you all may want to revise that advice. you mentioned here gm has hired

kenneth feinberg. he is accustomed to large claims. he handled the bp oil spill in the gulf. you have confirmed 13 deaths. does this suggest with kenneth feinberg coming on board that the number of deaths and injuries is going to be potentially much higher? >> we are starting our work with kenneth feinberg on friday. we think he is an expert in hysteria and we want to do right. he was the person with the most expertise to go forward. i would also to the previous question if a person is not comfortable driving their cobalt or one of these models we are providing loaners free of charge. >> with kenneth feinberg on board does that suggest gm is going to compensate and owners who feel the need that they have to park their cars and other than the loaner you are speaking

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

that is very knowledgeable, they spend their entire career working on air bags and understanding we can share that. >> tomorrow you are going to have to formally respond to nhtsa about what the company did and did not know. companies are legally required to report safety defects within 5 business days of discovering them. and so this information is going to be critical to determine whether gm broke the law. while we are waiting on this determination can you tell us whether you think that gm informed the government and the consumers pursuant to the law in order to prevent those accidents? >> i want to know that answer as much as you do and that is why i

have mr. valukas doing this report and all the information nhtsa has requested to provide that in a timely fashion. >> thank you. >> see who is next. senator booker is not here. senator blumenthal. >> thank you for holding this hearing, thank you, mary barra for being here today. you and i have met before and i am going to tell you now what i said then which is i have enormous admiration and respect for your career, what you have accomplished and the leadership you provided to gm and i also have enormous respect for your company. it is and iconic enormously important manufacturing company and it produces terrific products generally. and i know you are accompanied here by a regiment of lawyers

and the battalion of public relations consultants and you are breaking with the culture, a very difficult step. let me with all due respect suggest at least three steps you can take. if you really want to break with the culture and show the leadership that is worthy of gm and your leadership, number one, commit to a compensation fund that will do it justice for the victims, the defect that killed people in your car. number 2, drivers -- 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 3, support the

measure that we have proposed that would improve the system of safety accountability going forward, require more disclosure to the public and better transparency and reporting by this car manufacturer in case of defects to the federal agency and the federal agencies have substantial share of the blame in this instance. it is pretty much incontrovertible that gm knew about this lethal safety defect, failed to correct it and failed to tell its customers about it and concealed it from the courts and the united states. i think these steps are appropriate and i hope you will adopt them despite the complexities you see and whatever the device is that you are getting and i want to know first of all, what is it that kenneth feinberg has to work

through to convince you there should be compensation? >> kenneth feinberg, the interviews lot of people to get a complete understanding of the process. >> excuse me for interrupting but we all have five minutes said trying to make the best as possible. he is not a bankruptcy expert, invoking a blanket shield from liability that is the result of its deception and concealment to the federal government. i opposed it at the time as attorney general of the state of connecticut, a material adverse effect being concealed as gigantic as this one. come clean and do justice here.

money can't erase the pain, it is the right thing to do. >> our first step evaluating this is to hire kenneth feinberg and we plan to work through with him and understand his expertise, there is sick and legal responsibilities and we want to be balanced and make sure we are thoughtful in what we do. >> let me show you the recall. i am sure you have seen it. it says the risk increases if your key ring is carrying added weight such as more keys or the key fob or i stress four vehicle experiences, rough road conditions for impact related events. even with all the weight off of the key changes that recall

notice telling you cars should not be driven where there are rough road conditions or other potentially jarring events. >> on the proving ground, it has extensive capability with the capability could be jived and just keep, it has performed. >> is it your testimony today that those cars are as safe as any other car on the road today? >> as you look across all the safety technologies that is on vehicles from the past to present there is variation based on the technology on cars today said there is variation across the whole population. >> is that kobold car as driven now safe for your daughters to drive? would you allow them behind the wheel? >> other allow my son, at he's

the only 1 eligible to drive. if he only had the ignition key. >> so the added risk if you have only the ignition key of driving that car on the road is zero? there is no additional risk of driving beat and recalled kobold on a row? >> the testing as it relates to this indicates the weight is not going to cause that issue. >> my time is -- >> if someone is uncomfortable we are providing loners. if someone asked for a loaner one is provided. >> i respectfully suggest you advise your customers rather than driving these cars. >> you describe the situation

with the duplicates ignition switches, one had the defect, one didn't, the same part number was kept and as i understand that, that happened, the part was actually approved by the chief engineer in 2006 and it was the redesigned ignition switch was put at some point into the model in the 2007 year. you have described that as unacceptable practice. i have to say when i look at this particularly the fact that there are indications gm may have known as soon as 2001 about the problems of the ignition switch the fact that there would be two identical parts and, in other words one is defective and one isn't, you didn't change the

part number, it strikes me as deception and it goes beyond an acceptable. i believe this is criminal. my question is have there been any other instances where gm is actually changing a part and fixing the defect and keeps the part numbers the same? because this to me is not a matter of acceptability. this is criminal deception. >> i am not aware of any. it is not an appropriate practice, not acceptable, it is crucial, engineering principal 101 to change the part number when you make the change. >> obviously what someone made the decision it was approved by gm to do this and i would like to know whether it has ever been done in any other instance because i think we should get to

the bottom of that in terms of deception, in terms of the potential safety issues that can flow from that, not triggering a from people, apart that is being fixed but not with different numbers so it is really a matter of being honest and truthful with the public so i would like to get a follow-up answer as the investigation goes on. i don't see this as anything but a criminal when i see this part number. i also wanted to ask about the chair asked about the deposition in april or may of last year where clearly in a deposition the trial counsel had raised this issue of the two parts with the same number, one defective, one not. the general council report directly to the ceo?

>> yes. >> i find it shocking something like that, i share the chair's concern would not go directly concerned, a very important issue you need to understand the the year ago, what is told and who knew what when because it seems to me, i am a lawyer as well and this would be shocking for me to hear in a deposition representing a client and i would have gone to the top if i heard something like that to make sure my clients understood what was happening and the risk they faced. i also wanted to ask you about with regard to the taxpayer bailout of gm in 2009 at that point had their already been lawsuits filed related to the ignition switch? >> i can't answer that question.

>> i would like to know whether gm action will be notified the administration's auto industry task force which helped administer the taxpayer bailout about the ignition switch but i would assume if there were any lawsuits that had been filed pending with regard to the safety of the products of gm that this would have been something would have been brought to the attention of the administration and i would like to know what information was provided to the task force or to other officials in the administration as we provided taxpayer dollars a to address the bailout in the bankruptcies of this is an important issue as well and an important issue for nhtsa as well. if you could get back to us i would appreciate it. >> marco rubio. >> you have been a gm how many

years? >> 33. >> you discussed the culture at general motors and the change in the culture. can i ask about the culture at gm? at any time you worked there, about avoiding a culture of discouraging bad news about the company? >> i think the culture was not as welcoming of bad news, not across the whole company but in packets it wasn't always as welcome as it should have been. >> senior management positions in light of bankruptcy and subsequent need for the federal government to intervene and bailout the company for it to survive, did you notice that was exacerbated during that time? at that point in time there was resistance to any bad news about the company like for example faulty ignition switch? >> i wouldn't draw that conclusion. >> you never saw in a conversation with regard to the need to diminish the amount of

bad news about the company or anything disruptive even if it is all safety shoes? >> no. >> i want to ask, your answer is there is an ongoing investigation but it is important to ask from what you know now from the documents you have been able to review and the conversations you'll have i imagine this issue has captured the attention and consumed much of your time that senior management at gm, this is the central issue for the company right now so based on what you know over the last few weeks having dealt with this issue, can you tell us whether general motors intentionally misled its federal regulators and customers when someone decided to delay disclosing or fixing the faulty ignition switch? >> i don't know. that is why we're doing the investigation. >> you won't ruled that out. >> mr. valukas has the reins to go wherever the facts take him. we will deal with those.

>> in fact if it turns out of there are individuals who make decisions is the purpose of this investigation to do two things, first, the process that led to the decisions to be made, how were the decisions made so you never do that again? that is the first part of the investigation. the second part that i think is important, it is not just general motors but other companies are making all sorts of products and will we never want to do is live in a country where companies can decide as a business model we will decide not to make fixes to thing despite the fact they are dangerous because it cost too much money to fix. that is a dangerous precedent, pinto was mentioned earlier. it would never tell her lari -- boys and is part of my ingredients and decided not to change the recipe because it costs too much money and someone dies, there would not disclose down my restaurant, i would go to jail. as part of this investigation to decide who made these decisions, who in fact decided what group

of people decided not to disclose these flaws and to do something, to identify those decisions? >> if there were decisions made by individuals that were inappropriate and some things i have seen i am very troubled by. as mr. valukas completes his findings we will take steps and if that means there's a disciplinary action up to and including termination we will do that. we demonstrated that already when we dealt with this issue last year. >> if someone was negligent and said we had this information and it is not a big deal we shouldn't do anything about it that is negligence and someone like that should not continue to work for the company but will you also look for evidence in that investigation, that people knew this was a problem but decided that the costs weren't worth it. i you also in search of that?

that there were individuals or culture created by a group of individuals that encouraged employees to make these cost-benefit analyses based on economics, not customer safety. >> that type of analysis on sats or safety defect is not acceptable and not the way we do business and not the culture, we will make sure that is not the culture we have going forward. >> will you look to see there was a decision made by a group of individuals not to move forward on this because of its costs. that would be we will know the names of these people and we will know the process by which they made the decision. >> we will work on the process, i have to make sure i stay consistent with employer laws that i have but trust me we acted swiftly when we had issues with individuals who are no longer with the company. >> talking to your counsel and ours i am not sure there are any laws that allow companies to

shield an individual who may at that point what appears to be a criminal decision not to move forward on a safety item because of some internal economic consideration. >> we need to complete the investigation, have the facts in front of us, we will ask not only from a company perspective but if there are issues that have to be dealt with we will deal with them. >> would you fully cooperate with the justice department if they want to conduct a concurrent investigation alongside the internal one? >> we will fully cooperate with the justice department. >> thank you. >> senator johnson. >> thank you, madam chair. i met with the stepfather and mother of the accident that occurred in wisconsin, pretty close to home. your background is electrical engineer. you have been with gm for 33 years. in that capacity i imagine

general motors has been a leader in terms of quality management and manufacturing process. >> we have improved our quality dramatically over the last several years. >> i have a manufacturing background myself. in your engineering capacity i would imagine you dealt with the quality management system in a robust fashion. >> in the manufacturing arena. >> in terms of where claire mccaskill went on the change of the part number. i have gone through a lot of quality audits and the reason you have different numbers for different parts is traceability. >> number of reasons, that being the key one. >> if there's a problem or a defect in the manufacturing process you can trace back exactly where that happened. you call that not good engineering principal.

it is a total violation of a total quality management system, correct? >> correct. >> total quality management has been part of gm for how many decades? >> it has been improving along the way. >> the engineering departments in particular are totally focused on those principles. correct? >> correct. >> when you change a part there is going to be an awful lot of engineering the goes into changing that part. there will be some parts that go with any part. >> depends on the change. >> how many? there are multiple parts to ignition switches. so when you read designs that there will be different parts combined with that part. >> and the part number general motors uses after that comes to us would have a unique individual part number. >> it will be difficult with a

total quality management system to have multiple changes in part numbers combined with an assembled parts and not have that part numbers changed in a completely different part. almost impossible. which means it wasn't just a mistake. somebody had to proactively make sure that that part number did not change, correct? >> that is why we are investigating, to learn exactly why that happened. >> within total quality management system with everything that goes into an assembled part, different part numbers combining into that part, there is no conceivable way within total quality management system with computers as they are today with the controls in total quality management system, within that system a new assemble part would not have a different part number. >> i agree with you which is why

i find it so disturbing. >> the conclusion would be that process, that procedure, that computer system was purposefully overridden. >> that is why we're doing the investigation. >> that is the assumption we have to make. within that trace ability of the management system, we should be able to quickly identify who or what departments were involved in that, correct? >> and we are doing that. >> i am no attorney. i can't speak to criminality, but it is going to be important to find out who is responsible for overriding the quality system to change that part. >> i want to understand why those actions were taken. >> the only reason anybody would make sure in the total quality management system that a part number didn't change would be to hide the fact that that part

changed for some reason, correct? >> i would like a complete investigation to be completed before i start making assumptions. >> no further questions. >> senator marky. >> thank you, madam chair. this is chevy cobalt 2006 ignition switch. this is the same design that failed, shutting off vehicle airbags and killing innocent victims. we now knows that the difference between this switch and one that would have worked is the difference between life and death. you know the other difference? the other thing that we now know that would only cost $2 to repair, $2 and that is how little this ignitions which would have cost and it was

apparently $2 too much for general motors to act despite a decade of warnings, accident reports and deaths and while a number of investigations ongoing to determine exactly how many times this evidence was covered up by gm or ignored by nhtsa there is one clear conclusion we can make and that is it is much more difficult to cover up evidence that is publicly available. if i have a car accident to report the details to nhtsa, scovel 11 putts that information into a public consumer complaint database. if i made the same complaint to general motors instead of nhtsa, gm convene all the details of my complaint to be confidential business information and it does that every single time.

you told senator coats that you would have all of the information, that you would share anything and everything related to gm's kobold situation. my question to you is this. will you commit publicly to disclosing all documents including accident reports, notices that a fatal accident could have been caused by a safety defect and all details of consumer complaints gm receives about all of its vehicles going forward, cobalt or any other vehicle. >> i understand there are different things being looked at to see what should we should be reporting to nhtsa and we will support looking at what would be useful to help speed the process of understanding the defect, we will work a lot of lee and legislation under way and we will provide input.

>> so let's reach the legislation because it is clear that if you are not going to commit to doing it voluntarily we need legislation that mandates it. the families are here, the victims are here. they want to be vindicated themselves but they don't want other families to suffer what they have suffered so senator bloom and fall and i have introduced legislation, early warning reporting system. let me ask this. the bill would require automakers to submit the documents that first alert them to fatal accidents involving their vehicles to the searchable early war reporting system. would you support that legislation? >> that legislation is being reviewed by our team. we are providing input and -- >> it would require the transportation department to publish materials it receives about safety incidents that are

currently kept secret. could you support that for families across america. >> as this bill is put forward we would review in its entire knee and provide input and comply with what ever legislations pass and work proactively with nhtsa to make sure the most helpful information -- >> it would require the transportation department to upgrade its database to give consumers the tools they need to protect the members of their family. can you support that? >> the answer again, we will look at the legislation in its entirety and provide input and work with nhtsa to make sure the appropriate information that will be most helpful is what is made available. >> it would require the transportation department to use the information it has to better identify facial defects before they claim more innocent lives.

can use support that legislation for every auto company in america? >> i would like to look at the legislation in its entirety, look at what makes the most sense working with nhtsa to make sure the most valuable information is put forward. .. any other family in america again. and you should be in position

right now, ms. barra, i am telling you this, to say we will disclose this information. we will make it available. you've had more than two months now to make this decision. you've had more than too much to think about what went wrong. you've had more than two much to think about why you worked to kill legislation as a corporation for years the provided a consumer database so that individual families knew that their families could be harmed and yet you still do not have an answer. you still do not understand what the american public wants. they need information to protect their families and it is important for everyone to note that general motors is still not giving us the answer the american people want to that question. >> ms. barra, how many lawsuits related to the defect both been in close as most settlements as gm been a defendant or acod event? >> i don't have that information. i can provided. >> you've had some briefing about your exposure on the event? >> we have not talked about

exposure. is very important once we realize the situation we immediately hired. we don't want to have multiple investigations. we thought it was because i'm not talking about investigation. i'm saying as the ceo of general motors you have not had a briefing by your general counsel about the litigation that is ongoing against your company concerning this defect? you have not had that conversation? >> i've been focused on getting parts for customers. >> we would like to know how many cases have been filed. we would like to know me cases have been completed. how many are settled, and most important how many of those required confidentiality. how much whack-a-mole has been going on in terms of trying to do with these lawsuits on a one off basis and leveraging what a lawyer wants to do for the client with the requirement of secrecy is. has mr. georgiou been fired and?

>> the investigation has only been going on for a couple weeks. we've already made process steps as i returned to the office will start to look at the people implications. >> he has not been part? >> no. >> is he working everyday? >> yes. >> you know he lied under oath? >> the data that's been put in front of me indicates that the and waiting for the full investigation. i want to be fair. >> let me help you. he said several times he had no idea these changes have been made. here's a document that he signed under his name, mr. rainey the giorgio. he signed it on april 26, 2006 approving of the change. now, it is hard for me to imagine you would want him anywhere near engineering anything that general motors under these circumstances. i, for the life of me can't understand why he still has his job. i think it is, i know you want to be methodical. i know you want to be thorough.

and they want to get this right. i think it's since exact wrong message somebody can perjure repeatedly under oath, he wasn't just asked once biggest asked the question over and over again. now, here's the really import and question. this document which is completely relevant to any lawsuit that is filed against gm around these crashes would have been included in any document request from any lawyer representing the families. this document was not given to mr. cooper. this document was withheld from the lawyer representing the family of brooke mountain. he didn't even find out about this document until after his case had been settled. how do you justify withholding a key piece of documentary evidence in a litigation concerning a part that was change without a part number change that is spelled out in

this document for anyone to read? how does that happen? >> i cannot, i don't condone not providing information when requested. anin a legal proceeding. and if that was done we will deal with the individuals accountable for that. >> i think it's very important that we find at many cases this title was provided to counsel when it is requested. clearly from the scope i guarantee you there's not a request for documents be made of gm around these cages that the scope of the requested not include this document or i would've how many cases they buried this document because this is what happens in america. corporations think they get away with hiding documents from litigants. there will be no consequences and of what to make sure there's consequences for hiding documents. this is hiding the truth from families that need to know. and it's outrageous. and it needs to stop. >> last month the department of justice announced a $1.2 billion

settlement in a criminal case against toyota. it resulted in a massive recall unintended acceleration. we talked about it in these hearings. what is particularly bothered to you and i want to put this on the record is the facts around the redesign of a part in a criminal case and going to quote from the facts of that settlement. toyota prius i'm a part using quote a designation that entailed no part number change end of quote. department of justice said toyota engineers did it explicitly to quote prevent their detection and nhtsa. and i know this is gone over with the time and time again but it wanted to make sure we got that in the record that we have had it occur with another car manufacturer. finally i want to talk just a minute about the nature of the defect. i'm confused about this. when i was going through the documents preparing for the hearing from his testimony,

acting administradministr ator stephen said gm specifications for the cobalt called for the airbag system to contain an independent power source that is armed and ready to fire for up to 60 seconds after the vehicle's power is cut off. that's in gm specifications and nhtsa. is that an accurate description of the technical specification? >> i don't know. i would have to go back and redo that and i can provide that information. >> there seems to be a problem. if the specifications say that airbag deploys when power is off, and we know these airbags are not deployed when power is off, then we got a much bigger problem. that means we could have airbags across the entire doby books industry that do not have the appropriate sensors in their that allow the deployment even when the power has gone off during some kind of collision, or in this case because of a defective part. that would be information we would also like to follow up on.

finally two things for the record. will you commit to coming back in front of this committee when you can answer the questions? >> yes. >> and secondly, all the information you're providing commits on friday would you be so kind as to provide a copy of all of that information to this committee? >> yes. >> thank you. senator heller. >> thank you, chairman. you've answered most of the questions with the response that there's an ongoing investigation, you want to see the results of the. do you have a target date for when that review would be complete? >> i hope to have that done within 45-60 days. and i've asked them to go as quickly as they can but not sacrifice accuracy for speed speed what opportunity will we have to review that? >> as i said before, any information related to safety than anything related to this incident and anything we think

would help from a nhtsa broader we will provide it, anything related patrick the on thing we want is issue of competitiveness or is there privacy issues we have to comply. >> how broad will this review be? >> i've asked him there is no boundaries and are no sacred cows. i want to make sure we have a complete understanding because the with equally understand to we make all the changes we need to make from both a people and a process perspective. >> is delphi a vendor or a subsidiary? >> delphi is a supplier, not a subsidiary. >> okay. will this overview include looking at delphi and their participation in this? >> to the state that he goes in that direction and we did information from them come yes. >> it would make some sense to talk to people at delphi to find out in the words and perhaps bring them to this committee to find out what it understanding and to determine their involvement in this particular

case. can you tell us whether or not this is a one time occurrence of? >> this is, as i look at it, i see as a very extraordinary situation. there have been many, many cases where we've been quick to acclimate safety recall process. and as i mentioned before, often we are known to do more recalls of smaller population because we want to get to issues as quickly as we can. >> so you have no recall of whether or not similar situation has occurred in the past where a part, to different parts have the same part number? >> i'm not aware of that. that is bad engineering. >> do you think it was an oversight on the part of delphi? >> i don't know. that's what helped along with the investigation. i want to understand all the parties involved and if what they did, what was wrong, what was not following process, separate. >> what would you consider to be the financial stability of gm in 2005-2006-2007 just before the

taxpayers bailed them out of? >> for. >> what would you then, what do you think would have been the damage done to the public image if the company initiated recall of these calls in 2005? >> i can't, i can't, you can't guess what the would've been obvious it would've been less than it is now and it would've been much better to have this issue resolved because it clearly took too long. >> do you think gm would have recalled if they recalled cars in 2005? >> i can't guess. >> do you think the company took that into consideration? >> i did not take that into consideration. i don't know if anyone needed. >> did perhaps of gm would have gone under heavy initiated recall in 2005? >> i don't know. >> all right. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> senator baucus. >> ms. barra, i really hate to say this, but if this is the new gm leadership it's pretty lacking and maybe this round you can change my mind. i'll give you another chance. but leadership means stepping out with a fresh start, and i don't see. for example, you had mr. blumenthal, senator blumenthal showed you the recall notice and you still won't say that everybody who has these cars should get rid of it. even though the recall notice says if your keychain is heavy or you go over rough roads. have you seen this winter? in vermont they had 94 occasions of snow. do you know what that does for the infrastructure? look, you should have said, you're right. the mr. markey, senator markey, a great leader on this, says will you support just making transparent the report to the company that there's a problem with the car? put it out there. oh, no, you can't come you can't answer that either. so then my question in

march 2005 gm people said it costs too much to fix these cars. the codeword quote none of the solutions represent an acceptable business case. that was a public document. gm gave that document over. all, you can even talk to that big you don't know anything about anything. and, madam chairman was not to comment on ask unanimous consent to place in the record more pictures of mary theresa car, and what kind of a death follows that kind of crash. you can see from the. so without objection i'll put that in. now, it's my understanding you are recalling many of your cars now, not all of them. you're giving -- by the people want to they can say please pay for a loaner, correct? >> that's correct. >> that is the right thing to do. but do you support a law that

would see recall cars like yours can no longer be rented or loaned? do you support a law like that? >> if there's a safety issue, on the vehicle, and which are on these vehicles that -- >> no, no. do you support a proposed law by senator mccaskill and myself that which they recalled cars like yours can no longer be rented or loaned? if we have a lot to support that law, that proposal, that bill? >> i would like to read the whole bill before -- >> you haven't read it? >> no, i have not. >> it's been out a long time. are you aware that recalled cars can be rented or load? are you aware that? of that? >> i know that -- >> so you can send, owner of one of these cars to a rental place, or get a loaner and they could lease, and they could get a

defective car. are you aware that, but there is no law that says speed i know because i've checked vehicles are that they are grounded spent say that again. >> for this specific issue when i first things we did is make sure that speakers are not asking about that. i'm asking you, do you support a law that senator mccaskill and i, and schumer and others, have proposed that would say if they car is recalled, it cannot be leased or loaned? >> my understanding is the rental command is voluntary complying with that. >> do you support a law, yes or no? >> conceptually it makes sense but i would like to understand -- >> well, conceptually is not the question. do you support the bill? >> i haven't read it. >> well, you should since you were the ceo of gm when we got an e-mail from your organization that you're a part of, the

audit, the manufacture of posing the bill. so you already were ceo. this is the new gm. and you oppose the law. now, you should know that my constituent lost her two daughters, rachel, 24 and jackie 20 in a traffic accident caused by an unrepaired safety defect in a rental car they were driving. so senator schumer and mccaskill, we wrote the rachel and jaclyn safe act. know what? the rental car people support us but you don't. the automobile manufactures adult, so you're essentially bragging today, if i may use the word, that you're telling your people all, go get another car. but at the same time you're lobbing precision is opposing a bill that would make sure that no one, no one would die the way

they died. so i would say, madam chairman, and so grateful to you in senator heller for this hearing. the issues run deep. and we have work to do. and i am very disappointed, really as a woman to woman i am very disappointed because the culture that you're representing here today is a culture of the status quote your thank you. >> senator klobuchar. >> thank you, madam chairman. but i just have a few specific follow-up questions, ms. barra. in your chest when you mentioned the steps gms taken in terms of its recall, and because the recall focuses on model year vehicles way back in 2003-2007 to 100 these vehicles are now on the second or third owners and if this is creating a challenge to reach these owners and is it anything more that could be done in? >> one of the things we would've support is some type of

database. i don't know the right agency to manage it when we had the latest owners attached to the enemy. what we do, we want to get second, third, however many owners that are, if we go to registration data and that's how we get the latest information, but if there was something that allowed, if there's a master database are such that you always knew what vin and he was the registered owner, that would be incredibly helpful. >> and this will be coming from the department of transportation? or nhtsa, i'm not sure which agency but i will be something that would be very beneficial. >> we should approach them about that. the next question. ms. barra, gm received some of my colleagues have got over this but consumer complaints related to the faulty switch for years, evidenced back to 2011 internally what we've learned is the company conduct reviews, issued a service bulletins to

dealers on how to advise customers on the problem and even approved redesigns of the ignition switches. but none of this was ever made public. as we know we didn't have a formal investigation by 2011. was this a gm and management focus they thought they could handle this internally? i'm trying to understand the reasoning. i know you're doing this investigation. >> i'm trying to understand it as well because it took way too long. i understand if it had been handled more quickly. once there's a safety issue you should never have a business case that goes against it in making any part of decision-making, and we go forward now, there isn't any. so i am as disturbed as you that i want to understand, and i commit to you i will make change both people and process. >> delphi automotive, the company that produced the ignition switches that are linked to this defect, have informed investigative gm approved the original part in 2002, even though did in the gym specification for torque

performance. do you think it meant those specifications and? >> understand there's documentation that exists. that's what i to understand why that happen. >> in your testimony mentioned you have named a new vice president for global vehicle safety. i think of something a pretty good idea right now but i was surprised there wasn't already a person high up i in the company dedicated only to citigroup will the person in the position be involved with the key decisions related to safety that are made by upper management the? >> this person will have free reign and have input, at 18 and access to all the information across. we will be investing more resources for the invasion so they can use the right data, and other tools to put the pieces more quickly. his staff, he will meet with me on a monthly basis enemy with a report on a quarterly basis. >> how are you going to measure

if it's working or not? what is his success in that position? >> i will look to make sure quickly when we learned of an issue, how quickly we understand and implement change and do, work with the nhtsa and take the necessary steps although it up to including a safety recall. >> to other automobile companies have a person in place like this, a position like this? >> i haven't done a read across other oems to look at this. >> i'm going to put the letter in the record from our constituents who perished in the car crash, natascha engel, and i think this is many of these other senators come my thoughts and prayers are with her them as they pursue justice and all that comes behind you, i visited a lot more work to do, so thank you for adhering today. >> senator blumenthal. >> thank you, madam chairman. and thank you for committing to continue these hearings. ms. barra, we were talking about

the recall notice and i was pointing out that you said there's no risk as long as people don't add keys to the ignition key, is that correct speak as i said there's been extensive mentioning analysis and testing done that demonstrates that the weight of the key or the key and just the ring -- >> who has done the analysis? >> general motors engineers. >> would you commit to making them available to us to? >> yes. >> would you commit to providing documents that support that analysis, any documents in connection with that analysis? >> yes. >> thank you. are using the recall notice is wrong? the recall notices risk increases with the rough roads or jarring events. >> i think it was trying to capture -- spin do you agree or disagree? i apologize for interrupting. are you saying that the recall notice is wrong? >> no. >> so that people should not

drive on rough roads or with jarring events using one of the recall and repaired automobiles the? >> i think the notice was trying to be descriptive of the situation where it's most likely to occur but again that testing is related to the key. >> what would it take to change your view that people should not be driving these and repaired recall cars? if i came to you with a 100 events of people finding that they lose power and control their cars come with that persuade you? >> it wouldn't take 100 events. i mean, -- >> would'vwaited taken? >> i mean, my understanding is with the key or the key in the ring, the incident, the phenomenon the cause of these issues will not occur. [talking over each other] >> there are those events. without persuade you?

>> i'm not aware of any events which is a key or the keeping where that occurred. >> if i came to get -- >> yes, it would spend if i came to you with the death of a young woman who went to school not far from here who was the driving one of these cars, and repaired and was killed -- unrepaired come where airbag was disabled because of the defect, would it change your view? >> senator blumenthal, my response is, there's just the key or the king in the ring, that's the analysis we done to indicate that these vehicles are safe to drive. spent i know you've done that but would it change your view on whether you would recommend to your customers that this car is fine to drive, no risk, so if you don't add keys to the ignition? >> i guess i've not clear on what you're asking me. >> i am asking whether the additional information, you're an engineer, this is based on space what additional

information are you providing? >> about death or loss of power and control over cars, those kinds of events in cars that have this defect and encounter rough roads or jarring events. >> senator, if i had any data, any incidents where with just the key or the key in the ring there was any risk, i would not, i would ground these vehicles across the country. >> have you ever been in a car that has lost control over power steering, brakes? >> i've been in a vehicle that lost power steering and power brakes. >> driving privately, not in a test vehicle? >> i was driving on public roads but it wasn't a test vehicle. it was a motor, a safe vehicle to be on the road. >> prettroad. >> pretty frightening? >> it can be startling.

>> and have you spoken to the family's? >> i did speak to the families on monday night. >> and you've mentioned gm civic responsibility. don't you believe it has a moral responsibility or give advice more strongly its customers about these potential risks? >> we are going on a multi-dimension communications, letters to people. we are monitoring social media. with a dedicated website. we are working multiple chose to make sure we communicate with the individuals that have owned these vehicles are what drive these vehicles. >> let me say because my time has expired, first, my thanks for facing these questions. this gm is not the old gm. it's not even the pre-2014 gm. what you're doing now is incurring both legal and moral responsibility for the actions that you take in, or failing to

take. and i will tell you that the more i hear and see in these documents, the more i learn about what happened before the reorganization and in connection with the reorganization, the more convinced i am that gm has a real exposure to criminal liability. in fact, i think it's likely and appropriate that gm will face prosecution based on this evidence. and i think the more that you can do as leader of gm to come forward and do the right thing now, the better it will be for the future of the company. so i hope to continue to work with you, and hope that you will review the legislation that's been offered. because going for it can make a real difference. thank you, madam chair. >> senator ayotte. >> thank you, madam chair. as i understand it at this point, nobody within gm has been fired as a result of him the

issue that comes before us today on the ignition switch, and, obviously, this long pattern of having information and not providing disclosure and recall to the public, is that true? nobody yet has been fired? >> i think it's important to do a complete investigation, but we'll take the appropriate actions. but yes, that's true. >> the one thing, you fired an investor to conduct an internal investigation and i assume gm is paying him, greg? >> correct. >> i'm aware of his qualifications and certainly i think that he is a very qualified individual. however, it seems to me, how would you guarantee that basic with all of the individuals, or maybe not all of them, maybe some of them are no one with the company but i think we can guess

that many individuals who were involved in the decision that led us to where we are today are still at gm or potentially could be at gm? we don't have the situation that the chair mentioned with regard to the failure to disclose in the litigation, documentation that was directly relevant to the litigation that showed the change in terms of the part and the failure to create a new number for the change in the defect of a nation switch. and i guess that i just i'm very concerned -- ignition switch. how are you going to guarantee that no documents are withheld from not only mr. balucas, but also investigations that are being conducted by the government? and how are you going to ensure that given to the people that mr. balucas is going to be focused on it many of them are going to be worried about their

own future and liability, whether civil or criminal liability, that you actually can get to the bottom of this with his internal investigation? >> again, mr. balucas i think is very experience in doing this. he has several decades worth of experience and has the highest integrity. i sort i know he's not going to compromise his reputation for general motors. and that confidence is on the fact he's done investigations in the past and we've acted, gotten to the truth by going to multiple sources to get to the truth. we will act on it and we've demonstrate that we would up to and including discharging people. >> and i am in no doubt as i said about mr. valukas' qualifications. will do, how do or have you segregate all the documents and put them aside that are related to this issue? and evidence that you're aware of now so that mr.