>> there other things that i've done to make sure there's a flow of information that would also bring to my attention cases on a more regular basis. >> is it your view that changes have been made that would prevent what has happened from ever happening again? >> i believe that the answer is yes and one of the things that has happened here is the flow of information which are able to identify in this instance, the trends so that the engineering department was in acting on it and the legal department would be in the position to push that enforce that take place. >> have employees been let go because of this? >> you have to address that. >> are any of the employees challenging their dismissal? >> they're not.

>> one must question. recalling lots of cars, i think 25 million, why would there be so many recalls and and i'm not suggesting that's a that that's a bad thing, but that is a high number. >> when we learned what happened, we immediately redoubled our efforts and went and looked at a number of places and we tackled all of those and we ran back extensively and looked at information that we had to see that we could more quickly put together turn. we also as it relates to every safety item that the gentleman had every responsibility for, we assessed this and there is not even any field information to suggest there is an issue. as we do this, simply by an insert into this, we could make

the system more robust than and we did that and we are intent upon a company known for our safety and this is an important step and we will continue to look for the items to make sure that we have a company that is dedicated to the safety of our vehicles. >> i thought of one final question for those employees that were dismissed, were any of those employees given retirement benefits or a salary that they had not previously earned called packaging now? >> yes, they were. >> that could explain why they are not challenging their dismissal and that is all i have. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, madam chairman. i would like to ask the gentleman. you have been the general will come as i understand it, since

july 2009. >> july 20, 2009. >> and you've had a long legal career at gm? >> that is correct. >> wanting the deeply troubles me is an important regulator for gm. as i understand it there response into a number of complaints regarding this matter, this is in terms of inquiries made about problems in this specific issue, the attorney client privilege and the answers were things like we had not asked the case and gm is

opting not to respond. and i guess i have a question, are these complaints brought to your attention and the response of the company to these complaints? >> on multiple occasions, lawyers of the report to me, they have brought safely concerns to my attention. looking at some of my e-mails of alaska with years, there's been frequent occasions that they have brought this up to my attention, including some of the lawyers that we had to let go, so there was a clear understanding in terms of my expectation of the kinds of issues that need to be brought to my attention and for some reason i did that did not happen here and that's very troubling to me. that is why i am doing the things i'm doing to make sure that i'm going forward. >> not only were you not

notified according to her testimony about the potential for unitive damages and that that potential, but also in terms of what i understand were complaints that were brought forward about this matter and you were not informed about those either? >> the reports were mentioned in a newspaper yesterday and i looked at when those reports were given. >> was there one in 2009 that was involving this crash? >> i'm saying that there was one when i was general counsel their and that did not come to my attention. >> so that is not something

brought to attention. what was the company's response to that he? >> i don't remember what the company's response to that specific complaint was. but if i remember this correctly the initial thought based on an investigation that was done was that it was -- >> the response that wasn't attorney-client privilege, that there was a response, that there was a refusal to answer the regulatory agency in that regard and the absolute shocking that you would be the general counsel and what that company would respond with in regards to this and that includes the regulatory agency in terms of public eesti and that you wouldn't have known

and i also see a consistent pattern of gm refusing to answer this. i'm looking forward to also hearing from them because i think that there was am serious lapses of responsibility by the regulatory agency because they should have refused to accept your answers and those not answering, asserting the attorney-client privilege, refusing under circumstances that i don't know how you can accept that and be able to use they the public you're going to protect people's eesti. so given that this pattern with punitive issue, how it wouldn't have come to your attention based on the 2009 crash where a

young woman was killed and was quite shocking that you wouldn't have understood that. and it's interesting that you hold this position or get this critical information from a regulator. >> thank you for being here again. i'm sure that you are familiar with this and it has appeared in many areas around the country. the key to safety is removing weight from the keychain until the car is repaired, there have been egregious delays in the delivery of those who want to repair those cars. the key to safety and my view is to take these cars off the road and not taking them off the chain. so i hope you will work with the

gentleman who is right next to you so they can be sure that these are prepared and made safe. and so i also hope the will expand the compensation fund to vehicles that were in crashes as a result of effective ignition switches beyond the 2.6 million that have been recalled, including the millions more that gm has acknowledged and the cost at least three deaths and many injuries and there's no view the entries resulting from those crashes so i hope you will consider extending this and i'm glad that there's no cap to it.

but both by fairness and equity and accountability, they are powerfully part of this effective because of exactly the same part. so with all due respect, if gm is serious about changing its culture and imposing a new era of truth telling, it is with your legal department. lawyers are responsible for being the conscience of the company for this in spirit and in this incident, the lawyers enabled purposeful concealment and cover up and possible criminal actions that is the subject of investigation.

i know that you have responsibility to choose your own team and my team has to change right now and the buck stops at this empty desk. and so i know that you say that you wish you had done it differently. and would you agree that gm should unseal all of those elements involving the millions of dollars, a secret settlement that could have saved lives if they had from the beginning. >> will you agree to waive and this includes people suing gm in court because of what was

granted during the bankruptcy proceeding and the taxpayers that build about. >> we have done that already. >> would you allow this against the company or pre-2009? >> we have done not with a protocol. >> what if someone does this? >> we will not. >> i have a couple of other questions, would you agree to make public all the documents available to you? >> we will not. >> will you agree to agree to have all those 50 people under confidentiality agreements not to talk to you in order to

overcome that? >> the people who were let go in the agreements that they have, they have enabled them that they feel that they need to or to answer any questions that come from any governmental body. >> what about the public and reporters and the customers as they go to those 15 people and can they answer those questions? >> and have to take a look at the agreement. >> would you wave the confidentiality requirements that they have been awarded to agree with this? >> i would have to take a look before i could answer that question. >> i hope that you'll come back to this panel with different answers. if not, i would suggest that this company is not well served. >> senator? >> thank you, madam chair.

according to the report in 2004, gm and the transportation department had a meeting in which the attendees agreed by themselves and that this was not necessarily a safety problem. do any of you disagree that members of the public would have rejected this conclusion if they had known about it in a. >> let the record show that no one disagrees. >> some of these warnings and reports were not publicly disclosed or acted on. do any of you disagree that if they knew about these reports, it is possible that some of the deaths and injuries caused by this could have been avoided?

>> guest. >> let the record reflect that. in 2007 we asked for and received a document from gm related to the deck content up into wisconsin teenagers and that was made public in may 79. and it was considered repeatedly and it said that the ignition switch prevented this from the point. and they have at other cars and the delegates about the safety defect at that time. and this includes that at the time and it is possible that some of the deaths and injuries

could have been avoided. >> let the record show that none of the witnesses disagreed. >> in 2006 and 2007, they receive this related to two fatal crashes involving the gm kobolds and this is described airbag that did not deploy because the ignition switches had turned off. do any of you disagree but if they had reviewed these are poor at and inform the public about this, it is possible that some of the deaths and injuries could have been avoided. >> let the record make it clear that none of the witnesses disagreed. and so i have energy says the

calls were important steps in the best way of ensuring that the does not happen to ensure that this transparent in the future. and you can't give me the confidence that they will take more aggressive action in the future. that is why the bill that we have introduced requiring the public availability alerts them to fatality that clued it in turn could include this is so important. we need this to be publicly disclose in the early morning system. so i want the public to be able to access this kind of information for it to provide real early warnings.

that's gm support the legislation? >> you and i agree completely on the need to make sure that we are doing everything we can from a safety perspective and we support efforts accessible and useful and we suggest that this will be added to the bill and we think that will be make sure that we get to people with a safety defect and we support this with fatality and early warning and protect confidential information from an overall perspective. so we are more than willing to continue to work with you and are often and anything that advances the safety agenda. >> i think you, that's going to go a long way. and that's the surest way to

ensure this will not happen again and i thank you for your focus as well because i don't think that we can conclude this entire process. >> that is absolutely correct. >> thank you. senator boxer? >> thank you. after months of negotiation, the senators and i thank you for your support and i ask unanimous consent to put their letter into this and i will work with you to convince other automakers to follow that lead. is it all right? >> that will go on the record. >> thank you. a month ago an article was published entitled gm recalls, how gm silenced a whistleblower. have you seen that article? and i ask unanimous consent to place it in the record. >> without objection. >> a third-generation employee

and inspector since 1983 sought to protect gm and the public by bringing safety concerns to light instead of praise and gratitude, i he was met by retribution. he approached a supervisor and his supervisor's supervisor because he couldn't get any help and he approached them about a few defect and he noticed they were not even part of his line. and he sued them just gets noticed. his warnings were ignored, his case dismissed and he was transferred to a job with no responsibilities and he calls it a gm version of purgatory. on page 93 heath quoted as saying that he was to involved. after he was clunk will push out of the job for doing just that. and even this last year 2013

survey of gm employees show that employees are reluctant to report misconduct and some fear retaliation. so this is terrible. people die because of this. so i'm asking you, have you met with all the employees and have you told them that you value honesty and integrity and whistleblowing. >> senator boxer, on june 5 i have an employee meeting that thousands were live in the room as we talk to them and share the results of this report which i personally found disturbing and troubling. and that was broadcast globally and we have since communicated this. >> i will stop and say congratulations and could you

send your speech and also part of the policy of the company and i'm sure that you have all this? because i think that that is really important. >> picking up on where the senator was going with this article in "the new york times." >> my documents show that gm kept silent and this is extremely disturbing because the senator pointed out these inquiries were called death inquiries. and what you are saying is that even one that was issued under your watch, you never saw it. is that correct prevent. >> just. >> you never saw this inquiry from those who regulated the auto industry in safety? >> that is correct. >> said so who is the person who saw that? >> i do not know.

>> did you ask about this issue in your report? >> no, i did not have. >> thank you. >> i consider it a cover-up the manufacturer does not respond about what it knows. because this was not a casual memo. i agree that we should ask. but they did their job in setting up the initial inquiry. i am shocked and stunned that on one occasion, didn't even go to this? >> senator, when i saw the article yesterday, it was all news to me and we have caused a review to be done so the information can be brought forward. >> you don't know where the inquiry went or who answered it the next america goes to the

department of engineering. i think it is called -- i don't know the name of it. >> product investigations. >> thank you. >> who answered and wrote all those answers? >> my understanding is that those would've been done by an organization that is part of this function is called product investigations. what i can tell you is that now that would not happen. >> before you tell me that, i am not done looking at this. you can say this and forget the past. because people die. so you have to move on and god bless you, you are doing a good job. but we have to find out what happened. so then i went to this office of -- >> product investigations. >> okay, what we know from "the new york times" unless we doubt their reporting, is that one answer is that gm is opting not

to respond. i wish that i could talk that way my constituents. and then we have other answers. we can't answer because it's attorney-client privilege. okay, in another case we have not assessed a and so because i believe it is a cover-up and you are firing people, who have you looked at, and who signed off and have you filed it down? >> i believe that i have. >> okay, can you give us the names of the people. >> i would provide that later, please. >> that is absolutely fine. so now when an inquiry comes, which department is responsible for reviewing those inquiries? >> it would go to the vice

president of global vehicle safety along with his team and i will tell you that there will be no answers as you stated we are working productively and we want to understand anytime any time there is a fatality or a serious injury or even an issue that happen that didn't necessarily cause an injury and so that is how we are approaching. and so the president will also inform you of this inquiries? >> i believe he will because i will make sure of it. we meet on a regular basis and he calls me 24/7. >> when you say that i believe so, i would love to hear you say that you will do so and take it seriously. >> the more moment i leave this i will have him make a responsibility to bring this may. >> i'm grateful to that. >> let me give everyone more

information. here's what i'm planning on doing right now. we are allowing senator baldwin to do her questioning and there may be a senator that shows up and we will adjourn at about 12:15 p.m. or 12:20 p.m. around 20 to 25 minutes to go down and vote. we have briefings we have to vote on and we will come back. but you don't need to panic because there's a another hearing soon. we won't be here all day. we will use the time that we have to allow members to ask a second round of questioning so that all members know that we will come back immediately after the third vote and probably do another half-hour to 45 minutes. >> thank you. for those on the panel of witnesses, thank you and i will

explain that i'm not a member of the committee but here as a guest because of the tragedy related to the cool bald ignition switch and wisconsin, taking the lives of two young women and seriously injuring a third young woman in october of 2006. i wanted to call your attention to an article on june 19, 2005. the reviewer who is doing a companion article on the cool -- cobalt and that which is entitled making a case for admissions that don't need keys, and includes a statement from the gm spokesman about the

end-to-end shutoff problem. so he downplayed the issue saying that it is still controllable and when the power engine is cut. and the engine can be restarted after shifting to neutral. and he said that he did not consider the situation besides him saying that, he's statement demonstrates that someone at gm new about the defect back in 2005 before the tragedy that occurred in 2006 and two at gm directed him to make this statement about the cobalt engine cut off. because i assume, and this is an

assumption, that his role as spokesman when include this, so he had had information and be directed to make the statement that this was not a safety issue some wondering who made that determination that this was not a safety issue. >> senator, as was uncovered in the report, early on this issue, they didn't understand the connection with the airbag didn't deploy. so this was misclassified at the very beginning as more of a customer annoyance that they didn't understand the connection to. at that time across the industry , you can install if you run out of gas, it wasn't considered and it is anytime

there is a strong issue we identify the defect that causes this and in this case it would've been the ignition switch. and we treated as a safety issue and we understand what had happened. so that is a broader view at that time. i can't tell you who did that but i can tell you that it was a broad understanding beyond gm at that time. >> who counseled the gentleman before making the statements? >> i can look to see if i can find it. >> there was a discussion, including discussions within the staff, including a lawyer involved in that. ..

>> i'm curious with a lawyer that was involved in that, was that mr. camp? >> yes. may i correct something i said before? >> absolutely. >> i was asked whether or not we look at the death reports and we did look at this death reports as senator boxer have asked. we reviewed those that we reviewed those for purposes of seeing whether there was information there that would reflect why and how the sticks along. we did not review them for some other purpose. >> okay. i'm going to now ask a question

for senator rockefeller and then we will adjourn until the votes are over and we will come back. senator broad feller could not be your today so i'm going to try to pair face his question for him very them going to change it a little bit because there has been testimony that would have impacted it that he hadn't heard. i'm putting that on the record so the chairman knows why i'm changing slightly his question. ms. barra's senator rockefeller has two constituents mr. sam spencer and ms. belinda spencer who tragically lost their son leslie in a crash in the 2007 chevy cobalt one of your automobile subject to recall. losing power because of a defective switch an airbag not applying upon impact however for reasons still unknown and the airbag eventually deployed after the initial deadly impact. consequently as we heard

earlier, this is where i'm changing it slightly, it's my understanding according to mr. feinberg's testimony that under those circumstances they claim can in fact be made. but, it is not clear i think two victims out there this scenario that there may not have been an initial deployment but upon impact may be a deployment after-the-fact. mr. feinberg did testify that somebody should file a claim in those situations but senator rockefeller's question is as you have consistently stated in public that gm will do all it can end up repeatedly told congress that the new gm will do the right thing. if they are correct, their son did in fact tragically lose his life because it lost power because of a defective ignition switch will you pledge to do everything it can to allow the spencers and victims under similar circumstances to seek financial help from the

compensation fund if that's what it takes? >> so first of all i want to be very clear that i would like the compensation problem that mr. feinberg is administering to reach every person who might attempt been impacted in this case are these ignition switches. so as mr. feinberg said i would encourage the spencer family to submit a claim. there is an extensive worker that has gone on in the protocol for months that has worked so i am confident in the protocol to wait stands today so i do not plan to amend it but i still believe within that protocol there are technical issues that need to be understood in the spencer case and i incurred them to submit a claim. >> we will now a chernenko vote and we should be back here in hopefully 20 to 25 minutes come as soon as the third vote opens because your folks will understand this better with you. when the third vote opens i will

but immediately and come directly back here so within five minutes after they call the third vote i will be here. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> thank you all very much. i appreciate your understanding and as much as i was tapping my foot over there i couldn't get them to roll the votes as the liaison would like so i appreciate it very much. ms. barra when you were here before, you were very forthcoming about the facts and in fact i think that direct quote the facts will be the facts. my question to you today, have you accepted the loucas report -- the valukas report is factual? >> yes. >> is there anything in it that you think is erroneous or mistakes that facts in any way?

>> overall for valukas characterizes and captures what is happen. that is what we have dealt with and that is why we are going to implement all of the recommendations that were made. >> my question to you mr. millikin if the ceo has said on the record that this report is factual why is general motors refused to stipulate to the valukas report is factual in bankruptcy court? >> senator mccaskill i'm not aware of our position on the bankruptcy court that i can tell you that issue is associated probably with the attorney client privilege issues that are in that proceeding in on that basis they will probably probably take a position i'm not familiar with the position you are talking about in bankruptcy court on that issue. >> who would be? that is obviously an important legal decision that has been made by your company and you are the lawyer in charge. this is obviously, i don't know

if you could have any more high-profile litigation the bankruptcy proceedings right now as to what did and didn't happen when bankruptcy occurred as a relates to our presentations that were made so if you don't know, who does no? >> senator that piece of litigation i've been working with the lawyers on it in terms of making sure that we are making the arguments that need to be made to deal with the economic loss claims that are part of that litigation. on that particular point i don't know the answer you're asking. >> you understand it's a big one. that would be terrific because this is a big question. >> yes, it is. >> if we are in fact and i will tell you i believe ms. barra. i believe her that there is a disconnect here. again, because if in fact your

company has decided this report is factual and mr. valukas did a good job of ferreting out all the facts then why in the world wouldn't you save time in the bankruptcy court by acknowledging that? >> senator is my understanding is correct it's the attorney-client privilege. i don't know the issue. i'm assuming that position may be associated with that. >> i can imagine how evidentiary wyatt when somebody presents, asks for a stipulation than the issue is your company has decided through its lawyer to say they will not stipulate to the valukas report being factual. but that's not attorney-client. attorney client would be the discussions between you and your lawyer. the position you have taken in the preceding would not be subject to attorney-client unless you are saying the advice

you're you've been given a something you don't want to share trade. >> what i'm saying senator and i committed to you to find out exactly and come back to you. >> who in your company is monitoring this? when mr. halliday took the deposition when the bombshell dropped the call the lawyer on your staff that day as i said in a previous hearing. the first thing he did was call somebody that worked for you mr. millikin and that lawyer was at his hotel room that night in michigan picking up those pictures. >> that's correct. >> so few is the person in the bankruptcy? if something happens in bankruptcy court i assume you have outside counsel for bankruptcy proceedings and who is that outside counsel reporting to you directly? >> he is reporting to mr. michael ruskin. >> where is michael raskin lets us see below. >> mr. ruskin reports directly

to me. >> what is his title? >> i have split the litigation function into two parts. one is private dedication one is general litigation. michael ruskin has general litigation. >> michael ruskin has never stipulated to you that the michael ruskin report is factual? >> it's not a conversation that i've ever had had with mr. ruskin. >> okay, not okay. then that answers on the death inquiries. who signs off on those in the legal department? the answers where they said gm refused. there is no way they are sending information, your company is not sending information from nhtsa without somebody from legal signing off on that correct? >> senator i will have to get the answer that and get back to because that's handled by private investigations. >> is there a lawyer that would look at a?

>> there could well be. i don't know that for a fact. >> i would like to know what part of the legal department signs off on their responses to nhtsa and greece particularly the death and greece. who was it that gave product investigation the authority and sign off to say we won't answer this question? >> i understand. >> okays secondary -- secondly the attendance bulletins. they were certainly in the valukas report information about not using the word stalled. there were some fear that stall would bring in regulators and it would catch the attention of nhtsa. i'm assuming technical service bulletins the language of those are also red by the department. >> i would assume so. >> do you know who in your legal department does that? >> it's done of the supervision of lucy -- working with jeff buyer and his organization. >> i would like to know who did it when the word went out that they could not use the word

stalled in a technical service bulletin. >> i will get that permission and get back to you. >> mr. valukas one of the thing that was interesting to me was that the georgiou situation where, this is how old i am great when i try to explain to my staff that mr. digiorgio remind me of a character in court hogan's heroes, i know nothing nobody in my staff even got it because none of them had heard of hogan's heroes. >> i get it. >> i'm hoping you have heard of hogan's heroes. it sounds to me like mr. digiorgio has refused to acknowledge all of the involvement yet in changing the switch but it's interesting to me is that there's no evidence that mr. digiorgio ever told anyone else about switching out the part and not changing the number. if anyone on one on to say there were e-mails. the e-mails that were copied to other engineers but your report didn't go any further about the other engineers that were copied.

could you briefly because i'm over my time and my colleagues are here now. could you briefly explain if you can remember and if not i would like to get it for the record to the engineers that were copied on e-mails that showed that this part had been changed? >> yes, let me give it to briefly and i will give it to you and much more detail since there was a time issue here and i'm happy to submit that. on the report on page 102 there's a a footnote 417 which focuses on this issue and very briefly what took place was there's an e-mail june 2, 2006 which comes from delphi. there are 30 people on that e-mail. six of them were associated with general motors. the e-mail related to changes that were taking place. most of the changes you are talking about were in the circuit board and we sought out the individuals who are at best we could tell, we don't know that all of them were we thought

they were on that i am side. none of them had -- strike that. individuals we talked to said this meant nothing to him about the change in the detailed switch. it was focused on the issue of the electrical issues that were involved here. the best we can tell from our permission we were not able to reach all of them. they were long retired and we could not find it that they were not involved in the process of stalls airbag deployment or stalls in particular at all. >> this is just an issue that the people that were copied had no understanding of the significance of that informati information? >> exactly. short and sweet but i will get you the details. it's relatively complicated the best answer. >> thank you very much. senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much madam chairman. mr. valukas your report demonstrated clearly that the ignition switch issue was viewed

internally at gma customer -- and as a result it didn't have the urgency to fi fix it. from your. from your report and this is a quote not one of the committees switching -- considering the switch were filled with engineers and business people whose job it was to understand how gm cars were built and how the systems interact request by the problem from one of customer convenience to one of safety or demonstrated in a sense of urgency in their efforts to fix the switch. you want to elaborate on that? >> what took place back then, we are talking 2004, 2005, 2006 period when we knew in fact the switches, the cars were in fact stalling. they knew at the time one of the presidents of that was taking taking place sunday at "the new york times" articles and other articles calling that to their attention by what happened in connection with this is a single-engine air looked at this

and said the stall doesn't constitute a safety issue. having made that decision that's where they went in connection with that. we went back announced the individual senate committee, did you know that the airbag wouldn't deploy if it went into the accessory and the answer was no, we didn't know that in the question then became had you known this would you have responded differently and the answer was yes. what we found was that people who were in this silo looking at the switch were not covering the issue of the deployment which was in another silo with you will. so those that were making the decision did not focus on that issue and claim not to know about that issue. >> somehow this state trooper saw the issue so i've found that interesting. miss up to going forward now what is going to be the process when these things are considered or is this still can be silent when something is viewed as a customer convenience issue versus a safety issue? >> absolutely not. first of all we have put in much more rigor on how issues are

analyzed and at the heart of it is with a pocket -- product integrity organization and impact in addition to a group of people responsible for parts and designing individual parts the parts integrated will be in the product integrity organization and they will look at it from a systems perspective and they will specifically designed around all the safety systems in the vehicle. we are actually bringing in outside groups for instance from aerospace to look at the way we designed a product integrity organization to ensure that we have state-of-the-art or the most modern possible to make sure that these types of issues won't happen again and we will really be looking at how the system operates especially as relates to safety. >> is there going to be some kind of a metric used to decide what is customer convenience or where it goes? >> i would say there's going to be much more rigor and all the safety systems in the vehicle and those individuals will have

you know i will say the ability to change someone else's venue. as someone on the part sites it is customer convenience those that truly understand from a systems perspective will be the ones who make the call and overwrite if someone else has a different opinion. i think it's going to be the very knowledgeable people that we are putting in a systems engineering to know that. we are also though looking at the systems and that responsibility won't cut across a couple of different folks who will be more in one more in one groups of a whole understand the way the whole system operates. >> very good. mr. valukas another thing from your report points an instance in september 2005 when a team of engineers considered or placing the switch but it was rejected because an engineer that you interviewed told you it was rejected as being too expensive and resulting in offsetting changes on savings and warranty

costs. do you find throughout throughout that period revenues when confronted with replacing the ignition switch the employees use the acceptable business case is the most important metric? >> what happens in that context is that once you have characterized it as nonsafety or customer convenience then it becomes an issue. the issue becomes will this solution solve the problem completely and how much will it cost? that was the consideration will it solve the problem completely and how much was it going to cost. had they elevated it to a safety issue those considerations would not have been in place. >> i assume would be similar to what we talked about earlier. >> yes, definitely. we look at what it takes to fix the issue and cost does not come into the at the question. >> we talked earlier in the first round of questions about the gm and the change of culture and what you have been working on and just one last question along those same lines along

transparency. i think that it's been a major focus to respond to work with nhtsa nhtsa. my colleagues are preset number of instances where things were forwarded and work with congre congress. that's a good thing and then -- transparent way to ensure we improve vehicle safety. could you last talk about the steps you have taken so far to ensure that you are fulfilling his commitment to process more transparent and whether the end whether they think stephen could be due in the future? >> again or may transparency perspective a couple of categories. one the way we do the work across the company and that would very much be looking at the integration of the car as we do with the product integrity. so they will be transparency in the way the systems operate in much more rigor in the validation of the systems. as we work with nhtsa again with the appointment of jeff buyer who is the vice president of

safety, he will be working much more cooperatively and already is to make sure when nhtsa has an inquiry we are responsive to it. i would also say the way that we are working with our data analytics as pieces of information come and whether they come in from our plans, from warranty data out in the field from our dealers directly from customers. there's a tremendous amount of information through social media to legal claims. we are working and have data analytics tools to mine that data. there will be information one place that isn't not across the company. those are three examples and then the most powerful because it's the people just make sure people understand their expectations and i have employees call me personally to raise an issue. we have turned it around to 24 hours. in addition to the engineer responsible talking i -- to the

employee i've called him back and said are you comfortable with that answer? that type of behavior demonstrate to our engineers and employees we take and want to listen to them and take their issues seriously. >> thank you very much. senator blumenthal. >> thank you very much senator. i think you can fairly gather that this committee is listening with a fair amount of incredulity to the intention that the general counsel of this company had no knowledge about this defect or about the concealment of the defect and the deceit of the federal government and of its customers before february of this year. and you have provided answers that i think for me are unsatisfactory on weeping the bankruptcy shield, disclosing

documents, making employees available and opening the secret settlements. i want to ask you about a specific person whose life was changed and she is still alive. her name is candace anderson. as you know she pled guilty to criminally negligent homicide after a car she was driving crashed and killed jean erikson and she was found to have traces of a drug in her system. we now know that the crash was due not to anything she did. it was due to a defective ignition switch. she still has that conviction on her record. she has borne the feelings of guilt, suffering for years thinking she was responsible. i would like to ask you mr. milliken will you recommend

to ms. barra that gm join me and others including the former prosecutor and calling on the governor of texas to pardon ms. anderson? >> i will recommend to miss up to the general motors corporate with any governmental agency that's taking a look at the circumstances behind that conviction and what needs to be done with it. >> ms. barra will you recommend to the governor of texas that he pardon ms. anderson? >> we will provide information to support that decision but i don't think it's him, it's not something that's appropriate for me to do. >> with all due respect and i'm sympathetic to what you are trying to do in changing the culture at gm and i cannot say enough good things about your workers and about the company, but i think that answer really is unworthy of gm and i hope you'll think more about it. this is a young woman whose life has really been changed as a result of a perversion of the

justice process as a result of gm knowing and concealing that she was innocent. gm allowed an innocent person to be convicted of a serious crime and we have been talking here about the gm nod. i've been feeling what we are getting here is the gm salute. someone else is responsible. someone else should take the job of doing the right thing. so i hope you will reconsider. i'm not taking this answers necessarily final and i hope we'll have a chance to talk more about it. let me ask you ms. barra about expanding compensation. i mentioned at the opening that there have been a number of recalls. i think the number is 8 million of cars with defective ignition

switches which the company acknowledged caused the deaths and injuries. will those deaths and injuries be included in the compensation fund? >> there are very distinct differences between a population that is included in the compensation program that is being administered by kenneth feinberg as it relates to specific issues, series of mistakes that were made of were made over long period of time and what i'll call the cobalt family of vehicles. so a very specific set of facts. on the other vehicles i would say quite the contrary. we went aggressively and proactively and looked at each of the systems as it relates to how they worked. and recommending in some cases even with no field data and tesl we did testing to understand what people put on their key rings and then it generally the

population puts .6 pounds. >> i apologize for interesting and stand stand that there are technical distinctions between the two ignition switches but isn't it true that regardless of the distinctions in the so-called population group, ignition switches failed in all of those models? >> no. i would say there are very different facts related to what happened in the cobalt ignition switch situation versus the actions we have taken are very different. >> of you could supplement that response was more technical detail i would appreciate it. let me ask you one more question. i appreciate your response to senator markey on what seemed to be your support for legislation on expanding accountability and information going to nhtsa. i wonder if you would agree with me that corporate officials to conceal or hide dangerous

defects that can cause deaths or injuries ought to be held criminally culpable? >> i don't support that concept. i think think that there are many other avenues for those types of issues are a detail with so i don't support the change. >> do you support legislation which i proposed with senator graham that would provide for public interest standard before any settlements are sealed as those involved in the defective ignition switch? >> i would have to understand the legislation a lot more than to be able to answer that question. >> thank you madam chairwoman. >> mr. markey. >> thank you madam chairwoman. mr. o'neal documents show that in 2001 delphi engineers drew up two signs -- two designs for the gm ignition switch. the main difference between the two designs was the one that failed dramatically, the 2006

switch had a spring that were shorter and less stiff than the other one and it was that spring that caused the switch to fail to meet gm specifications and cost the key to so easily turn the engine off. why was the weaker spring used in the actual vehicle rather than the stronger one, which was clearly available simultaneously in 2001? >> senator our investigation into that portion of the evolution of that switch actually supports what mr. valukas also uncovered in the original specifications were

sort of a target and then assess which evolved from a developmental standpoint mr. ray did georgiou also wanted a switch that had a certain tactile feel and by that i mean it would feel a certain way, as smoothness as you moved it from one position to another trade that believes description was to be more european like. in order to achieve that feel, that is where the softer spring comes into play and as a result of that. >> to delphi produce a cost estimate that compared the cost of the two switch designs? >> i don't recall but i would think the cost involved in that two switch from one to another would be insignificant. >> could you provide that information? >> sure. >> in 2006 when gm was starting

to acknowledge that it had a problem to change the ignition switch designed to this version and the switch turned out to consist of the identical stronger spring design that was not used in 2001 but available in 2001. was delphi involved in the design discussions with gm gm in this later period of time and did you suggest one over the other? that is the one that was accepted or the one, this one that was rejected an earlier time period? >> obviously that change could not be made. our investigation shows that the gm team was extremely concerned

about the warranty customer satisfaction and quality issues. they actually approach the delphi side. was there anything that could be done in order to raise perhaps the park level to improve some of those issues? not safety related quality and obviously what came up as a solution set that we have today. >> so, do you have documentation back in that earlier period of time as to why one was chosen over the other? and it was the ease of the selection of the one that did were? >> i don't think it was the esa of the selection of the spring that was in play from the initial post in question in terms of it was selected and it was approved via general motors. i don't think so yes we do have

that and i think mr. valukas' reports suggest that. >> did you recommend, did you recommend the one that was selected in 2006 over the one that ultimately was used in 2010 that has been working that in 2001, did you wet delphi make that recommendation? >> it was a mutual give-and-take give-and-take between the supplier and the manufacturer. >> but what did delphi recommend at the time? >> obviously at the end of the day what we ended up with was what we all agreed to do to make their apartments of the switch. >> again it's important for us to have that as part of the record and whenever you can provide to us from that early decision-making period would be very helpful to us. madam chairwoman i would like to thank you for also focusing on

nhtsa. the nhtsa administrator told "the new york times" just yesterday that it was gm that stood in the way of safety and of course we all agreed that gm deserves much of the blame but while ms. barra and mr. valukas have described the gm not which was set to occurred when everyone in a meeting all nodded their heads but did nothing to solve the safety problems but we have that nhtsa is they nhtsa shrunk. nasa didn't think the reports of car stalling post a safety problem so they ignored its own contractors report linking the ignition switch defect to fatal accidents in which airbags didn't deploy. and that's a paid no attention to documents they requested for gm that spelled out exactly what was causing these crashes and that's a completely failed to notice the high numbers of consumer complaints and other reports about gm's vehicles that

were submitted to its databases. nhtsa nhtsa was also repeatedly warned and nhtsa also just shrugged in response that we do have the gm not and also swam all tenuously a nhtsa shrug and i think the whole story ultimately passed out there and i thank you for the pursuit of the >> i'm curious about esis this company that handles of ministers claim for you. it's a weird deal. they work at gm. they work only for gm but they are not gm employees. >> now, they are not. >> why is there that structure? >> to look for anybody else on the world but you. they are a capture company. are they a subsidiary of your

company? >> not to my knowledge. >> are they a subsidiary? >> not that i know of. >> so the people that are on the front lines gathering the information and handling these claims as they come in, i'm trying to understand for what business purpose would you want them to be separate from your company if they are completely captured by your company and doing nothing but a gm function? >> they have been doing product product investigations for us for quite some time. they have been doing a very good job for us for quite some time. i'm not familiar with the initial setup for them. i do know that there are people whose names i'm familiar with who i talked with our products litigators about who say they do a good job. it's not unusual to see the use of outside suppliers to take on functions inside general motors. for a long time for example we outsourced as they call it our security functions and they did

it. >> i think a security functions a little different. i understand the point you're making. if you can provide any elimination for the record as to why that business model makes sense for your company it's unusual to have the frontline claims people in my experience and nice to do legal work on behalf of insurance companies and obviously they have a whole wad of claims people. typically. mr. valukas you made a couple of statements. i'm familiar with the report. i felt like that was back in school studying cross referencing and going to the acronym table. i did think it was thorough. i did think it was complete but a couple of conclusions that are interesting to me. one is that you said that you kind of one out of your way to conclude that gm did not put cost over safety hazard related to this defect.

artifacts in that reporting complicit in that regard? i you had to go on to say that is what the people that you interviewed told you and these were the same people that you have called out for indifference, incompetence, lack of urgency. is there something i'm missing here that you base that conclusion on? >> guests and if i could be helpful in this regard. my experience as a former prosecutor and as an individual who is a litigator people's recollections are where people's recollections aren't sometimes they change over time in considering where they are to give him point. we focused initially throughout the 41 million documents that we were reviewing and pulling out and looked at-bats for purposes of saying don't tell me what you are telling me now. i would like to know what you were thinking and doing then.

as we review reviewed the documents he reviewed those documents very quickly -- carefully on these very carefully. an analysis which says i would like to deal with this analysis but it cost too much so we don't want to deal with this issue so we looked at cost over safety. we looked at that issue in a number of different ways. the witnesses witnesses testified and what the witnesses testified to war told us and you have that in your report that the documents do not reflect that cost over safety matter. that being said, we also call out the fact that there was a norma's cost-cutting taking place at gm during that. of time. engineers were being doubled up with the initial information. people were assigned to two or three assignments and we could not say with certainty that at impact. >> so macrocost-cutting could have been hard at the ambulance

that you found no smoking gun in evidentiary documents that would indicate that this was actually being discussed? >> guest and in no testimony and in fact in the testimony people disclaimed that was not the way they were doing business. >> okay. the other thing that jumped out in a report that i found astounding was the recall on power steering. in 2010 you were called, general motors to do recall on a power steering defect or most interesting about that is that of course he did not consider a recall for stalling problems with the faulty ignition and according to the report, gm did not consider the loss of power steering a safety problem. you internally noted the power steering was normally a customer satisfaction issue. cobalt was handled in a

different manner based on gm's desire to attain a quick resolution and closure of the government investigation so i'll nhtsa had to do was write a letter saying they were going to look into the power steering defect and you guys were called. you did the recall on the power steering defect. alan abdur gm's manager for safety clinic patients remember gm had been planning to characterize power steering as a customer satisfaction issue but as a result of the congressional scrutiny of toyota and the unintended acceleration issues it was agreed that gm should issue the recall for the hearing so quote we would not get mentioned and dragged into the senate are you that is concerning to me ms. barra because it looks like there was a quick reaction when nhtsa threatens, combined with congressional action against another manufacture that got the result that was so desperately

needed thomas ignition switch. one of course the tragic ironies is one of the young women i was seriously injured and one of these accidents, her car had been taken in for the power steering recall and it was fixed for the power steering but of course there was no recall for the ignition switch. so have the same urgency been around for stalling and the engines turning up in the ignition switch issue, so have you figured out why structurally there were such a quick response on something that you typically would not have quickly responded to and do you really feel you have got a handle on changing that a culture? >> i think the valukas report captures any of the stated a lot of the reasons and if you looked at the data around the power steering it clearly lead you to support that. i do feel we have gotten that, around that very much so and i

have data to support that with the recalls we have done. because when you look at the fact that in some cases 29 million vehicles that we have recalled this year with 58 recalls in some cases we recalled vehicles that have no field instance because we went back and looked at the systems engineering perspective did it meet what it needed to meet and even if there was no field data we would make the recall. >> i appreciate that. >> i had one last question on the recalls and if you could just go through again how you are doing this recalls. we are aware of the large number of recalls and i'm trying to focus on the second round of questions about how things are going to change in the future. i think we all know that this was a tragedy and the justice issues and compensation issues are going to be key for the victims of the key for those victims families and consumers are the changes going forward and i think we can learn as much

about the changes that are being made as we can from the past. i want to know just exactly beyond the power steering issue just how these recalls are done differently and how that will continue in the future? >> first off i would say we are dedicated to creating and designing invalidating vehicles that will need recalls because they will be designed well. that's the validation work in the systems engineering focus so that's .1. and if they get data from any number of sources i have already shared that data is being processed much more quickly for us to look at and say is there an issue that affects the safety system that requires a recall. i would also say that jeff buyer who runs this process are head of global product development sits on that committee. i get an agenda for that before the meeting occurs so i'm completely aware along with

their general counsel, our cfo under president. this is now at the top of the company and we are demonstrating and focused on safety. we are mining the data and again as we see issues we are going to be quick to respond as we have done before. >> i would just add one of the dealerships looking at getting my 15-year-old saturn turned up a little bit but there was a lot of action at the steelers. this is one that had repairs going on so i can see people are bringing them in these cars are getting repaired and again just like everyone else we hope that the next versions of these cars won't have to do it again so thank you very much. >> senator blumenthal. >> thank you. i was interested in your response on the testimony and the documents which seem to support gm's contention on

putting profits ahead of safety mr. valukas and i was interested in it because it would seem to be an gm's interest to make public the documents. is that so? >> i'm sorry senator i had problem hearing on the right side. could you repeat the last question? >> sure. i will try to restate it and i hope my time will not be subtracted. >> that's my fault. and not back. [laughter] it would appear to be in gm's interest to make public some of those documents and testimonies that underlie your report. is that correct? you just made reference in your response to senator mccaskill and here's an example of transparency as we work in gm's interest.

>> senator i can't respond to that question. my responsibility when i was asked to write this report to gather the facts and i believe we did but we are asked to do. the issue of how we ripple to be disclosed or what should be disclosed to resize with the client. i don't have that ability. >> mag ask you ms. 's barra does gm know about application to the fund at the time they are made and how much knowledge will gm have about the applications are, what the awards are in real-time so to speak? >> mr. feinberg is completely independent as he administers this. i don't know this procedure if anything will be shared but it will be his sole discretion if anything a share to be chooses to do that. >> will it be his discretion alone as to whether applicants are given time to postpone their

decisions until after the department of justice concludes the investigation? in other words will applicants be given a choice to wait until they know what the full story is out of the department of justice investigation? >> we have been clear what the timeline associated that claims will begin to be accepted on august 1 in the period for applications will and at the end of the year. then he will evaluating make decisions. >> but he has not as far as i'm aware definitively stated whether applicants can postpone the decision as to whether to accept the offer for the fund or bring private litigation. >> i don't know the timeframe in this process of how long a person has. i don't know the timeframe on that. that will be i think what is called out but i just don't have it in front of me. >> if it's not part of the

protocol now it would be within his discretion? >> again i don't plan to change any part of the protocol. i think the protocol is very well-defined and it's it's going to stand. >> and let me ask mr. o'neal if i may, you do anything to accelerate the production of these replacement parts that go into vehicles? >> we have worked extremely hard to do exactly what you said terry at where up to a million completed at this stage and it looks like the 2 million mark will be clipped right around the end of august. there is little more we can do because of where we started. i don't think we can do more between now and then. >> if gm were to pay more for investment are is it that something you could do?

>> know, there's only so much you can get accomplished in a short period of time to wrap up from literally nothing to a million. i think the fast as we can go but we will look at it again. mary and i have talked a few times about this and things have improved considerably from when we started talking probably by several almost months as a matter fact. we will look at it again. i understand the need to get it done as soon as possible. >> because i'm hearing from dealers who are hearing from consumers and dealers say they are having trouble at least in connecticut and i think it's probably elsewhere, and really getting the parts they need as quickly as they would like to do. i understand you have to make the machine tools. there is no magic wand here but if you could tell us whether in fact there are steps you could take i would appreciate it.

>> again we will go back and look at it but right now the commitment is to see the 2 million by the end of august. >> i just want to make a final question to ms. barra. on those issues where mr. milliken has said he has recommendations for example the bankruptcy shield issue, i hope you will reset her -- reconsider as the candace anderson reconsider the responses we have heard here. i know that you are making value efforts to overcome these problems and i think consumers appreciate the numbers of recalls and frankness and candor that those recalls demonstrate and my hope is that the new gm won't be hiding behind the old gm's bankruptcy on giving those

pre-2009 customers the opportunity to go to court and have a choice between the fund and what they could have obtained in court and also others economically. i thank you very much for being here today and all of the witnesses for your testimony here. thank you. >> i want to thank all the witnesses. mr. milliken, ms. barra mr. o'neal and mr. valukas. thank you for your patience. i know this is not your first visit out of a feeling you are not looking forward to another invitation anytime soon. i knew i could speak for you in that regard but it is important and the fact that you acknowledge our world and this and that you respected it is important. we all want general motors to succeed. there is no one in congress that doesn't. this is an american company that all of us are very proud of than those of us that helped save general motors with votes during

the crisis are proud of what the automobile industry has in fact accomplished since those days. you have got a big problem still ahead of you and we will continue to be asking questions to do follow-ups on this hearing but we appreciate the efforts you are making and we will look forward to checking in with you after we have a further visit with nhtsa and making sure that all of the systems are working the way they should so that we have the right oversight on ongoing basis so we never have to deal with us this again. thank you all very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

afghanistan war commander general joseph dunford during his confirmation hearing thursday he said military leaders did not recommend that the white house announce a troop pullout by 2017 the would have preferred more ambiguous numbers. this is a little more than two hours. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning everybody. the committee meets to consider the nomination of general joseph dunford to be the 36th commandant of the marine corps. general dunford welcome to the senate armed services committee and thank you for the many years of extraordinary extraordinary service that you have provided to our nation. also for your willingness to

continue to serve and please also extend our thanks to your family, part of them is here today, for their dedication and support which is so critical as we all know to your success and the success of all those who serve an important and pressured positions for a nation. please feel free to introduce any family members or other people who are with the here today. general dunford has an exemplary record of service, is highly qualified for the position to which he has been nominated. he has commanded marines from the platoon level to the marine expeditionary force. he has served as the assistant commandant of the marine corps. he is currently the commander international security assistance force isaf and commander united states forces afghanistan. in afghanistan general dunford has commanded u.s. coalition forces with great distinction.

he is the latest in a line of distinguished commanders in that position. he has overseen a critical transition from u.s. and coalition led combat operations to afghan-led operations throughout afghanistan. under general dunford's leadership a drawdown of u.s. forces in the shift to a train advise-and-assist mission is being carried out with considerable effectiveness. general dunford has demonstrated remarkable skills as both a military leader and a diplomat in his interactions with the afghan leadership which have been essential to keeping the transition in afghanistan on track. ..

>> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for the great job you have done during the consequential timeframe with our afghan partners who are making important gains against the taliban and and progress in building the capacity of the afghan security forces. despite this i am so concerned about the future of afghanistan's recent agreement to perform a complete audit and i hope that works out.

you and i have talked about this before and the afghan people are going to have to believe that the results of this thing has been so important so hopefully we can make that happen. i remain very troubled to drawdown of forces based on arbitrary timeline and facts on the ground and so we can't afford to repeat that same mistake in afghanistan. so we are taking command of this as it is being challenged by rising mobile threats and a budgetary crises at home and the budget cuts are enforcing this in the and so these budget cuts mean that we will have fewer forces arriving later with more american casualties and i will

ask you some questions with your agreement on that. so i am glad that you are the man at the helm. we appreciate your commitment. >> thank you. general? >> chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. i'm honored to be nominated and joining me today as my wife, ellen, i am so were said to have her love and for she has been wonderful and has served as a tireless advocate for military families. i always refer to her as the most valuable player of the family and she has certainly earned that title during the last 18 months of my deployment to afghanistan. i'm also joined by my needs and my son was unable to be with us. but i would like to begin by thanking the committee for the support and those serving now in

afghanistan. duty her leadership i have no doubt that we have been trained and the strength of performance and testimony to that support is crucial. i would like to recognize the 1817 americans who made the ultimate sacrifice in afghanistan and the 20,000 who have been wounded. each day the men and women of the united states work to bring meaning to their sacrifice. i know this committee and the american people have high expectations the united states marine corps. you expect them to serve as an expeditionary force that is most ready when the nation is least ready. you expect them to be deployed in forward engaged, responding to crises and enabling our nation to respond. you expect them to fight and win in any condition and you expect the marines to be physically and

mentally tough. you expect him to demonstrate courage and honor and commitment and a lot of your variance, and you should. if confirmed, i will ensure that the marines continue to meet your expectations on the expectations of the american people. i will also ensure the well-being of armory in and sailors, wounded warriors, and their families come over the past decade plus of war, they have done all and more and it would be a tremendous honor to be with them. i thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, general. we have started with the standard set of questions that we ask all of our nominees. and these questions are asked to the we can exercise our legislative and oversight responsibilities. have you adhered to the laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest when excrement i have met you agree when asked to

give your personal view even from differences when excrement ideas. >> can you undertake any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation process? sumac i have not, mr. chairman sumac will you ensure that your staff complies with deadlines that must for requested communications, including the record and hearings? >> i will, mr. chairman. >> leu operate with providing us with a congressional request? i well. >> will the witnesses be protected from the testimony? >> estimate it will. >> if confirmed to appear before this committee, do you agree to provide documents including copies of electronic forms of communication when requested by a duly constituted committee or to consolidate committee regarding the basis for any delay in providing such documents? >> i do, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> we will have a seven and a

first-round and my view, afghanistan has made remarkable progress over the past decade. it has improved the rise of the afghan people. this includes and increases many times over with a number of schools come in the number of students and teachers, including female students and teachers, greater access to health facilities and afghan life expectancy, expanded connections to electricity, water, cell phones and growing income. can you briefly address the extent of the changes in afghanistan over the past decade that the united states has been involved with, and give us a sense of the significance of those changes to the afghan people future of the country? sumac chairman, thank you for the question, and probably the first thing, which is one of the most significant outcomes of our time has been that we have put pressure on the terrorist

networks and al qaeda in preventing another 9/11 and we have also developed a credible afghan forces in 2002 and there were no effective afghan security forces. an army and police force of over 352,000 as well as another 30,000 afghan local police are capable of providing security to the afghan people. and we also have enabled this forces the afghan people the opportunity to determine their own future with the success in elections on the fifth of april from a security perspective and while we still have some political issues to work through for those elections, there's no question that the afghan security forces afforded the afghan people the opportunity to vote and we ask today with over 8 million children in school, 2 million of those are young girls, and yes then you mentioned some of the other advances in health care and communications with airports and so forth that will set the

conditions for a secure and stable afghanistan in the future. and i would say that the most profound thing that exists in afghanistan today that didn't exist in 2001 is the afghan people have actually helped with what didn't exist with the taliban in 2001. >> thank you, general. >> is the afghan army performing well in your judgment? >> mr. chairman, yes, they are performing well. since what we described is a milestone last june when they assumed responsibility across the country, the only unilateral operation that the coalition forces had been for our own security with and we deployment operations. just highlighting one statistic that is indicative. in 2012 we had over 100 or a

thousand coalition forces on the ground that included 100,000 americans. today there are 40,000 coalition forces of which 30,000 are americans and in those two years the security environment has actually slightly improved since 2012. the big difference is that the security forces are now responsible for security. so i feel very confident about the trajectory that the security forces are on at this time. >> thank you. the president called for drawing down u.s. forces to 9800. by the end of this year, reducing downforce by approximately half by the end of 2015 and transitioning to an embassy pleased military presence by the end of 2016. and still in your answers to these questions you say that you support the president's decision on the size of the two presents post-2014. is that correct?

>> yes, mr. chairman, i do support the numbers of forces that were beyond the ground in 2015 to both conduct counterterrorism and advise and assist. >> also in your answers, you said that you support the case of reductions outlined by the president with an understanding that we should continue to valley they the assumptions and assessed the conditions on the ground as the drawdown takes place. so is one of your assumptions, that the full 9000 personnel force will be available through the entire 15 fighting seasons? >> yes, it is one of the assumptions i made. >> and then the reductions would occur only at the end of next year. >> that is correct. >> can you share with us any other major assumptions he may have made reign.

>> i can't. i think the political assumptions that continue to be validated as we move forward our first and foremost the counterterrorism capabilities and the will of afghanistan, the nature of the threat, the counterterrorism capacity and the will of pakistan, also it needs to be considered. the quality of political transition and we are in the midst of has to be considered as well and also the international community support both fiscally and the nato mission, i think all of those variables have to be considered when determining the adequacy of the four cells in the future. and there is also an assumption in your answers and in your statements that a bilateral security agreement will be signed in a timely manner. >> that is correct, mr. chairman. >> relative to the size of the u.s. counterterrorism mission in

afghanistan, after 2014, what is your recommendation about the size of that mission in counterterrorism? >> of the 9800 u.s. forces and it's important to highlight that the expectation is that it be approximately 4000 nato forces in addition. but in the 9800 u.s. horses, proximally 1000 would be dedicated solely to the counterterrorism mission and there would be a total of 2000 special operations forces that are there, some of them working with the afghan special operations forces that would also be participating in counterterrorism operations. >> changing the subject slightly to the question of the russian and 17 helicopters. he wrote me general regarding a provision in the defense authorization bill, which this committee, if it marked up, it

would prohibit this with the russian corporation that exports the and 117 helicopter. you indicated that this prohibition could be catastrophic. can you explain why? >> thank you for that question, yes, the afghan air force will consist of over 80 and my 17th i have been purchased and the final delivery will be in september or october of this year. they provide the afghan forces with the operational reach to provide security and stability for the afghan people as well as conducting effective counterterrorism operations. thirty of the 80 are what we call a special mission, which would be the afghan special operations capability forces and without the operational reach of this, the afghan forces will not be successful in providing security and stability in afghanistan and will not be an effective counterterrorism

partner. one of the second order effects which is why use this word is that we will also have an adverse impact on our force protection for 2015. among the assumptions i make in 2015 is the afghan security forces will contribute to the coalition forces in 2015 and their ability to do that would be sick efficiently great degraded. >> as the spare parts, as i understand it, the sustainment that is prohibited by that same language which is so important? >> there are two issues, one of the issues is to have spare parts and uses in its fleet and the other is the russian company owns the plans and blueprints, if you will, of this. so there's the safety of flight issues with subsequent modifications that would require doing either directly with the subcontractor.

>> senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was going to bring that up and that is probably a contentious issue. i agree with the chairman on this but it seems like pretty extreme with these courageous statements made. but the special inspector general for the afghan reconstruction in june of 2013, they reported this as entitled the afghan special mission wing with the dod moving forward with 771 million-dollar purchase. that the aircraft and the afghans cannot operate and not maintain this area so is there any way that this can be changed and moderated a little bit to the you could still use the spare part of existing vehicles undersell their comment paid for, in existence, and still start toward something like

another purchase. heavy thought of any kind of combination were we could not lose the value of those that are there and trained fighters as far as spare parts are concerned? >> senator, we have looked very hard and we have done a global search to see if it will be possible to sit in this we would have directly dealing with one of the subcontractors. assessment is that that would not be possible. >> okay. recently there has been and let me see if i can get this as i quote it now the speech that was made before the brookings institute when the general says it breaks my heart, referring to the fall of this province in iraq which the marines won in 2010.

he noted that 852 were killed and another 8500 injured in iraq, then i know that with all the work he did in afghanistan, and i'm sure you are observant as would happen are, to have a young man's who works for me and he actually had two deployments in falluja. by coincidence i didn't know who he was at that time, but i was there as were many of these guys when they had the fingerprints and all of that. and so i think looking at it that could be considered to be the most violent door-to-door type of activity. so when i called him and told him that we had lost it after they had been there, i mean, he talked about the blood sweat and

tears and i just think about that taking place. my concern for bringing this up is that we don't want the same thing to happen in afghanistan. and i know that sends you are the marine and you saw the mission that took place at you agree with me already. so what has been done, in your opinion, to make sure that does not become a repeat for that tragedy to take place in iraq. >> take you, senator. yes, i was one of the thousands that was there and i feel the same way that he does. senator, i think the biggest difference is that we have an opportunity to do a transition in afghanistan, a proper one that will allow us to achieve this. anorak we withdrew with the associated consequences that is the most significant change. we knew when we left iraq that there was work remaining to be done to develop sustainable

iraqi security forces as well as to ensure political stability existed such that security and stability would continue in afghanistan we have the chance to get that right and my argument is for a responsible transition from afghanistan as opposed to withdrawal. >> i appreciate that and i just think that we need to get it on the record. >> it's so important. including those like this. there's been so much discussion as we drop that number down to 33. and i have a letter and i want to make it part of the record at this point in the record that it is one that you have read and each member of your has read from the 20 generals signing on, saying that absolutely necessary and are there any comments that you want to make on that? >> senator, on a daily basis the

combatant commander greatly exceeds the inventory in this and i think that we are close to 50, that was the quantity and the chief secretary navy a few years ago concluded that 38 was the requirement and we are now at the point where we have 33 and a fiscally constrained environment and so i want to support anything that would allow us to maintain an effective inventory. >> do agree with the letter? >> senator, i am not in the letter. >> okay. that is fine. and lastly, on the elections that a lot of this is partly responsible for the fact that there's going to be a real effort about this given to make sure that not just justice is done and the right turnout is

resulted but also that people of afghanistan accept this as a fair and honest election and do you have any thoughts? i know that you're going into a different job now on what needs to be done to make sure that that can happen? >> i do, senator, and i expect that we will be there throughout the process. we began yesterday and i'm glad to report that we began the balance in the accordance of the agreement that was made, 100% of the ballots will be brought back with significant international community oversight as well as canada and oversight in the process of counting those ballots and i think that that will give both candidates in the afghan people high confidence that all that can be done is being done to eliminate fraudulent.and the most encouraging thing, nano some numbers recently spoke to both

candidates. both candidates are very responsible. they know the consequences of the political transition process and they have agreed to accept the outcome of the ballot with certain parameters and those are now in place. so i'm optimistic that at the end of this process some weeks from now, there will be a winner and a loser and the loser will accept the results of the election as will the afghan people. >> i appreciate that so much. i think that we all know how works with the election. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to thank my colleagues for his extraordinary service to the marine corps and to the nation and to thank your family for serving with you. knowing a little bit, i would like to tell you that this is such a part of our success and that of your predecessors. any rule has been critical. a year ago, i don't think anyone

could say that we would have relatively peaceful elections, two of them, in that country until again, that is one significant aspect in such a contribution of your personal command. so we thank you and can you talk with me, as we go forward, can you talk with me about the decision points and the flexibility that we have to make adjustments with respect to our presence in afghanistan? assuming that this agreement will be signed? >> yes, senator. as we discussed earlier, there will be 9000 u.s. forces in afghanistan and the planet we have right now cannot draw the forces down until the end of the findings these and in 2015. so the first opportunity to change and make adjustments as you describe them would be in the fall of 2015 or you could

effect change in the projected numbers in 2016. and then whatever number you have in 2016, a similar concert would probably be in place are the numbers that you would want to have in 2017 could be determined in the summer 2006 into effect change. but typically they're supposed fighting season pattern in terms of effecting change, which is not to say that you couldn't add forces on the ground. >> not only forces on the ground, but facilities that may be occupied as well because the conditions in the country. >> senator, that is absolutely one of the drivers. we try to make sure that the infrastructure doesn't driver ability to provide this in a bad way. so we've tried to maintain this. the infrastructure is absolutely

one of the drivers. >> one principle mention is that of the afghan national security force and the other is the counterterrorism operations until you will view this and terms of both those missions. is that correct? >> absolutely. and from my position they are inextricably linked. >> okay, so you're comfortable with this going forward because of the built-in flexibility and you see no constraints going forward, and the review that would be done at the end of next year would be based upon the conditions on the ground, the two missions that we outlined and the facts, as the commander talked about at that time. >> yes, sir, i am confident that the specific assumptions and pass that has to be accomplished that jeweler recommendations for 2015, all is available to my

successor and he will have the opportunity to go back in 2015 to revalidate those assumptions and to assess the conditions. the important conditions to be to talk about this in 2013. >> invariably between the situation in iraq and afghanistan, president bush signed a formal agreement to withdraw all forces at the end of 2011. that is not going to be the policy in afghanistan as you understand it, and we would instead have the flexibility for our own interest to change this with the mix going forward and that is a key difference? >> yes, it is a key difference and one of the key differences that the afghan people want us to be in afghanistan in overwhelming numbers and i have recently spoken to both presidential candidates and i can assure you that both of the

candidates also support the u.s. presence after 2014. >> one of the key factors which you have acknowledged is the role of pakistan. and one of the interesting developments, which i think you appreciate very keenly and i wonder how much our colleagues in pakistan under. as we draw down a forces and depend less and less on the lines of communication, we have a lot of relative leverage. is that a fair estimate in terms of getting cooperation and help? >> yes, i think that our footprint has made us reliant upon the grand brown lines of communication. we have an opportunity to reframe our relationship with them. >> right now they are conducting operations probably not as effectively as they would want. >> senator, they are conducting

operations and we have wanted to the view that, see them do that for some years. they've had some success in the i am you type situation. so it is at this situation that they have all been forced to live out of the sanctuary. >> changing quickly because the new job as the commandant of the marine corps touches upon some issues of budget and potential sequestration effects and i'm sure that you have thought about that, but maybe not in detail. but going forward can you give us your view of what challenges the core faces today? >> sir, thank you. as i look at the future of the marine corps, our leadership, the biggest challenge that we

will have is to balance readiness and crisis response capability do you expect from the dream corps with the ability to modernize this and sustain infrastructure and maintain proper levels of training for those units and so forth. balancing all of those is going to be very difficult. another general has prioritized readiness and he's been forced to make some decisions that create such challenges in the future for modernization. so i think bouncing those things will be difficult. >> thank you. >> we thank the senators. senator mccain remark. >> thank you, senators. thank you gentlemen. >> this is a joke and i had to explain all of