motors and the protocols within the industry. the protocol on whether it's a combustion engine or an electric assist as the volt is, is to disconnect the 12-volt battery in a combustion engine car and drain the gas. our protocol at the time, with the understanding and the background that this is a new and evolving technology, was the battery, the 12-volt battery is disconnected, and the large 16-kilowatt hour battery was disconnected, not depowered. lesson learned. and that's part of our protocol going forward. >> but let me be clear. so is it, is it fairly common knowledge that when there's a crash, you drain the battery, drain the gas tank? is that common sense? >> no, you disconnect the 12-volt battery. disconnect it from the circuitry

and you drain the gas tank. >> okay. so but -- should we have expected nhtsa to know they should have drained the battery? or is that an unfair expectation? >> again, i can't speak for the administration. >> any testing that you had done before, any testing other, that you know of other manufactures with similar type electric vehicles, do they -- do they know they're -- did they drain their batteries in those tests? was there -- it seems to me this is something nhtsa should have known to do. rather than just park it on the lot with a bunch of other cars. >> let me speak to what general motors knew. we had 28 5,000 hours of

testing on this patry owe battery, which is the equivalent of 45 car lives, if you will. and everything we found -- >> did any of that testing involve draining the battery after subjecting it to a crash where the battery had been punctured? >> no. >> when did you give nhtsa the protocols that did include draining the battery? >> in the case in question where the car had a fire three weeks after the crash, it was left, as you saw, on the side of the road. and i don't know that it, that the battery was even disconnected. i believe it was. i'm talking about the 12-volt battery. i believe it was. and i believe the larger battery was disconnected from the circuitry, but not drained. >> okay. okay. and when did you plan on, if at all, informing the owners of the volt and the public, about potential concerns? did you plan on doing that? or is that something you worked in conjunction with nhtsa? what was your plans at general motors for informing the public?

>> well, after listening to the administrators testimony, as the summer progressed, we had to disassemble the battery itself and look for the root cause. and as you said, there were concerns about arson or one or the other, three or four cars involved. it wasn't all that clear to anyone exactly what happened. it happened over a weekend. there was no observation. there was no witness to what happened. in september of last year, we tested and nhtsa tested again and we could not replicate a fire. we did the same exact test. we, general motors, they did the the exact same test. we could not replicate. so there were further tests. as you said, the battery itself was extracted from the vehicle. it was pierced with a steel rod. which is highly unlikely in the real world. and then it was rotated, simulating a rollover, not in a

second that you would expect on the road, but by an hour. and it was drenched, if you will, in fluid. coolant. it took seven days for a fire to occur. there was no explosion -- a fire. and that, at that point, after that extreme, what i would call not real-world situation, seven days, that's when they said they wanted to open a formal investigation. we notified our customers immediately after that. >> okay. thank you. we yield now to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. >> thank you, mr. akerson for being here. is the volt safe? >> it is very safe. >> do you, have you ever had any communication with anybody in the obama administration to ask them to provide some kind of consideration to gm with respect

to the testing that you became aware of, not to disclose it, or to defer disclosure of it? >> absolutely not. >> and you're sure in terms of your staff, it didn't happen? >> i'm quite sure. i can't testify to that to 100%. >> but, as -- i don't -- >> as a policy, you, gm, did not try to get the obama administration to fail to disclose any tests that were made in a laboratory setting? >> no, no one. >> and you're not aware of any accident or any injury that's occurred to anyone driving a volt? >> absolutely none. >> they're safe in the vehicle, is that right? >> i own one, yes. >> and you drive it and your family members drive it as well? >> i just bought it. >> well let me ask you something.

if there was a material defect in a car that was out in circulation right now, would that affect, let's say, your insurance that gm would be buying, your insurance carrier. wouldn't that increase the cost of your insurance, if you were likely to have let's say a claim for a product liability? wouldn't that be a problem for you? >> yes. >> has that occurred? has your insurance company contacted you and said, wait a minute, mr. akerson, there's questions here. and it's going to cost you more to -- it's going to cost gm more to have insurance. >> i insured this car, and it was ridiculously low, but that's because it's a five-star-rated car by the insurance institute. >> so the very people who are charged with determining risk, as a question of the market now, they have not increased the cost of insurance? to the contrary, they've given

it a high rating? >> i presume that's -- >> is that the way it works? >> that's the way, if i were running an insurance company. >> can you discuss what effect designing and producing the volt has had on gm? has it helped gm become more competitive? >> as i said, this is an evolving area of automotive engineering and technology. it's a halo car in the sense that we get a cache being an innovative and successful companies all innovate. just to set an expectation, a little bit of background, we sold more volts in the first year than toyota sold priuses in the first year that they rolled out the prius. so new technologies do take a while to get hold, to get traction.

so i think the engineering around this has been viewed as, it was described as a moon shot. from a technological point of view. and indeed, i think it was. and i think that has benefitted other cars. we're rolling out -- >> it's your -- it's your experience then, that the manufacturing of the volt, will put america essentially on the map with respect to these electric vehicles, is that right? >> these electric vehicles, the derivatives are going into many of our cars. for example, the buick lacrosse, with the high 20s in the road mileage. with eassist, as we call it, it jumps to 37, 38 miles per gallon. we're getting derivative positive impacts of exploring these technologies and deploying them in the real world. yes. >> so the manufacturing of the volt then moves america towards clean and efficient energy technologies, that's not only used in the volt. but being used in other cars to

help them become more fuel efficient. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> and that in turn, i might add, has a lot to do with saving jobs in this economy. how many jobs has gm added to the auto manufacturing sector to help develop the technologies that build the parts for the volt? >> well, one entire plant. in hamtramck just outside detroit is dedicated to the volt production. they put out a couple hundred every couple days. and there are a couple thousand employees there. i would also say since we've emerged from bankruptcy, we've invested over $5 billion in infrastructure in this country and hired just short of 16,000 additional employees. >> $5 billion for the purposes of? >> all of our capital programs here in the united states. >> final question -- so it's your intention as the ceo of general motors, to have the volt lead the way towards let's say electric and hybrid electric vehicles. revitalizing our auto manufacturing sector.

by providing products that consumers would find attractive, because it's going to save them money, is that correct? >> yes, sir. and i would also add there were developing great combustion engine cars that are energy efficient. >> i understand that, from my own district. thank you very much, sir. >> thank you. i'm pleased to have with us, a member of the full committee, mr. wahlberg, from the great state of michigan, with unanimous consent from the committee, we would like for him to be able to join us. before going quickly to mr. kelly, i want to be clear on the question, mr. kucinich asked. with the exception of nhtsa, general motors had no conversation -- you, mr. akerson, had no conversations with the folks at the white house concerning this incident. >> correct. >> no conversations, you or anyone in general motors had no conversation with people at t.a.r.p., in particular, mr. massad who handles the now-defunct auto task force, you had no conversations with tim

massad at treasury regarding this issue? >> i had a conversation with mr. massad earlier this week on another general matter and i observed to him that i was going to testify today. other than that, no conversation. >> has anyone else at general motors that you know of, talked to mr. massad, or someone in the administration? have any of you talked to mr. lahood? you, or anyone at general motors, talked to mr. lahood about this issue? >> no, sir. >> now i yield to the chairman of the full committee, mr. issa. >> thank you mr. chairman, welcome. i'll be brief. the question here is not about whether general motors is making good cars. whether or not general motors is coming back. i think those are undeniable and i'm very happy for that. and i think the president took great pride in that last night. the question here is, is this in your history recognition, and as far as you know, a typical response to a typical catastrophic event? is this less aggressive or more

aggressive by nhtsa? in their response to a mysterious fire on a brand-new automobile when there are only a few thousand in the field? >> as we speak, there are about, excuse me, mr. chairman, about 8,000 -- >> right, and i was correct, there were about 4,000 when this occurred. you've sold -- you may be making 400 a day, but you're selling far less than that. 4,000 or less, in june/july. 8,000 or so now. the question is, when this occurred, the director has said, administrator has said, this is what we do. it takes six months to do it. this is just what it is. in your experience, would you consider this to be an impressive response, an average response, or a little slower than average when it comes to when it lights up your phone and your people come running in and you have emergency meetings and the shit hits the fan and alligator is around you and it's

all you can focus on even though you're board and everybody else had something in mind are for you that day. as you compare it to other events that happened in all great automobile companies, was this more aggressive, typical or, quite frankly, a little less speedy? >> thank you for your colorful description of my daily are you tonight. >> been there, done that on a smaller scale. >> i understand. i would describe it as proportional. first we had to find what we expected to be the root cause. then we had to try to replicate it in the field. we crashed and tried to replicate the same may-june timeframe. we could not do that. subsequently when they drew the battle out of the car and impaled it with a steel rod and spun it, it took a while to get it -- then it took seven days after it was impaled in order to replicate a similar situation.

so i would say given all the complexities associated with this new technology and the fact we couldn't replicate it in the field, it would be proportional. >> okay. i'll take proportional as an interesting answer i'm not sure what it means but i appreciate your candor. last question, lithoian ion, relatively new technology for you, not new technology to the world. it's 20-year-old use in all kinds of things including all of our cell phones. the aviation industry has regulated volume of it, all kinds of things. do you think you're behind the power curve and need to play catchup on lithium ion? you described not knowing how to replicate that. is that one of the problems going forward on a mass basis with large volumes of a new, basically other than battery you've used. >> we're teamed with not the

leader but one of the leaders of batteries in the world in korea. they built a plant in holland, michigan, to supply not only ourselves but other competitors in the same market. i would say we're a leader in this. we understand battery technology well. we have a battery lab to study technology and evolution and improvement we expect over the years. >> i wasn't trying to ask what you were doing because i know you're doing that. in fairness, it's a little bit of catchup. the american automobile companies, including your previous leased automobile, you're playing catchup on all electric cars and even hybrid. i applaud you for doing it. but from a safety standpoint, don't you think that if you had it to do over again you would have been -- worked with nhtsa to be a little more aggressive in public confidence by doing what you needed to do sooner? in other words, six months of continuing to sell a car that could and turns out would potentially explode and needed

dramatically different safety procedures. didn't we find as a country that you shouldn't have kept selling this relatively new car the way you were? >> lithium ion battery, as you know, is well used throughout the industry. the one protocol change we did learn as an industry is now incorporated, general motors is leading a society of automotive engineers in how to handle not only first and second responders but we need to have certain protocols that are consistent and uniform not only for general motors battery electric cars but around the globe. that is we're going to depower the -- not disengage but depower the battery after a crash. i think that alone is a huge step forward. the additional work we did to support and shed the load around the battery is a huge step forward. i don't think it's monumental but it's a good step forward

that when we did crash five cars after this minor enhancement, perfect. so i think there's lessons learned. but at the same time i don't think there was ever an imminent threat to any customer when you have anywhere from 7 to 21 days to remove yourself from the car if there's an accident. after 25 million miles on the road for this car, there's never been an incident anywhere close to this. there's been no injuries. so we felt, as we found an extreme simulated lab fire that took seven days that this car was safe. as i said in my opening comments, we weren't satisfied with this. we wanted to address the issue with my customers, offered them loaner cars, bought the cars back, made the adjustments and they are being implemented over the next month. >> to sarkt rischaracterize it,

entire nation of repair facilities, salvage yards and other people involved in the automotive industry are going to have to learn and adapt a lot of new procedures that are continuing to evolve if we're going to ensure safety of handling of these new components both because of high voltage and potential fire and explosion. that's what you've learned from this is that those of us who aren't part -- we get out of the car. but when we go to the salvage yard, they need to know it, the tow truck company needs to know it, all other people need to know it, that is, in fact, the risk you found after six months. >> before we launch this car, mr. chairman, we conducted nationwide safety tours across the country to make sure that the public safety was paramount. that's a core value of general motors. we talked to the national fire protection agency, international association of firefighters,

international association of fire chiefs. the association of public safety communications officers, fire chiefs, police chiefs, 911 call centers to make sure that we had this understood. we've now trained over 15,000 people across the nation on these safety protocols. we're going to have to go back and make sure it's well understood, the new safety protocols. so in every organization and individual should evolve and learn and we've learned some lessons here i think will benefit the entire industry not just general motors. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you mr. ceo. thank you, mr. chairman purchase please be joined by representative conley and maloney. we have four minutes left, only 60 have voted. >> i'm going to be very quick. >> gentleman from maryland. >> first of all, as a member of the board of visitors of naval academy, i just want to congratulate you on being named

graduate of the year. thank you. that's to make sure -- you heard what i said. i don't want collateral damage from this hearing. so you as the head of gm -- you're assuring the public and i want -- listen up, press, that the vote is a safe vehicle. is that right? >> yes, sir. and i view this as a positive. it's our chance to get this before the american people. you represent the american people to get our story before you. we've taken out ads in the paper coincident with this that the investigation is complete. i do think there has been collateral damage. we're going to have to work hard to get it back. and today is a good start. >> well, i want to thank you for your leadership. i want to take this moment to thank all of the employees of gm for producing such a great product and with that, i yield back. >> thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. we're going to take a 20-minute break. we'll be back for mr. kelly and

then some of our full committee folks who may want to ask questions. but we'll keep that as quick as we can. i want o congratulate you, too. i want to applaud your attitude in your last response. we stand if recess for 20 minutes, more or less.

the committee will come to order. and i'll recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly, for five minutes. i apologize for the delay mr. ackerson. i forgot we were going to have a very appropriate ceremony for congresswoman giffords. >> thank you for being here. you and i have never met. we never done anything socially, we never did anything -- well, from a business standpoint. but we are linked in a different

way. i grew up in butler, pennsylvania. i know the reason you're here is not because of any monetary gain that general motors could have offered you because really your decision to go with gm is made with your heart, not with your head. because you could have stayed in the private sector and been a lot more rewarding and you wouldn't be here today going through this. but the question goes back to -- it has nothing to do with general motors. it does have to do with the apparent partnership that the government has with gm. i know you say that's not true. but you can't get away from certain things that are already on the table. if we go to a slide, i think it's on page three. and there are two slides.

in one of the slides, this is some advice coming from the administration back to gm. and it is a marketing thing. one of the slides, this is a 2009 e-mail. shows treasury officials directing gm and how it would structure press releases. asking that references to the government ownership be removed and taking it out of the lead. and then we go to another slide. showing an e-mail from may of 2009 again. and it talks about a member of the automotive task force telling general motors to coordinate with the uaw about the pending termination of pension plans for which gm is responsible. and it says at a minimum, this could get messy in the uaw should probably be brought into the loop. now having served on a lot of dealer councils and being part of ad groups where we try to get the message out about how good

our cars are and hour deals are and how you can trust the general motors products, walk me through that stuff. it is, again, perception is reality. this hearing today is not about the chevy volt. this hearing is about ntsa. what did they know? when did they know it? when did they let you know it? as i believe we all have a great partnership. my dad started in '53 in a warehouse. my relationship with general motors is never cloudy much it's been clear and transparent. i know what side of the table i sit. when you look alt these things, you say my gosh, if it really isn't government run, if the government really is at arms length and away from this, sharing this information on how we're going to market these different messages, how does that happen? how does ntsa say, no, we did it

the same way we always do it. the fact of the matter is they didn't do it the same way. i understand halo product. it has to do with what we're doing. we can compete with anybody in the world at any level. but again, our success is driven by producing cars in mass quantities. so it truly is market driven. when i look at those two e-mails and trying to think, okay, if they're really not involved, and they really don't have an influence, why are these e-mails going back and forth? why are they advising general motors and how she they message these things? again, i admire what you're doing. you don't have to be here. you could do a lot of different things. danny speaks highly of you all the time. just help me to understand that and help the american people understand that, i would appreciate it. >> thank you for your question. i want to make something

perfectly clear. i joined the board in july of '09. so these e-mails preceded any knowledge or specific knowledge i would have of the situation. i would allow that as when i was in the deal merger and acquisition business at the carlyle group, there is a lot of conversation back and forth when you're about to put money into a investment. so possibly that's the context of that. but that's just pure conjecture on my behalf. i don't know. i will say this. and i mean this as sincerely as i can. when i was first questioned on the possibility of joining the board, i was clear that i did not want to be associated with a venture, a company as great as general motors is and as important as i think it is to this country's manufacturing and industrial base if there was going to be government involvement. was a company going to be

allowed to function as a business? and in my tenure, both on the board for the first year from '09 to september of '10 and in the subsequent year and a half, i will testify in front of the good lord that this administration has never had presence in the board room or any input on the operations of the business. you ask a more specific question. about ntsa and its involvement with us. what did they know? when did they know it? i think the administrator and i commented on that. but if there's any question in anyone's mind that they gave us a free ride, if the last two months of negative publicity and my -- the fact that i'm sitting here explaining this, thanks but i'll go it alone in the future. >> thank you. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman.

i believe you have a bit in order? the gentlemen from a virginia is voiz recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome. >> thank you. >> the chairman of the full committee indicated the ntsa study was done roughly sort of half way through the number of sales that currently have occurred. that is to say, i think you said there were about 8,000 volts on the road. this happened around sale 4,000. is that about right? >> i'm sure there were quite a few less than. that we sold 1,500 plus in january alone. it's gaining momentum. i was closer to 2,000 or 3,000. i don't have the specific number before me. >> of the 8,000 familiar lids r