institute for highway safety and nhtsa to do this on their own. these are three different tools, and ugly have been pushing collaboration and the opportunity to expedite and expand the safety beyond amendments so we get the rulemaking. >> so again the dv requirement that v2v be installed in a vehicle is in the pipeline, and you said the insurance institute for highway safety requires the vehicle-to-vehicle be equipped with certain advanced safety technology to qualify for top safety ratings, is that correct? >> that's correct spin you said you worked with iit just to get certain commitments for manufacturers. >> correct. we announced automatic emergency brake is being added to end cap. they are further changes that are coming soon. >> i think most consumers alike of a car that is both fuel efficient and safe. that makes sense. do you support giving automakers

credits for installing advanced automotive technologies? >> i think the general principles about a stated a pretty important to the american public expects both safety and public health. the second part is i really hope that the manufactures have enough incentives for life-saving technology. subsequent replies they save by putting those advanced technologies in those vehicles. >> the want to give an opinion whether you like or support this idea of giving automakers the café credits because they install these advanced auto technologies? >> will provide detailed technical analysis but we don't think there should be a compromise. we should be able to get safety and public health and environmental concerns addressed. because i think incentives are already there, save lives, prevent injuries. basha be the highest incentive anybody needs. >> i appreciate that. what impact with the corporate

average fuel economy or café credit provision in this have on vehicle fuel economy and how might that affect consumers who buy these new calls -- cars? in other words, what impact with the café credit provision out on vehicle fuel economy? >> the credit? >> yeah. >> i'm not sure it would change the actual, the levels of what are actually covered under fuel efficiency may not change. it's morbidly the incentivizing i think that's part of the proposal. >> so do you want to venture a guess as to how it would affect consumers who buy these new cars? >> that's the sort of thing i think we need a little more time to sort of technically -- these are very good question but i think we want to get more detail before taking a specific position on the. >> thanks a lot. i thank you, mr. chairman.

>> the gentleman gets back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky five minutes for your questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. rosekind, didn't nhtsa or the department of transportation participate in the development of the cybersecurity framework? will participate in the future iterations of that framework the? >> with ongoing interactions with all kinds of government agencies, so we are always involve pretty much in a lease participating as well as having them participate in our activities. >> are the ways of nhtsa could participate to develop best practices for automotive cybersecurity? >> yes. and effect if you look at the model of having a 10 manufactures come together to work on adb study compared as a model to be applied across all kinds of issues including cybersecurity. everybody has already read the secretary plan on having a meeting with a seat the osaka city concerns that we've all

been reading about. and justice of the identified both safety talk to those ceos about spinning the other question, nhtsa and auditors have discussion best how to divide the risk management framework to develop of automotive security? >> yes. those discussions have begun. >> ms. mithal, what stands as ftc did it is only manufactured have attended to this could've cars are properly before putting them on the market speak with our standard of section of the ftc act which printers unfair deceptive practice. if the a company makes and misrepresentation, we can take action. and answer practice is one that causes or is likely to cause substantial consumer injury, not everybody benefits of competition and not raise them affordable by consumers. it's a cost-benefit analysis. do so such a thing as perfect security but would we do requires reasonable security.

>> you discuss the ftc's start with security of business initiative. can you discuss how that should be applied to car companies and others involved interconnected our space? >> a couple of examples. one that we give is that companies should test products before they launch them. as opposed t to launching the products first convincing about problems later. if something would go security by design. another thing we talk about in our start with security guidance is having a vehicle to accept vulnerability report to companies cannot do is to the ground and no if they could research about out there and evolving threats and emerging issues in their devices. >> appreciate your interest. that's all i have. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> that chair recognizes the gentleman from mr. -- massachusetts for five minutes. >> thank you for your testimony here today and i want to thank the chairman for calling during

the many of today's cars contained a range of navigation telematics and event data recording systems among others but all have the ability to record driving history information. auto manufacturers, other third parties also have access to this web of information. it's a bit concerning to me candidly and i'm sure concerned a number of other consumers as well. people want to know the data is being kept safe, private and when it is used, being jews with events and. i was hoping you might be able to start the discussion. the data privacy provision in this discussion that would require that car companies said that privacy policies can nhtsa, it does not give nhtsa any authority to recommend changes or to set a standard for acceptable policies. is that how you read the legislation? >> yes. >> do you think consumers could be or should be concern that there or should be concern that there is no building permits and to recommend any changes?

>> i think the public expects and wants of nhtsa both to regulate and set guidelines, not the manufacture to what the standards are the protect the traveling public. >> ms. mithal? >> yes, i think there are concerns that although the bill prescribes certain requirements be placed in privacy policies, it may not require companies to follow the admin a provide enforcement mechanisms. >> that's what we're going. under the draft bill automakers will receive protection from civil penalties and ftc enforcement simply by providing nhtsa with a privacy policy that addresses the required items and address. such as whether or not the automaker collects, uses or shares of david and whether the consumers a choice regarding what the collection or use. it will not matter how a given company chooses to address those items. as i read section 31 a cardigan of consummate a privacy policy can mr. trump violate the policy

is to be protected from ftc enforcement to that means a carmaker to make promises about protecting their data, break those promises and suffer no consequences under section five of ftc act. so ms. mithal is such understanding of how the system is set up? >> that is our understanding and it's a real concern. >> do you think the bill provides incentives for automakers to hear to the strong data privacy or vision speak with no. spent if a car company claims to have expansive privacy policy to protect consumer data and violates those policies, isn't that an unfair and deceptive practice speak with yes, it would be and something the bill would strip the ftc's authority over. >> thank you. i have additional questions about the anti-hacking provision which would create a civil penalty from gaining unauthorized access into the a vehicle so data system. we can agree would like to prevent bad actors from accessing our cars control systems, some observers have

expressed concern that penalizing into the researchers or so-called white hat hackers to hack to draw attention to one of those or to conduct test. these types of recharges made headlines by country massive vehicle emissions fraud at volkswagen expos in one of those energy by controlling it remotely via the internet. they suggest not auto dealers repair up to 80% of cars still under warranty. so ms. mithal give any thoughts on the provision in particular from expertise in reviewing data security cases? could you envision a scenario where information could be silent repair shops could get enough information to repair cars but not fiddle with say emergency brakes? >> so let me be clear that we agree should be civil penalties

for malicious hackers but we are concerned that this bill would disincentivize legitimate security researchers who response would contact companies suggesting to fix those photos and companies excels to consumers. we believe the bill would create an impediment to that. on the auto repairs issue i would defer to nhtsa on that issue. >> you mentioned this a little bit. can you discuss the importance of those researchers to your data security works because it's a very important or often is the white hat hackers and researchers that are bringing these problems detention of both the car manufacturers and regulators like the ftc. >> how to make that distinction between white hat and black it speak was that will require very careful drafting. >> yield back spent the chair thanks the adjustment. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from tennessee, ms. blackburn. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

let's stay with this regulation issue, and one of our concern is dual regulation. as you all may or may not be aware we have kind of grappled with this. and ms. mithal, i know that you are with privacy in the internet space with the ftc trying to get on top of the ftc procedures and that is called a tremendous amount of confusion. let me go right where mr. kennedy was, and let's talk 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, nhtsa already handles the issue of privacy and automotive space. so what we want to do is avoid

this confusion and if it's a dual regulation. so is the ftc going to honor the recognition that nhtsa has this lead, and are they going to honor the safe harbor provision and act in good faith when they are reviewing these manufacturers of privacy policies and making certain that they meet those requirements speak was if i could make two points in response to your question. first, the concern is the safe harbor is too brought in many respects. one example is that the privacy policy requirements only apply to vehicle data collected from owners, renters or lessees. if a manufacturer makes a misrepresentation on its website that applies to shoppers about how they're collecting shoppers a baby, that would not be covered by the privacy policy by the ftc couldn't bring action. we are concerned about the breath of the safe harbor.

we work very well with the nhtsa. we support the goal of avoiding overlapping and conflicting requirements. at the same time i think nhtsa and ftc have different focuses. so, for example, nhtsa does recalls and we defer to the expertise in car safety issues. at the same time we have the ability to applicable relief against companies that don't maintain privacy and security of consumers in the form of, for example, implemented as a goodie program, getting outside audits come in some cases redress. we think both agency bring particular expertise to bear and can bring different remedies to the issue. >> you are committed to making certain that we draw the lines here so that we don't end up with a dual regulation all with confusion? >> exactly. >> you all have the borne the brunt of this if you will. >> that's exactly right. >> consumers have been quite confused about the reach of the

fcc and ftc and is it diminishing your jurisdiction. so as well as to this issue and want the cars are going to be more interconnected, not less, is there going to be more computerized, not less, that you could have more data and people going to say what he doing with the data. how do you turn that into usable information? then this is something that should be cleaned up and handled appropriately on the front end. administrator rosekind, i want to come to you for a couple of things. i was in its addressing the data collection practices of automakers and others in the automotive space? what kind of formal guidance are you currently giving? have you laid that out, and what do you intend to do? because we all know you can't be technology specific, if you will. you're going to have to umbrella this pixel speak for just a moment before we run out of

time. speak to that speed very quickly, some of those already toward outlined come things like electronic data recorders. there are privacy concerns there. they don't collect anything about the drivers. those already have fairly clear, that's more communications issue that i think what we are talking about is a lot of new areas that we're just understand because the cars or computers. i think you highlighted something board. it's going to require increased collaboration between our agencies for us to apply our expertise to make sure we protect people and winter militias against ago after that data can we avoid to keep people protected. >> i appreciate that, and we know that the data collection practices from the automakers and others in the industry can be used to provide some increased safety protocols. i think consumers are interested in that, they want to guard your privacy at the want to make certain that the data that is there is useful information.

it is utilized in an appropriate way. yield back spent gentlelady yield to back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield. >> let me thank the two witnesses for the test what i been watching intermittintermitt ently 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 introduced with the ranking member schakowsky and congresswoman capps, h.r. 2190. tthe companion legislation passd the senate with bipartisan support as par part of the senas highway bill and is supported by the rental car industry. many of them are here today. consumer organizations and general motors and honda and others. it would ensure rental car companies fix recall the vehicles in their fleets before renting or selling them. so let me ask you, mr.

administrator, thank you for coming today. some opponents of the legislation have said that rental car companies should be allowed to rent or sell unrepaired, effective, recalled cars unless they manufacture has specifically issued a do not drive warning. is there any federal standard for when a do not drive warning must be issued? >> thank you for pointing that out because that do not drive is issued by the manufacturer, not nhtsa. so there determine whether not the criteria you would be to allow that to occur under a rental or used car. so that happens extremely rarely spent state again for the record of who decides when such a warning is issued? >> they manufacture who has the defect, who credit the vehicle is what determines the do not drive. >> can you give us some examples of the effects were do not drive warning was issued by the

manufacture? has any manufacture issued a do not drive warning for takata airbags? >> that would be the example that i would give the. given to that is the largest recall in auto history for sure and maybe the united states. there is no do not drive out on any takata airbag inflator recalled. >> thank you. that's a point i need to get into the record. ideals back. >> gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from houston, texas, mr. olson five minutes for questions, please. >> i thank the chair. welcome, dr. rosekind and ms. mithal. i want to start driving 1978, vehicle safety depended upon turning wrenches in sockets. and now it's all about keyboards and electronics. my first question is for you,

dr. rosekind. indexes of you should cybersecurity weaknesses -- in nhtsa that you should cybersecurity weaknesses betrayed the same as traditional safety vehicle defects? what safety to safety standard estimates of misusing to make that determination? if not, how is nhtsa addressing cybersecurity weaknesses in vehicles? >> so there are a few questions in the al-qaeda go to the core. you are right, things have changed dramatically. the secretary and nhtsa are excited about being technology innovation accelerate our work in safety. but sophistry is one of the areas of going to take a collaboration across government, the manufacturers and others who understand cybersecurity to forget what needs to get done. we have all kinds of tools from rulemaking to all kinds of voluntary efforts that manufactures want to do. we have to acknowledge that

information sharing and analysis center was created by the automakers to make sure they could get together and identify and share information of the critical element. i.t. pointing out you get asked all the regulation you want but in cybersecurity nimble and flexible is critical to catania regulations, it's probably 10 version to look at what needs to get done. we have to identify current and new tools to do with this issue going into the future. >> is this using the cybersecurity framework to guide its work in keeping vehicles and save? >> that's one source. we have been in contact with a full range, dod, homeland security, darpa, anybody who was expertise including private technology companies of course of the protection for our mobile phones another albus. we are in contact with a full range of trying to learn from them and how we can apply to the automobile industry. >> data collection,

dr. rosekind, section 41 '09 eight would pray with a rental other vehicle by a rental company if there is an open recall. i have a few questions regarding data collection activity to this change in the highway bill. how many lives will be saved if have a rental vehicle under open recall is grounded i rental companies as required by section 4109 a. of the america act speaks advocate you that in us as part of our technical assistance in supporting their efforts. we will get you that announce for both use as was rental cars >> but injuries? how many entries does nhtsa estimate if rental car requirement is inducted? >> we will include both fatalities and injuries or if and if we can from crashes come in that analysis for you. >> thank you. and transport how many data security cases fcc brought against car companies in the

last five years, any idea of? >> we have not brought any connected car cases. we have about 55 general data security cases from retail to health care to mobile apps internet connected cameras. i with all the principles stand for apply equally to connected cars. >> so zero for cars so far. what is the commission's expertise with respect to the security for critical safety systems in vehicles? are there differences in how critical safety issues in vehicles who betrayed compared to other critical infrastructures? >> our focus has been on process. all of our 55 the cases differ the lessons the company state government processes are fun to make sure to protect against security violations. so, for example, companies including car companies need to our people responsible for security. they need to conduct risk assessment, oversee their service providers, keep abreast of technologies the surrounding

them and emerging technologies that affected areas. that's consistent with established entity framework approach. >> and as dr. rosekind mention it must be never because this changes like that and we have to keep up with these changes. ideals back. >> the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california for five minutes for questioning, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman for holding this hearing and printing my request to participate. the draft legislation before us it touches on an issue that want to continue to explore a topic brought up by my colleague, actually the two last questioners, mr. butterfield in particular. the critical issue that has been omitted from the draft rental car safety. in 2042 young sisters, rachel and jacqueline were killed when their rented chrysler pt cruiser caught fire and crashed a. the sisters were returning home after visiting their parents just outside my district in

california and had no idea that the car they were driving to subject a safety recall that had not been fixed nor acknowledged before the rental company gave them this car. this by receiving a safety recall notice one month before renting in the car, the rental company failed to get a free safety repairs done. while federal law prohibits car dealers from selling new cars subject to recall, there is no similar law to stop rent or compass from renting out dangerous we called ours. this is a clear safety oversight and one that can and must be fixed and that's why this has been acknowledged i introduced bipartisan legislation, h.r. 2198 with my colleagues, walter jones, ms. jackowski, mr. butterfield, to close at this level. our comments in the bill would fix federal to prohibit rental cars from renting some recalled cars. the bill that passed the senate

as part of the drive act and change.org petition to pass the bill recently starred by rachel and jackie's mother, has been signed by nearly 150,000 consumers across the country. yet i'm disappointed this issue is not even mentioned that the draft work we've considered to be. administrator rosekind i no nhtsa and getmessage has been working to address this issue. do you support legislation to prohibit the rental of recalled vehicles? >> yes. >> opponents of the bill erroneously claim that h.r. 2198 legislation would not improve consumer safety. given its support for banning the rental of recalled vehicles i think it's clear that you perhaps disagree with this assessment. which you briefly elaborate? think you. >> new, used a rental vehicles that have a known defect should be remedied before they're on the road. >> thank you. despite th the broad support bed

a chart when i did the auto manufacturers and immigrants are fighting against is commonsense effort. under pressure the alliance of auto manufacturers instead proposed a potentially very harmful alternative that only requires rental companies to disclose if the vehicle isn't a recall before renting it out. they are for polls will only prohibits the rental of recalled cars with do not drive notices as was referenced despite the fact such notices represent only a tiny fraction of safety recalls. administrator rose can from last unit to provide a letter to senator boxer and senator mccaskill expressing its opposition to the alliance proposal. would you elaborate on my nhtsa but this proposal would stay under protect rental consumers? >> i will repeat to be clear. new, used, rental, if it has a defect that should be off the road. and as we were discussing, the do not drive is determined by the manufacture of the defect, not nhtsa.

and it's very rare. >> thank you for clarifying that and making it really, underscoring a. some opponents have argued that many nhtsa recall -- because so few of them come with do not drive requirements. does nhtsa issue frivolous recalls by definition? aren't all safety recalls due to serious safety risk? >> yes. and we have a specific investigation process to determine if those defects. >> thank you and i will yield back my time, but before doing so i ask unanimous consent in into the record a november 2014 letter from nhtsa to senator mccaskill outlining the agency's response to the auto alliance proposal him and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thatcher thinks the gentlelady. the gentlelady yield's back. seeing no other members doesn't ask questions, let me just ask the ranking member if she would like a second question or

redirect? >> no, thank you. >> let me, dr. rosekind, i just wanted to make sure that we offer once again the concept of people checking their vehicle identification numbers against a database that you provide. perhaps you could just detail how someone would do that if they wanted to check. >> chairman burgess, every time i appear before you, you graciously make sure that we provide information for consumers to do something about recalls the i can't thank you enough for that because i don't think we are ever done getting the information out. people can go to safercar.gov. safercar.gov and look at their vehicle edification of and see if there any open recalls. what's most important is if they find something to act on it. called her dealer, get it fixed. >> what if like me they don't know their vehicle identification number off the top of the head?

is there a place where they can find that information speak with good point because i'm not sure any of us would not off the top of our head. you can find at the bottom left of your windshield. it usually on your insurance card other multiple places you can go. we have a mobile app you can look it up now. >> very good advice. our trip out to your location, your find people inform me that i had a problem with my vehicle. not what i was expecting, but nevertheless it was important information to have. lest people think that we just come here with assigned talking points and we never listen to each other, i also want to point out at your testimony earlier in the year, that very time we were doing the appropriations bill for the department of transportation and i did offer an amendment that night because of your 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, i'll be happy to discuss with you or even go with you to the appropriate appropriations subcommittee when the budget request is made to the appropriations committee next year because this is important. ..

airbags, that being such a critical finding, it was of concern to me that this would appear in accident reports, albeit over a 10-year time span. there weren't a large number, but nevertheless, anytime a vehicle airbag non-deployment occurred, it seemed like that should absent nell event and something which must be investigated and, you even, outlined here that it consider if it is possible to defect theories that do not fit with previously held assumptions. look for another reason other than something where, you never would. i will never forget the accident report where one vehicle, there were two vehicles involved in a head-on collision. unfortunately survivorrable in either vehicle. one vehicle the airbag goes off, the other doesn't. you have a perfect test case. there wasn't a curb that was

hit. wasn't a tree that was glanced perhaps jar ignition switch. it was straight uphead-on collision, one airbag work, one doesn't, why did the one not work? i'm grateful to see that line item in your discussion of points brought up by the ig's report. think that is of critical importance. i will yield to mr. cardenas, five minutes for questions, please. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. appreciate this opportunity. i want to thank witnesses for being here to answer our questions. keeping in mind the millions of cars on our roads, keeping them safe is complicated an expensive. the draft we're looking at today does not address increasing funding for nhtsa, though many of its provisions would present significant additional costs and responsibilities to the agency. dr. rosekind, in your testimony today you said nail lure to -- failure to address gaps if nhtsa

and resources are 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 right to the u.s. treasury. so we don't get any of those for our work. >> okay. so, no matter how effective you are or even industry admits and or forwards though penalties, there is no direct correlation between the amount of work that, that comes to your agency versus the amount of effective work that you're rendering? >> that's correct. last time i appeared here i made the statement if you gave us more resources we could deliver more safety and that equation is very clear. if you give us more demand without more resources you get less safety. >> okay. well, thank you. this draft does not address raising the cap on civil penalties that nhtsa can seek

from manufacturers for violation. the safety improvement act would eliminate the cap. in the past few years there have been several widely publicized scandals surrounding auto industry. in 2014 alone, nhtsa issued more than 127 million in civil penalties. dr. rosekind, 35 million sound like a large amount of money but we continue to hear about new egregious safety violations in the industry. in fact nhtsa has had to be creative finding ways to make penalties thats appropriate for violations. in the current maximum penalty must have, is that enough to be an effective deterrent? >> no, and that's why in grow america we suggested a 300 million-dollar cap. no cap is good with us too, at least 300 million is proposed in bro america to have meaningful deterrent. >> now if the $35 million cap were significantly raised what in your opinion would affect or

the expectation of how the behavior of automakers may or may not change? >> i think our expectation would be with appropriate deterrent, like the civil penalties that we would want to see a more proactive safety culture catch defects, conduct recalls earlier and faster. >> okay. would raising the per violation fine and eliminating the cap on civil penalties improve safety in your opinion? >> that is the intent and we think its current level is not the deterrent it should be. >> when was last time the level was raised? >> good question. i make sure that is in our technical assistance when we provide that for you. it has been a while. 35 million has been on the books for a long time. >> so for years now? >> yeah. >> the curb on activity and volume of vehicle and industry dollar amount value year to year, has that been going up? >> absolutely. if you try to make that

distinction. our authorities stayed at certain level while number of vehicles were 265 million on our roadways now, number of recalls is going this way while we've been staying this way. if you look at budget we talked about last time i was here, in real dollars we're down from where we were 10 years ago. >> i constantly hear elected officials across the country talking about how we should run government more like a business. does it seem like we're running your department like a business when you just described the amount of activity going up, the amount of dollar amount in the industry going up, et cetera, yet your budget and your activity, your ability to create more safe activity is flat? >> no. and, i will make a personal comment which is have sort of a different unique background having been in academics, as a

scientist, had my own business, which consulted with top companies all over the world, so i bring that perspective, efficiency, measurement and et cetera, major frustrations are wanting to do more with not enough resources. people, money. >> well, i'm of the opinion in country we're fortunate to take public safety for granted in so many ways. it is unfortunate we're not fortifying you with the resources necessary to keep us as safe as you can. thank you so much. yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. gentleman yields back. seeing no further members wishing to ask questions of the first panel, i want to sincerely thank both witnesses for being here for tear time. this will conclude our first panel. we will take a two minute recess, set up for the second panel. welcome back. thank you all for your patience and taking time to be with us here today. we'll move into our second panel

for today's hearing. we'll follow the same for mat during the first panel. each witness will be given five minutes for an opening statement, followed by a round of questions for members. for our second panel, we have the following witnesses. mr. mitch bainwol, the president and ceo of the alliance of automobile manufacturers. mr. john boss sell la. ceo of the global automakers. an wilson, senior vice president of the motor equipment manufacturers association. mr. greg dotson, center for american progress. miss joan clay brock, former administrator of the national highway traffic and safety administration. mr. peter welch. automobile dealers association. mr. michael wilson, ceo of the automotive recyclers association. we do appreciate you all being here with us this morning. we're grateful for your

forbearance during the first panel. we'll begin this panel with mr. an bainwol. you're recognized for five minutes for your opening statement. >> thank you, chairman burgess, ranking member schakowsky, members of the subcommittee. given reminder of pa nan nell, i remember john warner when he became elizabeth taylor's sixth husband. i know what to do i'm not sure how to make it interesting. so here i go. thank you for opportunity today, thank you testifying on u.s., europe and asia. our companies represent 75% of the marketplace. our industry will put a billion, billion new cars on the road over next decade around the world with more than 15% of those here in the u.s. a lot of steel and a lot of aluminum. astounding level of production with massive job and economic implications. but even more striking than scale is game changing innovation ability to generate enormous social benefits. our companies are investing

$100 billion a year in research, including development of next generation of connected vehicle technologies. these technologies will save lives, save fuel, and enhance mobility. over the last decade your house come ad tni dollars to make smart vehicles and infrastructure a reality. includes $175 million over the next six years. they're making this investment for important reason. that is because con guess shun wastes roughly 3 billion gallons of fuel. 27 million metric tons of co2 emissions every year. federal highway administration 12 1/2% of congestion, three million metric tons is directly, directly attributable to crashes. thus there is direct link between reducing crashes and reducing co2 emissions. for this subcommittee the focus is potential of this technology to save lives. crash avoidance and connected vehicle technologies offer us

opportunity to address the 94% of the if not more of all accidents and nhtsa attributes to driver error. that's right, addressing driver error is absolutely crucial. you know statistics. more than 32,000 people died in car crashes last year. far too many. that number is 25% below what it was decade ago but still far too many. nhtsa said connected vehicles had potential to mitigate as much of 80% of non-impaired crashes. just last week the boston consulting group released a study that ann will son will talk about, that advanced driver systems could reduce 10,000 fatalities and 30% of all crashes in the u.s. we should all share the goal deploying these technologies as soon as possible. how can we not? the modest incentives included for advanced automotive technologies does make sense. car with crash avoidance technologies is safer and cleaner. not a tradeoff. conversion of interests. this harmonization of safety and

environmental gains that these technologies offer changes policy paradigm. it calls upon all of us to determine how we can accelerate the integration of these technologies into the fleet, to improve safety, environmental and productivity outcome. so we applaud this committee for introducing the notion of market incentives to save lives. if passed the potential of this legislation to prevent tragedies is very real. impact on greenhouse gas emissions is also equally real. the benefits of new technologies are profound, connectivity and data also introduced 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 issue consumer privacy protection principles. they build off well established fps, height inched sensitive consumer information how you drive. what we did is floor for company. as this committee knows automakers will soon stand up

the information-sharing analysis center, to facilitate sharing of potential sigh every threats and counter measures in real time. we do hear you loud and clear. even before the introduction of this draft we know you wanted us to move further. we're now moving forward with a best practice initiative as well so he have fully integrated approach to addressing risk. future is extremely bright. we're on impressive era of mobility. technology will make this happen. enable safety outcomes. more environmentally friendly travel. a economy proper productive because people and goods will be able to move much more efficiently around the country. this committee started the discussion in ernest. we look forward to working with you to build this new reality. >> chair thanks gentleman. gentleman yields back. mr. bozzella, you're recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for opportunity of testifying today.

i'm john bozzella, president and ceo of global automakers. mr. chairman, thank you for your thoughtful work on automotive safety and for 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 ongoing efforts to improve motor vehicle safety to enhance public trust through the research and development of new technologies. the draft bill released last week contained a number of important ideas designed to advance our shared goal of improved the motor vehicle safety. we appreciate the subcommittee's commitment to improving recall compression rates and exploring innovative ways to address new and emerging challenges associated with development of vehicles, not only actively avoid collisions but talk to one another and to surrounding infrastructure. in time available i will focus on three important issues. one, recall notification during vehicle registration. two, adoption of connected car technology. and three, industry efforts to

stay ahead of privacy and cybersecurity challenges. consumers should be informed of the recall status of their vehicles. global automakers believe an effective way to achieve this end, is to use state dmv offices to notify vehicle owners of open recalls at time they register and renew their registration. we now have some initial data that suggestions there is public support for this approach. in a recent survey commissioned by global automakers and alliance of automobile manufacturers we looked how consumers respond to and sympathy about recall notices and found overwhelming support for the idea of receiving recall information from the dmv. over 70% of those asked about this issue supported not only notification at registration, but a requirement that recalls being remedied prior to 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 recall completion rates. we are also pleased that the draft bill recognizes substantial benefits associated with the installation of dedicated short-range communications or dsrc device, that allow cars to communicate with each other and surrounding infrastructure, leading to fewer crashes, less congestion and other potential benefits. nhtsa agrees this technology could be quote, a game-changer, unquote, potentially addressing 80% of the vehicle crashes involving non-impaired drivers. encouraging the fastest deployment possible of dsrc will spread the benefits of this life-saving technology more quickly, and more widely. the enormous benefits of connected car technologies outweigh the challenges that come with living in a connected world. as automakers pursue these innovations and benefits that they bring, we recognize strong cybersecurity and privacy

protections are essential to building consumer confidence. to insure the security of safety critical driving systems and to protect the privacy of consumer data we have begun establishing industrywide cybersecurity best practices. these best practices will allow automakers the flexibility to quickly and effectively respond to the dynamic nature of cyber challenges. this builds on steps we have already taken such as the creation of industry privacy principles to protect consumer information and the launch of the automotive information or sharing analysis center, to share intelligence on immediate threats and haver in ablities. last year u.s. automakers took unprecedented steps to protect the privacy of consumers through the responsible stewardship on information collected from vehicle technology and services for meeting disclosure of privacy principles and practice. we engage with privacy advocates

and the federal trade commission during the development of these principles. as early as january 2016 all major auto manufacturers will be accountable to the ftc for these privacy commitments. we have questions about how the privacy provisions outline in the bill would interact with the commitment that have already been made by automakers. in august u.s. automakers incorporated auto issac. it will insure timely sharing of cyber threat information and potential vulnerabilities in vehicle electronics or networks. by the end of the world we expect the isac infrastructure to be fully operational. cybersecurity challenges in internet of things are not unique to automakers. any approach to address cyber threats should be consistent with approaches used in other industries. thank you again for of the opportunity to appear before you today. happy to answer any questions you may have. >> chair thanks the gentleman as well. you're recognized for five minutes, please for an opening statement. >> thank you, chairman burgess, ranking member schakowsky,

members of the subcommittee. i'm an wilson, senior vice president for governmental affairs for motor equipment and manufacturers association. thank you for the opportunity to address motor vehicle issues. we represent 1000 companies that manufacture components and systems used in light and heavy-duty original equipment and after market industries. our members provide more than 734,000 direct jobs nationwide, making the motor vehicle parts industry the largest employer of manufacturing and jobs nationwide. suppliers work closely with vehicle manufacturers to provide cutting-edge and innovative systems and components for new vehicles. in fact suppliers manufacture more than 2/3 of the value of today's vehicles. today i focus on safety benefits of advanced driver assistance systems. these technologies are included in the discussion draft in the advanced ought tick technology.

as widely recognizes previously discussed motor vehicle safety continues to improve in this country. the most influential safety factors are improvements to vehicle structural design and advanced vehicle technologies including adas. mr. bainwol discussed on the benefits. adas technologies. a study has been circulated to all members. the study focused on current technologies that provide immediate safety benefits and form ad pathway to partially or fully autonomous vehicle plate that can virtually eliminate traffic fatalities. the study found that a sweet of adas technologies currently available have the potential to prevent 30% of the all crashes naics wide, a total of 10,000 lives saved every year. today, however, relatively few vehicles on the road have adas technologies and their penetration in the market is

only growing 2 to 5% annually. since the vast majority of accidents in the u.s. are caused by driver error, the lack of adoption of these technologies within the u.s. fleet is a significant missed opportunity. like to take a minute and discuss what exactly what adas is. they can be grouped into three wide categories. those that aid the driver, those that warn the driver and those that can assist the driver in performing certain basic driving functions. aid features include visual aids, night vision, rear mounted cameras, enhance driver's rear vision and adaptive lighting. warn features alert driver of potential dangers, park assist, forward collision warning, lane departure warning which typically activate as beeper or causes driver's seat to vibrate when the vehicle drifts out of its lane. other warning systems include blind spot and rear cross

traffic detectors and driver monitoring systems. assistant features actively engage, steering, acceleration and braking systems as needed in order to insure that the vehicle's safe operations. such features include forward collision assist, adaptive cruise control, self-parking and lane keeping assist which actively returns the vehicle to its original lane when it is in danger of drifting from it. there is also pedestrian avoidance which warns driver of impending collision once pedestrian, and some assistance will assist the driver with steering and braking to avoid the collision. better consumer information and market incentives increase adoption and lower cost of technologies and mema promotes adas technologies to new car assessment program and advanced credits for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions. we do have the following comments on the committee draft.

in title 5, section 501, buyers must be specifically included in advanced automotive technology advisory committee. furthermore we believe 35% threshold specified for inclusion on the technology is too high. collision avoidance systems are currently available in are in new vehicles they must be listed in the ncap rating as part of all new vehicle labels. in section 502, mema supports awarding credits for advance technologies for green house technologies and emissions. use of technologies will have better traffic flow, fewer fuel consumed and better vehicle emissions. however should not be difference in credits with vehicles with three advanced safety technologies and vehicles with one vehicle connected technology. mama with greater acceptance of technologies. industry is committed to working with you to establish new and

innovative ways to increase adoption of life saving technologies and address other critical issues. >> the chair thanks the witness. mr. dotson, five minutes, recognized for five minutes for purpose of opening statement, please. >> thank you. chairman burgess, ranking member schakowsky and members of the subcommittee. my name is greg dotson, center of american progress, think tank dedicated to improving american lives through actions. manufacturing industry touches live on all of us. many americans rely on cars to get to work, do their jobs, transport their family safely. for these reasons the industry is regulated in vitally important ways. minimize risk of accidents, minimize risk of pollution choking our communities. today's vehicles have attributes one believed to be incompatible. they are safer, more efficient and less polluting. i will focus my discussion on 502 and a 0of the discussion

draft. i would like to highlight the five important reasons these sections are flawed. first the discussion draft presents a false choice by asking members of congress to choose vehicle safety over pollution reduction. that is unnecessary tradeoff. the fact is that we need both safer motor vehicles and cleaner cars and trucks and there is no reason the american people can't have both. second, there is not a sound analystic basis for the proposal. the bill would encourage automakers to use this technology by giving them pollution credits for every car they manufacture with crash avoidance technology like automatic emergency braking or, technology that helps with congestion mitigation like in dash gps unfortunately there just isn't sufficient data to support pollution credits. in 2012 the environmental protection agency and department of transportation examined this issue. the automaker daimler argued that the agency should provide pollution credits for crash avoidance technology. agency said credits should only

be avoided where technologies provided real world improvements to fuel economy and pollution reduction. the improvements must be verifiable. the process which they're granted should be transparent. the agency determined that none of these factors were satisfied for technologies used for crash avoidance. can consequently the agencies concluded crash avoidance system is left best left to nhtsa exercise of safety authority. the discussion would reverse this conclusion. under this propose al. section 502-a. three or more grams of carbon dioxide per mile with any vehicle equipped with advanced vehicle technology. it offers a credit of six or more grams of carb carb per mile for any vehicle equipped with detection technology. three grams might not sound like a lot but many times more that daimler argued was for this technology in 2012. epa is in process of determining extent ever volkswagen's

violations and all the publicly discussed estimates, pollution from non-compliant vw vehicles is less than three grams per mile. three grams per mile or every day, for every year, for every car, adds up to substantial pollution. third the discussion draft would allow more pollution for using technologies going to be used even without this additional incentive. for instance, just last month, 10 major vehicle manufacturers publicly committed to making automatic emergency braking a standard feature in all new vehicles. makes no sense to give these companies incentive for something they intend to do anyway. fourth, the loopholes created by this bill could only grow bigger over time. section 503-a would authorize the secretary of transportation to select any technology and award the technology as many pollution credits as necessary to quote, incentivize, unquote its adoption. there is no upper bound limit on how many credits might be awarded under this language.

finally the bill as currently drafted would curb the role of states in innovating carbon pollution reductions at the state level. as we have seen time and again, the states are the laboratories of innovation. they have demonstrated countless successes. there is no basis for so easily stripping them of their important role. we should remember it was state of california that led the way in detecting vw emissions scandal. mr. chairman, ranking member and members of the subcommittee, it has not been easy for the united states to establish a regulatory structure that is transparent, data driven, technology based and effective. i urge you to reject pleas for new special interest loopholes and maintain our current rigorous system. the american people expect a regulatory system that cuts pollution, and increases safety. let's not sacrifice one for the other. i would be happy to take any questions you have. >> chair thanks the gentleman. gentleman yields back. miss claybrook, you're recognized five minutes for questions, your opening

statement, please. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman and ranking member schakowsky and members of the suncommittee. i'm joan claybrook, advocate of auto safety and former administrator of nshta. i appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on such an important issue, the safety of our families and friends on our nation's roads and highways. let me share with you some important statistic you begin considering bill. 3thousand deaths and 3 million horrible injuries annually in motor vehicle crashes. 801 manufacture you are recalls and service campaigns of more than 63 million vehicles in 2014. 613 recalls already in 2015 involving 40 million vehicles. for those, these recalls at least 200 people innocently killed and hundreds injured because automakers sold cars they knew had safety defects. house and senate hearings, 10 of them, over the last two years on faulty gm ignition switches and

exploding at that caught at that airbags i heard countless hours of testimony and indignation expressed by committee members. over 2 billion in criminal justice, that is, department of justice and civil fines, excuse me, against recalls since 2010 caused, because of nhtsa enforcement and justice importance. total nhtsa safety budget, measly $130 million. measly 130 million. 11 family members sitting behind me today, millions of americans expect their legislators to enact sensible solutions for serious safety problems. one opportunity to get it right. congressional hearings, media report of d.o.t. inspector general reports uncovered industry conduct and nhtsa missteps that put at risk millions of americans on the highway. outstanding problems need legislation that addresses them are, a chronically underfunded and understaffed agency responsible for regulating giant

corporations and insuring public safety. a lack of civil adequate civil and criminal penalties to deter automakers putting profits before public safety. predisposition by nhtsa to needlessly with hold information from consumers about safety problems to thwarts their ability to legally challenge agency actions though that is now changing under mr. rosekind, thank you. legal loophole allows consumers to drive off lot of rin tall car company or used car dealer under recall but not repaired. agency powerlessness to take swift action when there is swim meant. the draft bill will set a safety agenda for the agency for next six years at a time when motor vehicle deaths an irjuries are climbing, serious problems have been exposed and new challenges face the agency. what does this bill do to finance and equip the agency with tools to fulfill its safety mission? very little.

instead it seriously dilutes vehicle emission controls and wastes taxpayers dollars, turning nhtsa into the national highway traffic and study administration. it diverts precious government resources to conduct 16 burdensome studies and reports and puts auto industry in the driver's seat at the expense of public safety. they can barter and tradeoff fuel economy and safety when we know technologies exist to build safe, fuel efficient and clean cars. other provisions delay public notification of recalls until nhtsa is in release of all vehicle identification numbers with the recall and nhtsa is safety defect in coordination with the manufacturerrer, something a regulator should not be limited to. it provides blanket exemption for motor vehicle saved standards and intended for testing evaluation and these giveaways are unnecessary because nhtsa already has a regulatory process to do this in

the law. furthermore the draft bill provides breathtaking double-standard for manufacturers at the expense of consumers. in section 406, mandates that industry failure to follow d.o.t. voluntary guidelines can not be used as evidence in a civil action, however industry may use compliance with the same guidelines to show compliance with federal regulations in the same civil action. the real intention of these and other provisions industry stacked advisory committees and councils are not to advance safety but thwart is a from regulating industry and keep the public out. problem solving proposals to the problems identified bit hearings are that you heard again and again are found in hr 1181, that has been introduced by ranking member frank pallone and subcommittee ranking member january schakowsky. it is comprehensive approach that includes tougher penalties, imminent hazard authority,

improved transparency, pedestrian safety measures, prohibitions on renting vehicles or selling used cars under recall, judicial review of final agency actions on recalls, revolving door protections and overdue direction to the agency to draft, address the tragedies of unattended children left behind in the vehicle in some 200 of them die a year. unless this committee acts to pass meaningful legislation that will prevent illegal and immoral behavior by the auto industry the string of scandals will continue. firestone tires, toyota sudden acceleration, gm faulty switches, takata exploding airbags and cheating vw diesels. there are no credible excuses for delaying any longer increasing penalties for corporate misbehavior, strengthening nhtsa authority and increasing standards that can save lives and reduce injuries and prevent industry fraud. thank you so much for the

opportunity. >> the chair thanks the gentlelady. mr. welch recognized for five minutes for opening statement. >> mr. chairman, ranking member that could you ski, my name is peter j. welch. no the could be confused with anybody else. we represent the 16,000 franchised and new car and truck dealers throughout the country of the draft bill before you today contains a number of provisions that nada supports including several provisions for recall notice an completion rates. dealers support 100% recall completion rate. we commend the subcommittee for efforts to help us achieve that goal. recall system congress enacted depends on new car dealers to fix millions of vehicles now under recall. last i don't year alone, our members performed 59 million warranty and recall repairs. unfortunately we're set to break the record again today, with

burgeoning number of recalls being issued. for owners of recalled vehicles, it is local dealer remedies the defect and nonconformance at no charge to the owner. when owners receive a recall notice fail to act many dealers on own initiative will contact customers to schedule a service appointment. one of our texas dealer members found sending bright pink postcards that owners were under recall was effective to get them into service bay and get them fixed. currently there is 75% recall compression rate which means there are is lots of room for improvement. recall notices disregarded by consumers are the two main reasons that the completion rates lag. it is not unusual for a dealer to wait 60 days or more for a back ordered recall repair part. some instances repair parts can be unavailable for over a year. i don't know of any dealer who isn't eaganner to remedy a recalled vehicle to make the customer happy but they need

repair parts to do that. inaction by consumers after receiving recall notice also hinders completion rates. one idea nada suggested to nhtsa at april recall workshop for nhtsa launch media campaign target demographic groups list likely to respond to recall notices. we is the subcommittee to consider that idea. improving nhtsa's recall database and look uptool is another way to boost the recall completion rate. the current system was designed for single vehicle look ups by consumers. it was not designed for commercial use. depending on its size, the dealer can have dozens to thousands of used vehicles in its inventory. this bill should include a provision directing nhtsa to upgrade its recall database to allow dealer is ships -- dealerships automatically check on daily bases which vehicles in the inventory are under open recall. a tool searchable, automated

batched multiple requests is critical to identify multiple vehicles in the recall inventory to get them fixed. we support notification by state dmv of a recall at the time of registration and renewal. it is all about notification and awareness. and we think this is good idea to help increase the remedy rate. section 205 would extend the period for which cars could be recalled from 10 to 15 years but the average vehicle on the road today at 11.5 years, this provision also makes sense. in conclusion, congress must insure any new recall policy it enacts is data driven of the most successful highway safety policy enactment of primary safety belt laws and anti-drunk driving measures were all based on hard data. now are proven counter measures. we commend the subcommittee for hard work and stand ready to work with you on strong safety measures that will protect america's driving public. thank you, i look forward to ends agony questions. >> the chair thanks the

gentleman. mr. wilson, you're recognized for five minutes for opening statement. >> chairman burgess, ranking member schakowsky, members of the subcommittee. thank you for time to testify. i'm michael wilson. the association is dedicated to efficient removal and general original equipment automotive parts and proper recycling of inoperaable vehicles. we represent the interest of automotive recycling businesses in the united states which sell 500,000 recycled parts directly to consumers, mechanical shops, collision repair shops and automobile dealers. these quality recycled original equipment parts designed by automakers and built to meet requirements forfeit, finish, durability, reliability and safety. they are used in repair and service vehicles throughout the lifespan. these replacement parts continue to operate as originally intended in terms of form, function, performance and safety. i urge congress to add language

to the subcommittees' draft legislation would provide automotive recycling industry to access to original equipment parts data on all motor vehicles. critical data includes part numbers, names, descriptions tied to each vehicle's specific identification number. the straightforward reason for this information is necessary is because manufacturers and dealers in automotive industry speak a totally different parts language than those in the auto recycling community. automakers and dealers utilize original equipment parts numbers while automotive recyclers historically used interchange part numbers. the interchange enables auto recyclers and enthuse sifts to identify parts they need to keep vehicles running and original condition. holland interchange index millions of parts and interchangeable equivalents from other vehicles. for example, a specific part that is in a ford f-150 is also interchangeable with the same

part in a ford expedition, mercury mountain near or lincoln 1/2 vator. over utilization of original equipment part numbers and holland interchange part numbers that manufacturers and recyclers can enhance motor vehicle safety, improve recall remedy rates and comply with the federal recall remedy statute for used equipment enacted 15 years ago in the tread act. i would like to address the challenge automotive recyclers face identifying defective parts in the current inventory. tread act, respective rule makers did not require auto make is to supply parts data make it functionnally impossible for used parts stakeholders to comply with the federal statute. automakers fully aware life cycle can go beyond initial utilization in a motor vehicle from the factory. recognition was underscored in august 2014 when government,

general motors contracted with a third party supplier to coordinate the purchase and return of certain used parts which are subject to product safety ignition switch recall, from automotive recycling facilities n a third party notice to recycling facilities the correspondence not only included make, model year of vehicle subject to the recall, but also detailed specific gm part and ac dell coservice part numbers which the notice stated are provided so the manager can identify the parts being recalled. the notice also include the holland interchange number for ignition switches. clearly gm understands that specific part numbers are vital to correctly, efficiently to locate effective parts. nhtsa's site, individuals or companies who sell significant number of vehicles or parts do not have the multiple look upcapability to necessarily, necessary information and are severely limited to the objections allowing electronic integration of important data

enhance safety. just is problematic is data provided by automakers through safercar.gov is many recall narrative rather than actually part numbers, names or descriptions making it all but impossible to identify specific recalled parts electronically. it is essential that recyclers able to identify those parts associated with vi in. s recalled and not remedied before vehicles are potentially purchased at auction or acquired from the general public. if the automakers provide access to parts data it will allow the recycling community to comply obligations under tread act and keep drivers from defective parts. automakers concede to the need for providing original equipment data for defective parts it is important to understand this is not enough. number of defective automotive parts in today's marketplace is increasing alarming rate. 100 million recalls have been recalled since beginning of 2014. these recall campaigns create

multiple challenge for my members who provide safe and quality recycled original equipment parts to the marketplace. consider original equipment parts that automotive recyclers sell today and are subject to recall at some future date. if automotive recyclers don't have access to original equipment parts data there is no specific part number to track it boeing forward if there is subsequent recall on that part. most agree that the private sector developed or potential to develop highly effective solutions to the vehicle and the part identification along with remedy tracking problem. however these systems would only be as good as data the companies have access to and are able to provide to the effective parties. unfortunately ihs and other data providers currently do to the have access to part numbers, descriptions and other important data needed to track recalled parts and significantly increase recall remedy rates. automakers are accountable for the safety of all original equipment parts throughout their life cycle and should be required to share whatever parts

information is necessary to identify and locate recalled defective parts within the recycled original equipment parts population. the practice of sharing original equipment part numbers with recyclers should not be anomaly. should be a standard automotive industry practice especially in light of the new safety norm. consumer demand for safe and vibrant replacement part market imperative for congress to remove the barriers they constructed so all parts data is available to professional automotive recycling industry. thank you. >> the chair thanks the gentleman and, thank all of you for your testimony. we'll move into the question and answer portion of the hearing and i will begin that by -- >> mr. chairman, i have unanimous consent request. >> gentleman may state his request. >> i'm have a chair meeting with 45 members and submit questions to have witnesses respond later in writing?

>> the gentleman certainly understands a lot of members willing to ask questions but i would be prepared to yield the gentleman to go first for his questions. >> you're very kind. i can talk fast. >> proceed. gentleman is recognized. >> miss claybrook -- >> i will hold off all other members. >> you're very kind. miss claybrook. thank you for coming. miss claybrook you know i worked closely with lois capps and miss schakowsky and rental car safety legislation. we introduced the safe rental car act of 2015. i'm disappointed the text of that bill was not included in the base text of the safety title but it was included in the bill that senate is working on. do you share in my disappointment in any way the text of 2189 was not included as part of the title? >> i certainly do. as you heard, administrator rosekind, he does too. we believe that all coarse that have been subject to recall, whether new cars, or used cars,

or rental cars should all be fixed immediately. >> thank you. why is enacting a federal standard with regard to rental car safety so important? >> well, it is important because it causes death and injury on the highway for unsuspecting owners. or, renters. and, that's the bottom line. safety on the highway. >> and to the best of your knowledge do the vast majority of rental car companies support a federal rental car safety standard? >> that is my understanding, the vast majority do and public does overwhelmingly. >> okay. is anyone on the panel that would dispute that? consumers for auto reliability and safety and consumers union and consumer federation of america, aaa, the american rental car association all support 2189. and they have called on this committee to move the bill. either on its own or as part of a larger package. do you agree or disagree? >> oh, i completely agree.

warning is not enough by the way of the car has to be fixed. the vehicle has to be fixed. >> finally for mr. welch, thank you very much for coming and you certainly know we have a member named peter welch. your association, mr. welch, believes we focus on fixing recalled rental cars instead of grounding them. it seems to me that the rental companies have every incentive to repair a grounded vehicle and get it back on the road as soon as possible. and, so i would think that a requirement to ground an unrepaired vehicle would actually speed up the repair rate. as you know, federal law already requires new recalled cars to be grounded until they are fixed. do your members prefer to fix these new, recalled cars quickly or simply have them to sit on the lot? >> well, of course our members are the ones that perform the vast majority of recall fixes

and remedies across the country. with respect to the rental car bill, we're supportive of the premise behind the bill that vehicles that are unsafe to drive should not be put into the hands of the public. our issue is with that bill is the definition of when is it unsafe to drive a vehicle. and differentiating between recalls that would not render a vehicle unsafe to drive as determined by either nhtsa or the original equipment manufacture youer of the vehicl. we hope to have discussions drawing a clear bright line when a vehicle is unsafe to drive, to distinguish it, for instance, between those types of recalls that would not affect the safety of driving the vehicle. we have a number of other issues, i can get into it if you want but in interest of time, specific provision an on the

bill it is overly broad because it paints all the vehicles with the same brush. it, we think it is unfair to small businesses. 80% of our members are small businesses. it treats our members the same. if i have five vehicles in a loaner fleet, for instance, i'm subject to the same penalties and fines that hertz and avis is. so there is a number of issues. >> do you think that rental companies would have the same incentive to repair? >> well, of course that raises another issue and that is, the fight for parts. as i mentioned before, the only thing that's holding us back from fixes any vehicle that comes on to our lot is the availability of parts. and we have commissioned a number of some research on that. and the average delayed part on trade-in vehicles for instance, is 60 days. and we have some concerns that the rental car companies might get in a tug-of-war with the

manufacturers for the availability of parts. that may adversely affect our customers that are coming in to get their vehicles repaired. >> thank you. thank you very much, mr. welch. yes? >> can i say one thing? seems to me whether the car is safe to drive, if the manufacturer already made that decision. when they do a recall, this is safety issue and this car needs to be fixed. there are very few cars that are unsafe when they are not driven. seems to me the manufacturer already made that decision and it is not up to somebody else to decide, nhtsa or anybody else to decide whether or not it is safe to drive the vehicle. >> if i could respond to that. >> all right. >> the manufacturers and nhtsa do issue stop drive notices and about 6% of the recalls that they do stop drive. i understand that there could be a dispute between you know whether it ought to be 8% or 10% or 40% or whatever. again, we're the monkey in the middle, the car dealers. we're there looking for parts to fix cars. but there is a big difference

between, for instance, a mislabel -- i don't want to be try in any way, shape or form characterize any recall, any violation of a statute subject to vehicle to recall. >> when would you fix it? so you don't want to fix it today because it is okay to drive it with a bad label? when are you going to fix it? >> maybe some other members -- >> as soon as part is available it will get fixed. >> the chairman was so kind to yield me. >> i reclaim the time. the panel will ask, dais will ask the questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you so much. >> thank you, mr. butterfield? good luck with your meeting. i now recognize myself for five minutes for questions. so that was an interesting exchange. let me about mr. bainwol about this isac, gathering of data.

what is the mechanism for disseminating information back then to your members or to, anyone else involved? >> the isac again will which be stood up in mamater of weeks, today announcement went out with the board of directors so it is very much in process, the mechanism, the board is comprised of auto companies. this is really a forum for members, oems, to share information about risk and countermeasures. and, so, the mechanism is the isac itself. that is precisely why it has been established. we're augmenting the isac by definition deals with problems after they have been manifest with best practices to preempt the possibility of problems. so, this is a comprehensive approach. we're going to be working obviously with nhtsa operating, using guideposts as we develop the best practices nist but, the

isac is comprised itself of oems. down the road we'll broaden out to include suppliers. >> how do you then get the word out? i mean is it certified mail, email, carrier pigeon? what are you doing? >> so the process ising being established but they're talking to each other. the oem community is relatively small one. >> you don't see that as being obstacle or barrier? >> communication when events happen will be very quick, accelerated. that will not be a problem. >> very well. mr. welch, if i could ask you a question because of course this committee and another subcommittee has been very involved on the airbag recall. and of course on the dallas-ft. worth area that i represent. i'm sorry, i meant to say the fort worth-dallas area that represent. the back order, you brought up the issue of the back order of

the recalled repair parts and what has been the experience with your member dealers as far as being able to get parts, specifically the airbags, for replacement when someone brings their vehicle in to have it, have it fixed? >> well, that has been particularly troublesome recall as you know. there are some 24 million vehicles are involved in that. and in order to produce sophisticated airbags in sufficient numbers to replace 24 million of them are going to take time. in fact the back orders on those, depending on the make, the model, what factory they're coming from, availability could well be over a year and the dilemma that we face day in, day out because of the publicity that this recall has received, we have to deal with our consumers, your constituents that come in and we don't have the replacement part. and the dilemma is, that they don't affect all of the vehicles

the same, depending on what the climate is. there is humidity issue with them, what not. i think our partners, manufacturers are doing as good a job as they can trying totry age availability of the parts and get them to regions of country with largest impact with respect to it. we'll have to wade through that and do the best we can with the availability. we have databases with people waiting, priority issues. and some of them want us to disengage the airbag which creates whole another dilemma. we don't think that's a good idea. there is the debate, you know, between the risk of the occupant having an airbag since not all of them have the defect in them. so it's a very complex issue, mr. chair. >> of course, hearings that we held on this, this is all made more difficult because no one knows what the central defect is

and replacement parts that you're putting in the cars, that do come in that are subject to the recall and do require a replacement part, no complete assurance that the replacement part is actually compliant with, since we don't know what the defect was in the first place. you brought up getting the information out to targeted demographics. that is something that has been the subject of a lot of discussion in this subcommittee as well, because typically is the third or fourth owner of a vehicle. i know in the market, in the dallas paper, there, one of the automotive manufacturers took out full page ads in the newspaper to, you know, if you have one of our cars, this vintage, call a number, bring it in or whatever their requirement was. very, very difficult to get the information out to, again, that third or fourth owner who may

not be someone who reads newspaper regularly. may be difficult to reach that individual. so, is that one of the things that your association is working on as well? how do we get people in? >> anyway that we can contact our customer base. unto the that thely as vehicles get older and age, they don't continue to bring into the franchise dealer for their ordinary maintenance. i might add completion rate for remedy of vehicles fire years old or newer is 85%. one of the primary reasons for that because vehicles are coming in for warranty work. trust me anytime the vehicle comes into the service department, we're scanning the vin. we're running it, if we have access to the database and we're snagging it there and repairing them in our service bays. >> my time has expired. yield to the gentlelady from illinois, five minutes for questions, please. >> thank you. i wanted to ask a yes or no question of a couple of them,

for mr. bainwol. did the alliance of automobile manufacturers ask the committee for the provision in the bill that would give automakers a break from health-based carbon emissions requirements in exchange for adding safety features? >> we did not request it per se but we had a conversation -- >> yes or no. do you support that provision, yes or no. >> we support the provision. >> you do? >> sure. >> and mr. bozzella, i'm asking same question of the association of global automakers. did you ask the committeetee for that provision. >> we did not? >> do you support it? >> the provision to incentivize life saving technologies we think is very important conversation to have. >> well i want all consumers to understand that, that manufacturers of automobiles support a provision that would actually increase pollution in exchange for providing -- i'm

not asking now. i'm talking. that would to improve safety of the automobiles. i think it is outrageous. consumers like myself, who now have a hybrid, are seeking that. i would imagine that auto dealers would find the consumers are coming in and wanting more fuel-efficient cars. and to add this as an incentive to get safety often for safety features readily available is completely outrageous. i want to thank you, mr. dotson, for your testimony on this matter and i want to move on to something else. . .

the magic of this technology is that it will address the totality of the problem. >> what are you talking about? we are talking about incentives that increase auto pollution in exchange for getting those safety -- >> we are talking about maximizing and et cetera in the department of life-saving technology. technology. >> exactly. and doing it in a way that increases auto emissions. i'm sorry. i want to move on. it is my time. this is for ms. claybrook. over the last several years we've seen multiple scandals involving auto manufacturers and major safety defects that were internally reported but allowed to endanger people for years before the company did anything about them.

this is a politically safety related information from carmakers is critical to catching and fixing those problems, the draft we are looking at today asked nhtsa to conduct eight new studies and report come and reports without providing any additional funding. meanwhile, it does almost nothing to improve the communication of vital safety information for manufacturers to the agencies. by legislation, the vehicle safety improvement act, would facilitate communications. let me ask you as former nhtsa administrator do you believe more information from auto manufactures would allow the agency to be more effective in its safety mission? user microphone. would you push the button and start over. >> absolutely i believe more information is necessary. the early warning system that was created by the 2000 law for the tread act did not get a lot of specificity about what the

manufacturers had to report. they often report inconsistent information. it's difficult to understand. they fail to report information, may have been fined for the recently. so that law needs to be upgraded, and you don't does a good job of helping to do that. i also think there needs to be criminal penalties when manufacturers fail to give that kind of information knowingly and willfully. because otherwise they will not stop doing it. >> do you think the penalties are currently adequate? >> no. if you looked with his attorney five toyota, 1.2 billion, and general motors 900 million nhtsa's maximum penalty is 35 million. it's clear that has to be increased with us to be no maximum. there needs to be criminal penalties. when a manufacturer knows that they might go to jail they will behave differently and pay more attention to what's going on. when the general counsel of general motors said he didn't even know about settlements of lawsuits involving the ignition

switch and other covering up information from those lawsuits, that was just incomprehensible, as i think there needs to be much stronger penalty provisions. >> i appreciate that. i yield back. >> the gentlelady yield's back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. >> thank you for having this meeting and i appreciate of the panel for being here. i apologize. there's another subcommittee of this committee going on so i was in the other one during your opening remarks so some of my questions would be those, i will apologize. we will give you chance to elaborate. this is for mr. babel and mr. bozzella. has nhtsa and the auto industry had discussion on how to best apply the nist cybersecurity risk to the development of security? >> not directly the question of nist but we've had discussions with the administrative about best practices. we met with in september and it was his of you that the pace of innovation is so rapid that it

would be wise for us to move forward best practices, that we would be in his words more nimble. as a result of that conversation, as a result of discussions with the members of this committee we made the decision to move forward with best practices and nist will be part of the framework we evaluate as we move forward. >> i will just simply build on mr. ben walls comment by saint that different is going to be part of our discussion as an industry. and i think it is important to recognize that the we have had ongoing conversations with nixon, that we can't afford to wait. it's really important that we make sure that our customers have the confidence and trust in these products so that they can take advantage of the benefits, the life-saving benefits of these technologies. we have moved forward. we will continue to consult not only within the industry but with a broad number of stakeholders, and certainly the

nist framework will be part of those discussions. >> another question. how our car companies dealing with the security of aftermarket or third party devices that are typically being plugged into the vehicle through the obd to port? >> this is a really important question. as you know, congressman, the industry has voluntarily adopted a set of privacy principles that treat sensitive personally identifiable information really as sacrosanct. we care deeply about making sure that our customers know that we are treating geolocation data, or the vehicle has been or other personal data, maybe biometric data if the parse able to collect that type of data, or driver behavior david differently than other kinds of data. we think it is very important that we continue to work with a

broad set of stakeholders to understand the implications of what might happen if an aftermarket device is plugged into the obd port. we think also consumer education is important in this area. we will it's a very important question to understandthem is the manufacture of that device, do they have the same types of privacy policies? have established the same cyber best practices the automakers have or are doing? so the actual entrance into the vehicle sort of represents a very important question about how we think about cybersecurity. >> and i would simply add that by way of example, i have a progressive device. it's actually all-state device that a plug-in for insurance purposes. that doesn't run through in terms of the privacy question through the manufacture. that's a relationship with the insurance company, and i do

write it on from that because i derived cheaper insurance and an ability to understand better the driving behavior of my children which is something we all i think i aspire to. so this does get complicated. the point of example is whether it insurance or whether it's a google or apple or carriers, the relationships here that now really compel us to work with suppliers and other folks that we do not traditionally work with. so on private and on cyber we're going to have to reach out and start that process. >> do you have a comment, ms. wilson? >> i represent also aftermarket manufactures, and we've been working with vehicle manufacturers to create an iso standard so they can look at aftermarket products to make sure when they're plugged into the obd port they need some kind of standards that are known throughout the industry. >> thank you.

we've talked on fuel-efficient standards and safety, and i want a fuel-efficient car that is a. i that all of us want that but they are not unrelated to go see the more fuel-efficient say, i know this area pretty well. automotive companies will try to take weight out of the car and keep it safe. that you get more fuel-efficient. they are interrelated, so if you're going to incentivize, and automotive companies are spending an enormous amoun amouf money can get to the new café standards. which does added expense of the car. if you can come and security issues and safety issues are expensive. if you can get some relief in one area to get sick and security first, i think that's important or and community more fuel-efficient cars, i think that's number one priority is safety and our independent, not unrelated. >> in my testimony i use the phrase safety equals green. this is a change paradigm. when these technologies,

accident avoidance technologies, yield better safety outcomes, yield more than a nation's records and certainly more productive economy. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts five minutes for your questions, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the palace and the witnesses for the testily. want to touch on section 202 of the traveler which requires nhtsa to drive recall notices in coordination with auto manufacturers before making recalls public and recall notices would not be published until all vehicle identification numbers for effective vehicles are made available to nhtsa by the auto manufacture. i put the first down touched on this. ms. claybrook, in some recent, some of them recent major recalls weaver concerns that the recalls were made public before any information about what the specific vehicle was included in the recall which led to some customer confusion. at the same time you noted in your testimony that a delayed

notice can have deadly consequences. i just wanted to get you to kind of expand on that dichotomy if you couldn't. why. is probably not so crucial and how would you navigate through those tensions? >> first of all i think the bottom line, the public, consumers can the people are driving these cars, they are entitled and there's a problem with vehicle. they can maybe do something on their own to avoid the problem. so any delay in announcing the recall i think is disadvantageous, and i would urge the administrator of nhtsa as i did when i was administrator to put out a consumer alert and allow the public to be informed of what's going on. this provision in this bill suggest they could not do that, that they would be limited, the administered would be limited in the way that they could communicate to the public and they would have to wait for the manufacture to say okay. i think that's completely --

sorry spill i got what you meant. [laughter] >> backwards. and so the administrators and should not be tied to that way. >> i don't want, my words, not his but i believe dr. rosekind echoed of those statements about if the government wasn't exiting on those recall notices or sitting on the effectiveness of the problem yet was not giving that information to consumers and accident would take place, not a position in the administered would want to be in. so instead of delaying notice, the act would give nhtsa authority to expedite a recall when the agency determined that a de facto noncompliance as i understand it substantial increases the likelihood of serious injury or death, if not remedied immediately. so, ms. claybrook, do you think in this authority would be beneficial to nhtsa in reducing death and injuries resulting

from those crashes? >> absolutely. because there are occasions where the car is so hazardous that the recall ought to be handled immediately. i would say also this provision that is in the bill was in an earlier bill about 15 years ago, and consumers were extremely upset about and it was taken out of the bill. because the committee came to realize that it was really totally unfair, that the administered would not be out to inform the public spirit this would eliminate a racial recalls, and issued the american of the draft of the start address. americans are more mobile than have ever been in the past that in the past edges because of vehicles registered in a particular region does not mean that you will only be driven in that region. under vsia all recalls would be carried out on a nationa nations and allow nhtsa to privatize certain parts of the country where the quantity of replacement parts is limited. so ms. claybrook, can you explain how the elimination of

the original recall aspect would improve safety? >> first of all recalls are not in the statute. dasher regional recalls. as an informal thing that manufactures about 35 years ago came to agencie the agency and e would just like to original recall for these reasons. the agency said all right an eny can standard operating procedure because it's much cheaper. only to recall a small number of vehicles rather than nationwide. vehicles don't stay stationary. that's a silly thing about the whole region recall because they go all over the country. if because of the benefits because you bought it and lived in florida and then you move to minnesota, it just doesn't make any sense. i think that the agency could prioritize, i think at this discretion under the law to privatize and see if you're doing the recall and it's more likely to happen in a particular area because of the weather then we would prefer you would do that way. i'm sure that manufactures would agree.

>> in your expense would limiting those original recalls but allowing nhtsa to privatize the allocation of replacement parts by region when necessary, have an effect on nhtsa's ability to execute a ricoh? >> no. it absolutely would not. i think experience that we have with the misbehavior of manufacture over the last five years as we've seen in curbing of recalls, delaying them to not doing them for years and years and all the rest means that nhtsa has to take a stronger role and they should be the decision-makers august. >> thank you. yield back. >> the chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee mr. pallone five minutes before your questions, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my questions are to mr. dotson. section five of two of the discussion draft would amend the clean air act by anything with a national program that epa and nhtsa had adopted reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy for passenger cars and trucks.

can you explain this national program and what are its goals? >> certainly. the purpose of this program -- can you hear me speak was just. >> the purpose of the program is essential to control carbon pollution from light duty vehicles. the program is remarkable successful. it will have the effect of doubling fuel economy while reducing the emissions of cars and trucks by half, reducing emissions by half by 2025. >> so what is it so important to establish standards for greenhouse gas emissions in vehicles, and i will changing these commonsense require its impact are good to avoid or prevent the worst impacts of climate change? >> well, it's now i think a consensus among the scientific community, business and the faith committee that climate change is a search through. last year the panel said that is, they have high confidence that unmitigated warming will lead to high to very high risk

of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally, things like food shortages. >> you to have you talk about climate change. you don't have to convince me that you're not going to convince my called on the other side. why is it important to establish the standards speak with the standards are very important. they are important because they provide the industry clear direction on where they need to go over time. and the erosion that occurs in this bill, while that might sound small, is actually significant. if he were to award a three-gram credit for cars that in dash gps or emergency auto braking. in the first year, last year the 16.5 million cars sold in the u.s. begins in those cars drive 13,000 miles a year or so. you're talking over 7000 tons of additional pollution in year one. there are over a million and in year three it's over 2 million tons. >> the our flexibility is such a

stability generate credits for the standards that is credited that to the bank or traded. they are also air-conditioned improvement credits, other types of credits known as off cycle credits. can you explain briefly what are the off cycle credits? >> the off cycle credits and sensual allow the manufactures to take credit for efficiencies that are unrelated to the powertrain of the vehicle. so, for example, if an auto manufacturer uses high-efficiency lighting or high-efficiency air-conditioned they may be able to recognize those benefits in off cycle credits. the epa and the department of transportation looked at this and they found that there's quote no consistent established methods or supporting data to determine the appropriate level of the credit. that's the problem with the wording credit for these kinds of technology. >> in other words, these credits such as air-conditioning that don't readily appear to contribute to improved vehicle mileage or reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and most have had a

positive effect, right speak with those effects are demonstrated through data to the agency. if you're using or high-efficiency lighting, you'll need less electricity, your car will have to generate less electricity to power those headlights so it's a way of recognizing that even though it may not show up in the emissions testing. >> but the difference is in contrast is section five of two of this bill would expand the predecessor to include the use of advanced automotive technologies, adapted break insist that don't become connected to vehicle technology. automakers have market crash avoidance technology result in fewer crashes andover was traffic congestion but less congestion they argued would less fuel just because a way to directly connect fuel savings or lower emissions to individual vehicles? i just tried to make the contrast between the things you are doing now versus what section five '02 does. it doesn't seem to me that there's any real connection, if

you will spin you put your finger on the issue, that there could be, then maybe diffuse benefits to using these technologies and reducing emissions but also might not be. there's an american car which on the market today, and has an option you can buy lane departure warning technology. the highway loss data institute looked at that and pick up their claims against that car that either has the technology or don't get what they found was there is no reduced claims on cars that had the technology. therefore, it is not within it accepts passionate accidents, therefore it is the reducing emissions. that's an example where this bill would give credit t to the court even though we have data to help us understand that you are not emissions benefits to it. >> thanks so much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yield back. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california for five minutes for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and you all are witnesses for

your testimony today. federal law prohibit card dealers from selling new cars -- but there's no similar law to stop rental car companies from renting or selling dangers we called ours that have not been fixed. pashtun recalled cars. the major rental companies signed onto a voluntary pledge to not rent out recalled vehicles. while this was a good step forward the standards are still not enough. just last year after the pledge was in place some and was killed a rental car went unrepaired takata airbag exploded. as we heard from nhtsa on the first panel, a change in federal law is needed. that's why i've introduced h.r. 2198 with my colleagues, michigan state, ms. walter jones, mr. butterfield to read -- ms. schakowsky. i guess what our bill was excluded from the draft were considered despite its broad support from the rental industry

and consumer groups and it's already passed the senator ellsworth in baffled that the alliance of auto manufacturers and national automobile dealers association actively oppose h.r. 2198 despite years of ongoing discussions and efforts to find a compromise. for example, the lights inside the concern about potential loss of use and other liability impacts is the reason for its opposition. to address this concern we've added a savings clause to the bill explicitly stating nothing inability impact manufacturers liability or other contractual obligations. because of his change of general motors, one of the biggest members, now supports h.r. 2190. honda has also expressed his support. mr. bainwol come and out like a yes or no answer on this if you would, does the allies still oppose h.r. 2198 despite general motors support for the? >> the alliance does not have consensus. >> thank you.

mr. welch, so you can say yes or no then because there is no consensus? >> we don't have consensus. >> thank you. mr. welch, your organization has expressed concerns about the impact h.r. 2198 would have on dealers small rental or loaner car operations. my question to you, when consumers bring their recalled cars trickier for repairs and they need a longer car, do you think dealers should be able to load the vehicles with unrepaired safety recalls? i ask you for a yes or no answ answer. >> if the vehicle has been deemed to be unsafe to drive either by the oems are by nhtsa, we would not put one of those cars enhanced by the consumer spirit so that is a no? you do not think dealers should be able to loan vehicles with unrepaired safety vehicles speak with no. i sit at their unsafe to drive we would put them out there. if they were involved speed you

would not loans and then speak with if it had a doorjamb sticker or a misprinted number -- >> that's not quite what my answer is, but i would just go back to the first panel in which nhtsa said that every call is a safety issue. there are no frivolous recalls. it's a simple question. the vast majority of rental companies have agreed to voluntarily stop renting rental cars. why can't they dealers do the same? >> well again, i would like to draw a distinction between a recalled vehicle for a noncompliance that may not make it unsafe to drive speed may i ask you a follow-up but who is going determined that -- who is going to determine that? nhtsa has said every recalled is a safety issue, that they don't put recalls out unless it is a safety issue. >> well, nhtsa has the authority

to issue stock drives or make the manufactures issue stop drives. if they believe the vehicle is unsafe to drive or the manufacturer does it, they can issue that notice and we would certainly honor it but that doesn't apply to all vehicles that are subject to recalls. >> i didn't get an answer but my time is out. thank you. >> that chair thanks the gentlelady. i do just want to offer the observation, michigan is the said she drove a hybrid vehicles are i want you to know your chip and run is a hybrid also. i have no problem at all if you want to make future hybrid vehicles safer, if you want to warn me as i depart claim that there is a car, motorcycle, tricycle in atlanta i would like to know the information and i will give up a couple of carbon credits to be able to have that available in the next version of the car that i buy. >> mr. chairman? i'm sorry. may i add an addendum? not a question, but i would like

to enter into the record, and i neglected to say that, a letter stated does the gentlelady have a unanimous consent request speak with bs spin you are recognized. >> computer i wanted to end into the record a letter from rachel and jackie's mother urging passage of h.r. 2198, and two letters from general motors indicating that companies support for h.r. 2198, and also a letter on behalf of my colleague who needed to leave, ms. schakowky. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you. >> seeing there are no further members to ask questions of like to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. before we conclude i would like to include the following documents to be submitted for the record by unanimous consent. a written statement by the american car rental association, a letter from the auto care association, a letter from the american chemistry council, a

letter from the american association of motor vehicle administrators, report from the motor and equipment manufacturers association, a statement from the environmental protection agency. pursuant to committed rules i remind members that have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the record. i ask the witnesses to submit their responses within 10 business days upon receipt of the questions. without objection subcommittee will stand adjourned. >> mr. chairman, could i just ask i make a question -- direction in my test was because i would be happy to the correction of the testimony. >> thank you very much. >> you are not going to say today? >> i won't bother you today >> we are left wondering about the question here that committee stands adjourned stimp that was close.

>> [inaudible conversations] >> c-span presents "landmark cases," the book, i got your landmark cases series which explores 12 historic green -- supreme court cases including marbury v. madison court korematsu versus united states, brown versus the board of education, miranda v. arizona, and roe v. wade. "landmark cases," the book written by veteran supreme court journalist tony mauro and published by c-span and cooperation with cq press. "landmark cases" is available for $8.95 and shipping.

>> c-span has your coverage of the road to the white house 2016 where you'll find the candidates, the speeches, debates and most importantly your questions. this year we're taking our road to the widest coverage into classrooms across the country with our studentcam contest giving students the opportunity to discuss what important issues they want to the most from the candidates. policy spends studentcam competition and go to the white house coverage 2016 on tv, on the radio and online at c-span.org. >> while the u.s. senate is about to gavels in after five days of debate. today centers are expected to finish up work on a cybersecurity bill that encourages private companies and the federal government to

voluntarily share information about cyber threats and data breaches and grant liability protection to these organizations and institutions. first round coming up in about an hour. morville related votes starting at 4 p.m. including final passage.t live now to the senate floor of the u.s.come t senate. the chaplain: let us pray. sovereign lord, we have heard of your greatness from generation to generation. you sit enthroned in majesty, for your glory covers all the earth. today, bless and sustain our lawmakers and their staffs. may their words and deeds honor you.