asks the clerk to report.

H.R. 6947, a bill to amend title 49 United States Code to acquire each new motor vehicle to be equipped with a manual door release...

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? Yes, Ms. Kelly, you're recognized for five minutes on the bill.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the subcommittee's deliberations to make our vehicles and roadways safer for all Americans. And I'm thankful that my bill, the Safe Exit Act, is being considered at today's markup. The Safe Exit Act works to address a fundamental safety need in newer vehicles. For some vehicle models, battery-powered doors with electric door latches can fail in the event of a crash or battery failure. This issue has contributed to the death of over 15 people, leaving families hurting and searching for answers. This problem is preventable and it is enabled by poor design choices. My bill provides a basic solution, one that has existed in the vehicles for many decades: a mechanical mechanism to open the door. For newer vehicles utilizing electric door latches, it is imperative to include an accessible mechanical release as a backup in emergency situations. For vehicles with electric door latches, passengers can become trapped and their escape from their vehicles delayed by tough-to-find or inconsistent mechanical releases. This issue has been well-documented in the media, and I applaud the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for investigating these concerning reports. But it is time to take action on this critical safety failure. Both China and the European Union are working to address these issues ahead of the United States. This is unacceptable given our nation's long-standing excellence in both automotive manufacturing and safety. It is essential that vehicles have accessible and easy-to-find mechanical releases to ensure the safety of all passengers. Should a passenger be unable to exit safely themselves, we must establish vehicle standards that will allow emergency responders to quickly rescue these passengers. My bill would do just that by requiring the NHTSA to issue a final rule amending Standard 206 to establish these performance and labeling requirements. Specifically, my bill requires a power-independent, accessible manual release for each door, means for emergency responder access to the vehicle, and labeling requirements within the vehicle to ensure all passengers can easily locate the mechanical release. The Safe Exit Act will save lives and prevent further senseless tragedies from happening. I look forward to working with the members of the subcommittee to address this timely issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Thank you, and I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. I recognize myself to speak on the bill. We agree with the bill's intent. Ensuring that drivers can exit their vehicles and their first responders... and first responders can quickly gain access in the event of a power failure are critical to safety. However, the bill raises significant unintended consequences, including allowing bad actors to unlock and break into a car and potentially restricting the use of rear child safety locks. For these reasons, we should allow safety experts to conduct research and ensure that any research provides the factual basis to set smart and flexible standards. Further, Chairman Guthrie's Motor Vehicle Modernization Act includes a provision that establishes a working group of first responders, automakers, and other stakeholders to develop solutions to address first responder access to vehicles following a crash. While we have concerns with this legislation, we will continue to work with our minority colleagues to address this issue. And I do want to thank Representative Kelly for offering the particular bill. So let's get this done. But again, we've got to work with both sides and find some common ground and build a consensus. So I appreciate you offering it. Anyone else here? Yes. You are recognized, Ms. Dingell.

I know you're sick of hearing from me, Mr. Chair. No, no, no. I move to strike the last word.

You are recognized.

I love you, and I love you that it takes time. People are dying right now. And nobody will let me say which manufacturer that builds in the United States but doesn't have union workers. The Safe Exit Act addresses a very basic yet urgent safety issue. It ensures that every driver and passenger can get out of their vehicle in an emergency. As more vehicles rely on electronic door latches, we have to make sure there's always a clear manual backup when these systems fail. This bill directs NHTSA to update safety standards so vehicles with electronic door latches include an accessible manual exit and allows first responders to quickly access the passenger compartment. It isn't theoretical. As Robin talked about, many of you know, in 2021, a young college student died after crashing his vehicle and being unable to open the door as the car caught fire. He was trapped inside of it because of the electronic... the electronic door system failed. Since 2016, there have been at least 15 other similar incidents in which people died after being unable to escape vehicles equipped with electronic door latches when the power was lost. These tragedies make one thing clear: these systems must work in emergencies. When things fail, for example, after a crash, during a fire, in flooding, or in extreme cold—we're experiencing this right now—people need a reliable mechanical way out. And quite frankly, if you're in vehicles that you're a passenger and you need a quick escape, it can be frightening too. Some manufacturers have taken steps to address this, and I applaud them. But there are others that have not, and this puts families at risk. Safety should not depend on the make of a car. The Safe Exit Act will save lives, and Congress has a responsibility to act. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Thank you, and I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Any further discussion on the bill? Amendments to the bill? Seeing none, the question now occurs on forwarding H.R. 6947 to the full committee. All those in favor say aye. [Chorus of ayes.] All those in favor say aye. [Chorus of ayes.] All those opposed, no. [Chorus of noes.] The ayes have it, and the bill is agreed to and forwarded to the full committee. The chair calls up H.R. 7353 and asks the clerk to report.

H.R. 7353, a bill to amend title 49 United States Code to acquire automatic emergency braking system and similar crash avoidance technology equipped with...

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone seek recognition on the bill? Yes, Ms. Kelly, you're recognized for five minutes on the bill.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the subcommittee's deliberations to make our vehicles and roadways safer for all Americans. And I'm thankful that my bill, the Magnus White and Safe Streets for Everyone Act, is on the agenda. I'd like to thank Jill and Michael White, the parents of Magnus White, who are here with us today, for being here and for their tireless efforts to improve the standards for automatic emergency braking technology that could have saved Magnus's life. For those of you who don't know, Magnus White was a 17-year-old U.S. national cycling champion. In the summer of 2023, while on his final training ride before representing the United States at the Mountain Bike World Championships, Magnus was tragically struck and killed by a reckless driver while on a designated bike route. Advanced safety features like automatic braking emergency braking systems could have prevented this tragedy. That is why Congressman Joe Neguse and I are honored to join the White family in their fight and put forth this legislation that would require NHTSA to amend the current motor vehicle standard for automatic emergency braking systems to ensure they can detect cyclists and other vulnerable road users regardless of lighting conditions, skin tone, or clothing. Let's be clear: roadway fatalities are a very real and very preventable problem, and yet they're happening all over this country. Even more concerning is the disproportionate impact these tragedies have on communities of color. In a 2024 report, Berkeley University found that Black Americans are four times more likely to die when cycling and face more than twice the risk in overall roadway fatalities. This is not a coincidence. Historical redlining and disinvestment continue to impact present-day inequities, especially in transportation and infrastructure. Communities of color have historically been marginalized and are more likely to have fewer transit options, broken or missing sidewalks, poor lighting at night, and unsafe street crossings, along with far fewer traffic calming measures like speed bumps. When our streets are not designed with safety in mind, speeding is encouraged and pedestrians and cyclists are placed at greater risk. And I cannot stress this enough: the technology already exists. These safety systems are being tested and deployed today in Europe. The Magnus White and Safe Streets for Everyone Act is long overdue and integral to the safety of all road users, whether they are inside a vehicle or outside of one. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and to work with me and Congressman Neguse to prioritize safety and honor Magnus's legacy. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you. Is there any further discussion on the bill? Chair recognizes myself. I'd like to speak on this bill. We strongly support enhancing vehicle technology that better protects pedestrians and cyclists, and we share the goal of this legislation. However, the technology still needs real-world testing and research before mandates are pursued. Also, the bill as drafted may face significant challenges meeting the Safety Act's rule-making requirements given engineering and other practical realities. Moving too quickly risks producing rules that neither function nor are intended to keep up with innovation. Finally, NHTSA is currently rewriting the automatic emergency braking rule. It is critical that the agency prioritize getting that rule right first before initiating a new rule-making. While we have concerns with this legislation, we will continue to work in good faith with our minority colleagues to find solutions to protect vulnerable road users. Any further discussion? Okay, seeing none, the question now occurs on forwarding H.R. 7353 to the full committee. All those in favor say aye. [Chorus of ayes.] Those opposed, no. [Chorus of noes.] The ayes have it, and the bill is agreed to and forwarded to the full committee. Without objection, staff are authorized to make technical and conforming changes to the legislation approved by the committee today. So ordered. Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. [Gavel sounds.]