this and spent months and months interviewing state department officials leaving no stone unturned in their investigation. they came up with 29 concrete recommendations to make sure the post broad were more secure to prevent a tragedy from this ever happening again. i haven't seen such constructive organizations from the house republicans. >> do you think this particular investigation that we are still seeing is a complete waste of time? ..

do you find any sense of maybe two extremes meeting after this. >> after the 11 hours of testimony? hopefully. i will tell you my observation from yesterday, which is i think anyone objectively looking at yesterday's hearing will see a former secretary of state who exhibited a deep sense of responsibility for what happened, a deep sense of responsibility for making sure our diplomats diplomats who serd in dangerous places are protected, andsome someone who likes to hold herself accountable when thing goes wrong. those are the attributes why the president selected hillary clinton in at the first place

and why he is proud of her record as soldier state. >> too you think lessons have been learn about talking points on the part of the administration? this in particular publicly highlighted that. almost every other question, so, the american public, if there was confusion over that before, over what was said when, now they get it. so, what would you say from this perspective of the administration on any lesson to be learn there? >> i'm struck by one of the premise of your question, which is half of an 11-hour hearing was dedicated to talking points. that should tell you all you need to know about the value of the hearing. but this has been something that has been -- i understand we're talking about this investigation bus the precede stenlooked at this, too, and found no evidence of the republican conspiracy theory that these talking points were politicized. mike? >> in july, 2011, the president

said he would not negotiate the debt ceiling, raising the debt ceiling limit and wouldn't negotiate with a gun to his head. he ended up with an extensive negotiation, resulting in the sequester. republicans are going to look at that and say what you said and the president said at absolutely no negotiations and say, well, they said that before. so, do you really mean it this time? >> mike, would tell you that the president absolutely believes that raising the debt limit is the bare minimum that congress can do. we're not asking them to do anything extraordinary or anything special. they just need to bay -- pay the bills for a tab they've already incurred. when we go out to dinner at restaurant wes pay the bill. that's all we're asking congress to do. it's fairly simple. if you -- let me just be extra specific. that raising the debt limit does not increase spend organize authorize new spending. all it does is pay bills that

congress themselves have already incurred. so we do absolutely encourage run troupes get their act together and figure out a way to do this. >> there will be no negotiations this time, despite the fact the pledge had been broken in the past. >> no negotiations, period. thank you. jared. >> actually, split the difference between a question that charlie asked earlier and mike just asked now. when she was -- >> you're sitting in the right spot. >> works out perfectly, and so i wander what your once will be. you gave cheryl an inch on transportation funding, and you wouldn't give mike the mile on debt ceiling, so, the other one -- >> its than an s.a.t. question, when the train heres the station -- >> not well. november 11 we have the cr. you described to cheryl that it was the republicans enact action -- inaction that gives

the president the loophole. could we see a short term cr signed despite the president's promise he wouldn't do that. >> no. the president was clear when he unfortunately had to sign the last cr that republicans and democrats in come should take this time afforded to them to come up with a long-term spending bill. >> can you clarify about other spending bills, transportation, why is that special and this isn't, as he said at the time this is the last cr, short-term extension he would sign, and he said that for good reason, which is this country is experiencing tremendous significant economic growth. that includes the longest stretch of private sector job creation in our nation's history, and there's know reason why our friends at the other end of pennsylvania avenue can't roll up their sleeves and figure out a way to fund the government. we're not asking them to do something that is particularly extraordinary or special or requires a whole lot of extra analysis. we're asking them to keep the

government open. it should be fairly simple. republicans ran very hard in this last several mid-term elections to in order to have the responsibility to lead the chambers of congress, and we believe it's part and parcel of that responsibility to keep the government funds. >> your characterization that because of choices that they've made, the president had to count sentence signing a short-term or at least won't veto a short-term transportation, and so i'm wondering if that could extend -- if republicans can continue to run out clocks on things like maybe a speaker election or a few other things that will eat up some time, is that going to apply to the cr negotiations that's going to -- has to take place in the next few weeks? because that runs out december 11th. >> the president was absolutely clear thieves not going to sign another short-term cr. andrew. >> the president wanted to --

continue the work of general allen we expect some kind of change in tactic? >> change in -- >> tactics. >> you all received the written statement from the president today. noting that general allen has done an outstanding job with an enormously complex assignment. he him has built from scratch a robust international coalition undertaking wide range political, diplomatic, economic, and other evidents to degrade and destroy isil. nip who has been fortunate enough to work with general allen knows he is a true american patriot and one our greatest leaders. the president is very grateful that general allen once again postponed his well-deserved retirement to build and lead our counterterrorism coalition. this supposed to initially six months term. due to a lot of arm twisting he agreed to stay on for an extra six months and the president is very pleased to welcome brett mcbacker as the any

presidential envoy. brett has served as general allen's deputy since the beginning of this campaign and has been one of the president's most trusted advisers on iraq. the president asked brett to work with the national security team to strength strengthen our part nor ship with iraq and bring an end to the civil war which fuels icele and other groups. >> given what you say about brett, his experience is in iraq. the tribes in anbar. should we take his appointment as a sign that the isil campaign will now be more focused on the iraqi theater than it has been in the past year? >> no, i wouldn't see that as a sign. in fact, if you take a look at brett mcgurk's record, he has got a proven track record and held hi esteem within our government and partners across the world. he has worked shoulder to shoulder with general allen

providing firm advise and a steady voice. his specialty is iraq but he spent a lot of time in to region and studying and it that why the president is gratified he is going to accept the post. >> a final question. did the administration have a position yet on whether iran should have additional sanctions as a recall of -- [inaudible]? >> andrew, i believe this was brought up at the united nations earlier this week from our ambassador, samantha powers. i believe she submitted this resolution as a violation. we firmly believe it is a violation but that process needs to work its way through the united nations. >> the violation would mean nor sanctions. >> i'm not going to prejudge the results of that process. >> two questions. one, as the prime minister of pakistan who is concerned he was not convinced many demonstrators

outside the white house and this morning the usaid, talking human rights rights and actual -- [inaudible] -- supporting terrorism. the question about the kinds of human rights in pakistan and what he was saying that almost every week there is a statement from pakistan against india that their nuclear program is not as a wedding gift, but it will be used against india some day or one day. my question, human rights and pakistan and if and how much the safe is their nuclear program from the terrorists. >> thank you. yesterday, as you point out, president obama had the opportunity to meet with prime minister sharif. they met for an hour and a half in the oval office. president obama underscored that the united states is committed to a broad sustainable and

enduring partnership with pakistan, deliver progress for the pakistani people and reinforced pakistan's democracy in civil society. specifically, on terrorism as you brought up, the president obama and the prime minister noted our two countries thenned by terror groups and the pakistani people have suffered greatly. these leaders committed to continue bilateral counterterrorism accommodation and president obama highlight the importance of pakistani understaking effective action against terrorists that seek to undermine peaceful die explosion destabilize the region. one piece was important to the president is that pakistan not discriminate against terrorist groups. that's something we have been clear in the past and was reiterated yesterday in the bilateral meeting. >> second, as for the prime minister -- two senior senators wrote a letter to the president,

a resolution about 12 points they made, john kerry and warner. they're seeking this resolution on usaid and also -- [inaudible] -- >> i haven't seen that letter so i don't know -- okay. i haven't seen that letter so i'm sure that if it was addressed to the president we'll make sure it's processed. i can tell you the president deeply values his relationship with prime minister modi, that the united states and india have worked together very closely. they have a strong partnership, specifically on expanding economic opportunities. that is something the president has worked hard on and directed his team at the white house and throughout the administration to focus on our relationship there

and seek opportunities to expand cooperation. thank you. >> john dexter, the last one and then we drool the week ahead. >> tau. interesting news this week on the democratic front in terms of the race for the democratic nomination. lincoln chafee dropped out of the race today. jim webb dropped it earlier this week and we saw the announcement by vice president biden in the rose garden. does it make it easier for the president to endorse hillary clinton much earlier than n the process now that vice president biden has decided he is not going run for president? >> john, don't think there's been a discussion of that here. i would tell you the president actually addressed the question head on i believe last week in the rose garden when he said he'll cast a ballot in the illinois primary on the democratic side for president and it will be up to him whether he wants to make that public or not in advantages of cast that

ballot. >> is hi pleased a former member of his administration is a clear front run frere for the democratic nomination? >> i think he is pleased that democrats running to work here in the white house in 2016 are largely recognizing the record of this administration over the past seven years. this is an administration that took the country from economic crisis to resurgence, as i mentioned earlier. we're proud of that record on in the economy. we're proud of our record strengthening relations around the world. we're proud to extend health care to 16 million americans, and make sures those costs rise at the slowest rate in decades. we're proud to institute new reforms governing banks on wall street to make sure that the financial crisis that this country had to endure in 20072008 never happens again.

>> and, here's one final question for you, friday afternoon question for you. obviously, like other -- time to kill while waiting for you to come out and i was listening to the president's spotify list. >> oh, good. >> with so much on his plate, the domestic front and the foreign policy front, how did he have the time to come up with that? did he have help? >> i can tell you that was a project the president took very warmly to, and with great enthusiasm, was excited to share his musical preferences with all of you. we'll do the week ahead. on monday, the president will attend senator daschlele and senator mitchells resident lunch at the metropolitan club here in washington. monday afternoon the president will welcome president of indonesia to the white house.

the indonesian president will make his first visit to the united states since becoming president. on tuesday, the president will welcome the united states women's national soccer team the white house to honor the team and their victory in the 2015 fifa women's world cup. the visit will continue the tradition begun by president obama of honor can sports teams for their efforts to give back to their communities. in the afternoon, the president will travel to chicago to address the international association of chiefs of police at the 122nd null iacp conference temp the event is the largest gathering of law enforcement leaders in the world with more than 14,000 public safety professionals attending. later in the day the president will attend a democratic senator toal cam pine committee event and democratic national committee event. the president will return to washington on wednesday, october 28th. on thursday, the president will be here in washington, will participate in a democratic

congressional campaign committee roundtable event, and on friday the president and first lady will welcome local children and children of military families for one of our favorite events, the trick-or-treat at the south portico. >> thank you, guys. have a good weekend. >> you can see that briefing again anytime at c-span.org. the house wrapped up legislative business short time ago and the gavel out for the week but today members approved a bill repealing a portion of the nation's healthcare law and defunding planned parenthood for one year. also, the potential lead candidate in the race for house speaker, cockman paul ryan, has been meeting with members and other speaker candidates through

the day. alex missouri of nbc news has been watching this and tweeted: looks like paul ryan is holding court in his office. more meetings with members for the speaker's race. he follow witches paul ripe's beating with conservatives still underway, have been talking for more than an hour at this point. also heard chad pergram of fox news tweeting congressman daniel webster from florida, met with paul ryan at ryan's office and then after the meeting, ryan and webster -- after the meeting with ryan, that is, webster says he is still going to run at speaker. work continues on a budget reconciliation bill in the house, and we spoke with a capitol hill reporter to get the latest. >> john shaw, senior congressional correspondent with market news international. here to tell us what is reconciliation, how often is it used by congress, and how are the house and senate using it this year?

>> well, bill, it's an important fiscal instrument that is used to help bring together to reconcile broad budget goals with specific tax and spending legislation. so, it's a powerful instrument. it's been used periodically over the decades. often times to enact significant deficit reduction. tremendous, president clinton in the early '90s pushed his major package through congress using reconciliation. it's being used differently and that's what the heart of the controversy is. republicans are can use reconciliation to try once again to repeal major parts of the affordable care act, and also to defund the federal portion of planned parenthood moneys. so, it's controversial in that respect. i think it's likely to pass on a party line vote in the house. today, friday, face a fairly

uncertain fate in the senate and certainly will be vetoed by president obama if it reached his desk. >> high have house run leaders chosen to use the reconciliation process to attack at the healthcare law and deal with planned parenthood. >> day tried other ways to do it. one thing about reconciliation, it's a fairly complex process, built in critical point is it needs to pass the senate with only a majority vote. so it would be possible to pass the senate with just 51 votes. so they would not have to do the 60 vote barrier that is thwarted a lot of republican attempts to pass legislation earlier. so theoretically it's an easier bill to pass through congress. still, if it reaches the president's desk he can veto and it it would require the two-thirds majority in both chambers to override. so it's a technique that would allow them to get the legislation to president's desk. >> but the road block in the senate could be conservative republican senators.

the statement from senators rubio, cruz and lee, issuing a join statement on the house reconciliation bill. they're against the bill. why? >> because it doesn't repeal the entire affordable care act. but it's interesting, there's another school of thought and i'm surprised they haven't been a little bit more vocal, which notes the house republicans passed a budget resolution this year that calls for nearly $4 trillion in savings and this would be the perfect vehicle to push he savings and have entitlement reforms and spending savings called for, and the fact they haven't used this instrument intoe enact a major fiscal pollsive initiative raises questions how serious they are with deficit reduction. it's easy to talk about entitlement reform in the abstract but this is a vehicle on which they could implement and it the fact they're using using it raises questions from among a lot of people, both

democrats and republicans, about just how serious they are about enacting some into it. ment reforms. >> you mentioned the white house veto threat. omb says the bill would take away critical benefits and health coverage for middle class families. o'tuesday would -- potus would veto the bill. if hi does, what is the next step for republican in term of the health care law. >> they'll continue to make some attempts to dismantle part ofs of it. candidly i don't think they really expect anything to happen while president obama is in the white house. perhaps in an election year they'll structure some other votes to keep the paster united but i don't think they really believe they're going to unravel parts of the affordable care act while mr. obama is in office. >> it is the deadline season, and we'll switch topics just a bit here as we wrap up to the november 3rd deadline on the debt ceiling. market news international, you're writing the headline: all u.s. hill eyes shift to

boehner for next debt ceiling move. what ills ahead and what is the deadline for the debt ceiling. >> in practical sense it's going to be early next week. mr. boehner's tenure ends a week from today on the 30th so he has limited time. treasury set a november 3rd november 3rd deadline for congress to act. there have been some thought he might actually float a bill by the end of this week. he hasn't. and the house democrats just to send a briefing friday morning they're hopeful mr. boehner will have something ready to go next week. the general few is house we will first, pass legislation and send it to the senate and take four or five days at least for the bill to work through the senate. so, it's going to look like it's going to come up very, very close to the november 3 inside deadline in terms of passing the debt ceiling. >> viewer can follow all that reporting on twitter. john shaw, senior congressional

correspondent for market news international. thank you for being with us. >> thank you. >> and now, going on to pass the budget reconciliation bill before gaveling out. our "road to the white house" coverage continues today with donald trump. he is speaking to supporters at an event in miami this evening. live coverage begins at p.m. eastern. also, texas republican senator ted cruz has a scheduled town hall meeting tonight in council bluffs, iowa. we'll show you that live at 8:30 eastern on c-span, along with your phone calls. >> chance provides the best access for coverage of former secretary of state hillary clinton testifying before the house select committee on benghazi. >> there was no credible actionable threat known to our intelligence community against our compound. >> our hearing coverage without commercials or commentary will air in its entirety saturday and sunday at noon eastern on c-span.

>> then there's more from iowa. tomorrow, with the jefferson jackson dinner des moines. democratic presidential candidates, including hillary clinton, are expected to take part. you can see that live tomorrow at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> and next, automotive industry executives, safety regulators and consumer advocates testify about a house committee hearing on improving vehicle and roadway safety. they're considering a draft of a bill that would alter re-call regulations and laws primarily those under the jurisdiction of the national highway traffic safety administration. it's about two and a half hours. >> good morning. i want to welcome everyone to our hearing today on examining ways to improve vehicle and roadway safety. i will recognize myself for five minutes for the purpose of an opening statement.

certainly lives depend on the safety of cars and trucks and on the roads themselves of the united states. on the whole, the data is good around the decrease in fatilities against miles driven. but the hearings over the last two years have certainly underlined the severity of problems that do exist, and there's no room for going slow when it comes to safety, and certainly deception cannot and will not be tolerated. so it is incumbent upon news the congress,s on the committee yes, national highway transportation administration, vehicle movers and others in the automotive industry to ensure absolute compliance with current federal motor vehicle safety standards and processes. lives depend on it. it is also our responsibility to revisit the adequacy of safety standards and the processes that determine whether they provide sufficient protection to our nation's motorists. this past year, i think it has

been clear to many of us on the committee, and certainly clear to me, that this is not always the case, and that there is room for improvement. to that end, the discussion draft that we will examine today includes modifications to certain federal motor vehicle safety standards and their processes that will enhance safety practices amongst automakers at the ntsb itself and provide more information to motorists and consumers about vehicle safety and foster the development of new automotive technologies that will save lives. some of these modifications including updating our he national transportation and safety board publicized and makes re-call action available to consumers. the discussion draft will address how they publicize re-call notices. these changes are intended to improve overall re-call

awareness by providing drivers with more complete information about a safety re-call and giving them the means to take immediate action to get their vehicles fixed once the defect notice is received. the discussion draft also contains proposals intended to improve how the national highway traffic safety administration collects and analyzes vehicle safety information and directs the agency to research the life saving potential of crash worthiness features that could provide additional protections to the driving public. to increase accountability and improve safety practices among vehicles manufacturers the discussion draft extended their remedy and repair obligations under re-calls and increases the time they must maintain safety records to facilitate the identification of potential defects and institute safety incentives that encourage investment into next generation

safety technologies. after a record year for re-calls, the draft we will examine today also discusses the roadway safety, vehicle safety, and the continuation of this subcommittee's effort to restore confidence in american motorists that the cars they drive are safe, that the re-call process works, and that automakers and the national highway traffic safety administration are capable of keeping pace with the technology and the complexity of cars of the future. i certainly want to thank all of our witnesses for their testimonies. i look forward to engaming in lively discussion on these issues as we seek to improve auto safety, save more lies and ultimately benefit the driving public. with that i will yield back the billion of my time and recommend the ranking member of the hearing purposes of the opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding today's hearing and the

legislative effort to enhance auto safety improve the re-call process. i'd like to mention that i think it is a mistake to hold this hearing without a nongovernment data security witness. this draft legislation includes provisions related to privacy and data protection and it would benefit all of to us better understand the implication of those provisions. i'd also like to mention victims of the gm ignition switch failure are here in the audience. it has been 20 emergencies since the natural gm re-call and you would think this commiteye would have articulated sooner. ...

those policies include requirements that nhtsa undergoes will make and improve rear crashworthiness and that every automaker has a us-based senior executives responsible for certifying the accuracy and completeness of all responses to nhtsa's request for information relating to state investigations. i'm glad the provision were included but it would have been much better and more useful for the majority to engage in a bipartisan consultation during the drafting of this bill as i've repeatedly asked rather than dumping this built in our laps. had that dialogue taking place many of the weaknesses in the bill could have been addressed prior to this hearing. tiffeagle safety improvement act includes several provisions that would enhance the safety and improve the efficacy of recalls, none of which are included in this draft legislation.

they would more than double nhtsa sunday for vehicle safety programs. this bill provides no additional funding for the agency. it would increase the quantity and quality of information shared on automakers with nhtsa, the public and congress while there is a nod to those priorities in this draft legislation there is little meaningful change from the status quo. the bill would require manufacturers to fix all recall vehicles free of charge rather than just a those that were purchased within the past 10 years. this discussion draft would not. they would be no authority to expedite recalls related to dangerous defects would eliminate the region recall program ensuring that all cars subject to a recall or repaired regardless of their location. made of those changes are part of this discussion draft but

beyond those missteps, the republican draft legislation takes egregious steps in the wrong direction. to take one example that they would give automakers a break from health-based carbon emissions requirements in exchange for adding safety features that are readily available. in the waco volkswagens delivered gdm epa emission standards, it makes no sense that we give carmakers a free pass to pollute beyond the standard state of -- is revisionist a big win for bulk slackens of the world and nothing to benefit the public. it's about time we had hearing on enhancing auto safety, safety of american drivers, passengers and pedestrians should be above partisan politics but i urge my colleagues to engage in a bipartisan legislative process that will recoup -- a stronger more comprehensive bill. i am anxious to participate in that kind of dialogue but we still of opportunity to deal with it. and unless there's someone else would want sometime, i yield

back my time spent the chair recognizes the chairman of the full committee mr. upton. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a car isn't just how you get around when you are from michigan. it's a neighbor's job, it's a fiber that connects our communities, and the backbone of our state's economy. we take great pride in the industry's inventiveness, resilience, and creativity. it is what has helped the industry become what it is today, a global leader in vehicle safety, comfort, and superior driving experiences. over the past few years, we have seen the best of what the auto industry has to offer. it's no secret that i am an optimist and believe that the future is bright for the auto industry, for michigan, and this country. unfortunately, we have also seen safety shortcomings and dishonesty along the way. i am glad we are here today to start talking about making fixes to the national highway traffic safety administration and to the industry to ensure that cars are as safe as humanly possible. we are in the midst of an exciting time of automotive

ingenuity. what was once science fiction is now becoming a reality. this innovation is to be applauded, not only because it will revolutionize driving, but because of what it means for vehicle safety, the environment, and most importantly saved lives. the staff discussion draft that we will review today is a starting point to achieve those ends. it includes proposals intended to foster greater vehicle and roadway safety for motorists now and in the years to come. some pieces, like having a corporate officer responsible for safety compliance, aren't new. other ideas, like how to best ensure cybersecurity, may need to further evolve. it is encouraging that the industry is setting up an information sharing and analysis center. there is also talk of forming a working group to address cybersecurity best practices. the draft seeks to address concerns around recall awareness and incentivizes automakers to invest in new safety technologies that will save more lives. it also includes plans that help

modernize the work and mission of the national highway traffic safety administration to ensure that the agency is fully capable of keeping pace with the innovation and progress of the industry in the 21st century. this is a life-saving endeavor. i look forward to a thoughtful and engaging dialogue on the merits of each proposal, and what additional considerations should be made by this committee. while we have a ton of witness today, i also want to invite everyone with an interest to give see but i know we can approve the legislation. this committee is unwavering in its commitment to ensure that the auto industry and the government are doing everything that they can't make cars safer to protect the lives of the driving public and their passengers. our work continues to improve safety for drivers come and i yield the balance of my time to the vice chair of the full committee, marsha blackburn. >> thank you, mr. chairman per hour to thank our witnesses for

being here today. chairman burgess, i thank you for visiting. i think your chosen the perfect day to do this hearing. as we go back to the future and it is october 21, 2015, and we all remember that movie and the significance of that day. and he we are talking about interconnected cars. and using tablets and using this data. so perfect day to have this discussion. chairman burgess, i thank you for the draft that you have brought forward. my constituents are truly interested in this issue. whether they work with toyota or gm or nissan or in the aftermarket auto parts industry with autosomes. everybody has an interest in what we're doing. here's the reason why. when you look at the stat that we would have a quarter region interconnected cars on the roadway by 2020, by 2020, and

the significance of that, as automobiles have become more computerized, it's important for us to look at these technological advances such as the vehicle-to-vehicle communication. there's a lot of curiosity about that. we look forward to getting some answers now to how this is going to work, and i think the gentleman from texas for initiating the conversation and yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentlelady. the chair recognizes the ranking member mr. pallone five minutes for an opening statement, plea please. >> the title of today's hearing refers to vehicle and roadway safety but it's clear from the draft before us that safety is not the focus. instead of improving safety this draft weakens current environmental and consumer protections. although safety is a pressing topic that deserves our utmost attention, traffic fatalities grew by 14% in the first six months of 2015 if that increase

comes after years of declining traffic deaths and injuries are also up at the national safety council report that medically consulted motor vehicle -- wished to medically related motor vehicle injuries grew by 30% through 2014 and these increases should concern everyone. earlier this you ranking member schakowsky and i introduced the vehicle and safety act of 2015 as a starting point for bipartisan negotiation with an eye towards comprehensive auto safety legislation. our bill would make improvements to ensure the millions of drivers and passengers are kept safe. it gets nhtsa information, resources and authorities needed to protect consumers and our bill empowers consumers with more information and ensures used cars ar are fixed before tr results. instead of those safety measures, this draft would give automakers credit toward greenhouse gas emission and fuel economy requirements for incorporating crash avoidance and vehicle-to-vehicle, or p2p,

technologies and, of course, the with others know about link between these technologies and lower admission. manufactures wicked these credits were things they are already doing not as sensitive to improve safety. not only are manufactures continuously touting their courses including the latest in crash avoidance technologies, nhtsa has released its proposal to require the tv enabled cars. nhtsa secured commitments from several automakers to include automatic emergency braking on all new cars -- the tv enabled cars. meaning automakers already have considerable incident to add those features to cars. in the wake of the volkswagen admissions fraud scandal i'm alarmed congress would even consider giving automakers a way around environmental regulations. auto companies would receive a pass on pollution because they insult communication devices into vehicles to assess volkswagens technologies did not

prevent nox emission, communication devices will not prevent greenhouse gases and this creates a congressionally sanctioned defeat device but i'm also concerned about the privacy and cybersecurity provisions in this draft but as more high-tech vehicle safety equipment is integrated into cars, strong consumer privacy and data protections are more important than ever. instead of improving privacy or cybersecurity protections this draft gives automakers liability protection for simply submitting a privacy policy or cybersecurity plan, even if the policy or plan provides no real protection for consumers and even if those policies are not followed. because my time is limited i want to turn to process for the moment. i'm disappointed by the lateral approach taken by the majority in drafting this legislation. we have been trying to work with our republican colleagues to draft auto safety legislation that would meaningfully reduce deaths and injuries but instead of pursuing a bipartisan approach the majority chose to prepare this legislation.

closed doors. untroubled the environmental protection agency could not find a way to attend today. regardless if the majority wants to open up the clean air act then this bill must be the subject of a hearing and markup by the powers of contested jurisdiction and expertise to evaluate these proposals. this a draft in my opinion fails to increase auto safety. it harms the environment and relieves automakers from responsibility regarding consumer data. this is a weak bill that he can't support. yet again i can only express my hope that in the near future we can work together to make real progress towards improving auto safety. unless someone else wants time i yield back. gremlin spew the chair thanks the gentleman. this concludes opening statements and that she would like to remind members that were sent to committee roles all members opening statement will be made part of the record. and again want to thank our witnesses for being here today to contact to testify before the subcommittee. did a single consistent two

panels. each panel of the opportunity given opening statement followed a round of questions. once we conclude with questions on the first panel, we will take a brief, underscore brief recess to set up for the second panel. our first witness panel for today's hearing is to include dr. mark rosekind, the administered of the national highway traffic safety administration, and ms. maneesha mithal, the associate director of the division of privacy and identity protection at the federal trade commission. we appreciate both of you being here today, and sharing your time with us. we will begin the panel with you, dr. rosekind. ya recognized for five minutes for an opening statement. >> chairman burgess, ranking member schakowsky come its approach represented in one of the national average traffic safety administration in offering the agency's perspective on how to strengthen our safety commission our mission is focus on saving the

32719 lives lost, prevented to put 1 million injuries and reducing the 5.4 million crashes that occurred on american roadways in 2013. nhtsa will continue to use every tool available in pursuit of public safety and interests last 10 months the agency is done the following. strengthen our oversight and enforcement vehicle safety, issuing records civil penalties for recall and state reporting failures and making innovative use of consent order order to ie safety performance in the auto industry. secret for cybersecurity related to safety defect recall in automotive history and made unprecedented use of our authority to explore measures just because complex each of recall in american history involving airbag inflated with embrace secretary talks cal cald accelerate technology innovation that can save lives. accelerated proposal making on vehicle-to-vehicle technology, -- [inaudible] to find an address obstacles to

safety innovations, not something to add automatic emergency break into a new car assessment program and securing voluntary commitments of the 10 major automakers to make system standard equipment on new vehicles. we have answered the call of this committee and the american public to improve our own performers in identifying and addressing safety defect. pledging to fulfill the recommendations of a recent inspector general report on an expedited schedule and to undertake dozens of additional improvements through out our screening investigation and analysis processing. these efforts underscore nato's commitment to safety. whatever decisions this committee or the congress makes nhtsa will seek to do all we can for safety with impeccable authorities and resources. and would help we can get even more. beauty and the pressures of a different the actions congress could take to strengthen the safety.

criminal penalties for vehicle hacking, authority to prevent rentals for used car sales under safety recall and significant enhanced civil penalty afford to provide meaningful deterrence against violations of the safety act. grow america act in 2016 budget request would provide significant funding to enhance our defects investigation into orbit to address emerging issues such as cybersecurity. these proposals are essential to enhance our safety mission as i told her senate colleagues in june, in my judgment as a safety professional failure to address gaps to our authority, personal and resources are a known risk to safety. nhtsa has been able to spend only a few days on a detailed technical analysis of the staff discussion of this draft legislative proposal that was released late last week about like to thank the committee members and staff of initial engagement with the nhtsa. however even our initial examination has identified examples of significant

concerns. the discussion draft proposal is a provision to provide fuel economy and emission credits to automakers. i would just raise two general points. first there should not be a trade off between safety and public health. the american public expects vehicles with that address both safety concerns and public health and environmental concerns. second, the automakers already have ample incentive to put advanced safety technologies. the lives of they can save and injuries that they can prevent. the discussion that would require assistant in of the owners when the register with state motor vehicle agencies. state agencies are one potential touch point, specialist second or third owner of used vehicles. the cost just osha maintain such a system are unknown and the technology is not yet in place. which is why grow america proposed a pilot program to work through these issues. under the draft proposal states that do not meet the requirement would be kicked out of the

national driver register and important tool that took over a decade to get 100% participation bthat identifies habitual traffc offender's and assures commercial drivers have clean records. the committee's discussion draft includes an important focus on cybersecurity privacy and technology innovations. the current proposal to have the opposite of their intended effect. by providing regulated entities majority representation on committee to establish appropriate practices and standards and then in shawnee those practices as de facto, the proposals could seriously undermine nixon's efforts to ensure safety. the public expects nhtsa not industry to set safety standar standards. the draft legislative proposal would require nhtsa jupiter certainly converses incarnation with the manufacturers and would prevent nhtsa for making them public until manufacturers are made of able complete list of vehicle identification numbers are affected vehicles. this proposal would require nhtsa to withhold safety defect of information from the public and give the manufacturers

responsible for the defect control over the timeline and release of nhtsa initiate a recall actions. this proposal because the agency's enforcement authority as a direct conflict with other congressional interest to increase the transparency of safety information. it would be hard to argue that the best response to recent events affecting auto safety is to erode nhtsa's ability regulate and oversee safety. what is required is to strengthen our ability to achieve its mission by working together to address gaps in our 40s and resources. discussion of these and other issues are sent to torture goal of greater safety on america's roads are i think and i look forward to your questions. >> picture thanks to jonah. ms. mithal, you are recognized for your opening statement. >> thank you. dr. burgess, ranking member schakowsky and members of the subcommittee, i am maneesha mithal. i appreciate the opportunity to present the commission's

testimony on the privacy and security related provisions of the discussion draft to provide greater transparency, accountability and safety authority for nhtsa. we are the -- we are the primary federal agency charged with protecting consumer privacy and security of the past 45 years. we have brought hundreds of privacy and data security cases targeting violations of federal trade commission act and other laws. in addition to enforcing a wide range of privacy and security laws, the ftc educate consumers and businesses. most recently the ftc launched a start with security business education initiative that includes new guidance for businesses as well as a series of conferences across the country designed to educate small businesses on security. the next conference will take place on november 5 in austin, texas. on the policy front we conducted a workshop on the internet of things are we specifically hosted a panel on connected cars. we released a report on the workshop earlier this year.

with this background we are pleased to offer our views on title iii of the discussion draft. we have serious concerns about the privacy, hacking and security provisions on title iii. first as to privacy, we are concerned the safe harbor for ftc action is too broad. a manufacturers of mr. privacy policy that meets specific requirements but does not follow them may not be subject to any enforcement mechanisms. furthermore, even though the privacy policy is only required to describe protections for vehicle data, collected by owners, renters and lessees, the commission could be precluded from bringing a section five action based on any privacy related misrepresentation on a manufacturers website and even if the misrepresentation is not related to the gold data. second, has to hacking, section 302 of the discussion that would prohibit unauthorized actions to vehicle data systems. security researchers, however,

have uncovered security vulnerabilities and connected cars by accessing such systems. responsive researchers often content companies to inform him of these vulnerabilities so the cubbies can voluntarily make their cars are safer. by printing such acts is given for research purposes this provision would likely discourage such research to the detriment of consumers privacy, security and safety. finally, has to security the bill creates an advisory council to develop best practices. manufactures the implement these best practices will have a safe harbor under section five of the ftc act. however, the current draft may not result in best practices robust enough to protect consumers for several reasons. first, alicea 2% of the councils mentioned must consist of representatives of automobile manufacturers be using this product is approved by the council of the by a simple majority of members of manufacturers alone could decide what's best practices would be adopted. second, the discussion that

contained eight areas that best practices me but not cover. industries back the draft is not even create a minimum standard of best practices. third, there's no requirement to update practices in light of emerging risks in technology. fourth, by creating a clear and convincing evidence standard, the bill gets nhtsa too little discretion and would like result in the approval of plans that may meet the bare minimum best practices on paper but are in practice not a properly tailored to a foreseeable evolving threats. finally, the proposed safe harbor is so broad that it would immunize manufacturers from liability even as to deceptive statements. for example, false claims on the manufactures website about its use of firewalls or other security features would not be actionable if the subjects were also covered by the best practices. the commission understands the desire to provide businesses with certainty an incentive in the form of safe harbors to

government best practices. however, to see could provision of the discussion that would allow manufacturers to receive substantial liability protection in exchange for potentially week best practices instituted by a council that they control. the proposed legislation is drafted a substantial we can to secure privac the privacy protes that consumers have today. thank you for the opportunity. we look forward to continue to work with the subcommittee, congress and our partners at nhtsa on this critical issue. >> gentlelady yield back. the chair thanks the gentlelady. i thank you both for your testimony. and we will move to the question and answer portion of the hearing. and to begin i will recognize myself for five minutes. ms. mithal, let me ask you to clarify because i don't think it was in the written statement that i had available to me last night. you mentioned that there would be, one of your start with you

to do business education initiatives in austin, texas, is that correct? >> that's correct spill was the date you gave? >> november 5. >> very well. so for the benefit of our c-span on it his i just wanted to repet that because although my congressional district is well north of austin, it obviously a facts come will affect people in my state. dr. rosekind, thank you for being here. thank you for always being very generous and what a dumb and very forthcoming whenever there are questions. thank you for opening up the doors of the national highway traffic safety administration to committee members to come and visit with you and see the good work to you and the men and women employed there, but good work that you are doing. iq have a copy of the inspector general's audit report that i'm sure you're familiar with it. this was issued from the inspector general's report was issued in june of this year. can you take just a moment and go through which recommendations

have been implement it? >> certainly. just in context i will be clear that one of the things we did was actually commit to the all 17 recommendations within a year, which the inspector general major i understood that's never done, to actually make that kind of commitment and we give a schedule. i mentioned that because the person has been completed two weeks at of schedule ever are on schedule for all the others 16 at this point. >> very well. jaime pressly described the operations for the council vehicle electronics, vehicle software and emerging technologies that that council that's being set up at nhtsa? >> the current -- sorry. just trying to clarify. >> is there a council for vehicle electronics at nhtsa speak what we have in office. in fact, and i'm just trying to

get my bearings here, in 2015 actually come and we can send it to you, we publish nhtsa anne veigle cybersecurity what the did was talk about what we've been doing in this arena. it describes over the last few years start in 2012 we reorganized our offices to the specific office that addresses that with specific people looking at these hypersecretive issues related to electronic controlled vehicles. >> is there a separate office for vehicle software speak with that is in that comment with seven people, that's there. >> who leads the office or that council? >> right now the associate administrator matthews is a technical lead lead on that spirit and that also includes the center for emerging technologies at nhtsa? >> correct. >> is a better a mission statement that has been

published for the office or that council? >> i don't know if there's a specific mission statement for that office, but all of that would be in the 2015 nhtsa anne veigle cybersecurity that we will send you. >> if you were to give us a thumbnail of what the mission of that office is, could you do that? >> sure. in 2012, i think is was trying to look ahead. what's been interesting for me is a blessing this is an issue now. nhtsa has been on this released three years starting with the structural change to the agency that would have at least polkas people looking at this. they are looking at policy, testing, research, and having continual interaction with the industry to make sure up on whatever alleged things or people are thinking about. >> ms. mithal, let me ask you, does the ftc currently courting with the national highway traffic safety administration on data privacy and security? >> we do, yes.

for example, we've had several meetings. become went on to report on vehicle-to-vehicle communications last year. >> let me just take a minute. dr. rosekind, is the not entirely within your area but you're unaware that end of the subcommittee held a hearing on the volkswagen commission problem ended the device. do you know -- defeat device. you know what are the standard allowable not to oxide emission under current epa guidelines which were talking the other subcommittee that 2010-20, 40% more allowable. can you give me a figure in grams or leaders or what is allowable under nitrous oxide emission? >> i can mak make sure we send a technical report so i can give you a specific number. >> i would be great. i would also like information as to what that was in calendar year 2000, just as a reference point. would that be possible?

>> you bet. ..

how would requiring to coordinate with manufacturers before publishing the notice of the defect is that a risk to issue recalls when necessary? >> i would like to handle this this addresses the ntsa actions because many are at the automakers with something to move forward and the ntsa recall is because they have denied the need to do that and we need to have the action as for the concern is the control of that would be basically under the control of the person that created the defect. but i think the other part would have to do with holding the safety information. this committee i can't imagine us sitting here knowing if we that we have safety defect information holding it back and

then having somebody lose their lives due to the defect when we have the information that's part of what we've done from the beginning is making sure people get to make that choice, not the government and if they have that information they get to choose what they would like to do including a rental or do whatever else. so one has to do with the controlling the timeline and the other would be the manufacturer but the other is for us to think about the potential delay in providing information which clearly would rather deal with since we have it. to take emergency action. it includes imminent hazard authority.

the cases were detected substantially increases the likelihood of serious injury or death so how would this be helpful carrying out its mission to reduce the economic loss resulting from the motor vehicle crashes we don't want to go from withholding information. we think we need to be in the other direction which you've highlighted. there's a gap others have with eminent hazard that would allow them to get the airbag inflators off years before and that authority which others already have is not available currently. in the first six months of 2014 in the recent percentage by 2014 i'm concerned they would put more strain and it's already overstretched resources without actually improving safety.

according to one estimate the number of the vehicles grew by nearly 4 million vehicles from 2013 to 2014. meanwhile the budget has remained relatively flat in appropriations for fiscal year 2016 continue that trend coming in more than $70 million. do you believe believe the stagnant funding has made it harder for the administration to do its job. the last time i appear before you we will give you more safety. vacation is very straightforward. if you give more requirements in the resources that will get less safety. >> does this conduct at least eight new reports and studies without providing any additional funding. would you expect them to require

a diversion of resources from other programs? >> we need the technical to produce these kind of reports. >> the chair thanks the gentle lady and recognizes the vice chair. >> thank you mr. chair and good morning to you both. the state motor vehicle agency in new jersey has contacted me and i think this is a concern of the various state agencies. there is a section directing motor vehicle agencies to notify drivers of open recall when they are renewing the registration in new jersey that's once a year and i presume that's true in the states as well. there is some concern that this would put the undue burden on the states and i understand the

benefit increasing the notification and we called remedy rates and we all favor that however i do share some of the concerns of the agency in new jersey and could you please comment on the feasibility of your agencies coordinating with state agencies to ensure that they are able to have the information necessary to inform drivers of open recall on vehicles within the state's? >> you just used the word which is the feasibility. ntsa held at the recalls to see how to be increased to 100%. automakers have been doing research to understand about just the remedies that you see it on the concern there is no technology, nobody knows the cost, nobody knows the procedures. it's a great concept. there is a super touch point. the question is how to do it and that's why the suggestion was for the pilot study to figure it

out and make sure it would actually be effective in. >> i presume the pilot study would be with one or several of the various jurisdictions, and is there in anticipation as to how that pilot study was over. >> just the things i mentioned which is the need to figure out the technology and what would be the procedures and what would be the cost in a couple of studies obviously in the view how to scale with the whole country. does it even work that way or not? >> is this typical in the states but the vehicle registration is once a year or are there multi-year registrations in some of the state's? >> i believe its annual. if there is an exception i can find that out for you. >> thank you very much. under the legislation automakers would be required to take

reasonable steps to ensure other entities adhere to the auto make her his privacy policies. and the automakers privacy policies are supplied to the auto made her his would not be subject to the jurisdiction. what about the privacy policies of other entities that would potentially have to adhere to the automakers privacy policies i would request any comments you might have on that. >> it appears from reading the bill the safe harbor from the action would apply to the manufacturers. so i would believe we still have the authority to go over the other entities in the act. spinning thank you very much. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentle manual to second recognizes the gentleman from new jersey for the question please. >> thank you mr. tran. high-tech vehicle technologies are expected to phase out in the last year and ntsa estimates two types of the technology alone could prevent more than 300,000

crashes. i'm concerned however in spite of the benefits of the technologies title v of the bill is based on false trade-offs. vehicle safety instead of environmental safety. sections 502 and 503 503 with exchange greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy credits for manufacturers installing advanced safety technology and the new cars. particularly in light of the shocking admission for the scandals around the volkswagen i'm worried of the opportunity to avoid complying with environmental regulations. so let me start i understand that ntsa is already working with auto manufacturers on advanced safety technology in more vehicles is that correct? >> secretary fox asks us to accelerate anything that is the new life-saving technology and for the vehicle to vehicle proposed rule would gandalf at the end of this year and we need to acknowledge ten manufacturers came out and made a commitment

to take automatic emergency braking standard on all of their vehicles. that was without any mandate. >> so the rule proposed would require the manufacturers to make the vehicles enabled? and use it by the end of the year. >> it would be out by the end of the year. >> and they are already installing the advanced technology in the cars. are there other incentives revising the end cap that you are considering to get the technologies employed to all cars and not just the luxury cars? >> there are three tools. one of them is the new assessment program which is under review right now and we will talk about that in the near future. i'm also highlighting the use manufacturers who came together on basically the insurance for highway safety to do this on their own. these are three different tools and i have been pushing collaboration and the opportunity to expedite and

expand safety beyond the minimum that we get from the rulemaking. >> so began the requirement that it would be installed in every vehicle is already in the pipeline and you said that the insurance for highway safety is already required to be equipped with certain safety technologies and qualify for top safety ratings is the correct? then you said you worked to get certain commitments on technologies for manufacturers. >> and in january we announced about the automatic braking is being added to the end cap and there are further changes to be coming soon. >> i think most consumers would like to have a car that is the fuel efficient and safe. that makes sense. do you support giving automakers credit for installing advanced automotive technologies? >> the general principles i stated are pretty important. the american public expects both

safety and public health and the second part is i really hope that the manufacturers have enough incentive for the life-saving technologies. those are going to be the injuries they preevent by putting them in the vehicles. >> city want to give the opinion of whether you like or support this idea giving the auto make her his the credits because they installed these advanced technologies? >> we will provide the detailed analysis on that. you should be able to get safety, public health and environmental concerns addressed because i think the incentives are already there. save lives and prevent injuries. that should be what everybody needs to add to the advanced technologies. >> i appreciate that. what impact would the average café provision have on the fuel economy come and how might that affect consumers who buy these new cars? in other words what impact in

the credit provision would have on the vehicle fuel economy? >> the credit? i'm not sure that it would actually change the levels of what are covered under the fuel efficiency. it may not change. it's more in sensitizing i think is part of the proposal. >> and so, you -- do you want to venture how it would affect consumers who buy these new cars? we want to get a little more detail before we take a specific position on them. >> thanks a lot. i appreciate it. >> the chair thanks the gentleman and yields back and recognizes the gentleman from kentucky for five minutes for your questions please. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate it. a ntsa they ntsa order to perpetrate petition participate

in the development of the cybersecurity framework into which participate in the future relations of the framework? >> we have interactions with agencies including the dod etc.. so we are always involved in participating as well as having them participate in our activities. >> are there ways that they could currently participate in facility to be the suffocating the efforts to develop the best practices for automotive cybersecurity? >> yes. and in fact if you look at the model of having the ten manufacturers come together to work on the standard it is a model to be applied across all kinds of issues including cybersecurity and so everybody has already read the plan on having a meeting with the ceo about to safety concerns we've all been reading about. and he specifically identified both safety and cybersecurity to talk to them about. >> and the other question the

auto industry have to discuss how best to apply the cybersecurity risk management framework to development. >> yes, those discussions have begun. >> what standard do we determine if auto manufacturers have tested the security of cars appropriately before putting them on the market? >> sure. it prohibits unfair or deceptive practices. if a company makes a misrepresentation about a security practice, we can take action into their practice one that causes or is likely to cause the substantial injury not outweighed by the competition is not recently avoidable by consumers. so in essence it is a cost-benefit analysis. there is no such thing as perfect security but we do require reasonable security. >> in the testimony you discuss starting with security. the business initiative. can you discuss how that would be applied to car companies and others involved in the connected car space?

>> one example that we give in the business guidance is that companies should test products before they launch them as opposed to launching the product first and then seeing the problems later so it's something we call security by design. another thing we talk about in the security guidance is having a vehicle to acceptable their ability reports so companies can have your ears to the ground and no the security research that's out there. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts for questions. >> thank you very much to the panelists for the testimony here today and i went i want to thank the chairman for calling the hearing. many of today's cars contain a range of navigation telematics and events data recording systems among others all have the ability to record driving history information.

auto manufacturers and other parties also have access to this wealth of information. it's a bit concerning and it is for others as well people want to know that the data is being kept safe when it is being used with their consent. so, i was hoping that -- to start the discussion the provision in the discussion would require the car companies submit privacy policies but it doesn't give any authority to recommend changes or to set a standard for acceptable policy. is that how you read the legislation? do you think that consumers could be worth should be concerned that there is no ability to recommend any changes? >> the public expects them to regulate and set guidelines to protect the traveling public.

>> i think there are concerns that although the bill prescribes certain requirements be placed in the privacy policies it may not require the companies to follow. >> it's my understanding that the automaker will receive the protection from civil penalties and the enforcement simply by providing the privacy policy that addresses the required items in the draft such as whether or not the element collects, uses or shares data into in whether the consumer has any choice for the use. it will not matter how the given company chooses to address those items. a car maker can submit a privacy policy, violate the policy and still be protected from the enforcement. that means a car maker can make promises about protecting their data, break the promises and suffer no consequences under section five of the ftc act.

is that your understanding of how the system is setup in the draft legislation? >> it is a real concern. >> and do they have incentives to create the privacy provisions for consumers? >> unfortunately no. >> so if a company claims to have privacy policy to protect consumer data and then it violates the policies, isn't it an unfair and deceptive practice? >> it is and that is something that would've stripped the authority over. >> thank you. i also have some additional questions about the provision which would create a civil penalty from gaining authorized access to the the people data or the critical system. we can all agree we would like to prevent bad actors from accessing the control systems. some observers expressed concerns about the independent researchers who hack into the vehicle systems to draw attention to the vulnerabilities were to conduct tests.

these types of researchers made headlines by covering the missions fraud and volkswagen and exposing vulnerabilities in the jeep by controlling the remote via intranet. we also heard from several auto repair shops that they think can be precluded from accessing information that needed to effectively repair cars and a suggestion on auto dealers repair up to 90% of cars that are not still under warranty. so, do you have any thoughts on the provision in particular from the expertise in reviewing the data security cases? could you envision a scenario where information could be site load setup repair shops could get enough information to repair cars but not fill fiddle with emergency brakes? >> we agree that there should be civil penalties for malicious hackers that we are concerned that this bill would desensitized legitimate security researchers who responsibly contact companies and suggest they fix the vulnerabilities and

companies fix the vulnerabilities to help consumers and so we believe that the bill would create an identity that. on the auto repair issue i would refer to ntsa on that issue. >> you mentioned this a little bit. can you discuss the importance of the researchers to the data security work? >> it's very important. often it's the security researchers are bringing these problems to the attention of both the car manufacturers and regulators like the ftc. >> do you have any idea how to make the distinction? >> that is something that we are careful drafting and we look forward to working with the committee on that. >> the chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gently from tennessee for five minutes for questions. >> thank you mr. chairman. okay. let's stay with this regulation issue. one of our concerns is a dual regulation because as you all may or may not be aware, we have kind of grappled with this and i

know that you are with privacy and the internet space trying to get in on top of the jurisdiction and that has caused a term in this amount of confusion. so let me go right where mr. kennedy wasn't talking about the way you've got a manufacturer that can get the safe harbor and then avoid that section five enforcement if the manufacturer is meeting those requirements that are listed. now, ntsa already handles the issue of privacy security and automotive space. so what we want to do is avoid this confusion into this dual regulation. so, is the ftc going to honor the recognition that ntsa has

this lead and are they going to honor the safe harbor provision and act in good faith when they are reviewing these manufacturers privacy policies and making certain that they meet those requirements? >> if i can make two points in response to the question. first, the concern is the safe harbor is broad in many respects. one example is the privacy requirements apply to vehicle data collected from owners, renters or lessees. so for example if a manufacturer makes a misrepresentation on the website that applies to shoppers about how they are collecting the shoppers data that would be covered by the privacy policy to the ftc couldn't bring action. so we have concerns about the breath of the safe harbor. putting aside that, we work very well with ntsa, and we support the goal of avoiding overlapping and duplicative requirements. but at the same time i think that ntsa into the ftc have different focuses, so for

example, ntsa does recalls and is very -- we would keep her to the expertise and car safety issues. at the same time, we have the ability to get equitable leaf against companies that don't maintain privacy and consumer security for example, implementing a security program committing outside audits in some cases the redress, so we think that both agencies bring particular expertise to their and different remedies to the issue. >> and you were committed to making certain that we draw the lines here so that we don't end up with a dual regulation or confusion? >> consumers have been quite confused about the reach of the fcc and the ftc and didn't make a -- and is it in the jurisdiction. so when we look at this issue and we know cars are going to be more interconnected, not less, will they be more computerized

that he will have more data and people will say what are you doing with the data can help you turn it into usable information this is something that should be cleaned up and handled appropriately on the front-end. administrator, i want to come to you for a couple of things. how are they addressing the data collection practices of the auto makers and others in the automated space? what kind of a formal guidance are you currently getting, have you laid that out and what do you intend to do because we all know you can't beat technology specific if you will. you've are going to have to umbrella this speak for just a moment before we run out of time. >> i could very quickly tell you some of those are already clearly outlined and electronic data recorders that existed there are privacy concerns there. for example they don't collect anything about the drivers.

so those already have clearly we just have more communications issues that i think what we are now talking about is a lot of new areas that we are just understanding because the cars or computers and i think you've highlighted something important. it's going to require increased collaboration for the expertise to make sure we protect people and when they are malicious attempts to go after the data we have ways to keep people protected. >> i appreciate that and we know that the data collection practices from the auto makers and others in the industry can be used to provide increased safety protocols and i think consumers are interested in that they want to make certain that the data that is there is useful information utilized in an appropriate way. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina --

it's for the question. >> let me thank the two witnesses for their testimony. i've been watching you on television and both of you look good on television. so thank you very much. mr. chairman i would like to focus my questions on the rental car safety bill that i introduced with the support of the ranking member schakowsky and congresswoman capps, hr 2198. the companion legislation passed the senate with bipartisan support as part of the senate's highway bill and it's supported by the rental car industry created many of them are here today. consumer positions would honda and others would ensure rental car companies fix recalls vehicles in the fleet before renting or selling them. and so let me ask you mr. administrator, thank you for coming today some opponents of the rental car safety legislation have said that rental car companies should be allowed to rent or sell

unrepaired, defective, recall cars unless the manufacturer has specifically issued a do not drive morning. is there any federal standard for when they do not drive warning must be issued? >> thank you for pointing that out because do not drive is issued by the manufacturer so they are determining whether or not the criteria would be to allow that to occur under rental or used car. so, that happens extremely rarely. >> state again for the record who decides when such a warning is issued? the manufacturer that has the defect that's been created is the one who determines the do not drive? can you give some examples of defects where the do not drive warning was not issued by the manufacturer, for example a manufacturer issued a do not drive warning that would be the example i would give given that that is the largest recall in

auto history for sure maybe in the united states. there is no do not drive out on the recall. >> thank you. i will yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentle and from houston texas, mr. olson five minutes for questions please. >> i think the thank the chair. welcome, doctor rose kind. driving in 1978 vehicle safety depended on wrenches and sockets and now it's all about keyboards and electronics. my first question is for you. and ntsa's view, should cyber security weaknesses be treated the same way as traditional vehicle safety defects? if so, what federal motor safety

vehicle standards is ntsa admitting to using to make that determination? if not, how is this addressing cyber security weaknesses in vehicles? >> so there's actually a few questions in there and i will try to go to the core created your right, things have changed dramatically and the secretary and ntsa are really excited about seeing technology innovations accelerate the work and safety. cybersecurity is one of the areas that's going to take a collaboration across government, manufacturers and others that understand cybersecurity to figure out what needs to get done. we have all kinds of tools from whom he came into all kinds of voluntary efforts of manufacturers want to do. so, we have to absolutely acknowledge that information acknowledged center was created by the automakers to make sure they could get together and identify and share information of a critical element. i keep pointing out you could answer all the regulation you

want but in cybersecurity, nimble and flexible is critical. by the time the regulations come out there's probably ten versions too late of what needs to get done and we have to identify current and new tools to deal with this issue going into the future. >> just using the cybersecurity framework to guide the work and keeping the vehicles safe? >> that's one source. but we've been in contact with a full range of homeland security, anybody that has an expertise including private technology companies of course that have done protection for the mobile phones and other elements, so we are in contact with a full range of trying to learn from them and how we can apply it to the auto industry. >> on the data collection, doctor, section 149 a. of the grow america act would prohibit the rental of the vehicle by rental companies if there is an open recall. i've seen questions regarding that reflection contributed to the policy change in the highway

bill. how many lives has ntsa estimated would be saved if every rental vehicle under open recall is grounded by rental companies as required by section 41:09 a.m. to grow america act sex >> i will get you that analysis is part of our technical assistance and supporting the efforts here. we will get give you the analysis for both views as well as rental cars. but how about injuries? how many injuries to ntsa estimated will pretty give you could be prevented in the requirement of section 4901 as an active? >> we will include both fatalities and injuries and if we can, crashes in the analysis for you. >> thank you. how many downed security cases has today to have you brought against car companies in the last five years? >> we haven't got any connected car cases. we've brought about 55 general cases in a variety of sectors from retail to healthcare to mobile apps to the internet

connected cameras and i believe all the principles of the cases that stand for apply equally to the connected cars. >> zero for cars so far. >> what is the commission's expertise with respect to the security of the critical safety sentences in people's? are the differences in how the safety vehicles should be treated compared to other critical infrastructures? >> our focus has been on the process. all of our cases stand for for douglas in the companies need to implement processes upfront to make sure to protect against security violations. so for example, companies including car companies need to how your people responsible for security and conduct risk assessments and oversee the service providers. they need to keep a burst of technologies surrounding them in the emerging technologies that affect the area and that is consistent with the cybersecurity framework approach. >> and as mentioned this change is like that and we have to keep up the changes.

i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back and recognizes the gentleman from california. >> thank you mr. chairman for holding this hearing and granting my requests to participate. the draft legislation before us touches on many issues that i want to continue to explore the topic by my colleague. the critical issue that has been omitted from the draft rental car safety. in 2004, two young sisters rachel and jacqueline were killed when their rented chrysler pt cruiser caught fire and crashed. the sisters were returning home after visiting their parents just outside my district in california and had no idea the car they were driving was subject to a safety recall. were acknowledged before the rental car company gave them the

car. despite receiving the safety recall notice a month before renting them the car of the rental company failed to get them to safety repairs done. while federal law prohibits car dealers from selling new cars subject to the recall there is no similar law to stop rental car companies from renting out dangerous recalled cars. this is a clear safety oversight and one that can and must be fixed, and that's why the group has been acknowledged. i introduced bipartisan legislation hr 2198 was my colleagues walter jones, ms. schakowsky, mr. butterfield to close the loophole. the comments with six federal law to prohibit the car companies from renting or selling recalled cars. that was strongly supported by the rental car industry safety groups honda, gm and others. the bill passed the senate as a part of the act in the petitioned to pass the bill recently started by rachel and jackie's mother and has been signed by nearly 150,000 consumers across the country.

yet the issue isn't even mentioned in the draft that we are considering today to administrator, i know that ntsa and the administration have been working to address this issue. does it support legislation to prohibit the rental of the recalled vehicles? opponents of the bill erroneously claim hr 2198 legislation would not improve the consumer safety. given the support for banning the rental of the recalled vehicles, i think it's clear that you perhaps disagree with this assessment; would you elaborate, thank you. >> new, used or rental vehicles of a known that have a known defect should be remedied before they are on the road. >> thank you. despite their support behind 2198 county auto manufacturer and dealer groups are fighting against this effort. under pressure they are instead proposing a potentially very harmful alternative that only

requires rental companies to disclose that the vehicle is under the recall before renting it out. the proposal only prohibits the rental of the recalled cars that do not drive notices as well notices as was referenced despite the fact that such notices represent only a tiny fraction of safety recalls. administrator, last year ntsa provided a letter to senator boxer and mccaskill expressing their opposition to the alliance proposal to read what what do not what you've operate on what you've operate on what do not read on why ntsa believes this proposal would fail to protect rental consumers? >> i will repeat to be clear. new, used, rental, defect, it should be off the road. and as we were discussing, the but do not drive is determined by the manufacturer of the defect, not ntsa. and it's very rare. >> thank you for clarifying that and really underscoring it. some opponents of hr 2198 argued that many recall failed us

because so few of them come with do not drive requirements. does ntsa issue frivolous recalls? by definition aren't all safety recalls due to serious safety risk? >> yes. we have a specific investigation process to determine those defects. >> thank you. and i will you attack my time before doing so i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record n-november, 2,014th november, 2,014th letter from ntsa to senator mccaskill outlining the agency's response to the auto alliance proposal and i will yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair thanks the generally being shields back. seeing no other members present to ask questions, let me just ask the ranking member if she would like to ask a question or redirect. >> i just want to make sure that we offer once again the concept

of people checking their vehicle identification numbers against the database that you've provided. perhaps you could detail how someone would do that if they wanted to check. >> chairman, every time i appear before you, you graciously make sure that we provide information from consumers to do something about recalls. i can't thank you enough because i don't think that we are ever done in the information out. people can go to safer car .gov and look up the identification number to see if there are any open recalls the most important if they find something, they have to act on it. >> what if like me, they don't know the vehicle identification number off the top of their head. is there a place where they can find that information? >> good point. i'm not sure any of us would know that off the top of your head. you can find that on the bottom left of the windshield.

it's usually on the insurance card so there's multiple places you can go. we even have a mobile application you can get up. >> very good advice. the trip to the world location your fine people informed me i had a problem with my vehicle not the one i was expecting but nevertheless, it was important information to have. people think we just come here with a signed talking points and we never listen to each other. also wanted to point out after the testimony here we were doing the appropriations bill for the department of transportation, and i did offer an amendment that might because of her testimony during the day that took $4 million from the secretaries general and accounting line item budget and moved it to your line item on the budget for additional safety work. and i think afterwards when i discussed with you the offer still stands and i will be happy to discuss with you or even go

with you to the appropriate appropriations subcommittee when the budget request is made from the appropriations committee next year because this is important. one final observation, then i will go to the inspector general's audit report that you are -- your response to the things that were brought up, i just wanted to highlight one of the bullet points is the use of the safety systems approach to look for possible relationships between the symptom in one vehicle system at a possible critical failure in another system. as we were going through. this is prior to your tenure but we were going through a lot of other subcommittees. the problems on the cobalt vehicles and been on deployment of airbags being such a critical

finding it was of concern to me that this would appear in accident reports over a time span it wasn't a large number but nonetheless anytime any kind of vehicle airbag on deployment occurred, it seems like that should be a signal of something which must be investigated and you even outlined here that it would be considered if possible to defect was previously held assumptions in other words, look for another reason other than something where you normally would come and i will never forget the accident report where one vehicle -- there were two vehicles involved and unfortunately it wasn't survivable in either vehicle but the other airbag goes off into the other it doesn't end there you got the perfect test case there wasn't each reader was glanced that would perhaps jar the ignition switch is a straight up head-on collision. one airbag works and one doesn't. why did the one not work?

so i'm grateful to see that line item in your discussion of the points were brought up by the ig report, and i think that is a critical importance. i'm going to yield for questions please. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. appreciate this opportunity and want to thank the witnesses for being here to answer questions. keeping in mind the millions of cars on the road, keeping them safe is completed and expensive. the draft we are looking at today does not address increasing funding for nhtsa. there would be additional costs is responsible for the city agency. in your testimony today you said failure to address the gaps in nhtsa's available personnel and resources are a known risk to safety. can you explain how civil penalties for violations of motor vehicle safety standards and other violations affect those gaps?

>> all of the penalties that are collected go to the u.s. treasury so we don't get any of those for the work. >> so no matter how effective you are or even in the industry or forward the penalties there is no direct correlation between the amount of work that comes to you versus the amount of effective work that you are rendering? >> i made the statement if you give more resources we could deliver more safety and that equation is very clear if you give us more demands without more resources, you get less safety. >> okay. thank you. this draft does not address raising the cap on civil penalties that nhtsa can see for the manufacturer per violation. the vehicle safety improvement act would eliminate the cap. the past few years, there've been several widely publicized scandals surrounding the auto

industry. and in 2014 alone, nhtsa issued more than 127 million in civil penalties. doctor rosekind's 35 million sounds like a large amount of money. but if we continue to hear about your egregious safety violations in the industry. in fact, nhtsa has had to be creative in finding ways to make penalties appropriate for the violations. the current maximum penalty is that enough to be an effective deterrent? >> no and that's why we suggested a 300 million-dollar cap. no cat is good, but at least 300 million is what is proposed to have a meaningful deterrent. >> now, if the 35 million-dollar cap were significantly raised, what in your opinion what effect, or the expectation of how the behavior of the automakers may or may not change. >> i think our expectation would

be with the appropriate deterrence like the civil penalties that we would want to see a more proactive safety culture catch the defects and conduct recalls earlier and faster. >> would raising the violation of finding and eliminating the cap on the civil penalties improve safety in your opinion? >> that's the intent and we think the current level is not the deterrent that it should be. >> and when was the last time that level was raised? >> good question. i will make sure that is in or technical systems when we provide to you but it's been a while. so the 35 million has basically been on the books for a long time. for several years now. >> and the curve on activity or the volume of the vehicles and industry dollar amount of value year to year, has that been growing at? >> absolutely and we try to make the distinction the authorities stated stated a certain level while the numbers numbers for 265 million on the roadways now the number of recalls etc. going

this way while we've been saying this way if you look at the budget which we talked about last night was here in real dollars we are down from where we were ten years ago. >> i constantly hear elected officials across the country talking about how we should run the government more like a business. does it seem like we are running your department like a business when you just described the amount of activity going up and the amount of dollar amount in the industry going up etc., yet your budget and ability to create more safe activity is flat. >> no and i will make a personal comment which i have a different unique background having been in academics and i had my own business which consulted with top 100 companies all over the world. and so i bring that perspective

for efficiency, effectiveness, measure things etc. and it's one of the major frustrations basically of wanting to do more with not enough resources. people, money. >> i'm of the opinion in this country we are fortunate to take public safety for granted in so many ways. it's unfortunate that we are not fortifying you would with the resources necessary to keep us as safe as you can. >> at a gentle man yields back and if there are no members asking questions for the first panel, i do sincerely want to thank both of the witnesses for being here today for their time. this will conclude the first panel and we will take a two-minute recess before the second panel. >> welcome back. thank you all for your patience and taking the time to be with us today. we will move into the second panel for today's hearing. we will follow the same format is correct that the first panel. each witness will be given five minutes for an opening statement

followed by a round of questions from the members. for the second panel, we have the following witnesses. mr. mitch bainwol president and ceo of president and ceo of the alliance of automobile manufacturers. mr. john bozzella of global automakers, mrs. ann wilson at the auto manufacturers association, mr. greg dotson vice president for energy policy at the center for american progress, mr. joe claybrooke of the national traffic safety administration, mr. peter welch, president of the national automobile dealers association, and mr. michael wilson the ceo of the automotive recyclers association. we do appreciate all of you being here with us this morning. we will begin this panel with mr. bainwol. you are recognized for your opening statement please. >> thank you chairman, ranking

member schakowsky and members of the subcommittee. given the size of the panel i'm reminded of what the former senator john warner said when he became elizabeth taylor's sixth husband. here i go. thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the 12 global. our company our companies represent about 75% of the marketplace. our industry will put about eight days for a billion new cars on the road. with more than 16% of those in the u.s.. that is a lot of steel and aluminum and an astounding level of massive jobs and duplications. but even more striking than the scale is the game change game changing innovation mobility. they are generating enormous social benefits. the companies are investing about $100 billion a year in research including the development of the next-generation of the connected vehicle technologies. these technologies will save lives, save fuel and enhanced

mobility. over the last decade of the house invested substantial highway dollars to make the vehicles and infrastructure a reality. the bill they mark up tomorrow includes an additional $175 million over the next six years. they are making this investment for an important reason and that is because congestion weighs roughly $3 billion, i'm sorry, 3 billion gallons of fuel, 27 million metric tons of emissions every year. the federal highway administration represents 12.5% of congestion, 12% of congestion, 3 million metric tons, this directly attributable to the crashes. this is potential for the technology to save lives. crash avoidance and connected vehicle technologies offer us the opportunity to address the 94% if not more of all accidents treated to the driver error. that's right addressing driver error is absolutely crucial.

you know the statistics more than 32,000 people died in car pressures last year. far too many. the numbers 25% below what it was a decade ago that's still far too many. nhtsa said that the vehicles of the have the potential to mitigate as much as 80% of the non- impaired crashes and just last week the consulting group released a study that we will talk about during the advanced driver system to privet present almost 10,000 fatalities and 30% of all crashes occurring in the u.s.. we should all share the goal of deploying the technologies as soon as possible. how can we not. it's quite a modest incentives, and they are modest in for advanced automotive technologies does make sense. the connected car with a crash avoidance technology is safer and cleaner and not a trade-off. it calls on all of us to determine how we can accelerate the integration of the

technologies into improving safety, environmental and productivity outcomes. so, we applaud this committee for introducing the notion of the market incentives to save lives. it passed the potential of the legislation to prevent tragedies is very real and the impact on greenhouse gas emissions is also equally real. for the benefit of the new technology is profound, the connectivity and data presents new challenges including privacy and cybersecurity. we commend the committee for generating new proposals here as well. last year the industry became the first non- internet sector to the first non- internet sector to issue consumer privacy protection principles that built off of the well-established ended with heightened protections for the most sensitive consumer information where and how you drive in what we did was the floor for companies. we are also moving aggressively in the cybersecurity as the committee knows automakers will soon stand up the information sharing and analysis to the sharing of the potential cyber threats and countermeasures in real-time. yet we hear you loud and clear.

even before the introduction of the draft. we know that you want he wants us to move forward so we are moving forward with best the best practices initiative as well so that we have a fully integrated approach to addressing the risk. future mobility is extremely bright. we are on the precipice of the golden air mobility. technology will make all this happened. it will enable safety outcomes, more importantly friendly travel, and an economy that is more productive because people and goods will be able to move much more efficiently around the country. this committee started the conversation about the mobility and we look forward to working with you to go to this new reality. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. you are recognized for five minutes for questions please. >> mr. chairman, ranking member, members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. i am sean john bozzella with global automakers. mr. chairman thank you for your thoughtful work on a motor vehicle safety and holding this hearing today.

our industry has been in the news a great deal lately and not always for the best of reasons. this hearing gives us a chance to discuss our ongoing efforts to improve the motor vehicle safety and enhance public trust through their research and development of the new technologies. the draft bill released last week contains a number of important ideas designed to advance our shared goal of improved motor vehicle safety. we appreciate the subcommittee's commitment to improving their recall completion rate and exploring innovative ways to address new and emerging challenges associated with the development of the vehicles that not only actively avoid collisions, but talk to one another and to this abounding infrastructure. in the time available i would focus on three important issues. one, their recall notification during the vehicle registration and adoption of connected car technology is a. they should be informed of the

recall status. global automakers believe an effective way to achieve this end for the office a certified vehicle owners. we now have some initial data that suggests there is public support for this approach to be in a recent survey commissioned by global automakers and the alliance of automobile manufacturers. to speak about the recall notices and we found overwhelming support for the idea of receiving recall information from the dmv. over 70% of those asked about this issue supported by only the notification and registration but a requirement that recalls be remedied prior to the registration. more research needs to be done. but these initial results indicate that the subcommittee is moving in the right direction as it explores ways to increase their recall completion rates. we are also pleased the draft bill recognizes the substantial benefits associate with the

installation of dedicated short range communications devices that allow the cars to indicate with each other and the surrounding infrastructure leading to fewer crashes, less than a strength in the potential benefits. nhtsa agrees that this technology could become a quote, a game changer potentially 80% of the vehicle crashes involving the non- impaired drivers. and encouraging the fastest deployments possible would spread the benefits of this lifesaving technology more quickly and widely. the enormous benefits of connected car technology's outweigh the challenges that come with living in a connected world. as automakers pursued innovations and the benefits that they bring, we recognize the strong cyber security and privacy protections are essential to building consumer confidence to protect the privacy of the consumer data

we've begun establishing industrywide cybersecurity best practices. these best practices will allow automakers to flexibility to the flexibility to quickly and effectively respond to the dynamic nature of cyber challenges. this builds on steps that we've already taken a. to share the intelligence on the immediate threat and four abilities. they've protect the responsible stewardship of information collected from the vehicle technologies for the disclosure principles and practices. we engage with the privacy advocates and the federal trade commission during the development of the principles as early as january of 2016 all major auto manufacturers will be accountable for these privacy

commitments. we have questions about how the privacy provisions outlined in the bill would interact with the commitments that have already been made by the automate or is. in august, u.s. automakers inc. that would enable secure and timely sharing of cyber threat information and potential vulnerabilities in the electronics network. we expect the infrastructure to be fully operational. cybersecurity challenges and the internet of things are not unique to lawmakers. any approach to address cyber threats should be consistent with approaches used in other industries. thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. happy to answer any questions you may have. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. you are recognized for five minutes for an opening statement. >> ranking member i service as senior vice president of affairs for the good the great manufacturing association. thank you for the invitation

today in the amendment amendment it hasn't within a thousand companies that manufacture of components and assistance for the use in the heavy-duty echo meant aftermarket industries. our members provide more than 734,000 direct jobs nationwide making of the motor vehicle industry the largest employment manufacturing jobs nationwide. ..