did you experience such frustrations as secretary gates and clinton and others? >> sir vision of the central intelligence agency conducts extremely sensitive operations and i routinely, routinely discuss those operations with mr. brennan and mr. met going to and i would get asked a lot of questions just as i get asked a lot of questions here. i never felt i was being micromanaged their nor have i ever felt i was bing are managed here. >> did you experience or have knowledge of national security council staffers directly

calling chiefs of station around the world and being down into the day-to-day involvement? >> that did not happen to my knowledge. the interaction between the national security staff in the central intelligence agency was almost exclusively,, not largely but most exclusively between mr. mcdonough and mr. brennan and me. >> and so i guess what i'm wondering is it that because of your level because we have all these he all these enough to show a variety of people under them that were involved in these talking points and other things and i guess where i'm going is the light that shines on the day-to-day operations, what does that tell us about not only how this administration works but the bigger institutional dangers let me back up for just a second. the cia 33 years? >> yes sir.

>> would you say the cia is more independent today than it was when you entered or less? >> from micromanagement i don't mean republican or democrat i mean the influences of bosses in the white house. >> very hard for me to say because when i started in 1980 i had no contact association interaction with the white house. i was 21 years old. so it's really a question of my time working with the bush of administration and the obama administration. i did not, honestly sir i did not see a huge difference in the extent of interest and questions about what it is we work saying analytically and doing operationally between the two administrations. >> well, some of us have been

around nearly as long as you and remember iran-contra and the difficulties of one operations are run out of the white house. it raises grave concerns, again institutional concerns as important as this incident is even beyond. particularly the candid comments of some people who have served in the administration i think race that which relates to the topics we are having here today. thank you. >> mr. westmoreland. >> thank you mr. chairman. to clear up a couple of things mr. morell your testimony about things were quiet for three hours is in direct conflict with things that we have heard from the grs folks that were there at the annex on the ground during that time period. when you were with president bush in florida and you immediately came up with a conclusion that this was osama

bin laden and al qaeda. and i mean i'm not asking you to go back through your thought process but what gave you the ability to know that? >> because i knew at the time that there were only two countries who were capable of doing something like what happened on 9/11, iran and iraq and i thought they would everything to lose and nothing to gain by doing so and i knew there was one other organization in the world that have that capability and it was al qaeda so that is why i came to that conclusion. >> between february in the attack between february 12 and the attack we have approximately 4000 pages of intelligence reporting they came out of the cia from libya so i am sure you are aware of all of that.

>> absolutely. >> you are aware of the attack on the british ambassador. and two or three bombings that were at the facility. this was september 11, the 11th anniversary of 9/11. was it not in your thought process than of having seen or been aware of these 4000 pages of intelligence especially the july 12 assessment that the cia put out about al qaeda becoming stronger in libya? did you not go through that thought process and come up with immediately in your mind who was capable of doing this, who would want to do it on the 9/11 anniversary?

especially with your knowledge with all the intelligence reports? >> so, the cia sent out a cable to all stations and bases in the days before the anniversary saying hey pay attention. it's the anniversary. you know this would be a great time for these guys to hit us and please share this with your liaison partners and please share this with the chief of mission in the rso's. and so that warning did go out and that is something we always paid attention to was the anniversary of 9/11, absolutely. >> so your thought process never said it could be al qaeda? >> no, my thought process the analyst said from the get-go that al qaeda was involved in this attack from the get-go.

>> so they say it was involved in the attack. >> i did not take it out. some people have alleged that i personally took it out al qaeda and the talking points. that is not true. >> who did? >> the group of officers from our office of congressional affairs and from our office of public affairs took it out. i did not take it out. i did not know was in there when i looked at the talking points. it turns out that taking it out was the right thing to do and let me explain why. because the only way we knew that anybody who is involved in that attack that night was associated with al qaeda was from classified sources and so to leave it in the director would have had to declassify that information and i don't think that is what this committee was asking for. in fact i know that this committee was not asking for us

to declassifdeclassif y anything so it turns out in retrospect that taking it out was the right thing to do for my sources. >> so the classified was al qaeda. i am confused here. >> the only way sir the only way we knew that some of the people who were involved in the attack that night were associated with al qaeda was from classified sources. >> did those classified sources tell you it was a demonstration? >> there were classified sources who told it was a classified source. i don't know processing classified source or not. >> i mean if you look at the whole picture, i think the majority of people look at when those talking points were edited it edited in favor of the administration's philosophy of

how they wanted to be portrayed in libya. you know and the fact that now mr. brennan is now the director of the cia when he was a national intelligence advisor i guess or security advisor to the white house and mcdonagh was and now he is the chief of staff complex hard to kind of get to a lot of information about maybe what they were looking at as a national security advisor versus what kind of job they have now but thank you for your 33 years of service. >> before mr. nunes i just want to clarify, how does the term al qaeda, how would that disclose classified sources number one and then secondly you also take out islamic extremists. >> i did not take out extremists. i took out the word islamic in

front of extremist and i took it out for two reasons. most importantly i took it out because we were dealing with protests and demonstrations across much of the muslim world as a result of the video and the last thing i wanted to do was to do anything to further inflame those passions so that is why i took the word islamic out. it was a risk judgment. the second reason i took it out is because what other kind of extremists are there in libya? >> just for clarification on the record, in the memo you have in front of you you'd drew a line to the sentence. that being said there are indications islamic extremist participated in that line goes for all of that. >> that was a mistake and you will see in the final talking points that is back in the

talking points. >> just real quick one more time. >> how does mentioning al qaeda's closed classified source? >> what i was told chairman was that the only way we knew that was from classified sources. there was nothing on classified that said al qaeda that some of these individuals were associated with al qaeda. there was nothing classified. >> i have to tell you that confuses me greatly. in all the conversations we have on this committee talking events around the world calm ,-com,-com ma i am just not following that logic and how that would disclose sources. >> you know i wish it was in there. >> i understand. i'm just trying to understand the logic. again i came out the next day and i said it had the hallmarks of an al qaeda attack. i don't think i was disclosing classified sources and doing it. anyway i just wanted to clarify

that. mr. nunes. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. morell i want to go back to the intelligence product you referenced. specifically who are the analyst they came up with that product? >> the analyst in our office of terrorism analysis. >> so the cia only? >> no, the cia, the analyst from the office of terrorism analysis drafted the peace and coordinated it across the intelligence community. >> you are telling me tia approved? >> i don't know exactly which ones. you'll have to ask the agency for that but it was coordinated in the intelligence community and if the dni were here he would tell you it was in intelligence community view. >> but who were the analysts? i knew who the loss was but who were the analysts?

>> sure. there are analysts who focus on extremist groups terrorist groups in north africa and i believe those analysts worked on this product. >> you mentioned when you looked into this and i'm paraphrasing here but you said there were more data points that showed that there was a protest. i think you use data points. >> so what i said in a written statement was that there were a handful or a dozen or so reports both press reports and intelligence report saying there was a protest. >> hold on, let me just clarify. most of the dozen that you reference were mostly press reports. there were only a few outliers as it related to human reports. hume and sega and this is important. the reporting that we had at the

time there were more reports that said there was not a protest than did. >> not true, not true. >> i believe it's true. >> it's not true. congressman at the time the analysts wrote the piece that was published on the 13th the only information they had about a protest was that there was a protest. there was not a single piece of information that there was not a protest. that is what i was told by the analysts. >> you may not have known about it but all the eyewitnesses on the ground and the e-mails and there were live chats. >> the analysts did not have access to what the people on the ground knew or were saying at the time. >> i would like at some point to go down to the cia and meet with all of the analysts. i just don't understand it. it sounds like somebody's getting thrown under the bus.

mr. morell, when one of the cia personnel survivors who retired and left the cia, they told me they were leaving the cia because they didn't want to be left to die again, okay? that upsets me and i think it should upset you. >> if that's the way they feel it upsets me. >> so here is another problem with this. as it a relates to the personnel. the cia personnel, they have the right to make complaint with oig , write? there were oig complaints filed as it related to these benghazi attacks, weren't there are? >> i am not aware of. >> you are not aware that there were complaints filed to the oig? >> you no, i don't remember.

i'm not aware specifics. i'm not aware of when they happened. >> i assume you have this. did you ever ask cia inspector general david buckley not to conduct an investigation? >> no. he may have briefed the director at some point but i do not recall. cfa said earlier he didn't know. >> i'm saying he may have reached us. i do not remember. >> did you talk to david petraeus about this inspection? >> not that i remember. >> there are four murdered americans. i would think when cia's own personnel file complaints the zero ig should follow up and do an investigation. >> i believe so too. >> why didn't they? >> i don't know. you'll have to ask david. >> i yield back mr. chairman. >> ms. buckman. >> thank you mr. chairman thank you mr. morell. i just wanted to clarify to make sure that i understood what you

said concord that whether it was the information for the people on the ground the station chief for instance we have information that a cable since september 12 by the cia station chief reported eyewitness confirmed the participation of islamic militants and made clear they facilities had come under terrorist attack. that was clearly sent by the station chief. we know the rso on the ground the chief of days the political officers the grs officers, again the ddd chief all of them on the ground say the same thing but i thought i heard you say mr. morell that the information taken from eyewitnesses on the ground wasn't given to your analysts, but they looked at the press reports, that the intelligence products signet humid. >> maam what you have to understand mayhem is that the

information did not come all at one time. the information came in pieces over time and when the analysts wrote their piece on the 12th that was published on the 13th the information that they had said there was a protest. the information -- they had no information is said there was no protest. there may have been people on the ground who knew there was no protest but they had not yet been interviewed and those interviews have not yet been disseminated. in fact they were not disseminated for some time. in fact they were not disseminated until after the analysts changed their judgment about a protest so there is a of information here that is really important to keep in mind as you think about how the animals are trying to do their job. >> again it seems that the proof text is very interesting because if you have panels that are surveying islamic news sources

and islamic news sources can put out a propaganda if you will then of course whatever your analysts report will be but the propaganda news sources say. again what we heard the kind closed doors from people on the ground is as mr. nunes just said it was an outlier report. that this was in fact a protest. everything else he god, the guy on the ground, is that this was an attack and islamic inspired attack. and so what i'm saying is that if your analysts are only looking and if they are narrowing their focus to such an extent that they are only going to see what propagandpropagandists want them to see that none of us should the surprise that is what they get for the product.

it just seems very strange and we are ill served on this committee as well as the american people if we don't take the totality of information about something this important so we get it right. this wasn't just an immediate two days afterwards. the president of the united states two weeks later in front of the united nations continued the false narrative that it was a youtube video that was responsible for what happened. as a matter fact that filmmaker went to jail for a year and he was the only scapegoat while the thugs and criminals and benghazi are still wandering the streets. he's the only one that has ever gone to jail. is it no wonder that the american people are absolutely upset about this because how interesting that at the u.n. the number one agenda item of the always see the organization islamic property of their number one agenda item was to

criminalize any speech in any country that somehow insults the prophet mohammed. why is it that the false narrative that our president secretary of state continue to put forward was parallel to the agenda of the oic? i don't get that. it had nothing to do with the facts on the ground reported by the eyewitness on the ground. it seems to me that what you rely on from your analysts didn't take into account the truth. >> maam i just want to clear something up. it's really important. there is implication what you are saying that the analysts were aware of the eyewitness accounts when they did their analysis on the 12th and disseminating on the 13th. bayern not aware of the eyewitness accounts and i just wanted to clear that up.

>> thank you mr. chairman. mr. morell i am going back again to this intelligence report you used on september the 13th that you have on september 13 called extremists capitalize on benghazi protest. that is what you use, correct and you note it and you were quick to point out that there was no mention of a video in that. but you failed to mention there were two other cia pieces that were produced on the 12th. both mention the quote recently released inflammatory video unquote. were you a aware of these two products published on september 12? >> probably. i don't know in what context those references were made. >> so for reference to benghazi protest wasn't related to the video, what type of protest at your analysts believe it was in reference to? >> so there are few on what

motivated the attackers that night changed over time. what they said on the 13th. >> you can't have it both ways. >> are you going to let me answer the question and? >> i will bet you can't have it both ways. >> i'm not trying to have it both ways. i'm trying to explain the facts. on the 13th analyst said what motivated the attackers was what happened in cairo that they saw the guys go over the fence into the embassy compound in cairo and to do the same thing and benghazi. they later said, they later added another possible motivation which was swahili's call of revenge for the death of al-liby. those were the two motivations the analysts talked about period. so i don't understand. >> whited your analysts ignore if they went along with the protest, the cairo protest if we

are taking you at your word why did they ignore the other two pieces that talk about the video and they don't include that in this analysis? >> i don't know the answer to that sir. >> i yield back. >> icr time is out. i just want to clarify for the public and i think this is important. the talking points are one of the data points in what concerns the committee as we look at all the classified materials going forward that the narrative may not have been political which is beyond your position mr. morell but the narrative continued on afterwards so we have seen the fact and the pulling back of counterterrorism programs that we believe we have dangers extremists on the battlefield to in a way we haven't done before in the very fact we have a number of individuals that have

been left on the battlefield without participated in a terrorist act that killed americans in benghazi, something that wouldn't have happened before in our concern is trying to understand all of this and that narrative and did that narrative lead-in to what is real policy today which is why you see numbers so frustrated about what are we doing to bring these people back. if there are those involved in the decisions that don't believe that terrorism is alive and well unfortunately that poses a threat then you can see that narrative actually being implemented in a way that i think is dangerous to the united states. that is why think you see the concern of this committee and by the way behind closed doors in this committee there's bipartisan concern as you saw today about moving forward about things that are not being done that they used to do that i do believe puts america in a

position to be more vulnerable. that is why think you see the interest and emotion today. i want to thank you for your candid testimony today and i want to thank you for your 33 years. someone told me started when you're 11. we do appreciate it and thank you for being here voluntarily. >> thank you. it's good to be here and you and i have spoken at length about counterterrorism and you and i are both deeply deeply concerned about the threat to this country and where it is headed and i really appreciate that. >> mr. chairman thank you for this hearing and it's important to have these hearings. i do want to say to my republican members that i respect each and every one of you do have a point of view and i think the reason this committee has been so bipartisan and democrats and republicans might not agree that we respect the fact that someone as another point of view and we try to come

together on what is right for the american people. what we need to continue to have investigations when there are issues is important to this and the american people are looking for answers. my point was that we have had six separate congressional hearings and thousands of hours spent on the investigation and yet we are still looking for the issue of whether or not the facts that we have before us were politically motivated. i think that is where this is coming down to and there are some people and people on both sides that might think it is or is not that the true facts and maybe i'm speaking as a lawyer but you have to deal with the facts. that is what you have done today and i think you have presented yourself well in that regard. i also want to talk about mr. lobiondo. he's a patriotic american that works hard on this committee and travels to dangerous places to get the oversight for what he needs to do.

we need to make sure that the focus is finding these bad guys who killed americans. the fbi is conducting an investigation working with other people and that maybe is an area where we need to look at this point where the evidence is we somehow have to decide where we are going from here. that should be the highest priority. i have a lot of respect for mr. pompeo. if there is more information and i know the chairman and the way he works. i was a former investigative prosecutor. if there is any scintilla of evidence that brings us to the conclusion that we are at now we will look at that but we have so many issues out there, though russia china threat the counterterrorism threat the cyberthreat it goes on and on. we keep getting these hearings where i haven't seen anything new tickets to that one issue.

was a politically motivated or not? in conclusion i also have a lot of respect for you. i know you have served your country well. sometimes allegations get out there that you but you came before us and you did not back away and your facts and statements clear up a lot of the allegations. thank you for your service. >> people can find a statement by tomorrow and later today they will have your statement on line. >> thank you. >> meeting adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> if the reader knows exactly what your politics are and he or she can predict how you were going to describe a politician ahead of time than you really haven't done your job. you should be a little bit obscure to the reader and you definitely shouldn't be partisan because that eliminates the ability of people to be interested in what you have to say. you can be predictable so if you are going to give it to one side you have to give it to the other side. you have to use exactly the same techniques that you would use for democrats that you would use for republicans. i think that is the thing that modern audiences respond to especially now when they see the news being fractured more and more overtly into prose

republican and pro-democratic camps. >> gm ceo mary barra testified on capital wednesday saying she would allow her son to drive a chevy cobalt is only if he uses just the ignition key alone. on tuesday she apologize for the auto companies faulty ignition switch that has been implicated in at least a dozen deaths. this is a little more than 200 half hours. >> this subcommittee will come to order. it was a rainy night on march 1. brooke melton who was 29 you're sold in the pediatric nurse was driving her 2005 chevy cobalt to meet her boyfriend for her birthday dinner outside of

atlanta. as she was driving on the highway her car suddenly lost power. unable to control the vehicle it hydroplaned, crossed the centerline and slammed into another vehicle at 58 miles per hour. her car ended up in a creek, the airbag never deployed. her parents rushed to the hospital but she was dead when they arrived. in their nightmare of grief they hired a lawyer. a child lawyer. they asked him to help them understand what had happened and if possible hold whoever was responsible accountable. and he went to work, spending his own resources to get to the bottom of what happened. too broke on that rainy night in georgia when she was on her way

to celebrate her birthday. he hired an engineer to help him together mr. cooper, of the lawyer and mr. hood and engineer began to identify a defect that someone at general motors had discovered years before. there was a problem with the ignition switch in chevy cobalt. it could easily be bumped or brushed or pulled from onto accessory or off powering down the card disabling the power steering disabling the power brakes and preventing the airbags from deploying. after two years of fighting general motors for documents in a timeline of events at a deposition in april of last year mr. cooper finally confronted general motors with the facts. someone at general motors had switched out the unsafe ignition switches in several car models and covered it up by using the

same part number for the same switch, of the new switch. had covered it up by using the same number for the same switch. a simple work of the engineer hired by the trial lawyer had discovered the defective part and its replacement with the same number and when mr. cooper confronted general motors mr. ray digiorgio their lead switch engineer with the evidence of the parts switch he lied. he said he didn't know anything about it. documents. general motors commodity validation sign off. signed on april 2006 bears the signature of in fact raid to georgiou. spelling out in the document also new detente plunger was

implemented to increase torque force in the switch with the box checked resubmission with engineering changes. further, it is now clear that gm knew the faulty switch in 2004, knew the airbags were not applying in 2005 and in late 2005 knew someone had died. we don't know how many people crash because of this cover-up. we do know that many died including ms. melton and at least one of my constituents a missouri woman who died in a crash in 2009 in the suburbs surrounding st. louis. so there is great work done by a trial lawyer and an engineer he hired and exposing a serious safety issue with the product, work that should have first been done by gm and secondly by federal regulators. and then there is the federal

regulators. even though the act was passed to give the regulatory information needed to catch exactly this type of problem. in a culture of cover-up that is allowed an engineer at general motors to lie under oath. repeatedly, lie under oath. it might've been the og and that started sweeping this defect under the rug 10 years ago but even under the new gm the company waited nine months to take action after being confronted with specific evidence of this egregious violation of public trust. thousands of my constitueconstitue nts in st. louis and kansas city areas go to work for general general motors everyday billing some of the finest cars on the road. i'm proud of them and i'm proud of their work. this is not their failure. they and the american public were failed by a corporate culture that chose to conceal

rather than disclose and buy a safety regulator that failed to act. with this hearing i intend to identify problems in our auto safety system and work with chairmen rockefeller ranking member soon and heller and the other members of this committee to rectify this problem so this tragedy hopefully is never repeated again. it's time we finally get this right so it doesn't take an enterprising trial lawyer and an engineer to bring -- that he hired to bring to light what nhtsa should've known long ago and what general motors should've fixed long before ken and beth melton lost their daughter broke. our job today is to learn as much as possible about the failures of general motors and the regulators to keep unsuspecting daughters fathers wives and sons safe. senator heller. >> thank you chairman mccaskill and thank you for holding this hearing and thank you ms. barra for being with us today. i want to begin by offering my

deepest sympathies to the families and friends of those affected by these tragedies. i also want you to know that we will get to the bottom of why it took so long to get these vehicles off the road. as many of you know general motors has issued a recall of over 2.2 million vehicles due to problems with the ignition switch that gm has admitted to knowing about in some form as early as 2001. these faulty ignition switches are links to 13 deaths. gm has now recalled chevy cobalt pontiac g5 saturn ions the chevrolet h. h.r. in the pontiac solstice and the saturn sky. last friday was reported that sometime in 2006 or as late as 2007 general motors change the ignition switch part. a whole new part was manufactured and sold but gm kept the same part number for that new part. now my hometown of carson city

we have an engineering company that builds pistons in rods were nascar teams. i've talked with him and talked with owners and talked with other builders in nevada and i can tell you if the company sold apart that was changed in anyway and did not change the model number or the serial number on that part it would cause significant problems for these businesses these individuals and of course the racing teams themselves. ms. barra you know that i've raced cars for years. i've used gm testing facilities on some of the cars that i have raised. i have blown engines broke transmissions broke rear ends lost my brakes and had the ignition quit on me. i tell you this because we break those engines and rear ends down to find out the parts and why they broke in the difference of course being winning or losing. i can tell you based on my experience it's incredibly an in

usual for a car company to change a car part and not change the part number. government investigators have requested she and provide documents chronicling the switch change in who within the company provided it. i'm also requesting today that gm provide this committee with that same information. that is only part of this issue. we also need to recognize when gm emerged from bankruptcy in 2009 the federal government owns 60% of the company because taxpayers bail the company out. gm knew of this issue in some capacity over 10 years ago. they change the part but didn't tell anyone. they asked for a taxpayer bailout in the current administration had to step in and restructure the company. through all of this gm was unable to determine that they should pull 2.2 million vehicles off the road. this is why from where i'm sitting gm has a lot of explaining to do both in this

committee and the taxpayers. here is the issue for gm. it looks like there are multiple moments in the company face conflicts of interest. you said it yourself yesterday ms. barra. gm has a culture based on costs not safety great many people are wondering if gm did not initiate a recall because gm could not survive one in 2006 or they did not initiate a recall because the government owns 60% of the company. it is possible that gm has an explanation for why it took so long to pull these cars off the road however after yesterday's hearing i'm afraid we are not going to get many answers today. i hope gm is in a position to speak to what happened more specifically. that is why we called you here and i think gm should take the opportunity to explain their actions and help this committee get to the bottom of what happened happened. there was also another side of the story and this is whether the national highway traffic and

safety administration received all the information from early warning reports to determine if further investigations were warranted. nhtsa received 260 complaints over 11 years and these vehicles were turning off while being driven yet and it's a did not move forward with a a recall and the staycation 2007 or 2010. i wrote to nhtsa asking simple questions regarding their process and recalling vehicle's and what they saw in 2007 or 2010 that compelled them to pass on any investigation. i'm very disappointed and nhtsa's response to my letter in time for this hearing. we are looking at incidents in which individuals died. i expect more from nhtsa than what they showed today and i think nhtsa knows that they can do better and they had better do better. that being said it's my understanding the secretary of transportation has requested an

internal investigation conducted in honor of nhtsa's handling of the gm recall. secretary fox also stated he has directed nhtsa and the department's general counsel to jointly conduct a due diligence review and i'm looking forward to the reports. we need to ensure that consumers are safe on the road. we need to understand the facts of this recall. there are many questions to be answered and i hope today's hearing is to provide some answers to the u.s. taxpayers and to what they deserve so thank you chairman. >> thank you senator heller. ms. barra welcome. we respect and appreciate your presence here today and we welcome your testimony. [inaudible] >> turn your microphone on.

>> is set on now? sorry about that. thank you very much. my name is mary barra and i'm the chief executive officer of general motors. i appreciatappreciat e the opportunity to be here today. more than a decade ago gm embarked on a small card program and sitting here today i cannot tell you why it took years for a safety defect to be announced in the program but i can tell you we will find out. this is an extraordinary situation that involves vehicles we no longer make. when it came to light on my watch it was my responsibility to resolve it. when we have answers will be fully transparent with you, with the regulators and our customers. while i can't turn back the clock as soon as they learned about the problem we acted without hesitation. we told the world we had a problem that needed to be fixed. we did so because whatever mistakes were made in the past we will not shirk our responsibilities now in the future.

today's gm will do the right thing. this begins with my sincere apologies to everyone who has been affected at this recall. especially to the families and friends of those who lost lives or were injured. i am deeply sorry and the men and women of general motors are deeply sorry. i have asked former u.s. attorney anton belugas to perform an investigation of the actions of general motors and received updates from him and he tells me his work is -- he has the free reign to go where the effects take them regardless of the outcome. the facts will be the facts. once they are in my leadership team and i will do what's necessary to assure this does not happen again. we will hold ourselves accountable. however i want to stress we are not waiting for his results to make changes. i have named the new vice president of global vehicle safety which is a first for general motors. just buyer's top parties to a

quickly identify and resolve any and all product safety issues. he is not taking on this task alone. i stand with him. my senior management team stands with him and we welcome input from outside gm from you, from nhtsa from our customers come to our dealers and current and former employees. i've asked everyone on our team to keep stressing -- to work with one thing in mind that our customers and safety are at the center of everything we do. our customers have been affected by this recall are getting are full and undivided attention. we have empowered our dealers to take extraordinary measures to treat each case specifically. people do not want to drive a recall vehicle before its repair dealers can provide a loaner or rental free of charge. to date we have provided nearly 13,000 motor vehicles. our suppliers manufacturing new

replacement parts for the vehicles that are no longer in production. we have commissioned to lines and asked for a third in those parts will start being delivered to dealers next week. these measures are only the first and making things right in rebuilding the trust with our customers. i would like this committee to know that all of our gm employees and i are determined to set a new standard and encourage to say that everyone at gm up to and including our board of directors supports this as a second generation general motors employee i am here as a ceo but also here representing the men and women who are part of today's gm and i can tell you that they are dedicated to putting the highest quality the safest vehicles on the road. in addition i announced yesterday we have retained kenneth feinberg is a consultant to help us evaluate the situation and recommend the best path forward. i'm sure this committee knows mr. feinberg is qualified and

experienced in the handling of matters such as this. having led the compensation efforts involved in 9/11 the bp oil spill and the boston marathon bombing. mr. feinberg brings expertise in objectivity to this effort. as i have said i consider this to be an extraordinary event and we are responding to it in an extraordinary way. as i see at gm has built civic responsibilities and legal responsibilities and we are thinking through exactly what those responsibilities are and how to balance them appropriately. ringing mr. feinberg on is the first step. i would now be happy to answer your questions. thank you. >> thank you. ms. barro. i want to briefly go through your resume beginning in 2004 when the defect was discovered by someone at gm. you were executive director of manufacturing and engineering

from 2004 to 2005 and 2005 to 2008 executive director of vehicle manufacturing engineering engineering and their brief first, 2002 july 2000 vice president of global manufacturing and engineering. from july 30, 2000 to february 1, 2011 vice president of local human resources. from february 1, 2011 to august, 2013 senior vice president of global -- global product development in august of 2013 to january 15 of 2014 executive vice president of global product development. is that a correct rendition of your resume over the last -- in april and may of last year gm's employees were deposed in a lawsuit trying to get some kind of justice for brooke melton. they were confronted in the deposition with the fact that there were two different parts with the same part number and a different torque on both of those torques leading to the

malfunction of the ignition switch. it was very clear at the deposition there were two parts with the same number and they had been switched out in one of the most effective. when that lawyer for general motors let that hearing who did he report to? >> i don't know which lawyer was at the trial so i can't answer that question. >> hold on and i will get it for you. you have some lawyers here with you today, don't you? you are free to confer with him if he would like to tell you who the lawyer would report to after that deposition. >> again we are doing a full investigation with mr. for lucas and the individuals associated with this incident will be a part of that and the findings will be conclusive. >> it was mr. philip holiday appearing on behalf of general motors from king and spaulding law firm in atlanta concord georgia.

>> he didn't report to gm motors. >> he would have reported as a client. he was your agent and i guarantee you if i am a lawyer and i'm in a deposition where this bombshell has been dropped on my client there are two different parts with the same number one of which is defective i guarantee you i don't go back and tell the folks at the lafrem i'm on my cell phone in the lobby scene to general motors we have got a problem. i need to know who it typically typically -- would it be the general counsel's office that reports you in litigation? >> it would have been this senior legal team. >> would the important for us to identify who that lawyer reported to after that deposition. >> that will be part of mr. for lucas investigation. >> it i'm assuming it when that happens there's an investigation internally. >> one of the findings that we had as he has done this study is

within general motors there were silos and his informatiinformati on was known in one part of the business for answers to legal team didn't necessarily get communicated as effectively as it should've been friends since the engineering team. >> ms. barro i'm not asking whether or not the lawyers called engineers. i am asking whether or not lawyers and a multi-million dollar lawsuit where there has been evidence of a defective switch and replacemereplaceme nt that had never been identified to the public being presented to the lawyers in your companies not reporting that's up to the executive level of your company. those lawyers work for the executive level. they are hired by your senior counsel. that is who hires those lawyers. his office, correct? >> yes. >> what i want to know is what investigation began after that deposition?

>> that is part of the investigation. >> you.mil whether anything happened after that investigation? >> i don't have the complete facts to share with you today. >> that is incredibly frustrating to me that you would have a simple timeline of what happened when she got that knowledge so it went on for nine months. even though you were at an executive level of leadership at the time it was never discussed anywhere in your presence for nine months even though this had occurred? >> i became aware of the defect and recall in january 31. >> let me do quickly that. and every seventh you issue the first recall. 12 days later mr. cooper the trial later wrote to nhtsa in addition to the recall you done it was not complete. he pointed out they were for models that had defected ignition and six days later you recall those vehicles. on monday of last week mr. cooper filed a the court pleading in california alleging there were additional cars it should've been recalled and had

not been recalled because they had defective switch is placed during repairs. last friday four days later after that pleading gm issued the third round of recalls. is this the new gm ms. bharat? is this the new gm that takes a lawyer having to write units and a court pleading in court for you to recall all the cars impacted by this defective switch? >> as we looked look at the first population of vehicles we immediately read across to the other vehicles that have the same part. often when you have the same part it can be a different configuration in different geographies -- geometry. we recall that population immediately started to look at where were the spare parts from a general motors perspective and gm dealers we went to dealer records to understand where do i put a spare part in the vehicle. as we worked with our supplier we learned they had sold these parts to third-party repairs where there were no records kept

when we learned that we immediately went out and recalled the entire population of all of these vehicles because we couldn't be certain if there was a vehicle that had apart put in that we could not track. >> it think it's great you have done at all. it's just worrisome to me that it took three shots after nine months. senator heller. >> thank you. ms. barra the public is very skeptical of general motors and let me explain t. to you what they are saying. at some point last decade gm knew that there was a problem with the faulty ignition switch which led to the death of 13 people. in late 2006 or early 2007 gm replaced ignition parts but kept the same part number and did not tell anyone. shortly thereafter gm needed u.s. taxpayers loans to bail them out. the company was provided so much assistance that when they emerge from bankruptcbankruptc y the

federal government in 2009 owns 60% of the company. so from where i sit it looks like gm is not forthcoming with the american people who bailed them out. it looks like there were multiple months where the company had conflicts of interest either with initiating the recall at a time when gm was not financially sound or when the government owns 60% of the company. what i'm going to do is allow you to explain yourself to the american people. i think we need to know whether you believe the company acted in the best interest of the consumers who bought your car in the u.s. taxpayers who bailed you out. >> first evolved i agree it took way too long for this to come to the attention and to do the recall and we have admitted that and we have also apologized. it is tragic that there are been lives lost and lives impacted with this event.

from the part number perspective i find it completely unacceptable that a part would be changed without part number and the identifier being changed. that is not a process of good engineering. that is not an acceptable process. it wasn't then and it clearly is bound as we do our investigation we will deal with that situation because that is not acceptable for good engineering principles. as i look at the culture of the company during the timeframe this part was designed in the late 90s and went into vehicles that went into production in 03 the latest of went out of production in the 11 timeframe. the culture the company at that time had a cost culture focus and i can tell you we have done several things since the bankruptcy to create a new culture to focus on the customer starting with rewriting our values. the first value is the customer is our compass and the second is relationships matter an individual -- we have taken

quite a bit of bureaucracy out of the process and the structure itself. with dramatically improved our quality organization and our customer experience organization so there has been dramatic improvements made in general motors since that time. >> ms. barra i read the transcripts from yesterday's hearing and you said most of this when you are on the other side of the capital. he said safety comes first at gm. gm looks at the speed at which it can fix fix it and you said e was a change from a cost culture to a safety culture. i want you to explain that and in explaining that does that mean in 2006 general motors was more concerned with the bottom line as opposed to recalling their vehicles? >> when we look at the complete investigation there were documents produced yesterday. if those are incomplete context that they valued cost over quality once we knew there was a

safety defect that is unacceptable. in today's culture we don't condone that. it starts with leadership myself and product development across the country. if there's a safety defect there is not a calculation done. it's how quickly can we get the right part or fix or inspection or whatever needs to be done to ensure that the customers are safe. >> let me ask you again. if safety was not the highest priority and gm acts in the best interest of gm at all times. was that true in 2006? ..

>> you've been there 33 years, so when this was first discovered, you were executive director of operationings and engineering where you developed and executed strategies to improve the effectiveness of vehicle manufacturing and engineering, but you didn't know of this? >> correct. >> nobody told you about this? >> correct. >> okay. and then you were plant manager of detroit assembly in 2003 to 2004. were you responsible for day-to-day plant activities

related to safety, people, and quality? still, you knew nothing about this? >> we did not build any of those models. >> in that position, you knew nothing about this; correct? >> correct. >> no 2004 and 2005, you were executive director of manufacturing and engineering responsible for developing and implementing global bills of proseases and equipment to optimize capital deployment and manufacturing operating costs. you developed and continuously improved lean cost initiatives. you knew nothing about this when you were executive director of manufacturing and engineering. >> correct. >> you knew nothing? how about when you were vice president of global manufacturing, engineering in 2008 to 2009, you knew nothing? >> correct. >> and you still knew nothing as vice president of global human resources? >> correct. >> you're a really important person to this company. something is very strange that

such a top employee would know nothing. now, have you seen photos of your cars that have had that ignition problem and that problem led to deaths. have you seen photos of those cars, what they look like? >> yes. >> i have another one for you to look at. the people are here. mary, died at the age of 21 in pennsylvania, a senior at mary university, and her parents are here, her family, and, i guess, it's somewhat shocking after the pinto, and that goes back to first when i was an elected official. i was shocked that there was such a cold and calllating way that ford decided not to fix the fatal floor in the fuel tank, and we learned through lawyers as the chairman pointed out, they made -- through discovery, they found out there was a very

careful cost benefit analysis and ford decide the it was cheap r for them to pay off the families of the dead than to fix the problem that would have cost them $11 a part. did you make that kind of calculation over at gm in this situation? >> i did not. >> do you know of anybody who did make it? >> that is the purpose of the investigation. >> but you don't know know? >> right. >> you have not asked and do not know. >> i asked for an investigation. >> do you know if they ever used this coind of cost benefit analysis in the history. >> there's documents, and as we go through the complete timeline, we'll demonstrate it's completely unacceptable. >> i didn't ask you that. do you know if they used this cost benefit analysis in its history, do you know? >> if it was used not for a safety item, it's unacceptable. >> it's okay to do it for a safety item? is that what you're saying? >> i said the opposite of that.

>> you didn't. in 1973 when gm engineer edward ivy proved it was not cost effective for gm to spend more than $2.20 a vehicle to prevent a fire death. do you know about that? >> i've heard of that. >> you've heard of it? you have not looked at it? looked into it? >> general motors today finds any time there's an incident -- >> well, you know, today is today. yesterday, i did some things that i'm accountable for. it's not about -- you have been involved in this since you became ceo. have you not looked into this? look, mr. ivy studied place to value of human life lost at 200,000, and estimated the company could cost effectively only spend $2 for rear impact protection to prevent fires, and burn deaths would cost the company 2.40 a vehicle. gm determined it was not cost effective to pay more than $2.20

per car for each burned death. you talk about today's gm, but evidence shows as recently as 2005, gm used the cost benefit analysis to determine that fixing the problem was, quote, not an acceptable business case. are you aware of the situation in 2005? has that been called to your attention? >> i was aware in general of the ivy letter. i've never seen it. >> what about the 2005? is that the new gm or old gm, 2005? >> general motors company was formed in 2009. >> okay. the old gm in 2005, you're not aware that they used the cost benefit analysis to determine that fixing the problem was not, quote, an acceptable business case? >> again, if it's a safety issue, there should not be a business case calculated. >> but you don't know anything about this? >> that's why we've hired an investigation to go back over a period of a decade. to understand exactly what happened. >> okay, thank you.

>> as people know, the commerce committee does order of arrival, just to remind everyone, every committee is different. but senator rockefeller does arrival. i'll respect him in that regard. i respect him anyway, in all regards, but also in that regard. [laughter] next is senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much, senator mccaskill, thank you for holding the hearing. ms. barra, one family involved in this is a young woman killed from albert lee, minnesota. i met with her dad, doug, yesterday, and i talked to her mom, or her mom's husband yesterday, and this young girl was in wisconsin, and she was in a colbalt with friends, and the ignition went off and the car barreled 71 miles per hour into trees and two of the girls were killed, including natasha.

she was a hockey player, young girl, and one of the letters that her dad gave me that she wrote to him just a few months before she dieded. she talks about this is her words, i wouldn't be the good goalie i am now if it was not for you, dad, standing behind the net, behind the glass, just knowing you were there made me trust myself better, and i definitely felt secure to know you had my back. i think you understand that these families need someone to have their back. they want to have the best for their kids, at least the memory of their kids. this is a lot about what this is about including a major change in process that we clearly need in gm, and probably in the transportation field in terms of how we look at these things. as you look add this internal evidence, i think the things that we need to know including why did gm open numerous internal reviews, but not elevate the issue to a formal

investigation until 2011? why was gm's management not aware of critical decisions being made related to the defect? did they disclose the issue in the bankruptcy proceedings? these are things on the minds of the american people, and then on the government side with nisa, did they have sufficient resources to do a prompt thorough investigation? did they have the technical expertise and technology to evaluate this growing evidence? i know in our case with this family, claim some complaint made with them way back when natasha was killed. what could they have done differently as they received complaints over the very long period of time. the first question of you is really about this internal process, and i like to know what factors as we just have seen the recalls with more and more of them rolling out over the last few weeks, what factors did gm consider when its examining whether or not to elevate a

potential safety defect to a higher level of review? >> in today's general motors, we look at -- i mean, as an incident is learned about, and it can come from any source, our dealers, comes from outside, it can come from a claim being made, and it gets assigned to a team of knowledgeable engineers. they investigate, try to understand what's happening, try to understand, you know, if there's app incident, what it could cause, and it then gets reviewed by a cross functional team and goes to a final group to make the decision. that's the process that's used. >> and what's the single most important factor the company considers when looking at whether to do a recall? >> the most important thing is that there's a safety issue, and we will -- and we've actually, over the last two years, made great strides to quickly get information, look, and get into the field as quickly as possible. if you look at the data right now of general motors, we do more recalls than anyone with smaller populations. we try to get, if we find

something, we try to get in and fix it as quickly as we can. >> do you think there's further recalls to come here with different models? >> i believe as we find problems, large or small, we'll do the right thing, and if it requires a recall, we will do a recall. >> okay. now we have the issue of the claims with many of the families that have been involved. do you think that families have equal opportunity to compensation regardless of whether and when gm went through bankruptcy, and if you could also describe the appointment how this works so that these families would get their compensation? >> and we hired mr. fei nberg late last week, first meeting was on friday, and we want -- it's open right now. we -- he has guided us on the different thing we need to consider, and, again, as we said, we have civic and legal responsibilities. we are going to work through those, and i anticipate based on

the timeline begin to us, it'll take about 60 days. that's the time line he told us to plan for. as we explore and look at all the different options, we have not made any decisions yet. all options are still open, but i don't have a decision today. >> so do you think these families should be able to be compensated regardless of the bankruptcy issue? >> that's why we hired mr. feinberg to work through this issue. >> okay. last question as my time's running out. what does gm have to do to regain the public's trust? >> we have to work every day, and i'm 150% committed to it as is my team to make sure we are putting the safest and highest quality vehicles on the road across the globe, and that's what we'll work tirelessly to do, and that's what the men and women of general motorsment to do. >> thank you. >> senator coates. >> madam chair, thank you very much. ms. barra, yesterday, correct me if i'm wrong here, but i believe

you said that gm -- you did say you hired mr. feinberg to investigate the matter, but you also did not commit to sharing the results of that investigation with the public, and with the congress, instead saying, and i think i'm quoting you correctly, "you'll share what's appropriate." after a night's sleep on that question, is that still jr. position, or do you think it's appropriate to share everything mr. feinberg discovered with us and with the public? >> well, first of all, i would like to add to that. with the specific question asked is findings from the study who is doing the complete investigation, the external investigation of what happened over than this decade period, and when i said we'd share what is appropriate, we'll share everything and anything that is related to safety of our vehicles that is related to the safety of this incident, and we'll share that with the customers, share that with you, with our regulator, and if we learn things that are broader

from a safety perspective, we'll share that, and the only thing and reason why i use "what's appropriate," if there's an issue of competitiveness because we opened up everything, that's something that we would, again, if there's a safety issue, we override op the safety side, but other competitive issues, but also, as app employer, we have responsibilities on privacy to some of our employees as part of the employment agreement, and i have to respect that as well, but, clearly, i appreciate the opportunity to clarify this. anything remotely related to safety of vehicles or anything that could improve the process, we could have done better, we'll readily be shared in a very transparent process. >> glad you clarified that because i think that raised concerns of all of us relative to that. so just to make the record clear, anything related to safety issues will be shared with the public and with the congress? >> absolutely. >> were you aware of this

problem when you were offered the chairmanship of the ceo position at gm? >> i became aware of the recall on january 31st. i was aware in late december that there was analysis going on on a cobalt, but i didn't know what the part was. >> whether you like it or not, you're the face of the problem. hopefully, also, the face of the solution, but it is important, i think, that we understand what your role was in the 33 years, and more important than that, that the investigation points out just who knew what and when did they know it? i would suggest to the chair perhaps a follow-up subcommittee hearing, potentially involved those who held the leadership in the key positions in gm during the time frame, and that we're looking at here, and that would

include some government officials also since it owned the company, 6 o% of the company for a considerable period of time. i say that because i think we need to hear from people who had key positions in gm that perhaps had knowledge of this and made it decision either on a cost basis for for whatever reason to come before the committee and explain their role in this rather than dumping the whole issue on its new ceo, but, again, as i said to you, you have taken on this duty, and like many before you,ing inning presidents of the united states, what is anticipated that your role will be turns out to be something very, very different, but we'll need your complete cooperation as we work through this difficult issue, but i suggest to the vice chair that we seriously consider bringing

before us those who were in positions of responsibility when these decisions were made. >> thank you, senator coates. we, in all likelihood, would be helpful to hear from people in key places. i want to talk to in a committee setting, and i'd like to talk to the legal team about how they handled the lawsuits around this defect. senator nelson? >> thank you, madam chairman. ms. barra, i have been a general motors customer virtually all my life. i have been very satisfied. i'm concernedded by virtue of what we have learned. is there a corporate culture, and since you're the new sheriff in town, you're going to have to

get into that culture. as senator boxer had mentioned, back in 1973, that accident of the fuel fires, and so an engineer for gm wrote the value analysis of auto fuel fed fire related fatalities, and ?rt boxer senator boxer already talked about that, and madam chairman, i ask that be entered into the record, that engineer's report. >> without objection. >> now, given this potential culture problem in gm, since i'm a gm customer, if i were to have a recalled chevrolet cobolt, would you recommend i drive home

in it tonight? >> if you take the keys off the ring other than the ignition key or just cues the ignition key, our engineering team has done extensive analysis to say it's safe to drive. >> what if i were going on a long trip? >> again, if you don't have anything else on your key ring, and i recommend just the ignition key, you are safe to drive the vehicle. the analysis has been done over weeks. >> i suspect that drivers would not take comfort in that advice on knowing what has come up, and you may well want to revise that advice. you mention here that gm has hired ken feinberg. you know, he's accustomed to

large claims. he handled the bp oil spill in the gulf. y'all confirmed 13 deaths. does this suggest with feinberg coming on board that the number of deaths and injuries is going to be potentially much higher? >> we are starting our work with mr. feinberg on friday. we think he's an expert in the area, and we want to do what's right, so we thought he was a person with the most expertise to go forward. i would also -- to the previous question, if a perp is not comfortable driving these models, we have loaners free of charge. >> with feinberg on board, does that suggest that gm is going to compensate owners who feel the need that they have to park their car? other than the loaner that you're speaking about? >> again, working with

mr. feinberg, there's many aspects that we need to work through with him, and so that will -- that is why he, on his timeline, is saying it's about 60 days. >> the center of auto safety has suggested that they think this defect may have caused over 300 deaths. that's a big difference from the 13 you've acknowledged. why do you think those numbers are so far apart? >> my understanding is there's data sources from the fars data base where it captures a proportion of incidents that occurred in the vehicles in a broader population. in some cases, the way air bags are designed, they are not intended to go out off, dependin the crash, and if you'd like me -- we have a team that's

knowledgeable, spending their career working on air bags with the understanding that we could share that. >> tomorrow, you're going to have to formally respond to nfsta about what the company did and did not know. companies are legally required to report safety defects within five business days of discovering them, and so this information is going to be critical to determine whether gm broke the law. while we wait on this determination, can you tell us whether you think that gm informed the government and consumers pursuant to the law in order to prevent those accidents? >> i want to know that answer just as much as you did, and that's what you do, and that's why i got a report, and we are

working on all the information that they have requested to provide that in a timely fashion. >> okay. >> let's see who is next. senator booker is now hoot. it'd be senator bloomenthal. >> thank you, thank you for being here today. we have method before, haven't we? >> yes, we have. >> i'll tell you now what i said then is that i have enormous admiration and respect for your career, what you compliered, and -- accomplished, and the leadership you provided to gm, and i also have enormous respect for your company. it's on iconic, enormously important manufacturing company, and it produces terrific products, generally. i know that you're aexoned here by lawyers and battalion of public relations consultants,

and that you're breaking with the culture is a difficult step, but let me, with all do respect, suggest three steps, at least three steps, that you could take if you really want to break with the culture and show the leadership that i think is worthy of gm and worthy of your leadership. number one, commit to a compensation fund that will do justice for the victims of the defects that kill people in your cars; number two, warn drivers who are currently behind the wheel of those cars that they should not drive them until they are repaired because they are unsafe; and number three, support the measure proposed that would improve the safety of

system accountability going forward requiring more disclosure to the public and better transparency in reporting by this car manufacturer in case of defects to the federal agency. the federal agency's has a substantial share of the blame in this instance. i think it's pretty much in contra veritable that gm knew about this lethal safety defect, failed to correct it, and failed to tell customers about it, and then concealed it from the courts and the united states. i think these steps are prompt, and i hope you adopt them despite the complexities you see and whatever the advice is you're getting, and i want to know first of all, what is it that ken feinberg has to work

through to convince you that there should be compensation? >> he's just indicated to us as he goes in, he interviews a lot of people, tries to get a complete understanding of the process -- >> but he is not -- and excuse me for interrupting -- but he's not a bankruptcy expert, and gm is still in courts across the country invoking a blanket shield from liable that's result of conception and concealment of the federal government. i opposed it at the time as attorney general in the state of connecticut, not foreseeing the material adverse fact being concealed was as big as this one, but why not come clean and say we'll do justice here, do the right thing, compensate victims knowing that money can't erase the pain or maybe even ease it, but it's the right

thing to do. >> our first step in evaluating this is to hire mr. feinberg, work through with him, and understand his expertise. as i said, there's civic as well as legal responsibilities, and we want to be balanced, thoughtful in what we do. >> let me go on to the next step, the recall notice, and i'm sure you've seen it. it says "the risk increases if your key ring is carrying added weight such as more keys or a key fob, or your vehicle experiences rough road conditions or other jarring or impact-related events." even with all the weight off the key chain, doesn't that recall notice tell you that cars should not be driven where there are

rough road conditions or other kinds of potential jars events? >> the testing that has been dope has been in -- op our proving ground that has education tepeesive capability where the vehicle would be jarred, and with just the key or the key in the ring, it has performed. >> is it your testimony here today that those cars are as safe as any other car on the road today? >> again, as you look across all the safety technology that is on vehicles from the past to present, there's variation on safety based op technology on cars today. there's variation with -- across the whole population. >> is that cobolt car as driven now safe for your daughters to drive? would you let them drive? >> i would allow my son and daughter -- well, son, he's the only one eligible to drive, if

he only had the ignition key. >> so the add the risk, if you have only the ignition key of driving that car op the road is zero? no additional risk of driving the unrecalled car on the road? >> the testing done as it relates to this indicates that the weight is not -- would not cause that issue. if someone -- >> my time expired. >> if they are up comfortable, ask for a loaner. they are provided. >> well, again, i would respectfully suggest that you would advise your customers to get loaners rather than drying these cars, thank you, madam chairman. ..

>> i dealt the problems the state ignition switch the fact there would be two identical parts one defective antoine isn't but

you did that change the part number strikes me has deception in and goes beyond an acceptable i think this is criminal. when a question to a and qa is has there been any other instances where gm is changing a part and fixing a a defect to keep the part number the same? because this is not taxable this is criminal deception. >> i am not aware of any it is not an appropriate practice or acceptable. it is crucial and engineering principles one no one to change the part number when you make a change. >> obviously someone made the decision hand in it was approved by gm to do this summer but to no threat has never been done in any other

instance because i think we should get to the bottom of that in terms of deception and safety issues that could flow from that not triggering that there is a part that is being fixed with the different numbers and it is a matter of being honest and truthful with a public program would like to get a follow-up answer to that as this investigation goes forward. i don't see this as anything but criminal. last year with the deposition in clearly it had raised an issue with the parts of the same number. one defective one not does

the ted general pards' director report to the ceo? i find it shocking and i share the chair's concern would not have gone directly up. this is a very important issue we'd be to understand the new was told what when i am a lawyer with my background as well this would have been shocking to hear in a deposition representing a client and i would have gone to the top. to make sure my client understood what was happening with the risks that they face. i also wanted to ask you with regards to the taxpayer bailout in 2009 at that point had their already been lawsuits filed related to the ignition switch?

>> i've put like to know if gm notified the auto industry task force which held to a minister of bailout of the ignition switch i would assume if there are in the lawsuits filed penn state with regard to the safety of the product of gm this would have them brought to the attention of the administration and i would like to know what information was provided to that task force or other officials cahan when dash as we provide taxpayer dollars to gm to address the bailout and the bankruptcy this is an important issue as well also for nits of -- nhtsa as well. >> you have to end at gm for

how many years? >> 33 summit to talk a lot about the culture and the change. can i ask about the culture with your years there was there a culture anytime about of culture to discourage bad news about the company? >> i see the culture was not always welcoming of bad news. not across whole company but in pockets it was not always as will come as it should have been. >> and senior management positions did you know, it was exacerbated there was a particular amount of resistance to bad news about the company? >> i would die draw that conclusion. >> you're never saugh any

conversations to diminish the bad news with all safety issues? >> leading to the next point i know that your answer will be it is an ongoing investigation but from what you know, how with the conversations you'll have had i would imagine you have captured the attention of the time of senior management? so based on what you know, can you tell us with the federal reconsiders a someone decided to delay the faulty ignition switch. >> is the investigation. >> you will not rule that out? >> he can take camera for

the facts taken and we will deal with those. >> in fact, if it turns out there are individuals if the purpose of the investigation how was it this was made to never do that again? we dylan to live in a country we will promise not to make fixes to things despite their dangerous because it costs too much money. that is a dangerous precedent i heard the ford pinto if i owned of restaurant and poison was my ingredient i decided not to change the recipe if someone died they would not just close my restaurant i would go to jail. as part of this investigation and to decide who made the decisions were

what a group of people decided not to disclose these flaws to do something in a timely manner is part of the investigation who make those decisions. >> if there were decisions made by individuals that were inappropriate that i am troubled by as we complete the findings mine leadership team will take steps if that means there is disciplinary action up to and including termination we will do that we demonstrated that already with the issue last year. >> is someone is negligent but will you also look for evidence in that investigation that people knew that was a problem but decided the cost was not worth it.

are you in search of that to make that cost-benefit analysis for customer safety is the effect that is not acceptable not the way we will do business and not the culture. we will make sure that is not the culture we have going forward. >> wilkes you look to see if in fact, there was a decision made by a group of individuals not to move forward on this? >>. >> we will though the names of these people and the process by which they made that decision as well. >> we will overcome the process i have to be consistent with the employer laws but trust me a with have issues with companies from the past.

>> i am not sure there are any laws that allow companies to shield individuals from a criminal position not to move forward on a safety item because of economic considerations in mccready to complete the investigation and may well back from a company perspective we will deal with those biblical you fully cooperate with the justice department if they want to conduct a con current investigation? rick we will fully cooperate with the justice department. >> madam chair, a ms. barra. i met with his stepfather and mother of the talk-show this hits pretty close to home. your background as a structural engineer in have been with gm in 33 years.

in that capacity would imagine general motors has been a leader with total quality management with the manufacturing process? >> we have to improve quality dramatically. >> i have the manufacturing background myself which you're in engineering capacity and would imagine he dealt with the quality management system and a robust fashion? finigan the manufacturing every day. >> i want to go in terms were the other senators went with the change of the part number. i have gone through quality audits and course the reason you have different numbers for different parts is a tree civilities been affected is key. >> of paris a defect in the process you can trace back exactly where that happened. you call that not

engineering principle but it is the total violation of the total system. correct? total quality management has been a part of gm for how many decades? >> al east my career and has been improving in olongapo way. -- along go away. play and you change a part there will be a lot of the engineering to go into changing fell apart. correct? there are parts within the part. >> it retains the -- depends on the change did it with the ignition switch ready redesign that there will be different parts combined with that part. >> and then the part mote blood dash number that comes to us has a unique individual part number.

>> it would be very difficult with a total quality management system drug multiple changes with part numbers combined for the assembled part then not have that part number change with the completely different part? almost impossible. >> it is wrong. >> so pleasant just a mistake. somebody had to proactively make sure that part number did not change. >> that is why we are investigating to learn why that happened. >> with a total quality management system everything that goes into changing a part there is no conceivable way with the types of controls with a total quality management system a new assemble parts would not

have a different part numbers. >> i agree. why i find is so disturbing. >> so the process or procedure or computer system was purposefully overridden summit that is why we're doing the investigation. >> with that tree's ability total quality management system we should be able to quickly identify the new or what departments are involved with that. >> we are doing that's. >> i cannot speak to criminality but to find out who was responsible to override the quality system to change the part. >> i want to understand why the sections were taken civic the only reason anybody would make sure the total quality management system part number but not

change is to highlight the change for some reason. >> i would like a complete investigation before i start making assumptions. >> i have no further questions. >>. >> this is the chevy kobolds ignition switch the same design that is shedding of vehicle airbags to kill innocent victims. we know the difference between this which is the difference between life and death. do you know, the other difference? the other things that we now know it would only cost to dollars to repair. $2. that is how little this

ignition switch would have cost apparently to dollars to a bunch for general motors to act despite ted decade of warnings and deaths while a number of investigations are ongoing to find out how many times this evidence was covered up by gm or ignored by nhtsa one clear conclusion that we can make is that it is much more difficult to cover up evidence that is publicly available. ms. barra, if i have a car accident decide to report the details to nhtsa they put that information into a public consumer complaints database but if i make this a complete one dash complaint is confidential business information it does

that every single time. usage which everything in relating to. >> my question to you is this would you commit publicly to exposing all documents including accident reports, due this is that could have been caused by a safety defect and all details gm receives about all of its vehicles going forward? chevy cobalt or any other? >> it would be useful we will work cooperatively really be happy to review.

>> so let's reach legislation because if it would not commit to doing of voluntarily they don't want to other families to suffer like they have. so we have introduced legislation of an early reporting system. of bill would require automakers to submit the documents to fatal accidents to the searchable early recording system. civic we're providing input to it requires touches rotation to publish

information that it currently keeps secret would you submit that for families across america? >> as he put the bill for reprieved would like to look headed in its entirety and we will work for active labor with nhtsa to mention the most helpful information is brought forward. >> would require the transportation department to upgrade the database to give them the tools they need with the members of that family. can you support that? >> i would like to look at the legislation in its entirety to provide input to and work with nhtsa to be sure the appropriate information is most helpful is made available. >> to require the transportation department to use the information has to better identify fatal defects before they claim

innocent lives. can you support that legislation for every auto company in america? to recover by to let the legislation in its entirety what makes the most sense working with nhtsa integration the most valuable information is put forward. >> i am troubled you're not willing to commit to end the culture of secrecy at general motors. >> i did not say that. >> yes you have. i have tried year after year for more than 10 years to have legislation passed to require disclosure of all this information and was the automobile industry that killed my legislation year after year. this is a moment to save more than you are sorry but to make sure it never affects any family again.

you should be in a position right now ms. barra i am telling you this we will disclose this information. we will make it available. you have for the two months to make his decision or think about what went wrong or why you work to killed legislation as a corporation that provided a consumer's database and individual families could be harmed by yet he still do not have an answer do not understand what the american public wants david information to protect their families did it is important to know that general motors is not giving us the answers to that question. >>. >> i don't have the information. >> and what about the

exposure of the defect from counsel? bennett we have not talked about exposure was three realize the situation we immediately hired the investigator with the multiple investigations. >> i am saying is a sea of general motors you have not had a briefing by your general counsel about the litigation that is ongoing against your company? you have not had that conversation? >> i have been focused on getting parts for customers. >> we would like to know how many cases have been filed filed, completed, the subtlety and most importantly how middy required confidentiality. how much black the mall has been coming on in terms of dealing with the song of one-off basis what the lawyer was to do for the client to commit to secrecy

has mr. giorgio ben fired? >> the investigation is only been going on for a couple of weeks but we're making progress. >> he has not been fired? period know he has not. >> you know, that he lied under oath? >> bet data in front of me indicates that but i am waiting for the full investigation. >> let me help you as giving he said several times he had plenty of these changes were made there is a document that he signed under his name an approving of the change. is hard to imagine you would want him anywhere near injured during anything under these circumstances. for the life of me i cannot understand why he still has his job.

i know you want to be methodical, a thorough, and get this right but this is exactly the wrong message someone who perjured repeatedly under oath not only asks the question points but over and over again. here is a really important question. this document which is completely irrelevant to any lawsuit that is filed against gm would have been included with any document request this document was not given to mr. cooper. this was with full held from the lawyer representing the family. he did not find out about this document until after the case was settled had to hold the key piece of evidence with the litigation with the parts that was changed without a part

number change jeff what -- if it was spelled out in the document? how does that happen? >> i don't condone not providing information when requested in a legal proceeding we will deal with individuals accountable for that we the to find out how many cases when that was requested there is not requested documents from gm the scope of the requested not include this document i want to know how many cases they berry does this is what happens in america corp's think they can get away with hiding documents from litigants' with bill consequences of what to make sure there is consequences for hiding documents because this is hiding the true for families that need to know and it is outrageous and it needs to stop. last month the department of

justice put 1.2 billion dollars settlement and a criminal case against terry yoda. it -- a toyota with the recall of massive acceleration but it is the chicken a relevant to you to put on the record is the facts around a the redesign of a part with that criminal case and i will quote from the facts of the settlement still victorio the redesign using a designation that entitled no part number change to a department of justice said they did this explicitly to prevent their detection from nhtsa i know this has been done over time and time again but to make sure that also happened with another car manufacturers.

end up with the technical specifications call for the airbag system to be the independent power source armed and ready to fire for up to 60 seconds after the power is cut off. that is in the gm specifications to nhtsa is that the accurate description. >> i could provide that information. >> there is a problem because they say that airbag deploys when power is off wave now they are not deployed when the air bag -- the power is off that means we could have airbags across the entire automobile industry that don't have the appropriate answers to allow for the deployment even when the power has gone off during a collision or a defective part.

weaver also like you to follow upon that. to sing this. will you commit to come back in front of this committee when you can answer the questions? >> yes. all the information you provide to nhtsa on friday but you also give a copy to this committee? >> yes. >> you have answered most of the questions with the response that there is the ongoing investigation. to you have a target date? >> within 45 or 60 days civic dyad ask him to go as quickly as he can but not sacrificed accuracy or speed. any interpretation related to safety or this incident

and the things that we think would help from nhtsa the only thing we will not is issues of competitiveness our privacy issues we have to comply. >> how broad is the review? >> no boundaries or sacred cows to have the complete understanding can we make the changes way paid to make from the perspective. >> is still fly a tender or subsidiary? >> it is a supplier. >> will this include looking at delphi and their participation could expedite to the extent he goes in that direction we get information, yes. >> that would make sense to talk to people at delphi to bring them to this committee to find out there understanding to find out

their involvement in this case. >> can you tell us whether or not this is a one time occurrence? >> as i've looked at it is an extraordinary situation there have been many cases where we were quick to react safety recall process they are down to do mower recalls to get to the issues as quickly as we can. >> so if two different parts had the same part number? to make that is bad engineering. >> was that and oversight for delphi? >> i don't know. i want to understand all the parties involved to not follow the process. >> what is the financial stability