available in some statutes there is language that adversely affects them they were okay with using disparate impact analysis just looking at the aesthetics. what is interesting to me as justice breyer in arguments that why should we change a law that analysis is working and has been working for many years to use the disparate impact analysis. he made a similar point in that case several years ago. the family community schools against seattle for justice roberts said the way to end discrimination is to end discrimination. the court struck down voluntary efforts to integrate the school system that was de facto

segregated. justice breyer said this is crazy to shut her eyes at the realities that is just as harmful and in this case to bring it back to where i live, and the impact where you live on your health is enormous. it was said recently in two areas life expectancy changes by 20 years because of the area you live in. women in low income communities like the african-americans are 15 times more likely than women in other communities. there's a tremendous amount of work being done on the socioeconomic causes of health disparities and much of it has to do with where you live. way of access to healthy food for primary care providers.

living in a community like that there was "the new yorker" last week about the impact of living in a low income community. there's a 6% change in the development of the brain of the child and where he or she is born. to shut our eyes to that and simply say we are going to decide this by focusing on the statue is certainly the impact of whether it has the intent of being counterproductive i can't say. >> that is a limitation that we see certainly applied selectively for some of the time. it won't tell you whether people under the view of the constitution are involved in the

equality and decency should be allowed to marry regardless of their gender, how they met or what they want to do together, which gets us to the next case we want to reach. it is an injustice that he knows so much about this case, but i promise you we go 2020 and we will do that. definitely get you on the next case. tell us what this case is about. it's fair to assume our audience and people at home remember the previous cases including those who argue. but in this case will be decided this month and potentially the create the national standard are right and nations history. >> i never thought in a million years i would be there. i'm hoping that will be the case. when i walked into the office

this morning they had a flash and i guess there is a news poll out today that says 63% of americans nationwide support marriage equality. again i have to pause every time i see those numbers. when i bought the windsor case i would've told she needed to be on medication or something because it wasn't going to have been. the journey the country has been on in 2003 was the first case of seeking marriage equality in massachusetts and the first time people could get married. and now we are at 37 states. the question is why their data quality will remain, whether not only does the federal government has to recognize the equal dignity but states like like

mississippi or texas or louisiana for florida have to allow gay citizens to have the equality of marriage. that's why it's getting the attention it's getting. we shall see. fingers crossed. >> why don't you walk us through the outcomes here. it seems that one would be simply saying states have to recognize marriages performed in other states regardless of the road mall which is sort of a federally simple faith and credit issue that has wider connotations. the other seemingly faulty federalized or something else. it might mess. >> the most likely outcome is some version of all 50 states required not just to recognize out-of-state marriages, they're required to issue marriage licenses to gay couples under

the road mall. how the court reaches that decision is almost important as if they reach that decision. so you know what is interesting about the state is at least as i see it as a proxy war over the broader ideological battle where conservatives for a long time have wanted to limit civil rights to disparate treatment, where you show intent in order to prove discrimination. if you believe which i don't come that don't come that the only type of civil rights violation is where you have intend, marriage discrimination qualifies. even if the person doesn't hold it, it is the intent of the law to provide less rights than they provide to opposite couples. it is also the case if you look

at the supreme court doctrine it is a very easy question. the supreme court has said when a group has historically experienced the type of discrimination which bears no relation to their ability to perform or contribute to society. they are entitled to protection under the constitution. is really just no question that sexual orientation should fit the bill. i will throw a few numbers that you hear. new york city arrested 50,000 people over the course for four decades because they were seeking consensual sex with the person that used to be a crime in the state of new york. the city of philadelphia for the moral slap the rest of 200 gay man every month. it is to be the policy of the united states of america that the federal government would not

higher gay people. he uses words like for abortion and the last thing i will say is more than half the state at one point have laws allowing deviants to be confined against their will said the state could try to care what they do. so i don't think there's any question that sexual orientation meet the standard that the history of discrimination and yet the court has slow walked. there have been a number of decisions beginning in 1996. what strikes me about roemer and more as an winner is incremental these have been. they have resisted reaching the natural conclusion of gay people should be entitled to heighten protection.

i suspect they will continue to resisted in this case. if that is true that is profound implication for the future. while it will mean same-sex couples will be allowed to marry, it also won't be states won't be able to engage in other forms of anti-gay scriven nation. sam brownback recently rescinded an executive order that said the state would discriminate against gay people in its own hiring. that might be constitutional at least under the supreme court asset after they wrote the marriage equality as the law of the land. i think it is likely a narrow victory will be a complete victory in all 50 states. but that it is much less likely the corporal recognize that the constitution command, which is

discrimination against gay people of any kind should be treated with skepticism. >> what is interesting as you mentioned the federal obligation to explain itself and in all the cases we see some discussion of word of the roles come from, but it is something positive about the judiciary that is the only part that has binding rules and having to explain itself. many disagree, it can be held at in the light of day of why did you do this. some decisions don't wear well in real time. i want to go back to the sixth circuit decision in which ohio against marriage equality, that it steals even to a non-lawyer a

non-argument. but it's national to recognize that to regulate sex. the intended and intended effects of male-female end quote. the argument being made there is that because marriage was initially structured to deal with what society and is therefore fully limited. speak to us about why this is arriving. it may seem like a weak argument when you look at the endurance of marriage as something that exists and legally protected with or without shelter and for alter the people who would not

be able to have natural born children, et cetera. >> you'll be shocked to hear i agree with you. most of the justices actually think it's a pretty silly argument too. the oral argument in this case is at the end of april. the reason the argument is so prominent is because there aren't any other left. the only distinction is that people oppose inequality can come up with between gay couples and straight couples is the idea that straight couples sometimes procreate. this push them into a view of marriage that is so divorced from what anyone thinks his marriage. no one expatriate married to someone so if they accidentally procreate parish, no one says that they could you marry me because you may get pregnant i

mistake and i want to make sure the kid has protection. i don't know what universe in that world but it's no universe i know of. the image of marriage portrayed as the council for michigan would almost be a situation where i try to hypothesize. you have been married straight couples. they are abusive to each other, violent to each other. but they are fine to their kids. under this theory that these people should be the state's policy for that couple to stay married because it's good for the kids. obviously that makes no sense. that is just crazy world. the justices recognize that. hopefully again, can't help myself.

you will see that view of marriage. it is so divorced from reality. >> one piece i want to go back to is even as we think about and i will join the knock on wood and the concept we think about marriage equality as we will create a legal environment that there's protection forward in the very next day they could go to work share that they have been married and for a host of reasons potentially lose their job, lose their health care depending where they are. the question is are we setting framework where we are and moving forward as a think about marriage equality in the country. at the same time when we expand our questions of

nondiscrimination. now you are not talking about the relationship between individuals. then do we find ourselves back in the world, a disparate impact world but we look at civil rights for all persons would you will have the potential to move out on long-held traditional ideas or notions but in a very different context because now you talk about losing your ability to work to live health care. there's a host of protections that many of us in the community think about what nondiscrimination looks like for everyone. we hope we have the opportunity to do that, but as we think about the long reaching the fact, discrimination in the way the court has thought about it as potential ramifications for same-sex couples the way we see

it in other traditional civil rights. >> there are some people seem to get fired because their boss says you are a sad day. those cases were easy it seemed to me. people are coming around to the idea you shouldn't fire someone. the question is what do you do with a situation where there's a disparate disparate impact or a subtle under the desk discrimination and that is where the commonalities will very much come to the floor. >> will go to obamacare. at this juncture on the past two cases because folks have a deep sense of obamacare. it will be simply what you think will happen on each case.

start with their housing and say do you think the disparate impact will be upheld to continue or will it be overruled and struck down. how many think current will be upheld in that case? >> i am a progressive. >> how many people think it will be struck down? i marriage equality i'm not going to give you a good possibility. how many do you think the case will advance marriage equality. by show of hands know. look at that. we can do about it carrots even though we will do it next. we're about to hear about it. you may have heard about whether the way the law was written should deny. by show of hands, how many people think the law will be upheld in subsidies continued. how many think no the part of

the law will be essentially struck down. we have some pessimists. that gives a sense of where we come from. now tell us about the case. >> i was a good test of what the class knows already. most of you do know a fair amount. just to take you back a little bit. congress enacted the affordable care act to address very serious problems and access to health care and country. there are basically three prongs to this tool that were part of the affordable care act. one is everybody has to get health care unless he makes so little money are exempted from the requirement appeared to is that insurance companies have to provide insurance to people regardless of preexisting conditions. for the first time people have been diagnosed with cancer or multiple sclerosis or whatever

it is they don't want to cover their entitled to get insurance. the third problem is the tax subsidies. the only way the three leg is still works as for the tax subsidy to be available because if you don't provide the tax subsidies, then you've got a big pool of people exempted from the requirement to get health care. all of a sudden the people who are getting insurance i just do people with preexisting conditions. the insurance companies can't afford it. they need the database of healthy people to be able to spread the risk of covering people with preexisting conditions. the problem with a lot of people in the country were getting health care by showing up at the emergency room door which is really bad economically i'm also really bad for your health not to get preventive care along the way and show up at the emergency room door.

on top of the people with preexisting conditions to marketing treatment, normal everyday people who couldn't afford health care because they did not health insurance and congress is trying to fix a significant social problem. the affordable care act got past. the opposition to the affordable care act has not yet given up. i can't remember how many times there's been a bill passed. i think it is 49. 50, 51. the opposition continues. after supreme court decided in the case that the affordable care act passed muster because it was enacted pursuant to the taxing power of the united states. then the opponents came up with

another idea and this idea was to find a creative idea to find forwards in the statute that says exchanges created by the state and because of these words in the statute admit that they couldn't be in the exchange that were created by the state. this fairly technical statutory argument created by the state is in a provision of the statute that addresses how you calculate the subsidy that somebody is entitled to. there appears other provisions that interrelate. there is a provision that says states shall create exchanges. another provision says that the state opts not to create an exchange, federal government full text it can create exchange, it is used throughout the statute to refer both to the exchange created by the state and the exchange created if the state opts not to create an

exchange. it is pulling his words out of context because of the calculation of tax subsidies and a provision that refers to exchange created by the state and is even more complicated because the refers back to another statutory section at that refers to another statutory section. the argument is these words mean you can't give tax subsidies in exchange created by the federal government appeared 34 states have exchanges that are federally facilitated marketplaces. there are 6.4 million people getting tax subsidies on the federally facilitated marketplaces. if the court was the wrong way not only will the 6.4 million people lose their tax subsidies and therefore their insurance but the estimates are another million and a half people will probably lose insurance because as i said at the beginning if

you pull out the base everybody's cosco. even the people who are getting tax subsidies will have their insurance priced out of release because the cost of coverage is going now. >> i want to bring what they says that at the beginning about fair housing which is about how orin hatch has tried over and over again to get the results of the litigants in the fair housing cases not trying to get out of court. you know you see the exact same dynamic with the affordable care act. this is the weakest statutory interpretation argument that i have ever seen reach the supreme court. elizabeth listed some of the evidence. the plaintiffs hone in on these words through an exchange established by the state. if you read one sentence

completely divorced from anything else in the statute you may think they're onto something. the word exchanges defined to mean a government agency or nonprofit entity is established by sa. any exchange regardless of whether it's federal government or state government is aimed to be established by state. this case borders on the sectional belief. that said there is an argument for why it's out here. while there are some things a lawyer has not been candid about, he was unusually candid in a conversation with a friend of mine who is a reporter now with bloomberg. they had a conversation with mr. carvin in assam the same issue called how they were

having the d.c. circuit. some of you may remember the d.c. circuit actually bought the plaintiffs theory and the full d.c. circuit decided to do with its located over again. this is all the drama was going on about whether the d.c. cir. en banc in and whether they would hear the case. in that context, mr. carvin said he thinks the republicans on the supreme court are going to get as much of it about what is a bunch of obama appointees on the d.c. circuit think and just in case there's any ambiguity as to what he was saying here, he asked them do you think you are going to lose any judges appointed by a republican and he said no i do not think i will lose any republican appointed judges. so this is not a case about statutory interpretation.

>> let me just jump in. it is important that we use the language is statutory interpretations. this cases are good as a statutory interpretations case and the reason for that is because it is obvious what congress intended. but to just say congress intended the subsidies to be available in federal exchanges. but you can say congress screwed up in accomplishing that. in way lives or at least we may live because the court's answer to that is what congress thinks that. and that is why it is important to do what he ingested, which is look at the statute as a whole which is for the statutory interpretation do. look not just at these four words but a context of the

entire statutes. they should give where the court -- >> let me say to make sure we are state and accessible. it seems we are collapsed into different analytical structures or how the k. should be decided. one is the actual inquiry the court is doing which is what does the law do. in this case i'm paper record it seems very far-fetched to argue that the challengers to obamacare argue that the laws secretly discriminated based on geography. nobody knew about it. nobody opposed the law is a good or bad thing. had this multiyear debate about it and that was just a secret design that somehow was never discovered and now needs to be applied by the court in a way

the other branches never wanted, never discuss, never sad. as he so eloquently described included in a sort of secret suicide trigger. it's just very far-fetched. the second analytical structure you refer to and cynicism as well is the most political. i wonder if we could tease that out because it's fair to say justices are humans and their times will be moved by their own instincts whether they personal, political or ideological. the question for folks to understand what they do is how does that actually work because it's also fair to say that members of this court and pass scores had plenty of vehicles you can point to where justices depart from what you might think they would want to do or feel constrained by the rule.

you've written a 10 about this. if this is a far-fetched statutory argument, that is to say this law doesn't do what you think it does. why is this appealing as a far-fetched controversial way to limit the aca when the court has clearly not gone out with more mainstream chances. >> it is definitely true that there is a two-tiered litigation strategy going on here. there's a strategy on the surface were doj wrote an excellent brief which lays out what elizabeth and i have been talking about, which shows it is absolutely clear the statutes only be read one way. below the surface, there is another strategy going on they consist of trying to embarrass the justice says are inclined to not do what the statute clearly

says he should do. .. in the event that, whether they're motivated reasoning for whether through a more conscious

partisan desire, they are not inclined to do their job. then i would hope that they would at least realize that the arguments in this case are so weak that it would be embarrassing not just to themselves but i think to the court -- >> help me out. emp is a very good argument against but didn't answer the question posed and as a journalist one of my pet peeves one of the questions posed is it that come if you're sympathetic to that, then why do you think as a court expert that justices are linked in to consider what is a week apart against the aca right now? >> i think you realize there is some sense to look no one can explain how the justice make certain decisions. no one is allowed in that room there anyone who tells you they somehow some insight into it i'd like to know where they went to law school. it certainly was not taught to me in law school. might guess, and this is a guess, they knew there would have to do this earlier.

servlet to the d.c. circuit reversed it would be great pressure on them to take it. so my guess is they figured guess is they figure they might as we'll get over with now. that's why you saw it. hopefully i agree with the panel that it doesn't speak to the barracks of the pundits argument or i'm amazed, sitting there amazed as a supreme court advocate to hear the comment that the plaintiffs counsel me to i just can't imagine, even if that's what you think in heart of hearts, i can imagine saying i'm going to get all republican appointed judges on my side and none of the others. look, maybe i'm idealistic or i've never been accused of assisting publicly idealistic in my life i think a lot of judges to decide on the merits. there's an awful lot of republican appointed judges. most of them since windsor have

decided for equality. so it's actually coveted is the degree of cynicism. >> one technical point. it only take four justices. if we look at it we know there were four justices who thought the decision should of went that way. >> to hear a case in the first place. >> i think that's another part of the conversation that we should kind of ad. the other thing that i will say is there's the larger conversation that's kind of taken place about the roberts court in kind of a direction in which this court is moving. i think most americans there's a poll out today i think in the "washington post" just released, or just wrote that over 55% of americans want the supreme court to uphold the subsidies. and i think it's --

>> using within the states? >> within the states that would be denied the. so most of these states again, that are 34 states. most of the states are kind of presidential primary kind of swing states have more of a republican leadership in those states. and in those states which you could say that the more conservative population, they want the obamacare subsidies to be upheld by the supreme court. just cannot look at the backdrop of what's happening at a think that's a really important point to make. >> i want to go to the audience questions and final thought on the obamacare and then bring you guys in. >> i was going to broaden it a little bit to why the court might want to use these four words in sort of a craft interpretation. there are a number decisions of the roberts court come with the is doing is pulling back sort of standing in the way of efforts to address social problems by either the states or the federal

government, striking down section five of the voting rights, the other part of it didn't get nearly as much press but the court struck down the medicaid expansion peace of the affordable care speakers who talk about the first obamacare case. >> yes, sorry. the court upheld the core part of the three-legged stool i described, but in the medicaid expansion that was mandatory under the affordable care act the court struck down. so what i fear is that the pendulum and the court has long suffered untold wingnut heaven activist courts does look at social ills of drug abuse the law to address them but is all with the opposite extreme standing in what efforts by publicly elected officials to name and address social problems. >> you are also putting a finger

on a limited inconsistency which in the first obamacare case the notion of having high demands on states to get the money was considered coercive, right? and in this case they could potentially read rate interpret the statute to deny funds which if it was the theme would also be -- that's a lot of hypothetical. >> that's a problem for down the road. >> that's what we do. we look for more problems in our nature as attorneys. i want to talk to you guys for three cases. it's been really wonderful. you guys are just really wonderful that this. let's go to the mic. as i said at the top please introduce a -- yourself, comments are fine, questions are fine but let's wait time for responsive. >> good morning. i'm president of the university of baltimore center for international and comparative law. now i am in private practice.

i appreciate all other marks and one general question i for the entire panel is on the darkest of the dark side what is the entire -- what if the court were to point in all three cases in point to congress because you love it congress that is under the control of one party, and the party has been chomping at the bit for a very long time to really sink its teeth into all these three issues? and the court could be it wouldn't be the first time the court would've interest itself in american history but what if it were dupont to congress on all of these three issues and say to congress can you do with it. the last speaker talked about on health care but what about all three of them? it gets punted to congress across the way. >> this is something that we've been grappling with. the potential fix if it meets the a legislative fix, will

depend on what the court says in its opinion. so one of the key hang ups happen in the icp case compassing thing that elizabeth was talking about. reading the plain text of the law which justice alito really wanted the court to do any made arguments toward that end. actually justice scalia said no, we take the whole ball in its entirety. we consider the entire law including the amendments. and justice scalia said look him if you redo the entire law including the amendments, it's very clear that disparate impact was like under the fair housing act. but i think look, we don't have any fallacies that at least the house would put forth the cure it would be a legislative fix. that would meet our end. i don't necessary think that the senate, this particular senate might do that as well but i

think that if there was attention fix that would harm the fair housing act that the president -- president would veto that, but i also think that it will take us some time to get to the fix that we need an oakley we would be dealing with not this particular same congress. >> i'll just add one thing which is to resist the were dupont. if the court were to say so these were to be cut off or if they say that if they said that we're going to get comfortable doesn't offer disparate impact litigation the fact that they didn't include language all but congress to pass new law this and that that is not a punt. it is a changing existing law. you know it's not a punt to the we're going to do this thing blows up a bunch of 11 --

>> forty-five years. >> your pocket whether they will overrule two pieces of progressive legislation something from the civil rights era that at the economic component to voting rights so bright it. and obamacare which has already been tested in that sense from the defenders of the laws you they are likely it alone. and anyone else was looking to change this court. let's take two questions at the time. >> this is the last thing in the world republicans in congress want to deal with. mayors no way. you see the presidential republican candidates contorting themselves and pretzels odyssey. they say they are against marriage equality but they would go to a gay marriage. >> broadly, let's be careful to visit pretzel are just pieces of the wedding cake? >> they would like to have waited longer but the sixth

circuit me that not really a choice. >> i want to get, let's take into we can keep talking to take two questions at the time so we get more. >> my question is regarding the fair housing case. as far as if this desperate impact if they decide it has no place in the fair housing act how does that affect some hud programs? i know they have a program coming out this summer or a proposal coming out this summer which face was going to require state agencies to look at data on the map and assess where there services or. is about -- >> hold of it and we will take one more. >> i'm with the financial consulting firm. want issue that it neither interestingly on the gay marriage issue was they came out, both justices is that

these arguments just a pretense? doesn't a pretext argument hold for the two other issues that we also elaborate both senator housing and in the obamacare argument? >> so, if the supreme court strikes down disparate impact under the fair housing act actually will not affect the affirmative we are housing will. that particular rule is being promulgated under a different section of the law. affirmatively furthering their housing and disparate impact are two distinctly different things. but one of the things that you may consider when you're conducting your analysis under the provision come, is whether or not there are any policies, for example, zoning ordinances that had been passed by the municipality that affect disparate effect on a particular protected class.

the disparate impact is a component in terms of considering whether you are affirmatively furthering their housing but they are cute distinct things that i don't think disparate come into court to strike and disparate impact what you do not expect it to do but let's say that it does it will not impede the furtherance of the rule. affirmed with their housing isn't anything new. it's been in existence for decades. municipal seven doing it for decades. it's just that for decades they've been calling it the analysis about what to fair housing. now that would be called the fair housing assessment and to think, it is empowering the municipalities with the data that they will need to adequate and accurately provide the assessment spent just quickly on the question on pretext. there continues to be a debate

about whether or not the roberts court finds itself kind of online, using a third branch which is supposed to be a part of our checks and balances our system of checks and balances would align itself more with this kind of ideological who saved that we see taking place in the conservative movement? and so whether it's an issue like immigration that we are currently dealing with down in texas or if it's an issue around environment or civil rights, there are questions that are currently happening come with this roberts court ally itself where what we are seen as a naked direction to push the court and to push the country in very specific ways. and so i think a lot of us would say for the court to overturn years of precedent, finding situations where there hasn't been a circuit split taking cases that many people just

assume the court would never consider. you have to ask yourself, is that a real question and is there something happening where the court that is supposed to be above kind of partisan politics, is something changing with this particular court? i think it's a fair question. >> can i jump in real quick? i want to go back to an issue that elizabeth had raised earlier if we don't have another question. >> do we have other questions or comments? go right ahead. >> thanks. so i want to begin a little bit deeper on this sort of plaintext of the issue. and alito focusing at least another housing case on the fact that no, you just look at the plane text of the law as it was written in 1968.

and if the plaintext of the law as it was written in 1968 didn't mean to include disparate impact you cannot include disparate impact. but in opposition to that justice -- went to a very prolonged discussion about the fact that you to look at the law holistically. if you look at the law in all of its elements when you are trying to determine whether or not there was a statutory intent for whatever the question is. and i think that's very important going back to the point and made earlier, because in my mind if scalia votes against disparate impact in this particular case, he's going against the president that he is already set forth -- precedent -- the belief he is already set forth and it does raise for me this protection issue michele you're talking about like what is your real purpose? and i think it opens up a whole

new can of worms at least for scalia, not for a leader but certainly for scalia it does. >> want to go to kind of closing foster i want to doublecheck commit any other questions or comments? there is one. >> i'm not affiliated with anything, but my question is what will the republicans do if obama, the obamacare gets decided the other way? they will have the same kind of problem that they would in a same-sex marriage thing. they will have a mess. everything is kind of build on this one thing and they will pick it apart and then what will they do? know what is going to like the chaos that results. >> you are absolutely right. of course a lot has been written in the preceding weeks and

months about exactly the issue that you're identifying, it usually no backup plan for what's going to happen if the supreme court strikes down the subsidies. what's interesting about that is what impact that has on the court to realize that there really isn't a backup plan and that millions of people who are getting help -- health insurance for the first time and getting reprinted care for the first time are going to have it snatched away from them. you know, the justices are people. they read the newspapers. their clerks with the newspapers. what those of us that are difficult these issues are always talk about what can we do, what can we do? we really don't know how much of an impact it has on the justices to realize that we hope that it makes a difference for the

justices to understand just how horrible it will be if the tax subsidies are struck down. >> but in fairness, they would say that hey punitively or negative outcome does not bind their decision because they policy concern. >> that's exactly right but in this case as in a number of cases that have gone the wrong way, there is at least a fair reading of the statute that comes out the right way. and as clinton has said a much fair reading of the statute that comes out to uphold the subsidies -- ian. >> i will say two things. one is to the extent that are justices who are partisan reasons motivated to decide what the point is i think it is really helpful a lot of helpful a lot of political analysts have weighed in and pointed out that this may not be so good for the republican party.

so if they aren't willing to do the right thing because they're just following the law, maybe they will do the right thing out of some other concern. that said, if they do to the wrong thing i think we already have a pretty good indicator of what's going to happen because we have seen it happen that the medicaid expansion. what we've seen is that in many states where you have governors and lawmakers who are ideologically opposed to the affordable care act, they are turning down free money him literally turn down free money. effect with the soviets the affordable care act don't even have to country with this extension at all because they have an ideological to all things obamacare. so i don't think there's any question regardless of what the politics are that there will be many states what the supreme court does the wrong thing. subsidies would get cut off and

that means there's a brief that was submitted by several public health advocates have predicted that 10,000 people about 10,000 people will die every year if the tax credits are cut off. that's a lot of mothers who don't get to hold the suns again, a lot of husbands who don't get to kiss their wives again if this goes the wrong way. >> i want to go to closing comments, which can be whatever you want to wrap on. we will go down the line for anything you didn't get to say. for a response to a bit of a paradox of the court that it would close on as we think about someone these important public issues that the court is potentially right right in and of acting one way or another. i think there's a paradox about supreme court is the third branch of government is always interesting for folks who care deeply our want of impact unlike the other two branches the court doesn't exist to respond to the public. it's very as we said this rule

is the opposite. at the most basic level if you write a letter to your member of congress our find it anything they would be at least some notion of respond to you or pretended to care what you think at least one of your idealistic or cynical. is at least that structure. therebut isn't it into court are quite the opposite. it would've been around the culture of the court is the idea of insulating the court and justices. they do that themselves in small ways they don't allow television cameras in come at our structure and constitution does with tenure and a lack of elections and a real strong tradition in force in our body politics against we michael obligor political pressure on the justices. and yet when you think about several of these cases and others term will be defined, there is an extensive discussion i was even in oral argument as we saw in the marriage case about what the public gets it. and for marriage equality is an area of lower many people who

fashion themselves as egalitarians, a quality oriented to progressives, are very positive about the role of the court might not have much of 1.1 people positive about the court's support of the civil rights movement. it is a point of pride in our history and yet it is not one of the think can be fairly argued as independently arising from justices who often talk about how strings of these concepts are to them, however growing up as kids the notion people as syngenta getting married were unimaginable to quote one judge. there was an interesting paradox when the one in the court is insulated and once to be so come and get on the other hand, particularly on airs of what many people consider a march march for social progress, there is incredible attention to what the public is that are we being pushed from the grassroots up? up? if we have a penny people consider that a marriage equality, a historic event this month potentially come from the court it would seem to me to get

a response for those who want to speak to this is not a closing thought, it would seem to me to be very much a direct response to what we the people have been doing and growing and evolving on and not some other independent legal conclusion that came from some legal doctrine. so that's one thing about thinking about with this term. let's get thoughts and closing for each of her expert panelists. >> first off i think we're all time but probably descended because we're at a panel talking about supreme court, right? but i think what's fascinating is the kind of look at the arc of history. you can look at dred scott and then you can look at what the court was that brown come and use in evolution, you see a growth. the same thing as you look at kind of the marriage equality cases. you can see where we were even when winter happened to where we are now -- windsor. i would like to believe that the

most americans like to believe that somehow the court is a part of our system that is just untouchable, that you can't reach, but you can't touch that somehow. not connected to all of us broadly. they are. they are real people. they look at the news. interconnected and they pay attention to the arc of human history. and so something in me believes that the roberts court particularly the chief justice here, is looking and paying attention to the way that people are continuing to lose faith in the institution of the court as a whole, as a separate kind of independent about the politics body. i think that that's a real concern for the chief justice as it should be. because we see a 10% approval rate for congress. i am a former congressional staffers on why people hate on congress. it makes sense sometimes, but

the court doesn't want to have those same numbers. and so it's very real for them to watch what the american people where the american people are how these decisions affect real people. the fact that they're potentially 10,000 people who could die when subsidies are taken away the fact that jeff some states where you can be married in other states that you can't seems kind of does it seem, doesn't comprehend for some of the justices ensure that with some of it back and forth in the most recent oral arguments. and so i would like to believe again this is my optimistic i think my head was raised all the questions that the court will do the right thing. i think the court is paying attention to deplete the american people have a role to play as the court considers these decisions. and with a question obviously the fidelity must always be to the constitution and to the interpretation. .com of the believe that the

constitution is a living and breathing document for a reason because the arc of history in our people and we are as americans move and changes through history. and that counts for something. >> i'm just going to echo the comments that have been made. judges after all as i said are human beings. i think even they would admit that. so there impacted by the same kinds of things that human beings are anti-think, based on not only legal arguments, kind of emotion and morality et cetera. we all do. what's amazing in america called the contest is the arguments have not changed. one of the reasons e.g. wind had to go to toronto to get married instead of in our home state of new york is it's my fault the i argued that new york marriage case in 2006 and lost it. not a single argument change. every argument they make it is exactly the same.

the same artist mary by not a mate in 2003. would change is to build up judges to hear those arguments. there's no doubt that what made that change is change in american people. as i said changing moral understanding about who you're getting neighbor andrea k. college and who different and phone number if there that only happened because people came out of the closet. so that all of the justice, no questions about this, all of the justices know people who are gay. that makes it very hard in that context is it's okay to treat them, to have discrimination under the law. >> so this is a very interesting transitional period i think for the supreme court. and blaming by that is if you go back 100 years in supreme court history, the supreme court was an abomination. they struck down child labor laws, they struck down minimum wage. the court had basically set itself up as a nation since sure if they saw a lot of it

like they would strike it down just because they didn't like it. and we got out of the air and then there was the warren court era with the court i think the extent do people think of the warren court as being protected in pushing the boundaries of law, i think that is exaggerated but it is certainly true that liberals saw it loss of life -- like. other interesting thing happened in nixon's that the second bush administration which is that conservatives having seen what it was like to go over and over again being on the losing end of the supreme court decision decide it didn't like getting very much. you started to have aningful movement for conservative judicial restraint emerge the vc that in the rhetoric that comes out of reagan on the second president bush.

they would take the weekend of every issue. they were quite bad on some but a lot of issues, nixon reagan, bush way of looking at judges was excellent unconstrained to compare to conservatives have looked at the law in the past. now, and it happened sometime around january 20 2009 that emphasis that focus on restraint is very much on the wane in conservative circles or you go to the site and i can put every year they had a whole panel of why we shouldn't have discrimination laws last year. to help them weather should have a minimum wage. and so i think the question right now for the supreme court is whether the conservatives on the court are going to still embrace a more restrained vision that was dominant for a while, but whether they will take us back to the bridge in in the 19th century competitor know the answer to that question.

>> i told a great justices are human. and that evolve and that they do pay attention to public opinion. i also believe they are very smart and crafty. and that when they make decisions to impede on our rights or to limit or takeback writes that we already have that they can frame those decisions in a way that on its sod that has its appearance of trying to see seem like they're moving us in the right direction, so take justice roberts quote, right, at best way to stop discrimination based on race is to stop discriminating based on race. it seems like the right thing to say commit sounds right on its face but when you give back the layers of that onion, a very, very dangerous thing because it is rooted in something, rooted in an argument that i hear

oftentimes in my consulting work when it work with lenders and i get this response from executives who say we don't discriminate. in fact, i don't even see race to either give us is the color i'm color blind eye to see. and on one element that's offensive because like you come to me and say i don't see pashtun i don't recognize that you're a woman that i am a woman. yes, i am a person of color. it's insensitive for utility don't see that educate be prejudicial over discriminate because you don't see raise. you are colorblind, right? and it can be argued that justice roberts is scientific and my response to that is the best way to stop discriminate based on race is to see in the first place. and if you adopt laws that impede us from being able to see race discrimination, you are perpetuating segregation. you are perpetuating the systemic practices and

institutions that promote race discrimination, gender discrimination, et cetera. >> i share ian's look at the arc of the court began to say earlier what i fear is this court is progressive in that there will be efforts to address social problems as we go forward and the court make it and what of those. i don't think we can afford as a country not to address some very serious social issues. one of the impacts of the court decision not to expand or not to allow expanding medicaid is that there are a million african-americans in texas, florida and georgia who are in the coverage gap, who get no health insurance as a result of that decision to a million african-americans. and just in d.c. residents of

ward seven are much more likely than anybody else in the city to suffer from cardiovascular disease. residents of ward seven and eight are tied for the top obesity rates. we can't afford as a country to lose the productivity of segments of our society because they are start in neighborhoods where they can't get out. and so my hope is that what we see, think the reason that we are optimistic about these three cases is that there is so much momentum across the nation. there's been so much momentum toward marriage equality. and as we talked about there's been so much publicity about the fact that people who have health care don't want to give it up. and maybe what we have to do, but we just have to be that loud about what we care about if the court is tending toward stopping those efforts to address social ill. then we just have to be louder.

>> all right. these join me in welcoming, thanking our panel for this great conversation. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> we will have this available later today on our website c-span.org to check out the video library. "washington post" writing this one on its website the supreme court has struck down a law that would've allowed americans born in jerusalem to list their birthplace as israel on their u.s. passports. the ruling that underscored the presence authority in foreign affairs. the court ruling that congress overstepped its bounds when it approved a law in 2002. would enforce the state department to change a long-standing policy of not listing israel as the birthplace for jerusalem board america's. you can read more at the

washingtonpost.com. and later today the speaker of iraq's parliament and the highest-ranking sunni muslim official talk about iraq's challenges at the u.s. institute of peace as the country's parliament considers legislation to analysts say essential to the stability to fight isis. the u.s. institute of peace hosting the event five at 3:15 p.m. on c-span. >> tonight on "the communicators" at issues consumer electronics show we met up with author andrew king and asked him why he feels the internet is not the answer. >> the internet is not the answer at the moment. is not the answer in the sense that it is not working currently. it's lending itself to undermine jobs. it is company the inequality of economic lives. it's creating new massive monopolies that were unimaginable in the '20s with

the 19th century and it's created is a time in which we've all been come all internet users have been turned into products. you and i have been packaged up and we use google or facebook. have become the product. it's like a big hitchcock movie. >> tonight on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> host: can we start on the house side specifically asked that the report that trade may come up in a less than a that is something you are hearing? >> caller: just to get sounds like trade could come up at the end of the weekly time you should remember there's a significant number of amendments that could come up as they're debating appropriation bills that might slow down the process towards the end of the week or even push it into next week but they're sort of this dash to get enough republicans and democratic votes to pass this ridiculous i democrats are still sort of struggling to get more than about a dozen folks to get

on board with the trade bill. that would be something to watch over the next few days. >> host: speaker boehner was asked last week if he had the votes. he said he would have and what does it look like as far as counting and stuff like that? >> caller: it sounds like republicans are making some inroads are slowly but i think this is sort of interesting moment for paul ryan who is leading this effort of course leadership is, if one is engaged. we talked to leadership they said this is become the number one priority in this sort of consuming much of their time at this point. democrats are going to be all of it come as a bit more difficult is exactly the going to go to get, they will need about two dozen to 30 votes. so far only 17 have said publicly that they support this trade bill. so that's far short of the number they're going to need. if the republicans will have to work harder on this are

democrats will have to make up some of those deficits, but it's harder to do when democratic leadership isn't supporting this the same kind of way the way republican leadership is. >> host: what is expected on a suicide as far as activities are concerned? >> caller: for the next few days looks like focus is going to be on this defense bill led by senator john mccain from the armed services committee. it looks like senate democrats are taking some aim at additional $38 billion that is being added to the overseas contingency operations fund that's been to avoid the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration. democrats are not sure if they will go for this yet. they say that this budget is sort of gimmicky. they are not do so whether to go along with republicans. it seems to be going on that's going to eat up much of the time innocent over the next few days but senator mccain is optimistic that by the end of

that week this week it will be wrapped up house of representatives we talked specifics but as far as the spending bills, what still has tohasto be considered a source of spending bills that keep government and programs operating? >> caller: if they house of representatives passes transportation and defense this week that leaves them with six more to do. went to remember it's very unlikely at all 12 appropriations bills that get passed by the end of the fiscal year. that's something that hasn't happened since the 1990s. it's unclear whether or not that's going to be possible but they are about at the halfway point if they succeed this week with passing the other of progression goes. >> host: lauren fox with "national journal" staff correspondent talk about the week ahead in congress. thank you very much? >> caller: thank you. goodbye. >> we are having some technical problems with the coming through us the video from the center for american progress. will try to work to fix it if you can find this online. checker video library c-span.org.

will move on to the national highway traffic safety administration urging car owners with to cut air bags to check safercar.gov regularly to see if the vehicle is part of a nationwide recall the administrator mark rosekind of the house subcommittee -- told committee his agencies to working to put all the impacted vehicles upon that site. takata source of division executive vice president said the company is working with automakers to make the necessary repairs. defective airbags to deploy to forcefully and spray metal fragments inside of of the vehicle. back and made the japanese-based supplier expand its recall in the u.s. to more than 30 million vehicles, 10 automakers including honda, toyota ford and gm and their customers.

>> the we will get it going to take their seats. i want to welcome dr. rosekind to a committee hearing today subcommittee on commerce manufacturing trade will now come to order. the chair recognizes himself for five minutes for purposes of an opening statement. again to extend my welcome to the one as we revisit a very serious motor vehicle deficit. six months ago, this subcommittee held a hearing looking at this same issue and the members were assured that everything was being done and that testing and expertise were being brought to bear. but there were still a lot of unanswered questions. i was not shared at the time but i did sit in on the subcommittee hearing and i remember raising the concern that safer does not mean the same thing as safe. here we are six months later and i was hoping we were getting down the road of safer but it

is still unclear any how far away we are from safe. a few weeks ago the national highway traffic safety administration launched the largest motor vehicle safety recall in our nation's history due to defective takata airbags. this recall may impact up to 13% of the country's driving population affecting an unknown number of vehicles and spanning 11 vehicle manufacturers. since our last hearing tragically, there has been an additional death attributed to an exploding takata airbag in my home state of texas. every morning i fear i am playing headline roulette waiting for another rupture. another injury, another death. while it has now been confirmed that there is a defect affecting at least six takata airbag inflators, we still don't have any great clarity about what was the root cause and how we know that we are safe going forward. clarity and transparency are needed.

one thing that isn't clear is why we are launching this national recall now instead of almost a year ago when we had almost the same information before us. the american people deserve much better. they deserve to know when a national recall is announced if their car is part of the recall. i am repeatedly visited by vehicle manufacturers who lament the challenges of getting drivers to respond to recall notices especially following a year of record recalls and an overwhelming sense of recall fatigue. yet when we do have the attention of consumers, how is it helpful to tell them there is a recall but check back later to see if you need to do something. nhtsa serves a fundamental and critical role in ensuring vehicle safety. it is important that it be a part of the solution in every step of the recall process in removing defective vehicles from the road. the supply of replacement parts is also a concern.

i am glad that nhtsa is acknowledging that it has a role to play. u.s. drivers are competing against a global supply chain and recalls in many parts of the world. i also acknowledge that dr. rosekind is still fairly new to nhtsa, and was not yet the administrator at our last hearing. i hope we will see more action going forward as this is no direct and timely. i have series conceived but we are in the process. it is inconceivable to me that none of the tests conducted by takata over the past year on over 30000 inflators has given us a clearer picture and dictated more direct action. and why is it that we still don't have any deployment testing being done by anyone besides takata? at what point do we accept that we need to completely eliminate the defective inflators and implement a new design and manufacturing process? are all the driver side airbag replacements now using different inflator compounds? what is different about the

passenger side inflators? we have many questions today. the most important question of all, however does not involve compounds desiccant o-rings or moisture. it is simply, when will we have a plan that can be presented to the public that identifies who is affected and when they will have a safe not safer, but safe replacement part available? nothing is more important, and nothing else is acceptable. in the meantime, the driving public should continue checking their vin numbers against nhtsa's database to see if their vehicle is affected. this includes those vehicles that have previously been recalled. the chair now recognizes -- i'll be happy to yield to ms. blackburn further many of my time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to thank the witnesses for both panels for being here.

as chairman burgess has said this is an issue that we have followed our continued work on and you're going to see us staying with this issue. the fact that we have these airbag ruptures today that it caused serious injury and death is of concern to us. i questioned tech pod fls hearing about in november 19 2014 at times article which notes that engineers at the conference washington for so had raised serious concern about the use of ammonium nitrate as an airbag propel it. they have done that as far back as 1999. yet they persist with this. questions persist and i thank you all for being here for outing to i yield back. >> gentlelady yield. that chair recognizes subcommittee ranking member ms. schakowsky five minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman

following today's hearing on the transcendent airbag recall. the american people deserve to know what went wrong with transcendent airbag so what took so long to discover and how to commit and this congress will respond to ensure that it never happens again. chairman upton recently remarked about his airbag deployment after hitting a deer and said maybe i'm lucky it wasn't a takata, unquote. but at least 34 million americans are not so lucky that we have a guest here today angelina, who was a victim of a takata air rupture could at least six people have been killed by the airbag and in her case, it was two years ago. she was in a car accident and only at 25 miles per hour shrapnel from a defective airbags ripped her chest and we're just very thankful to have her here today. here's an example of such an airbag that has these holes in

it where -- am i on the wrong side? he we go. that shows where the shrapnel came out. this is an example. these are examples of these short pieces that landed in her chest in two places. they are not the exact ones but shrapnel like this. it is very, very dangerous. we need to stop it. my big concern about this recall is that the root cause really has not been yet determined the we've been told that a combination of factors including humidity and age contribute to airbag ruptures but we don't know whether the flaws in the design manufacture and installation or some other aspect, which means we still can't be sure that replacement airbags being installed right now are any safer. this is really dangerous and we need to know what caused this got to make sure it doesn't happen again.

but as we wait for those questions to be answered in our steps we can take right now to improve vehicle safety. many of those are included in h.r. 1181, the vehicle safety improvement act legislation that i produced earlier this year along with my colleague and several others, frank pallone the ranking democrat on the full committee. and i hope that michael thibault sides of the aisle will join in this bill. 2014 was a fear of the recall almost half of all cars on our roads were recalled. gm, honda and other major other companies failed their customers and lives were lost as a result of the vehicle safety improvement act takes medical lessons from those recalls that addresses existing witnesses and information sharing, oversight and accountability regarding auto safety. the legislation includes several provisions that would've benefited consumers whose cars have those fall to airbag.

the bill would more than doubled knits is funded for vehicle safety program, a priority that has been severed underfunded by this country. it would increase the party and called it of information shared by auto manufacturers not only with the nhtsa but with the public and with congress. had more information about takata airbag ruptures been catalogued and diagnosed earlier earlier i believe lies couldn't could have been saved. three, the bill would require manufacturers to fix all recall the vehicles free of charge rather than just those that were purchased within the past 10 years. and takata has indicated the age of airbag is a contributing factor to ruptures and many other vehicles with defective takata air bags are more than 10 years old. they should be subjected to mandatory fixes. under the legislation makes it would also have new imminent hazard authority -- nhtsa related to dangerous defects that would eliminate the

original recall program ensuring that all cars subject to a recall on regardless of their location to those of the changes would have approved the recall. the ongoing investigation into transcendent airbag ruptures that identifies additional policies that would limit the risk of similar recalls in the future because it does we should enact them as soon as possible but in the meantime we can't afford to wait to act on legislation that we know would save lives. it's not just democrats who want action. a who's who of leading consumer and auto safety organizations support h.r. 1181, and i really, for my republican colleagues, to join in this legislation. i ask unanimous consent that this letter be added to the record. >> without objections ordered. >> and i'm eager to answers from the witnesses about what led to this massive failure how to prevent another one in the future.

in the meantime we can't delay commonsense safety improvement that will save lives. i urge the committee to advance the vehicle safety improvement act without delay, and i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from michigan five minutes opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman to an airbag is a safety measure the job you never have to use. and if you do need it you need to have it work exactly right. yes, i have my own incident going back for the memorial day break in michigan less than two weeks ago that it was a dark come at night and not much of him and i was driving at 70 miles an hour when it hit not one but two dear. i was lucky. seat belt work airbag deployed just as they were designed. was a scary moment for anyone and remember thinking i'm lucky i didn't have a defective takata air back at a time. and i thought safety of airbag can't be just a game of luck. being from the auto state, which

includes takata's headquarters in auburn hills, michiganders understand better than most just how complicated cars are and how much goes into each and every part. cars are safer today than ever before. as miles driven and the age of the car go up deaths and injuries have gone down. what concerns me today though are multi-year safety investigations where we can identify a problem but a solution is nowhere in sight, where the preferred approaches are band-aids instead of an effective cure. in these takata airbags we have a problem that has persisted for years. and again we have nhtsa opening an initial investigation and closing it before revisiting it years later. this technology is truly rocket science. but you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that more needs to be done and that it should have been done sooner. when lives are put in jeopardy delay is deadly. there wasn't much doubt at our december hearing that the airbags were defective, but it

still took six months to say so. dr. rosekind was not the administrator when we held our last hearing in december and there has been some positive movement of late. now, takata is changing its formulation of propellant in the replacements on the driver's side, either because someone else is making it or because they are using improved formulations of their own. but this is not the case on the passenger's side. instead they continue to try to perfect an innumerable set of manufacturing variables, which for ten plus years have resisted perfection. do we trust that this time the moisture won't get in and everything else will be perfect? once we have safe replacements, we need people to actually replace them. recall rates of 15-30% are unacceptable. we must understand what the plan is from nhtsa and the automakers. nhtsa will for the first time act as a central coordinator. such a move seems warranted, if not overdue but we need to clearly understand the plan so

that it can be relayed to the public. the messaging around these airbag recalls has been tortured at best. we need more information, and clearer information for consumers. i am concerned that nhtsa and takata decided to release head turning, headline grabbing recall numbers at a time when the information is not yet actionable for consumers. drivers read about the biggest recall in history, but could not look-up if their car was part of the recall. including michael vick or two after my incident. -- including mine a week or two after my incident. how does that help safety? surely a better way exists. at a time when this committee should be focusing more on how to update nhtsa, how to incentivize the rollout of better safety technologies, and how to improve recall take rates we are instead forced to understand why safety, our very highest priority, seems relegated to the back lot. testing is overdue. change is overdue. safe replacement parts are overdue. six months ago i asked the question, what should i say to the mom in michigan who asks me

if she and her family are safe behind the wheel? six months later i unfortunately have to ask the same question. we will have as many hearing as needed and require as much reporting to this committee as needed to ensure that this problem is finally resolved, restoring the safety of our nation's roadways and the trust of the american people. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, chairman upton and distinguished members of the committee. i telephoned my cardio last week. i have a 2004 honda accord. i did not indicate my title but i just telephoned as a regular an ordinary citizen and i was told that i would need an airbag. it seems to me that one of the main purposes of this hearing is to make sure that mr. and mrs. john q. public are aware of the recall are able to be informed quickly as to whether

the automobile is affected. one of 34 million insulators recalls and be confident the replacement is safe. during the subcommittee's hearing six months ago takata witness indicated extreme reluctance to cooperate with requests for an expanded recall and that characterized the testimony at that time as tendentious. i mr. mcgee satisfied with the companies attitude during a majority of this process and i hope that its recent change of heart will be sincere. it occurs of course after being fined $14,000 a day. i look forward to discussing this with the distinguished person in charge dr. rosekind, and mr. chairman, i hope that this will be a hearing of great substance for the american people. >> the gentleman yield back. that you recognize the ranking member of the full committee, mr. pallone, five minutes for an

opening statement please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. though it is taken once i'm glad takata finally admitted its airbags are defective and finally before with national recalls. getting dangerous cars off the road is crucial. airbags are supposed to stabilize and not take lives. -- save lives and not take lives. ..

and yet and not time we are still left with many of the same questions. we still do not know the root cause of the takata airbag defects. we know enough to take action on while i appreciated and share the majority the concerns about this crisis, i am disappointed by his lack of action. it is not a part of the issue. even after the [cheers and applause] nation issue and going back to the toyota sudden acceleration problems come in the committee is set to take appropriate legislative action. the subcommittee ranking member shake house he and i and of course she mentioned it with the number of other members of the subcommittee introduced to vehicle safety improvement act of 2015. many provisions that address

problems that occurred in the takata airbag and shia connection such recalls good i mentioned to congresswoman czajkowski that my car from a chevy impala 2008. i still have it was subject to the ignition switch issue. i received a notice in the mail but there's still some confusion on my part as to what this is all about. i was told until i had the opportunity to go to the dealer that i should separate to parts of the key from the keychain or whatever that thing is called. i continue to do that even after they slaughtered and fixed the key. of course i had to look up and see if the number was one of the impalas that had to be recalled. even in my mind there's a lot of confusion about what was being accomplished and that is why we need legislation. the national highway

transportation safety administration has received much believe in the gmr recall in the takata recall. they do not have the authority to protect drivers and passengers and hold automakers not a mobile suppliers accountable for safety defects. the resources and tools to increase in fancy manufactures the violet safety laws. also automakers and parts suppliers go to tamely produce critical information that may have helped identify problems earlier. the bill improves the early morning reporting system may make you more information public and requiring manufactures provide more information about fatal accidents involving the safety defects. chairman burgess and chairman upton, i appreciate your interest in continued oversight of the recalls but i think we need to begin on legislative work and not just talk about

more investigations. i hope we can work together to move forward with the built to keep her citizens safe on the road. i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. was opening statements. pursuant committee will solve statements will be made part of the record. freethinker witnesses are being here today and take an attempt to testify before the subcommittee. today's hearing will consist of two panels. each love an opportunity to give an opening statement followed by questions for members. once we conclude on the first panel would take a brief recess to set up for the second panel. administrator mark rosekind of the national safety administration. dr. rosekind, we appreciate you being here today. you are recognized for five minutes to summarize your opening statement. >> chairman burgess ranking member shake house key thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on the efforts

to address takata airbag spirit is a more detailed in a statement of that day summarize what nhtsa has done what we are doing. actions are focused on one main goal, deal makes up the vocal of the state airbag and every american vehicle. may 19 secretary bogdan takata had filed for reports of the agency covering an estimated dirty 3.8 million defective airbag shipped to automakers. takata is an original equipment supplier does not know to which vehicles those insiders were so installed. they had 18.5 million vehicles. all the main 18 defect reports are national in scope. 11 out of manufactures have been scouring all records to determine which vehicles are effect if you today automakers bring in 30.4 million vehicles.

during the may 19th announcement nhtsa made or they might determine if you closer recovered thanks to recall the automakers made their own finally. as you know, defect filings were necessary before automakers that initiate their own filing. that make and model information and vehicle identification or rfid numbers that allow vehicle owners to determine if they are affected by the recall. obviously it is frustrating that there's only way to avoid the society would have been done. the nhtsa policy number and actions have a consumer as quickly as possible. too bad and nhtsa has established a micro-site called recalls spotlight located at safercar.gov and includes recall issues of high public interest.

on may 19th and 20th after the d.o.t. nhtsa announcement, within 1.5 million people conducted searchers on safercar.gov including 1 million on may 20th. may 19th, secretary fox announced a consent order with oversight into the companies testing requires full cooperation with the investigation and importantly gives the ability to fully evaluate the adequacy of proposed revenues. it was also announced nhtsa has launched administrative process, a coordinated revenue program to prioritize and coordinate the actions of takata and manufacturers. under the safety act by congress and the tread act for the very first time we need to acknowledge congressman option for driving division and working with others to provide a mechanism to address the challenges and circumstances no-space in this recall. many americans asked whether we

can trust revenue inflators more than defective inflators. the nhtsa revenue program in the nhtsa testing are essential actions to provide full and final answers to critical questions. nhtsa will continue pursuing answers until the american people have a state airbag in every vehicle. there continues to be great interest in establishing the root cause of defects. while some appear to have a role such as time and absolute humidity the full story is not yet known in the recall is not identified. a recent experience as a board member and veteran of many major transportation investigation may be that there is no single group cause for the root cause may never be known. the secretary addressed this directly in the 19 stating uncertainty cannot stop nhtsa from safety. a nurse safety. intercept the insurgency in us focus or land safety missions. lastly whatever the final

numbers turn out to be this may be the most complicated safety recall in our nations history. fixing this problem is a monumental pass. it will require tremendous effort in the auto industry and also require tremendous efforts from nhtsa. yet the agency manages the task to too few people and insufficient funding. the same people managing the recall must also continue to analyze thousands of consumer complaints come investigate scores of other defect and oversee more than 1200 recall campaigns that automakers and equipment manufacturers now have under way. nhtsa must accomplish the budget when adjusted for inflation is 23% lower than its budget 10 years ago. nhtsa needs your help to protect the safety of americans on our country's roads. the president has submitted a request that was fun significant improvements in the

investigation efforts providing people and technology needed to keep americans safe. the administration has proposed to grow america act which provides stable increase funding for agency and important safety authorities to help our mission. as proposed to grow america act in a recently introduced bills imminent hazard authority had been available to nhtsa committee hearing that have a different focus. we address safety risk every day. i urge the members of the the subcommittee and your colleagues in congress and keep the traveling road race. thank you. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. we will know to the question and answers. i'll allow five minutes for questions and mr. administrator, thank you for being here and thank you for making yourself available to me in person on the television as you work your way to the process. just so people are clear, that

the number we are talking about people could access the number at the lower left hand of their windshields or inside the driver store. >> i hope they pay attention to you. they can go to safercar.gov to see if there cars the recall. >> that his website. if someone got the all clear on may 1st, do they need to do anything further or are they good to go? >> we suggest people check it on a weekly basis. >> issued the initial recall in the middle part of name. how quickly people assume the uploaded information your website appeared if they check the website they can make confident the information they get this current. >> thank you for the question. clarity for consumers is critical here and takata had to file their reports for the auto manufacturers could put together their information and what is

clear is we can't get numbers. they have to be accurate. they have to do their due diligence and we have to do ours. at this point some amount of 11 manufactures have provided information or he covering 30.4 million vehicles. >> is there anything else you can do to make certain this process is clearly and effectively communicated to the public? >> heated part of it and will give people safer car.gov. the auto manufacturers have stepped up and provided accelerated production of those numbers which we are checking. they are giving up quickly. >> that brings up the very ability to access the remedy inflators. where do we stand with that? production and distribution. where are you? >> again, important for people

to understand the process. i won't get the whole list now the part of the hearing we are addressing us before may 19 there is denial of the defect, mostly focus on root cause. concerned about the supply chain whether the remedy work or not. that all changed on may 19th. >> the messiah appeared. we are no longer concerned at the remedy worked? >> we absolutely are. may 19th of focus change. there is an acknowledgment by takata. the second is a consent order with nhtsa that allows us to be directly involved in oversight for testing to make sure the remedy is adequate or not in the third part is a revenue program which goes to your question and that is not nhtsa was in the driver seat and we will coordinate and prioritize to make sure supplies are available to make it out as quickly as

possible. >> so people are clear, to cut through any talk surrounding it either replacement devices safe. not safer, but unequivocally safe? >> thank you because again that is a confusing point. people need to look up there was a member now and they ever recall to go get a replacement inflator, they need to do that. we've got to plan out there and millions of airbags out there every day protecting people, including millions by takata functioning properly. we are getting the defective ones off. they need to go get it fixed. we will identify if there is an interim remedy because you are correct. some may not have the longevity to make sure the entire life of the vehicle is fixed. >> so what am i supposed to do? one of my kids calls me and says i have a bad pin number. but they have a replacement and i will get it fixed. am i okay letting much i'll drive that car? >> your dealer should tell you

whether they have a fix that has long-term or an interim remedy. >> the bad news that there's an interim remedy should get a call back when it's time to get tix for the long-term. >> so someone who gets a fix may not really have a six. >> the dealer better make that clear. >> i was being interviewed on a national business show last week and they pointed out to me that in new york with the show originated that they call dealers around the town and said they were laughed at they were last album effect would've been her vehicle and to get her airbag change, that they did not have supplies. i did the next logical thing and called my local guide who does all things cars back in the district and he provided me what i think his recent information number one. no one is supporting panic or irate customers as a result of the recall. a few months ago some dealers were complaining about not customers. i assume and there was no process in place and only one

dealer had a real volume for replacements. another had a thousand many to be replaced but no one was bringing vehicles than a novel continues to be a problem people are recognizing their vehicle needs to be fixed. my time has expired. five minutes to your questions please. >> i think it is important what you said earlier. not all of the numbers are up yet. so people need to be checking. they may be driving with a takata airbag in their vehicle may be a recall appeared but it is not online right now right? >> that is correct. seven out of 11 manufacturers. >> people should not feel secure, but keep checking. i wanted to talk about one of the authorities that would be in

the vehicle safety improvement act and that would be to give nhtsa more authority itself. the first known inflator rupture occurred in 2004 may 2004. that is 11 years ago. months after nhtsa cause for national recalls last november takata has relented because it was still within their authority to do that. nhtsa has no authority to take emergency action in cases where defects are known and they are strong and immediate risk of serious injury or death. dr. rosekind in november last year as a cause for the recall of certain vehicles with defective driver side air bags, takata refused to conduct a national recall. i know you weren't there at the time but if nhtsa had the

authority to mandate emergency recalls, do you think the agency -- i put it this way which you have used it with regard to takata? >> thank you for the rephrasing. i made a clear nhtsa will use every tool available. had it been available we would've used it. >> thank you. as i said the legislation does allow for authority to recall in nhtsa has testified before the subcommittee in the past asking for the authority. i guess the authorities stated you agree with the need for that authority. >> absolutely. >> would have been beneficial to nhtsa to carry out economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes? >> absolutely. two highly where you are focused

on is an imminent hazard would allow us to get airbags off the road and there still procedures to make sure everything is done transparently and officially but we would not than waiting. there could've been my face and injuries are vented with authority. >> there are a number of other provisions in the vehicle safety improvement not that would double the funding for nhtsa. i may have to comment on that. in terms of the resources you have to do the job that needs to be done. i think americans expect this always been done. >> at my confirmation hearing in december i highlighted people, technology and authorities to look at those. i found out it was more under resource i'd ever imagined from the out side. we have done everything we can and will be doing with what we have available to us. if you get a 29 different things that have gone on. at some point you need people

and authorities to get the job done and that is a concern. i highlighted even in december a people looking at 80,000 complaints coming in and airing out the people of the recall group that have to deal with this recall and the other 1200 campaigns at the same time. >> it would be helpful to the committed that if you have additional resources to tell us exactly how that would be used and how then would impact consumer safety. i would appreciate seeing that. >> i'd be happy to do that because the president's 2016 proposal would identify when a request for enhanced by name. we can talk about a trend analysis division, special investigation and provide that to you. >> i would appreciate it. the legislation some of us are cosponsoring would increase civil penalties. they would eliminate most statutory maximum penalty is to make sure the bad actors have

every incentive to get on tape vehicles off the road. it would eliminate what i think is really the regional recall. wonder if you could comment on those provisions. >> sure. at first the cap goes yours has no cap. fair that the message of $35 million. anything that gets it a 300 million are beyond would be great. my give his national. >> thank you aired a yield that. >> the chair recognizes mr. upton for five minutes for questions, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again, we welcome your appearance before a single issue of the best. i want you to know i've made an inquiry. i don't know what the

appropriation did with regard to the nhtsa budget but i will find out soon. prior to the may 19th announcement what efforts did you do is to coordinate with auto manufacturers so they could identify the venom number impacted by the recall? >> and before i go specifically to die, let me say there is a lot of action and inaction before midnight tea and so started and so authority been raised here that takata is pressure to go for a national recall denied any defects. >> we saw that in december before you were on board. >> that's exactly correct. auto manufacturers stepped up to take on recall service campaigns and other things even though takata was denied. >> just use my own personal experience, i don't do this very often but when i come back to michigan for the memorial day break i did go to safercar.gov

with a vin number and i'm not sure we can determine today it was a ford explorer 06. i can't really tell today even if it was a takata airbag or trw. the information was not available when i got online last week. for a comment that they had to

do >> that you and i talked to the announcement. what is the timetable? what is the goal of the timetable for completely resolving the issue being able to identify which issues that these airbags to get replaced and make sure the owners are there. what is your hopeful timeframe for this to be resolved in move to the next issue? >> at this point if anybody gave you a number they don't know what they're talking about. he was her plan to get there and that is we've initiated contact with the other manufacturers and suppliers. others bringing them together will create a plan that will look at the remedy, the supply

of and basically getting to 100% recall. we hope to have a hearing by default hearing by the fall that will let all of that out. all three of the elements. >> what steps have you taken has nhtsa taken to ensure the integrity of the studies and testing submitted to nhtsa by various parties? that seems to be a real element here. >> thank you for highlighting not because part of the consent order allows nhtsa directly focused testing so we can make sure it goes to the adequacy of the remedy as well as root cause. now we have direct oversight and involvement. we were on the receiving end and now we can do right. everybody was focused on root cause which is still not determined. nobody focusing on the remedy. >> when somebody has a defective airbags they can't replace the

propeller. they've got to put a whole new device in with a different propeller. >> that is correct. the mac thank you. thank you for being here. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the ranking member mr. pallone for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. february 20th at this year, nhtsa sent a letter to takata and farming of the failure to cooperate with the investigation of the airbag defect as well as takata's knowledge would result in fines of $14000 per day for each day takata failed to cooperate. by the time the fines were suspended last month takata has been fined $1.2 million. so how much of the $1.2 million to takata on past the company paid? >> recently with the consent order we made sure the investigation continues as well as potential for future penalties. at this point, nothing has been

collected because we are looking up and open investigation with future penalties to be collected. >> when you expect the penalties will be paid to the agency? >> that could be a any time. we are focused right now on the safety element. as it unfolds there maybe need for further penalties now be part of the package. >> -ish about further penalties but you obviously think there's a possibility of additional civil penalties against takata. >> yes. >> a source within takata explaining the fact her to agree to a national recall still took three months to get takata to agree. our financial incentives and effective means of ensuring compliance amongst manufacturers in your opinions? >> no question. going from 35 or 302 no-caps is critical. if i can take a moment that

would highlight the penalty, preservation order in frank the nhtsa was working on a unilateral program to make sure it was communicated to takata as well. >> to believe increasing the size of the penalties would allow them to put more pressure on takata another automakers and in turn reach an agreement to conduct a national recall sooner? >> no question. >> last year gm was fined $35 million for its failed handling of the connections which recall. many regulators an advocate including anthony fox asked congress to raise or eliminate maximums to send a stronger message to bad actors. it's impossible to that price on the cost of a serious injury or loss of life with no financial penalty or compensation to bring back a family member appeared stronger incentives go along way in deterring manufacturers from hiding defects and not cooperating investigations.

as i mentioned congresswoman schakowsky and others have introduced the vehicle safety improvement act which would not only raise per violation civil penalties but also eliminate most statutory maximum penalties. do you believe stronger financial penalties would discourage automakers from hiding possible defects or incentivize quicker action for manufacturers? >> absolutely. >> would increase fines make automakers more likely to cooperate with nhtsa operations? thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee for five minutes for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. rosekind come i thank you so much for taking your time and being here. let's go back to your november 18th 2nd special

order to takata where they were to come with further information about their propellant mix. what we would like to know is what you have been given why days the specific use of the max and the replacement part and a new vehicles? >> i can provide as much information as you like. what you've identified is what triggered the daily penalty that started because we basically had 2.4 million documents dumped on with all the information and try to understand where the meaningful pieces were. so we have some of the meaningful pieces now identified and we can certainly bring as was provided. >> are you satisfied with the information takata has reported two to you