off, you don't have power steering any are more, do you. >> we were clear about the 13. but again, we want to get everybody who was affected and that's what we're focused on. and so again -- >> you want to make sure everybody is fully and fairly compensateded. >> that's correct. >> so why are your lawyers still trying to seek protection in the bankruptcy court? >> we are not going to revisit those decisions. i think what we're doing is going above and beyond with this compensation program to get to the people. this was a unique series of mistakes made over a long period of time. we feel it's the right thing to do to -- >> so you feel it's the right thing for gm to continue on to ask your bankruptcy lawyers to defend them and get the shield from the bankruptcy court in the course and not have to deal with these cases that come up and to only let the -- the only solution being mr. feinberg? >> mr. feinberg's program is a

voluntary program. otherwise people have the same rights they have today. >> they have the same rights, but you're trying to block those rights in the bankruptcy court yes or no? >> our intent is to do a compensation program and the right thing for these individuals. >> but you'restructing your lawyers to back off the bankruptcy case. so if mr. feinberg's parameters don't mitt but a competent court finds they might, not going to matter to you. i'll move on to another question. i'm concerned a little bit about the fact that your legal department didn't pick this up. were any of the lawyers fired for not being dill gept? >> there were four different functions in which individuals were fired. legal being one of them, engineering, quality and public policy. >> because it did concern me that the trooper young's report was sitting in the gm files in

the legal department for a period of about six years and only one person opened the fire during that time period and that was the legal assistant. let me ask you this. can the lawyers -- i think they ought to be, but can the lawyers start a safety investigation? >> anyone in the company can raise a safety issue. we want them to. and they're more than able to do that. >> and in this case the lawyers didn't do that and is that why one of them may have been fired? >> clearly there were people that didn't share information to put all all the pieces together. and those individuals are no longer with the company. and we're strongly encouraging everybody in the company to raise issues. i will tell you -- >> i'm about to run out of time, so i appreciate that. in closing, if gm truly wants to compensate everybody who has been harmed fully and fairly, they ought to ask their lawyers to stop asking the bankruptcy

court for bankruptcy court protection and let these matters work their way out. thank you. yield back. >> the lucas report identifies mr. ray de sgchlt orgio who he say has no credibility to approve the deadly ignition switch this 2002 and to modify it in 2006. your report states that one of the key failures was, quote, the decision by a single engineer who did not advisories of his decision to accept an ignition switch with full knowledge that it fell well below gm's own specifications. is that correct? >> right. >> the implication here is that mr. degorgio acted alone, but the report describes problems soer

associated with the ignition switch many of which were known as early as 2001 according to the report, the, quote, entire electrical concept needed to be redesigned end quote. the switch had significant problems that were known to gm. and i want to congratulate of staff of our committee for the amazing work that they did independently to investigate all these issues. in his interview with the committee, mr. degorgio told committee staff that he met with his superiors around february 2002 to inform them that the ignition switch would be delayed. attendees at the meeting included the vehicle's chief engineer, the program engineering manager, and electrical directors. it was clear the switch was getting a lot of attention. so ms. barra, is it your belief that one engineer, mr. degorgio,

unilaterally approved a part plagued by problems from the start? >> the basic issue is that the switch that he approved to go into production did not meet the performance requirements. that was the first mistake. >> and it was his alone is this. >> he was the one responsible for it. >> knowledge of the problem is important. t report notes there is no evidence that degeorge i don't told others at gm including engineers on the caldwell program about the spring change to the ignition switch. it notes other employees had received documents describing the ignition switch change as early as june 2006 and that these documents clearly

indicated that the switches used in pre-2007 models were not within specifications. is that correct? >> the answer to that question is there were e-mails which were forwarded to other individuals which contained within those e-mails after the change was made information about the fact that the torque had changed. we interviewed those individuals. those individuals were by and large in the warranty area. they had no -- they were looking at something that it meant nothing to them as the two we were able to locate and find. it was not -- they were totally unaware of the issues concerning the switch not deploying any aspect. so the one individual who did know all of the facts and had that information was mr. degorgio. the other engineers, it meant nothing to them. >> but there is an e-mail i'm holding here that discusses

implementation of the new -- >> page 102? >> i believe that's right. >> the quote is increased torque forces to be within specifications. and it was sent to five gm employees on june 2, 2006. but we have also obtained another document that was not included in your report, and this document indicates that another sgchlt m contract engineer may have approved the 2006 change. it's a production part approval process report obtained by delphi through gm's global quality tracking system. it is dated june 1, 2006 and it lists gm supplier quality engineer -- a sgchltgm supplier quality engineer. and the notes read, new pcb and

sprung plunger implementation for performance improvement. part approved per supplier submitted warrant and gm. so have you seen that report, the global quality tracking system. >> yes. >> so did you interview the listed supply quality engineer or look into what role he might have played in approving the switch change in 2006? >> we did the following. we looked at that change and what happened was the following. supply quality engineer's function is to determine whether the boxes are filled out and materials are properly identified here. and then he submits that and puts that into the system. he does not have as we understand it anything to do with making decisions on the change. he's actually functioning as somebody putting something into the system. i don't think we interviewed that particular individual.

we know what his function and role was. >> i don't want to minimize mr. degorgio's roam degorgio's role, but i do think the documents problem the problem is deeper than one rogue engineer. and i yield back. >> now recognize mr. johnson from ohio for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. m your report ask yous an early may 2005 e-mail about a concern concern about the ignition switch. that's at tab 12. your report focused on mr. degorgio's awareness of this exchange. there were others on this change including doug parks. what was doug parks' position at the time? >> i honestly don't recall his title. >> wasn't he the vehicle chief engineer? >> he may well have been. i don't recall. >> let's assume that he was because that's what we think he

was. why was it more significant that mr. degorgio was aware of this exchange rather than the vehicle chief engineer? >> i don't know that it was more significant. it was significant because mr. degorgio ultimately made the decision to change the part. and in our interviews with him, he said he was not aware of the fact that this was an issue, that he was not a wafware of th publicity and eve-mail traffic while we had information that that was not the case. >> what is the chief engineer's responsibility? >> within the company? i do not have an answer for that. i'll find out and be happy to smi submit that. >> the chief engineer is responsible for the overall integration of the vehicle and making the wall and tradeoff decisions for that vehicle. and if issues are raised to him, then he or she will deal with that. >> what knowledge should someone in the chief engineer position

have about the vehicle compared to someone such as mr. degorgio? would it be reasonable that the vehicle chief engineer would have known about this situation? >> again, there are 30,000 parts on a car. the chief engineer has to count on the people doing their job. in the mid 2000s, there was validation engineers that were added to make sure the process was done well. and now with the product integrity organization, we'll be validating the sub systems. but the chief engineer -- >> takes information from those that -- >> right. the system works -- >> i got to move on. in a may 4th response, mr. parks requests a plug to insert in the key head since it appears to be the only in his quote only real quick solution. but this solution was not implemented for months. do you know why? >> part of the defunct of what

was happening in the organization. they were treating this as a customer convenience issue rather than a safety issue. so they look at issues in terms of price, expense, cost. >> rather than safety. okay. a few weeks later on may 17, a new prts was initiated and the program team decided to pursue additional solutions beyond the service fix for the key insert. a short term production fix for a new key that changed the slot to a hole and a long term solution to introduce a more robust ignition switch. who was responsible for initiate and implementing these changes? >> these would have been the committees involved -- and i don't have the name in front of me. but the committees that were involved in the review and ultimately they didn't make -- they didn't do what they said they were going to do. >> were they reviewed by the vehicle chief engineer? >> i don't know that. >> do you know -- >> as i read the report, i think what you're referring to was

continuous improvement team and i believe that the chief was not there, it was the program engineering manager. >> why does it take until 2009 to implement the new key head and who was responsible for ensuring that this change was implemented? do either of you know? >> i can tell you the reason it was delayed was because it was treated again as a customer convenience issue. they had an issue with regard to their supplier and a dispute with regard to his ability to deliver. and it wasn't until 2009 that the dispute was resolved and they ultimately made that change with regard to the key. >> ms. barra, in my previous life, i worked in a publicly traded company as a part of the executive team. we have a risk and compliance department, we have a risk in compliance director. my understanding, part of the

concern that you're continuing to address is that this information never bubbled up to some of the key decision makers. the s.e.c. requires there are laws that require reports of risk and compliance related issues. were any of the s.e.c. reports or risks -- were the risks in compliance folks notified that millions were being paid out for claims as a result of some of these problems? how does it break down that bad in a company that is, you know, publicly traded? >> i can't speak to specifically what was in an s.e.c. report, but what i can tell you, it's unacceptable the way things broke down and that's why we've made dramatic process changes.

but as congresswoman degette indicated -- we want to make sure we have the safest and highest quality vehicles on the road. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> welcome to our panel. as we examine what went wrong in this terrible tragedy, the most important job i believe for congress is to strengthen and improve auto safety laws to ensure that something like this never happens again. we owe that certainly owe to the families of the victims of this tragedy, many of whom are in our audience today for the hearing. that being said, one area that i believe we need to address is to improve early warning report data. can you describe briefly early warning report data? >> what is the data itself is this.

>> yes. >> information that comes to the attention of the company which indicates that there are potential safety problems of which they are required to make alerts. >> and i believe the 2000 tread act requires the information being reported to nhtsa? >> that's correct. >> so you describe a number of cases where gm investigators analyze this tread data to attempt to identify are or explain air bag nondeployment in cobalts and ions. is that not correct? >> i ccannot give you a number f where that was done. >> and federal governmefederal able to identify the defect? >> the issue of the nondeploy the of the air bag was a matter of discussion in 2007 about between nhtsa and general motors.

nhtsa noted there were nondeployments. gm's response was to begin an investigation to see -- to keep a chart of what was taking place. there were no major further discussions about that issue until 2013. >> it seems that part of the problem here is that early warning report data provided to nhtsa are reported in 23 broad categories. in the case of this defect, early warning data provided to nhtsa spanned several categories including engine, air bags and category of other. nhtsa says request more detailed information from manufacturer but it is difficult to know what to request given the minimum level of detail provided in the first place. nhtsa needs more detailed early warning day take so that they can spot trends and request the most useful followup information from the auto manufacturers. and more early warning data should be available to the public.

we can all appreciate the value of outside experts in spotting issues that otherwise go undetected. finally, nhtsa needs appropriate enforcement mechanisms to ensure auto manufacturers comply with the laws. especially when safety is at stake. on may 16, gm agreed to pay the maximum fine for failure to report a safety related defect to nhtsa and that i believe is $35 million. ms. barra, what was gm's net income in 2013? >> just under $4 billion. >> just under $4 billion. so the penalty for failing to report the ignition switch defect is less than 1% of gm's earnings for last year. >> that is a correct math, but i think our intent is that we deal with safety issues -- by the time you get to talking about a fine, the customer's already

been impacted in an incredibly negative way. we want to make sure we're putting high quality safe vehicles on the road and we want to work in cooperation with nhtsa to do that. >> none the less, it is not much of a determent, mr. chair. we need to increase this maximum penalty. 35 million is not an adequate deterrent to a large profitable company like g permit. if the penalty had been higher, gm might not have waited over a decade to report this safety defect to nhtsa. and it's clear to me nhtsa needs higher penalty authorities. we need to make certain the penalty for not reporting a safety defect is a sufficient threat to deter auto companies from needlessly delaying safety decisions. fixes in these areas like the tsb's public improving early warning report data and increasing penalties should be easy for us to agree upon. and with the seconds i have

remar remaining, the gm website indicates customers should only utilize the key, key ring and key fob if equipped that came with the vehicle. ms. barra, many consumers have key chains with multiple keys. why if the new replacement switch is adequate does gm still recommend that consumers not use their full key rings the way they would normally use them? >> again, the system meets and has been validated and also by nhtsa. but as i have gone through this process over the last three months, i have seen incredible things on key chains that across the industry, i think this is actually an industry issue that we have to look at. i notice key chains everywhere i go now and i just think it's something that needs to be addressed more broadly across the industry. >> i yield back. >> now recognize will lomr. lon five minutes. >> thank you all for be here.

do you feel like that you conducted a thorough investigation? >> yes. >> according to what you testified to today, if my math is right, how many people are on that team, how many people investigated along with you? >> the number of individuals who were employed at one point or another in reviewing documents, doing interviews, several hundred. >> according to my math, you all looked at 1220 documents a minute. >> sorry, say that again. >> i said according to my math, you looked at 1220 documents a minute. if you said you had access to 41 million documents. i don't know how in the world you you could do a thorough investigation in that time frame. >> we used computers and programs to analyze the documents for purposes of kicking out those documents

which are reflective of the issues that are here. we used as part of that database requests being made by congress, requests being made by us for the united states attorney's office, by nhtsa, and we isolated those documents and then gave them through three levels of review for purposes of determining whether they were relevant to any aspect here, i feel very comfortable -- >> back to my first question. you think it was a thorough investigation. i'm not in your business, you are. so i'm just trying to learn here. >> i'm sorry. >> so the report that you released, were you sxwichbyou g deadline? >> the woboard of directors whe they employed me to do this investigation asked me whether i could get it done within a certain time frame and i told them we could. that was the deadline. it was my commitment that we could do it in that time period. part of that was associated with the fact that they wanted to now

because there were deaths involved here what were the problems. part of it was because of the that we wanted to get the report out or being able to respond to congress. so we had that deadline. >> and once you got your report completed, or once you completed the report, to whom at general motors did you present the results? >> board of directors. >> and what was their reaction? >> i can't tell you what their reaction was. i know the reaction was what you've seen with ms. barra, which is to follow up on it. >> so you didn't receive any resistance to your findings or recommendations? >> none. none. >> were you asked fto make any changes to your report? >> no, i was not. and what i did tell them and what i mentioned here, if we found something different as we continue to gather documents because there are requests here and elsewhere, we would review the report and if there was anything in the report that we found to be in error or needed to be corrected or changed, we

would report that back to the board and i presume they would report it back to you. >> so other than that, does that end your -- and i apologize. i've been here about 90% of the hearing, but i did have to step out for a few minutes. >> we believe we have completed the inquiry, but as i say, we would update it if we found something which changed in any significant way. i believe back last week we found something in the report that we corrected and we notified your staff of that immediately. >> okay. thank youyou. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you to ms. barra and mr. valukus for being here today for this very, very serious subcommittee hearing. i, too, as some of my colleagues said extend my condolences to the families. it must be very difficult for you to be here and listening to this dissection of information

as important as it is. these are your loved ones. mr. valukus, i do want to -- this is more of a process question that i have for you, sir. going back again over the investigation and what you've report reported, back march 2007, it says staff from nhtsa approached gm personnel in between meetings in washington and mentioned a concern about nondeployment of the cobalts and ions. what is your understanding of the information shared by nhtsa? >> my understanding comes from the interview. i did not talk to anybody from nhtsa. we interviewed the people at sgchltgm and looked at the documents and material which is they produced as a result of that meeting and it was in the course of that meeting, nhtsa asked general

motors about them and the response was the assignment of i believe it was mr. sprague at that point to look into it and document what was taking place, keep a chart essentially as to are these happening, how many are there. >> and the gentleman that you're referring to, what division was he in? >> he was an investigator i believe with fta investigator, which means he would have been detailed in to the legal department. >> so according to our information, when the engineers returned to michigan after being here in d.c., the product investigations team, the group that terms the root cause of the problem, reviewed the claims relating to the cobalt nondeployment, but ultimately decided not to pursue it. why does the product investigations not pursue this

matter at the time? >> that's a very good question. and the answer is this was some of those things passed off to another agency. mr. operation was keeping track of it. the other investigators weren't following up with regard to it. they were gathering information, if you will. but that's where they went with it. >> so when you say that it was kind of handed over somewhere else, you're referring to the product -- field performance assessment division? >> yes. >> because according to again our information, it says afz te proceed duct investigators declined to investigate, the responsibility for being tag e tracking the claims was assigned to the field performance assessment division. do you consider this unusual, would this be typical in a situation where there has been an obvious issue that has come to light and it just couldn't of

be passed off to another -- and i guess i would like to know, t too, it was given to another division, but what exactly is the field performance assessment division responsible for? was this just a way to put aside the problem because they weren't focusing on it? >> i don't know if it's typical. i did know o know it happened i case and one thing we called out in the report of passing off responsibility from one committee to another committee. fpa would be focused on potential claims in the legal department and whether or not they have litigation or things like that which indicate existence of these problems. but they are not the products investigators. they're a different group. but then here's what you have, you had it passed off to mr. sprague who then conducted -- gathered information about it for years and nothing else was taken place other than gathering that information until 2009. so everything was in hiatus. >> do you know who it was that actually made or authorized that

change, who gave the assignment to mr. sprague? >> no, i don't. i don't know if we have a name. i can get a name for you. >> if you could, that would be sporpts important. >> it was as if the legal department said we'll take care of this. but i'll get and yyou a name. >> did the fpa ever attempt to evaluate the matter according to your investigation, did anybody address these issues? >> yes, in 2009, when they had the second continental report, then it became elevated, if you will. they realized it was something that could be associated with the switch as being the cause of the nondeployment and at that point, other things started to take place including mr. sprague going to visit mr. degorgio and

asking whether there had been a change in the switch and him saying no. >> so i guess my last and final question here, was there a reluctance there, but i believe you just indicated that there was, a reluctance to actually acknowledge and address the issue. >> i'm sorry -- >> i'm sorry, that would probably be hypothesizing. thank you for your time. >> it's the committee's practice that if another member of the full committee can is questions after other members have asked theirs. so we now recognize mr. terry, care m chairman of the subcommittee on manufacturing. >> thank you. i, too, want to recognize the parents and family members in the back. those photographs really keep reminding us why we're here and investigating today. i want mr. valukas, i want to ask you, i want to go back to i'm still stuck on how this sub

spec parts were even allowed at the very beginning of the process. so in that regard, the production part approval process that they go through and they do the testing, would that 2002 bpap package be a keep document in this investigation? >> certainly would be something i'd want to see. i think we sought it out. we've asked delphi for it and we don't have it. >> and delphi wouldn't produce it? >> they informed us they don't have it. >> they don't have. do you believe that? >> i can only report what they told us. we made requests from them from the very beginning for access to any and all documents relating to this matter. what they produced to us were a limited number of documents which were documents that had actually been cha exchanged wit.

i think we may have received a few additional, but that's what we got. >> so no one's been able to locate the bpap on the ignition parts? >> that's my understanding. >> ms. barra, do you know whether or not the bpap for this ignition parts from 2002 exist? >> i don't. i believe mr. valukas and his team would have found it if it does exist. what i can tell you is the part should never have been put in production. >> agreed. i'm proud you said that. but it would have been great to discover that in 2002 during the bpap process. and the fact that it wasn't is disturbing in itself and that's why i think those documents are extremely important as you do, mr. valukas. should this committee consider a subpoena of those records since they were not produced?

you're putting me where i cannot go. let's me say this. it is clear from our fact finding that mr. degorgio approved this part. and he approved this part knowing it was well below specifications and we did not find anybody else who was involved in it. though delphi certainly knew that the part that was being approved was below specs. >> and in that respect, you have this binder by you. and if you would turn to tab four. and it is a memo from raymond degorgio regarding the talc issue. this is an e-mail from around april of 2002, around the time of the original switch us a actually being approved, is that

correct? >> yes. >> the subject is the talc issue for the ion. >> correct. >> and that talc, what role does the talc testing have on the approval of the switch, do you know? >> it's part of the process. it's been explained how does it feel when you make the turn. they want to make it feel like it was a european sports car, something like that. >> does this e-mail from raymond de sgchlt i och-- to raymond degiorgio, does that raise any concerns to you as the investigator 34r5urly the sentence in sentence that he did not find spring back from crank run to accessory as terry meehan and others had observed?

>> were you aware of the discussions about the feel of the ignition switch? >> yes. >> in the last 30 seconds, you mentioned that there was an adversarial feeling regarding -- between nhtsa and gm. who have you concluded whether -- who is responsible for the adversarial relationship? >> no, i have not. but i just noted from the documents, and this is not from testimony, more from the documents just the tone of the documents, and that's maybe an incorrect way to assume something. but that from the tone of the documents, it suggested that there was some nature of adversarial activity here. >> one quick last question.

there were many times looking through the documents that under the tread act, gm should have provided notice to nhtsa. is this adversarial relationship between the two impact their decision not to provide that notice? >> no. let me -- when i say no, let me sm explain what i did and someone else can make that judgment. we went back through all of disclosures, the tread act disclosures to look to see whether something was or was not disclosed. and at least as best we could tell, marking those disclosures what the information which was then in possession by virtue of the interviews or documents we had, it appeared to us that the tread disclosures were compliant. but i will not be the ultimate judge of that. >> thank you. mr. chairman, thank you for the

additional time. >> mr. valukas, i wanted to follow up on a couple questions mr. johnson was asking you. your report says on page 2, quote, gm engineers concluded that moving stalls were are not safety issues because drivers could still man ufrt the cars. as a result, sgchlt m person they will viewed the switch problem as a customer convenience issue, something annoying but not particularly problematic. is that right? >> correct. >> and you told mr. johnson so therefore because they called it a customer convenience issue, they looked at issues of pricing and issues like that, not issues of safety, is that right? >> that's correct. >> and this was despite the fact that really pretty early on, gm started getting a lot of complaints about the ignition shifting into neutral and the car losing all power.

>> that's correct. >> in fact there was in a review of the cobalt in the "new york times, "-- no, in a review in the "new york times," the freelance writer said that his test cobalt driven by his wife stalled after her knee bumped the steering column, right? >> there were reports in the "new york times" and other newspapers -- >> cleveland plain dealer and others. so this kind of boggles my mind. a car could be going down the highway at a high rate of speed, 65 miles an hour, and it gets bumped, it goes in to neutral. and then everything stops. the power steering, the brakes, the air bags. that's what happened to brooke melton where she's driving down the highway on her 29th birthday, i go anything stops, the car loses power, she goes into the other lane and she's killed. do you know about that case? >> i certainly do. >> and so yet the gm engineer

said that this was a convenience issue. right? >> they not only said it internally, they said it publicly when they were interviewed by the press. they said this is our position that a stall does not constitute a safety issue and that -- >> that is just insane, isn't it? >> i won't use the word insane, but i'm troubled by that. >> okay. good. now, at the same time, gm was talking to nhtsa about whether stalling was a safety risk. are you aware of that? >> i'm aware there were those conversations for all this period of time. >> ms. barra, were you aware that at the same time nhtsa was talking to gm in june 2004 that general motors recalled 15,000 b because of stalling risks? >> i was not involved in that area. >> so you're not aware of that. >> gay kent sie sign that had

notice. did gay kent every express any concern to you about the falling and safety risks? >> no. >> okay. so basically what you're saying in your report, mr. valukas, is you have these cars that stall out at any speed really and all of the power goes out. but yet the gm personnel maintained this was a customer convenience issue. >> that is where they were absolutely from 2005 through 2009 at least. >> now, have you ever talked to a fellow named clarence ditlo with the center for auto safety? >> i've received correspondence from him. >> did you receive this letter dated june 17, 2014 from him? >> is it in the material? >> i don't know. but we can -- yes, we'll hand you a copy. and mr. ditlo 's conclusion is

that the extvalukas report is flawed that engineers did not know stalling was safety related. are you aware of this claim that mr. ditlo made? >> i'm aware of the claim. actually i know i read this letter and i september him back a nice note saying thank you for the information. >> and what is your view of that? >> my view is that he didn't read the report and understand what my responsibility was here. that's my view. let me give my view. what we were charged to do, and i think this is very important to understand, we were charged by the board of directors to find the facts concerning how and why this occurred. we were charged with laying those facts before the board and we were charged with making recommendations. and the board was charged with the responsibility i presume of making decisions whether or not the employees within the organization to the top level lived up to their responsibilities.

that was where the board's responsibility was. so the suggestions in here that we didn't cover up people or we didn't -- that we exonerated certain people is simply not correct. >> i really appreciate that answer because you clearly de n dewld delineated what you believe you were hired to do. >> that's correct. >> so there may be other information that this committee needs to gather beyond your report, right? >> that is absolutely possible and as i said before, if we found new information as we went along, which reflected on that we would share it with the board. >> mr. chairman, i would ask unanimous concept to place this june 17 letner to the record and also a report entitled driven to safety from june 2014 talking about some of the lawsuits that we have involved in this. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you very much. and thank you again for coming both of you today. >> dr. burgess wanted to make a follow-up question about the

phone number. >> since i brought it up a request to put to the record 1-800-222-1020 as the customer service number that should be available to customers of general motors. and also just the observation we aren't talking about the nondeployment of an air bag. the primary restraint system is the seat belt. and i do encourage people, you got to wear your seatbelts when you drive. i'll yield back. >> i'll recognize myself. mr. valukas, when you said when you get additional data, and it was very clear in your mandate from ms. barra that she wanted this to be thorough, that if you receive that other information from plaintiffs' attorney, i hope you'll say that with us thp you said they had not responded to you as of yet, but if there is information that they have with regard to delays from general motors attorneys in getting them information, i hope you will review that and let us know.

>> and to be clear, i will gather that information. whatever we get we'll have to share with the board of directors and they will make the decision as to disclosure. >> thank you. ms. barra, now with the benefit of time, cobalt and several other automobiles had a defective switch. that switch, hitting a pothole, bumping the key ring with your knee, or heavy key fob, could have moved that on switch into an accessory position, cause a stalling of the vehicle, subsequent loss of power steering and power are brakes when the engine was not on, and also air bags would not deploy. all those things are clear, right? on page 8 of mr. valukas' report, there is reference to a technical service bulletin from 2005. and it says in here that the

technical service bulletin counseled customers to remove heavy items from their key rings. that bulletin did not refer to the problem as, quote, stalling, unquote, however precisely because general motors believed customers might associate stalling with a safety problem, and only a customer who had already sxiexperienced a stall would get information about the proposed solutions. other customers would remain unaware of the problem as well as gm's proposed solutions. i'm assuming that if you knew then what you knew now, you would not have allowed that sort of bulletin to be written in that way? >> that's correct. >> thank you. i want to refer to something that is taking place today which is important you know. that is, i took a look at the gm current website with regard to safety recall. your comments, et cetera. and i go to the section marked frequently asked questions.

under the item number seven, are the recalled vehicles safe to drive. you say, simple answer to that question is yes. the gm engineers have done extensive analysis to make sure if you use only the ignition key with no additional items in the key ring, that the vehicle is safe to drive. >> that is true. we validated that. it's also been valley at a timed by nhtsa. >> the old cobalts that could also go into a stall -- >> we're talking about as long as you have just the key or the ring, you don't have an ability to trap it with your knee, that that condition is not going to occur. that's what that statement is referring to. >> they still could not hit it with their knee. okay. >> the issue is when you look at just the key, you don't create a moment to be able to do that. >> but still what it does not

say at all in this statement, customer, if you don't do this, your car may stall, you may lose power steering, you may lose your brakes, you won't have your air bag, this is apstream safety concern. it simply says this isn't a big safety deal. and then you even say once service repair is completed, can customers put a heavy key ring back on. you say we recommend only utilize the key, key ring and key fob that came with the vehicle. so you say if you repair this, with the previous item i just quoted, if you repair this, you'll be fine and later on you say but don't change the key issue. so i don't understand how that is fixed. >> well, first of all, on the faq, there are a number of questions and there was also opening statements. i know i personally recorded videos that we have on our website to truly communicate what we need to do.

it's been included in our letters. so you have to look at the complete communication, not one question. >> my point is this. i'm making a recommendation to you. you've come before our committee and i believe you've tried to be honest and straightforward. my recommendation to you, there are how many cobalts still out there, how many ions, how many other cars still affected? >> something less than 2.6 million. >> and so far i forget how many have been repaired. >> almost 2200 thurks. >> that's a lot of cars out there that could still stall, you lose power steering, lose power brakes. you could lose control of the car. you could crash. air bags won't deploy. someone will be injured or could die. i hope that becomes a lot more glaring than simply saying, you know, it's safe to drive. i don't think it's safe to drive. >> congressman murphy, we have sent letters, we have gone on social media, i've done videos,

our dealers have been informed, believe me, we take it very seriously and we want people to know that until their vehicle is repaired, that we want them to only use the key and the ring. we have done extensive communications because i don't want any other incidents to occur. >> ma'am, i hear what you've done. i'm talking about what i would recommend you still do. look, the unfortunate thing about this is that with all the things that you do like in our lives, all the things we do to try to communicate with people, many times people don't read mail, they don't watch commercials on tv, they don't look at things like this. so you have to try all levels. up maybe gets on the comedy network or something that people pay attention. i would highly recommend that what you do is make it very clear that if you don't do this, this is a consequence. i would hope that that would be something gm would make abundantly clear. because i may not know a lot, but i know what motivates people. and if you give them the bold blasting facts, if you don't do

this, you could be in a serious accident, that might wake up people to understand that in order for gm to work on safety, customers have to pay attention to this, too, and i hope that that is something people will p attention to. as i said before, i thought this report could be subtitled "don't assume malfeasance when incompetence will do." i see this as something i hope gm does. >> we'll redouble our efforts there. >> i ask unanimous consent that the members' opening statements be entered into the record. i ask unanimous consent that the document binder from the hearing be entered into the record subject to appropriate redactions by staff. in conclusion, i want to thank the witnesses today and the members that participated in today's hearing. i remind hearings they have ten business days to submit questions to the record and ask the witnesses to respond

promptly. with that, i adjourn this hearing. general motors ceo and the lead attorney in the investigation in the most recent report on the ignition recall testifying today for nearly three hours. here on c-span3 we'll open up the phone lines and hear what you think. how much do you trust general motors? if you live in the eastern and central time zones call

202-585-3885. mountain and pacific, use 202-585-3886. if you own or drive a general motors vehicle , the line to call if you would like is 202-585-3887. you can leave us comments on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. lots of posts to look at. c-span chat as well on twitter. we'll take you live shortly to the white house briefing. plenty of time to call in and make your opinion known. a couple of comments on twitter. michael burgess saying people can visit gm ignition update.com. that's a website general motors has set up. here is a look at the website on the ignition recall and the latest information. gm just this week recalling

several million vehicles. let's go to gerald in pittsburgh who owns a gm vehicle. what are you driving and what do you think about the trust level in gm? >> caller: i drive an '03 tracker. it's 11 years old but i have low mileage on it. i pretty much trust gm. i have had good service from them. the thing with the ignition switches certainly set them back. it should have been -- the problem should have been remedied early on. but i pretty much trust gm. i have had good service from them. >> "new york times" writes as early as december of 2000 drivers of the chevy impala and other vehicles began lodging complaints about stalling with the national highway traffic safety administration according to federal records they have looked at. they have a list of when things happened. the first official report made to nhtsa was february 2003.

that's the national highway safety administration. keith is in augusta, georgia. keith, go ahead with your comment. >> caller: yes. how are you doing today? >> fine, thanks. joo >> caller: i have a gm car. i called a gm parts store, the cadillac place. they said they don't have the part in. my concern is if it's safe to drive the car. >> caller: have you expressed the concern to your deal? >> caller: yes, sir. they said in usa today they were upset gm hadn't put the information out to them. they put it in the paper first. so they didn't have the parts and they said it would be a while. >> what does that mean? weeks? >> caller: could be weeks, months. they don't have the parts ready. >> here's kuran in oregon.

how much trust do you have in general motors? >> caller: i have very little trust in them. this is scary. it's not just gm owners. it's everybodies else on the road, too. the fact that this is going on for so many years and only has 15 people accountable for 215,000 employees, that's almost an insult to our intelligence, i believe. >> all right. arlington, texas. ginetta is driving a gm vehicle. have you had issues with it? >> caller: i drive a 2014 chevy impala ltz and a 2010 chevy malibu. i haven't had any issues. i do trust them. >> on the '14 you obviously bought it recently when the news was coming out. did you have momentary hesitation about buying a gm

vehicle? >> caller: no, no. that's a slick little car, that impala. it really is. you know, it's are really sad that what happened, i do believe that -- i might get in trouble for saying. some of this might be a little political because this other car companies with issues, too. >> you think it is political coming from the other car companies or members of congress -- j >> caller: yeah, members of congress, yeah. because of the loan and everything. >> because of the general motors bailout? >> caller: yeah. i wouldn't call it a bailout. i would call it a loan. they paid the majority back. >> right. thanks. here's don in canton, michigan. hello. go ahead. >> caller: hello. i think the last person talking put her finger on it. the political, theatrical show that's put on happens on a lot of different issues. not just the car companies.

i was an automotive engineer and i'm retired. people are naive about cars. cars, if you don't drive them cautiously, if you don't use your seat belt. i believe several of the people killed in the accidents weren't wearing seat belts. some were intoxicated. you can't drive like that. even doing everything right you could get in a serious accident. i think there are 35,000 people die every year. significant amount of them are due to alcohol. otherses, there are people on medication. out of all of those deaths we target on this one issue which was wrong. and they are taking action to fix it. there is stuff going on all the time with cars. there is 100 million, 200 million cars on the road. some as old as 20 years old. they're obviously not safe to drive. nobody is pulling those cars off the road. if anybody is listening out there are, cars are pretty, convenient, but also dangerous.

>> don, you said you were an automotive engineering, retired in michigan. did you work for general motors? >> caller: no. i worked for ford. every car company has issues. the engineers are always fixing things. >> sure. >> caller: in this case, the air bag engineers and ignition switch engineers didn't know they were sharing common problems. they thought the air bag was failing for years. then, wait a minute, we're losing power, somebody discovers that. that's how these things happen. you know, these people are well intentioned. they are probably suffering from a great deal of guilt when somebody gets killed and they realized they may have something to do with it. >> typically with the air bags, one concern, another part of engineering. would you be in different parts of a building or separate buildings where you are working on different parts of the vehicle in terms of design and

engineering? >> caller: what happens is it's not a geographical issue. you could be next to each other. here's the problem. uh you have a product you design and work on. you focus on how that's failing and -- you know. the system problem of the ignition switch going off affecting the air bag is the thing that you look at, you hope to come into information on that. somebody said, what's happening? we're losing power. somebody said where is wr does the power come from? could it be the switch? that's the how these are discovered. you say, why didn't we see this? >> thanks for sharing your background and reflecting on what don had to say. mark tweets, gm recalls about 3.2 million cars for ignition problems. he says, you can't put all the blame on bad drivers. cspan chat is the hashtag. margaret in tennessee. a gm driver. what do you think about squen motors trust level? i think we lost her.

to garden city, idaho for gary. hi. gary? >> caller: hi. >> hi pt. go ahead. >> caller: hi there. hey. i trust gm as much as i trust the white house and that's why i drive a ford. >> okay. marcus is next who is southfield, michigan. marcus, go ahead. >> caller: hey, how are you? >> fine, thanks. >> caller: you know, truthfully i have had several gm vehicles. >> yeah. >> caller: every one of them i have had problems in. two of them could have killed me. my first was a 2001 monte carlo when i was 16 years old. i was on the expressway doing about 70 miles an hour. my throttle body stuck. i couldn't use my brakes. >> yeah. >> caller: it locked in. i slammed on the brakes and luckily was able to fight the car to the side of the road.

just cut it off. >> so clearly you're not driving general motorses cars anymore? >> caller: no. i'm not driving any domestic cars anymore. i think everybody wants to cut cornerses in the domestic arena, unfortunately. >> thank you, comments on facebook.com/cspan as well. how much do you trust general motors? this reply is from donna who says i trust it more now than i did two years ago. they are on the right track with the the new ceo. and eric says i guess as much as i trust any entity when the going gets tough. colleen says not at all. i have a 2005 saturn. twice the ignition would not turn off after i bought the thing. the original ignition, then the replacement ignition. the windshield wipers would quit working on my friend's saturn for no reason.

i will never buy atnother gm vehicle. howard, what are you driving? >> caller: a ford now. i drove a 2002 suburban. >> okay. >> caller: i'm from flint, miff. my parents worked for general motors, i worked for general motors. . everybody i know worked for general motors. with my suburban i went through two rear ends and a transmission. i will never drive another general motors car. i was told that it was a dealership problem. i couldn't get any satisfaction because it was a dealer problem as opposed to a if gm problem. very disappointing. >> here is a tweet from jennifer. i drive a gm traverse that stalls. no one knows why. no recall yet.

let's go to homeland, california, from june. >> caller: hello. >> you're on. go ahead. >> caller: how are you? >> doing fine. thank you. >> caller: my name is june. i used to drive a gm car in the '70s. i never had a problem with it. >> on the this issue, let's focus on the issue at hand. how much do you trust gm to get the job fixed in terms of the ignition switch problem? >> caller: gm is a good company. >> here's burton in new york. >> caller: i'm concerned about the beast. the present car is a general motors car. is that an ignition problem and the rest of the fleet are having an ignition problem? >> burton, thanks for your call. here's a picture from the

washington post. this is the replacement ignition that the company is sending out. these are the new keys and ignition switch after the safety recall. an additional 3 million cars recalled this week. bringing the total on issues to gm to 20 million. barbara in ft. lauderdale, go ahead. >> caller: hi. i own an impala. >> how is it running and how is your trust level in gm? >> caller: i have had no problems until recentfully. haven't gotten to the dealership yet. the automatic lock doesn't work. i have no problem with gm. they have been terrific. i did want to say everybody should keep things off their key

ring. i'm in my '70s. way back when i was 20, i started driving a car. my father told me never put nothing on your key ring that doesn't belong there. it pulls on the ignition. you will end up having to replace the ignition every time. it's too heavy. don't put it on. so the thing is, don't put anything on your ignition. do i trust gm? absolutely. >> all right. thanks for the call. this is robert in forest park, georgia. driving a general motors car. what do you drive? >> caller: a pontiac g-6. i have taken it to the dealership three different times. each time they have run the vin numbers and notified me it's not part of the recall. here is my issue with gm. >> okay. >> caller: you have an active recall for cars stalling. this cars has stalled going down the expressway at 50 miles per hour. thank goodness my wife wasn't hit in the car and died.

15 people are dead because of the issue. they knew about the issue in 2002 in which they stated in the report. to me, if you're a reputable company you should stand up, at least take this car in and change this ignition switch out and tell the consumer why the car is stopping, why it's losing power. the power steering problem as well. just received a recall notice and they stated they didn't have are the part. no one volunteered to let us lo. getting in touch with the social media and things of that nature. >> yeah. >> caller: they still haven't rectified the problem. keep putting it off saying somebody will call you tomorrow or the next day. this is after getting in touch with the customer care support line. in this case, like i said, they are not acknowledging the problem with the ignition in the car. it has no key rings on there. took all the things off.

it's just the key. the locking mechanism switch right there. i'm a mechanic. because i'm a mechanic, you can sit there and drag the starter out. continuing to try to start the car. no. i don't trust them. if you have an active recall and the car is dying which i stated it's died several times. >> yeah. >> caller: every other day you go to the store, the car dies in the road on you. you know how people drive. somebody could run into you. you have to wait a period of five to seven minutes for the car to restart. >> what year did you say it was? joo >> caller: a 2006 pontiac g-6. >> thanks for your comments. couple more calls. first on twitter. demitrius is tweets this. we are asking about the u.s. in

gm. trust involves the observation of actions matching words. two words -- bankruptcy protection. let's go to monroe township. is this in louisiana? richard? hello? i think we lost him. let's go next to robin in birmingham, alabama, who is driving a gm vehicle. what are you driving? >> caller: oh. i'm driving a 2003 saturn ion. >> how is it running? >> caller: ooh, fine now. this is the thing. i had this item repaired in 2009. the guy asked me, well, how do you know you had it repaired? i said, well, when you're doing 70 on 459 to the exchange, 59 in birmingham and your car goes down to zero and stops at rush hour, you will never forget that experience. my thing is because i have a degree in business and i know when you have a part -- a

replacement part -- you don't kwus the same part number. how stupid were these people? if you use the same part number you need an r after it. it's general accounting principles. don't they have cpas there? i watched the good wife and she had a really kcool buick. not the lucerne. the nice one. i said if i have money -- before i found out about this -- i was going to get that car. not anymore. plus they are outsourcing jobs. call the 800 number and see if you get somebody who english is their second language. okay? they told me, we can't reimburse you. you don't have receipts. i said, every time you do something at gm you use a vin number. y'all know you worked on this car. you need to pay me what i paid you all. i know you have the records. >> thanks for your comments. we appreciate your comments.

more at facebook.com/cspan. let's take a look. ken says gm is a good automaker. i wish the congresswoman would follow her own advice. i think he's talking about the rank aring democrat. democrats are as transparent as cinder block. elizabeth says i like my carses from the usa. pam says my husband is a union man. we have never purchaseded anything but american made cars. again, facebook.com/cspan. jim is in clearwater. you get the last word with. we'll take our c-span3 audience to the white house in a moment. go ahead. >> caller: i appreciate your taking my call. i think gm makes good products. what i disagree on is what ms. berra said is you should only put on the ignition key and that's it. >> right. >> caller: i know very few people who carry just the ignition key and not the office key, house key or whatever. >> sure. >> caller: the chairman of the

committee also said he didn't think that was practical. like i said, i disagree with the fact that you should only carry one key. that means you would have to carry two sets of keys with you. that seems inconvenient. >> i appreciate your call, too. that will do it. we'll show you later in the skenl the entire hearing. the house oversight subcommittee hearing with mary barra and anthony lucas. let's go live to the white house. jay carney is expected to brief reporters in what's expected to be his final briefing as press secretary. stepping down from the role.

at the white house briefing room reporters waiting for what's expected to be jay carney's final breeiefing. coming up at 2:00 or so, we'll take you live back to capitol hill for a house hearing looking at the prisoner exchange, the sergeant bowe bergdahl prisoner exchange set for 2:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span3.

now, that's good rock and roll. as if you didn't know. thank you for that. that was awesome. nice introduction. i appreciate that.

let me see. i have a few things at the top of this, my last briefing from the podium. first is a bit of official business. today the president hosted the first ever white house maker fair to celebrate a nation of makers and help empower america's students and entrepreneurs to invent the future. america has always been a nation of tinkerers, inventors and entrepreneurs. the president believes the rise of the maker movement represents a huge opportunity for the united states. nationwide, new tools for democrat tiezed are production or boosting innovation and entrepreneurship in manufacturing in the same way the internet and cloud computing lowered the barriers to entry for digital start-ups creating the foundation for new products and processes that can help to revitalize american manufacturing. the white house maker fair features makers, innovators and entrepreneurs of all ages using cutting edge tools like 3-d

printers, laser cutters and easy to use software to wring ideas to life. some may create the industries and jobs of the future. as part of this year of action and this week's focus on efforts to expand opportunity by spurring manufacturing, innovation and entrepreneurship, the president announced new steps, the administration and its partners are taking to increase the ability of more americans young and old to have access to tools and techniques. that's my official topper. then i wanted to mention that some of you may remember i came out with an oakland a's hat but it was the a's hat that my son's team wore when they won the championship in their baseball league. on saturday my daughter's team which was visited by the president and after that visit went on a substantial run of

wins, won its championship. while i don't have a royals hat though i'm trusting squosh to bring one as a k are c royals fan. i want to say thank you to the northwest little league aaa champions kansas city royals. i know the president was glad yesterday they won their championships. you love them all equally, as you know if you have more than one child. finally, i want to say thank you to all of you here. this has been an extraordinary experience. i have loved every minute of every day. even the many minutes of many days i spent in this room. as i think most of you now understand and believe, it's always a pleasure no matter how hard it gets here, how hot it can be, and contentiouses as it sometimes is. you know, the president, to many

of us said of the jobs we have here in the white house, most of us will never be in a position to do more good for more people as we are in now. we should take advantage of it. and that is something that we all take to heart. i don't ever expect to be in a position again to be a part of something that has at least the potential to do more good for more people. that's been a special thing indeed. i loved my years as a reporter. as you better than anyone else responds, reporting sometimes can be an autonomous exercise. it's your story, your by line. what was so different about the experience for me is it was all about a team effort and all about a goal that had nothing to do with any individual, not even the president. that's been extraordinarily gratifying to be a part of.

what i won't do though if provoked, i will later, is go through a list of the many good things that have been accomplished by this president, this administration in my time here that i believe represent doing a lot of good for a lot of people in this country. i think the record is a good one, one i'm proud of. i guess with that, i will go to questions. at the end i would like the opportunity to say thanks to my colleagues. i'm going to do that now. i have a feeling it could get a little bit lost. first of all to the president, the vice president. thanks for this opportunity. vice president took a chance on me. the president took a chance on

me. i hope i didn't give oath of them any regrets. the chiefs of staff i served, dennis mcdonaugh, jack lou, rahm emanuel, valerie jarrett and pete raus, david plouffe alyssa demonco, rob neighbors, kathy romler, jen sacky, anita, daniel, tom, susan. the list goes on. these are extraordinary people. ben rhoads, ron claim. jeff tiller, marissa hawkins, hally ledbetter, all superb individuals with whom i have had the great primpbl to serve and have good times with. i thank them all. marvin and pete, i probably owe you some money. thank you as well. i know i have forgotten a lot.

the uniformed and secret service agents are extraordinary people who serve their country and the president and others so well. the folks who work this this building and who work on air force one, i will like to thank them. finally, i would like to thank you. some of you may remember ben feller who was sitting in that chair. asked me on my first day as my first question about how i viewed the job. i said, first of all, we are all here to serve the president and the country. the press secretary is in a unique position to serve the white house. not just because i'm a journalist. i think every press secretary understands this. we work to promote what the president is doing and the mess sang he's trying the toen convey to the american people. i also work with the press to help you do your job. cover white house, cover the administration and report on

what we are doing here. that's what i have tried to do. you will be the judge of my success, at least in part. finally, i want to say thanks to the deputy, josh, soon to be white house press secretary. no one has been more ready to do this. i want to say thanks to eric and sean. you guys are in good hands with them. any questions? >> thanks, jay. on behalf of my colleagues, congratulations on making it to your last briefing. >> thank you. >> and on your post white house endeavors. if we can get to iraq, the president is meeting with lawmakers this afternoon. is he going to be in a position to tell the lawmakers his decisions and if he's not in that position, how much longer can he afford to wait to provide the iraqis with assistance given what officials here have said is the urgency and gravity of the situation. >> first of all, the president,

as you noted will meet at 3:00 p.m. with senate majority leader mcconnell, speaker boehner and democratic leader pelosi at the white house as part of the ongoing consultations with congressional leadership on foreign policy issues, including obviously the situation in iraq. it's part of our ongoing consultations with congress on this issue. when it comes to the options that the president is considering, first of all, i want to make it clear the president ruled out only sending u.s. troops back into combat in iraq. ultimately the solution needed is an iraqi one. any u.s. action including possible military action would be in support of the strategy to build the capacity of the iraqis to effectively and sustainably counter the threat posed by extremists. we have been clear about the elements that we are reviewing. first how to effectively deal with the urgent, imminent threat from isil. how to build the capacity of the

iraqi security forces to fight the threat in the short and long term and how to encourage iraq's leaders to put aside differences and facilitate nonsectarian governance. military action is a component of what the president is considering. this is not primarily a military challenge. iraq needs help to break the momentum of extremist groups and bolster the forces. there is no military solution to sustainably solve iraq's problems. any consideration must be informed by the situation on the ground and objectives to be obtained as well as the consequences of the use. so the meeting today will be part of a process of consultation with congress. the president obviously will inform him of some -- inform the leaders of his thinking on some issues. we'll also want to hear about their thinking. we here in washington including

the leaders visiting have spent a lot of time in the last decade thinking about and understanding iraq and the complexities there. the president looks forward to the meeting. >> sounds like he's not made decision. i wonder if the situation on the ground gets harder the longer it takes for the u.s. to provide assistance? >> i would say a couple of things. the right way is to develop an approach that's inclusive of the three elements i mentioned. it cannot be just about what direct action we may or may not take. it also has to be one that keeps in mind what our objectives are. the ultimate objective is to protect the national security interests of the united states. to prevent portions of iraq, portions of the region from becoming a safe haven for isil extremists who may ultimately pose a threat to the united

states over our interests abroad and our allies. that's the lens through which the president approaches these matters and decisions. obviously that includes contemplation of direct action. ultimately iraq has to take responsibility for its own security. we in this country spent spent a lot in terms of blood and treasure to give iraq the ability as a sovereign nation. we are very much in support of iraq and the iraqi government. they have to make key political decisions about governing in a nonsectarian and inclusive way. only that will create the kind of stability iraq needs to move

forward and protect it. he has notified congress that up to 275 forces are going to iraq. officials said he's considering special force there is. what does it say about his willingness to put forces on the ground in a deteriorating situation even if they are not there specifically for combat. >> we have had situations in which military forces have been used and the numbers reinforced when it became necessary to protect embassy personnel. as you know, the decision over the weekend to send a number of teams totaling 170 personnel to baghdad within this area of oh responsibility is about

providing security assistance for embassy personnel inside iraq. they will engage in evidents to temporarily relocate some of the staff from the embassy to u.s. consulates in basra and e arerb and the support unit in ayman. we have put forth letters when we needed to augment security. this is consistent with that. the military moved approximately 100 personnel into the area for logistics support if required. that's a discrete and distinct mission. we are not contemplating a return of u.s. troops back into combat in iraq. >> you are putting americans into a country that has a

crumbling security situation, are you not? >> again, for this absolutely important mission which is to ensure the security of personnel there, we have reduced the number of personnel and are relocating the number i have mentioned we have a number of american there is. it's the right thing to do to make sure we have the right personnel necessary to provide them the security they need. jeff. >> jay, congratulations. good luck. >> is that it? >>. [ laughter ] >> we're done. is the president leaning one way or another on air strikes? >> request you read the news today you are might be confused. that reflect it is fact is the president is assessing it. we have the three objectives i mentioned in mind. and the one that involves contemplating direct action.

part of the whole. the three objectives. we can't ultimately be in a situation where we are the united states and our military forces are the soul guarantor of stability in iraq. i dare say that's a view held by a vast majority of people around the here in washington. what we can do is engage in an effort to make clear to the iraqi government and leaders in iraq that it is necessary for them for their own -- that it is necessary to take steps not in a sectarian way but an inclusive way. one of the reasons we have seen

the instability in portions of the country and the ability of isil personnel to make the gains they have is because of the failures of the iraqi government to govern in an inclusive way and make it clear to all sectors of society in iraq that the government represents and defends all of them. it is essentially that they repair that situation. that's an important element in our approach to iraq now. any action that he might contemplate when it comes to the use of military force would be to deal with the immediate and medium threat posed by isil and make sure that our first and foremost objective in the region which is to deny extremists a safe haven is pursued.

and achieved. that's the clear-eyed approach the president has when it comes to our objectives in iraqle. >> can you give us a sense of a timetable on when the decision will be made? >> i would not be able to do that for you. i think that it is absolutely appropriate for the president to continue to both consult with congress and to move forward and when he has announcements to make, he will make them. >> is the white house concerned about oil disruptions? and as are jason referred to yesterday, are you considering dealing with those? >> i think there was inaccurate reporting about what jason said. as you know, i don't comment on that specifically except to say we continue the situation when it comes to the question about

concern over the price of oil and any fact that the social circumstances might have on that. we are continuously monitoring the global supply and demand situation. my understanding is that at this point we have not seen major disruptions in oil supplies in iraq. on the refinery you mentioneded, my understanding is we have not seen major disruptions in oil supplies from iraq. the refine ary produces for domestic iraqi con sunls and stopped production already several days ago. this is obviously something we monitor regularly. both localized in iraq and any impact on global supply. >> did the markets misinterpret what jason said? >> i won't comment on the markets. >> so the iraqis at least twice have asked for air strikes. obviously the administration doesn't feel now is the time. they feel it's the time.

so why doesn't the president feel like now is the time to do something like that. >> michelle, i think it is important, again, to look at the approach the president is taking here and understand it is not -- the options he's considering and the approach he's pursuing is not one that's delineated solely by questions around the potential use of direct military action. the only thing the president ruled out -- and i want to be clear here -- is sending u.s. troops back into combat in iraq. but he continues to consider other options. obviously work is being done that will help us see with more clarity what the options available to the president are. part of the strategy that includes working with the iraqis

and urging them to take action to demonstrate to the people of iraq that the government is representing all of them and the security forces are engaged in an effort to fight a common threat to all iraqis which is what isil represents. isil doesn't have the interests of any iraqis at heart. it's a brutal extremist organization that seeks as we have seen in recent days to capitalize on instability to terrorize the residents of iraq and elsewhere. for its own ideological purposes that have no shared objectives with any of the citizens of iraq.

i think that the government in our view needs to move forward in a way that recognizes there is a shared interest in all of iraq's people joing together in the effort to combat the threat posed by isil. >> it sounds like you're saying you're waiting for the iraqis to show something or some kind of ability either politically or militarily. what does the administration think of their ability to hold baghdad? >> well, i think that i know others don't let the lack of expertise get in their way when they comment on a situation on the ground. and military capacities of iraq security forces or isil forces. so i would urge you to consult true experts on that. we are looking at this through the lens of our national

security interests. again the president has not ruled out anything except for sending u.s. combat troops into iraq. he has always maintained the position that the united states retains the right to act in defense of our security interests when the commander in chief views it as necessary. he retains that right in this case and in all cases. but taking direct direct military actions by the united states won't solve iraq's challenges, certainly not alone. >> thank you, jay. >> congratulations. >> thanks. >> just so you won't miss us. does the administration support a repatriation tax holiday to pay for the completed highway trust fund? >> cheryl, i can always count on you to change the subject. i appreciate that.

>> i can talk about mid session review, if you like, too. >> the president doesn't support and has never supported a voluntary repatriation holiday because it would give large tax breaks to a small number of companieses that have shift profits and in many cases jobs overseas. in 2004 just 15 firms got more than 50% of the benefit. with tax breaks worth billions of dollars on average. the jct, as you know, cheryl, probably better than anyone predicts that a repeat of the repatriation holiday would cost $100 million over ten years. the president's view are -- i mean, he put forward a plan for paying for the kind of infrastructure investments that we need. he believes that's the right plan. justin. >> congratulations, jay. >> we can stipulate that, if you guys want to.

>> i wanted to follow up on what i asked you last week which is what do you feel like if you were to move ahead with a military strike. if you feel the existing authorities are there under maybe the authorization to go into iraq the first time under a different authority. >> mm-hmm. >> some senate democrats have are said they think you need to go back to congress. if you think you have that authority, whether the president feels in syria that the nation would be stronger if he consulted congress. and a vote on this issue. >> he is consulting congress, as you know. we have discussed it already. when it comes to the aumf you mentioned. the iraq authorization for the use of military force, the administration support it is repeal of the iraq aumf since it is no longer used for any u.s. government activities. we understand that some in congress are considering legislation related to the iraq

aumf. we look forward to working with them. i'm not going to engage in hypotheticals. he's still reviewing his option s when it comes to direct options. we'll cross that bridge when we get there, if we get there. >> in light of the lack of performance the iraqi armed forces, is the president taking a fresh look at readiness reports coming out of of afghanistan? >> i think the countries are different. we look at assessments of readiness in iraq and afghanistan. intext of the situation in each country. we paid a heavy price in both

countries as part of our effort to allow governments in those countries select bid their people to secure their nations and produce for their people a better future. we have important relations that include security assistance. we have group there is in an advise and assist mission at this time. i think it is important to note that we as a country engage in an effort to help stand up iraqi security forces. and train them and support them. we continue to this day absent a presence of u.s. troops in iraq that assist in the training and

supporting of iraqi security forces. the challenges we have seen reflected in the inability of the security forces to control portions of the country reflect the failure of the government to govern effectively in a cohesive and inclusive, nonsectarian way. and we can take steps to help deal with -- help the iraqi people and the iraqi government deal with the immediate threat posed by extremist groups like isil. but in the medium and long term, it absolutely has to be iraqi leaders who take the steps necessary to ensure that the security forces are up to the task and will provide security for the country and for all citizens of the country. and all regions of the country. >> so no new look at the

afghanistan approach. this isn't a cautionary tale? >> i think we are constantly -- our teams are evaluating the effort that continues to improve the capacities of the ansf. and that effort will continue. we obviously have a circumstance in iraq now that requires assisting iraq are with the threat posed by extremists and assisting them as they hopefully make choices necessary to succeed in the medium and long term in dealing with challenges they face. john? >> could we go back to the question of authorization? when the president was considering air strikes against syria he made the decision to first go to congress for authorization for an attack on syria. is he considering anything similar regarding iraq?

does he believe he would need or prefer to have congressional authorization before launching air strikes on iraq? >> i'm not going to engage in hypotheticals about decisions that the president may or may not make with regard to the use of u.s. military force in iraq. i would note at least for the sake of clarity the differences you would see in those circumstances where in this case, as someone noted in an earlier question the sovereign government of iraq has requested assistance. beyond that i won't speculate -- >> does that make a significant difference? >> it certainly is a difference worth noting. i'm not going to get into, again, hypotheticals about decisions the president has not yet made. >> just to play that off to you, why would it make a difference? i understand on many levels why it would, but congress would be

authorizing the use of military force not whether or not the other government was inviting us. >> i understand. >> the president has the authority. i'm asking if the white house believes he has the authority. >> that question was asked earlier. i'm not going the to speculate about an issue that has not come to pass. >> okay fluchl. i'm sure you have seen this op-ed piece that former vice president dick cheney has written in the "wall street journal." it has a rather critical tone to it towards the white house. rarely has a u.s. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many, talking about the situation in iraq and in the middle east. >> which president was he talking about? >> i believe he was talking about president obama. >> look. it's obviously always good to

hear from former vice president cheney. you and i both know him reasonably well. many others have said it's clear that president obama and our team here have distinctly different views on iraq from the team that led the u.s. to iraq in 2003. he's entitled to his opinions. >> to get into specifics he says that the group isis has taken over more territory and resources than any terrorist group before in history and the president goes out golfing. he seems unaware or oh indifferent to the fact that the insurgent al qaeda threat poses a clear and present danger to the united states. your reaction to the vice president saying that the president is out golfing when he

should be paying attention and seems unaware? >> it's clear the president has been paying attention and has been edngaging with his securit team. he's been deliberate surrounding the use of oh american military force. his belief is we should always be deliberate in that kind of decision-making process and we should very carefully weigh the consequences, both desired and undesired, that can come from the use of u.s. military force. we should have a clear focus in mind about what our national security objectives are and what we, the united states can achieve as opposed to what in this case the sovereign nation of iraq and its security forces can and must achieve. unless the proposition is, as some in the past have suggested, the united states should have occupied iraq in perpetuity. that's not president obama's view.

kristin. >> jay, thanks. based on the reporting i have seen, the rebel forces are 40 miles north of baghdad. i know you don't want to give sthap consiste is that consistent with your understanding? >> look. there is a lot of work that is ongoing at the direction of the president, around the situation in iraq. he is continuing to consider options consistent with the ongoing war and he has not ruled out any options beyond deploying u.s. troops back into combat the in iraq. beyond that i'm not going to get into time tables. except to say that a lot of work is going on already around the general proposition that i laid out in the beginning of this briefing and the three objectives we have that have to

govern an approach to iraq that has anything but the absolute short term in mind. so what it comes to assessments of what's happening on the ground, again as i said earlier, i will refrain where others have not and not pretend to be an expert on the situation on the ground. i would reef you to those who are. >> the president has said that any action taken by the u.s. will depend upon nuri al maliki creating a more inclusive government. have you seen any steps that he has taken that you can point to to suggest that he's actually doing that? or is he hunkering down? >> well, first of all, it is absolutely i think self-evident that the future of a nation like iraq with its diverse population is dependent upon the willingness of its leaders to govern inclusively, at least the cohesion of the nation is

dependent upon that. and that has been a proposition that we have been discussing with iraq's leaders for a long time and it remains true today. there's no question that not enough has been done by the government, including the prime minister to govern incluesively and a that has contributed to the situation and the crisis that we have today in iraq. it is a country that's just undergone another election which is in the process of the formation of a new government. and what is obviously clear is that iraq and the people of iraq choose their leaders.

i would point out when it comes to the steps the president can take or might consider, they are part of a whole package. what is also true is that our primary objective is to not permit extremist groups like isil from establishing a safe haven and the surest way to achieve that is for the government of iraq to govern in a way that is inclusive and that, by being inclusive, more effectively establishes security and stability throughout the country. >> if not enough has been done, as you say, should maliki step down? >> that's not obviously for us to decide. as i noted earlier, this is a country that has had democratic elections. there was a recent election that produced results that requires the formation of a coalition

government. that has at least in recent past been a process that takes some time. given the circumstances, moving expeditiously is obviously a good idea. but that's obviously something for the iraqi people to decide, not something for the united states or any outside nation to decide. regardless about who the decision is who is prime minister or what the government looks like, we will make the case that iraq's leaders to proceed in a way that is reflective of the interests of all of iraq's citizens and all regions of the country and all parties and religious affiliations. that is the only way for a nation like iraq to succeed ultimately in the medium and long term. >> one more on a completely different topic. does the president have a reaction to the fact that the redskins trademark was canceled

today? >> i haven't spoken to the president about that news, but i would note that last october in an interview with the associated press, he was asked about the issue of the team name and said, "if i were the owner of the team and i knew that there was a name of my team, even if it had a storied history, that was offending a sizable group of people, i'd think about changing it." so that's the president's view. i have no new view of his to provide to you. the decision today was made by the trademark trial and appeal board. think maybe cheryl knew that existed prior to this, but i bet most of you didn't. and it is an administrative tribunal in the trademark office. the board is not authorized to determine whether a party has the right to use a trademark, just whether it has the right to register it. so for more on this, i would

encourage you to contact the united states patent and trademark office. >> can you describe the limits of the white house willingness to cooperate with iran dealing with the crisis in iraq? >> i can tell you that we are open to engaging the iranians, just as we are engaging other regional players on the threat posed by isil in iraq. as you know, the issue did come up briefly between deputy secretary of state bill burns and iran on the margins of the p5 plus 1 in vienna on monday. there may be future discussions at lower levels, major, though we do not expect the you shall u to be raised again during this round of pfive plus one discussions in vienna. any discussion about iraq is separate from ongoing nuclear talks. in the broader question in any possible conversations with iran, we would encourage the islamic republic of iran to act

in a responsible, non-sectarian way and to encourage the government of iraq and all iraqi leaders do the same. iraq's sovereignty must be respected and the government of iraq must focus now on strengthening its political and security innings stugstitutions non-sectarian way. it does not involve militias but the strengthening of the iraqi security forces to combat threats. any engagements we have with the iranians will not include discussion of military coordination or strategic determination about iraq's future over the heads of the iraqi people. >> -- the government to rescind its general call for shiite militias within iraq? >> i would say isil is clearly a threat to the entire region, including iran. but iraq will only successful overcome this threat by governing in a non-sectarian manner building and investing in the capacity of iraq's security forces and addressing the

legitimate concerns of sunni, kurd and shia communities. turning to iran is not going to solve these important steps or solve iraq's problems. iraq's leaders need to make decisions that reinforce the idea for all of iraq's citizens that the government represents all of them and defends all of them. and governing in a sectarian way or reinforcing a perception that the central government is pursuing sectarian interests is not a recipe for success when it comes to dealing with the common threat posed by isil. >> as the process to form this coalition government plays itself out after the most recent election, is nuri al maliki the optimal leader of that process, would there not be a better chance of it succeeding if he and those closest to him were open to a possible alternative and would the united states be supportive of an alternative?

>> we don't choose iraq's leaders. we encourage all of the leaders of iraq, in this government and in the future government that has to be formed as a result of the recent elections, to pursue non-sectarian governance. that is the way that iraq can successfully maintain its security -- >> -- is maliki the optimal figure to do that? >> again, it is not for us to make that decision on behalf of the iraqi people. >> do you have an opinion? >> the iraqi people will have to decide the make-up of the next coalition government and who is the prime minister. whether it's the current prime minister or another leader, we will aggressively attempt to impress upon that leader the

absolute necessity of rejecting sectarian governance, rejecting an approach to iraq's security that has sectarian goals in mind. but rather, governing and pursuing security in an inclusive, non-sectarian way. that's the only way the divisions within iraq are managed and healed in a manner that will allow for iraq to prosper in the future. that has always been the case, and we have, as a country, expended a lot of our most precious resources in an effort to give iraq