demonstrated safe to drive. just in general, people can go to their dealer or the engagement center and walk through specific issues. in many of the recalls that we've done, it's not a part replaced, it's a visual check. and depending on what happens, it would be what needs to be repaired. so each individual recall has a slightly different look and feel to it. >> so, i know you've talked about the possibility of loaner vehicles and rental cars and so forth. and i understand the difficulty with a supplier gearing up to produce a part that they may not have made in four or five years. and they have to, all of a sudden, come up with several million of them. we have a part manufacturer in kentucky, in my district, that services peterbilt trucks and i've been to theirs and i know how much work they have to do. but, again, is there any alternative to reliable alternative, to these consumers

who, again, face a very important condition as to whether -- i don't know what the risk -- of whether nhtsa has assessed the risk, with regard to power steering, whether that's significant or not. but a lot of consumers out there, i'm sure, are wondering whether they should be driving or not. >> again, i would encourage them to call the customer engagement center and we can talk about the situation. >> okay. i yield to the ranking member. >> i just wanted to ask you, a question, miss barra, since there's a little time here. so you had testified that out of the roughly 2.6 million of these dollars were recalled, you guys have set 400,000 parts out to your dealers, is that right? >> produced and ship. >> i am sorry? >> yes. >> yes, roughly. as of monday it looks like only about 177,000 of these vehicles have been repaired.

and you had testified a little bit earlier -- so that's 177,000 vehicles out of 2.6 million vehicles. and we've talked about this before. is this one of our big concerns on this committee, is how do we get those folks to take in those recalled vehicles to be repaired? and you said, you're looking at some innovative ways to do that. i'm wondering if you could just take a few seconds to talk about how gm's trying to get those people to take those cars in. >> well, we're doing a lot on social media. and we're looking at the populations, especially some of these vehicles are older vehicles. we've done actual research to figure out what messages would be most compelling to have these individuals come in to get their vehicles fixed. i would also say -- the dealers are working to do specific arrangements with each individual to make it as inconvenience -- >> as convenient. >> as convenient as possible to

reduce the inconvenience. so there's a number of steps. >> let me ask you can you meet the october 4th nhtsa deadline? >> we are on track. you know, i have talked to the ceos of the companies making these parts, and we monitor it on a daily basis. >> thank you. mr. olson, five minutes. >> i thank the chair and welcome, miss barra, and mr. valukas. i approach issues like these from a perspective naval officer and a pilot. we in the navyyard are called skippers. good skippers give credit to others who do good. when good things happen in the squadron, they give credit to others -- bad skippers -- i'm sorry, good skippers give all the credit and take the blame. by that definition, miss barra, you're a decent skipper. but people have died because of gm's defective products.

as we knew, and mr. valukas' report shows clearly, those deaths occurred because our ship, gm has some problems that can't be fixed overnight. as gm's skipper, the burden to fix these problems is upon you, ma'am. squarely upon you. i think you know that. gm has to rebuilt its trust with the american people. and part of that trust is being straightforward on the number of deaths that have occur because of these affected cobalts. you've testified that 13 deaths occurred because of these cars, is that right, ma'am? >> i've testified that with the information we have, we believe that the ignition switch may have been related to 13. but i don't have all the information. >> okay. because that's a problem, because all the while behind you, there are 15 photographs of

tragic loss from cobalt vehicles. >> and that's why we're doing the compensation program that will be independently administered by mr. feinberg, and i can assure you that i and general motors want to make sure that anyone harmed as part of that ignition switch problem is part of that program. >> i'll get to nap how about injuries, what's the number, idea, ballpark? >> again, i don't have the specific number in front of me, but we don't have a complete number because we only have the information that's available to us. that's why mr. feinberg, who's an expert in doing this, we want to have everybody who has suffered serious injury or suffered the loss of a loved one, we want everyone to be part of this program. >> restoring the trust of our the american people, part of that is having a viable, robust compensation program for the victims' families. and i know you have tapped

mr. feinberg as you mentioned to evaluate options for the compensation trust fund. my question is from opening statements, it sounds that gm has not put any limits on mr. fein berg, is that true? >> i didn't hear the beginning of your question. >> the question is you tapped mr. feinberg to have this compensation funds, any limits on him? >> he is is independent and he l determine those who qualify that meet his protocol and the appropriate amounts. >> will your board have to approve his recommendations? >> no. he is independent. >> have families that have previously reached settlements with gm, will they be eligible to this trust fund? >> they are eligible to apply. >> how much do you expect the fund to be, any ballpark? >> without knowing the protocol, i can't speculate on that.

by the time mr. feinberg shares with us his protocol, then we will have to take an appropriate answer but we really won't know until the program is administered. we have indicated we will share the number of incidents and also the total. >> is there a chance the fund will be capped, a limit? >> no. >> i yield back. thank you, sir. >> let me ask you along the lines of do people know how to get in touch with you if they're having trouble getting their car fixed? >> again in the letters that we sent and we get rengistration data, that's why it would be helpful to have a database. but in the communications we've had, there is information on how to contact us as well as their

dealer. >> so the message should be a person should contact their dealer? >> they can contact our customer engagement center. there is also a 1-800 number at the back of their owner's manual, but in addition we know many people will contact their dealer p. >> before this testimony concludes today, can you provide us with that 800 number? a lot of people are watching that hearing and i'm getting a lot of activity on to wit are people wanting to know how to get their cars fixed. >> sure. >> miss caster for five minutes. >> the lucas report refers to the board's commitment to improving the quality of gm's vehicles through a bonus plan for corporate officers and employees at the executive corre director and supervisor levels. part of the calculation was improvement in the quality of gm's vehicles. do you know what improvement in quality means or how it is quantified for the purposes of the bonus calculation?

>> i can't give you the calculation. i can tell you that within the quality calculation is supposed to be safety, that the individuals who we interviewed identified quality -- improvement in quality as relating to the safety issue. so that it would include -- >> so safety is supposed to be a quality component, but how is that quantified? >> i don't have an answer for you on that. >> ms. bar are a, d bera did yo bonuses while the issues were on guilty going? >> there were some years where there was. not all the years. one aspect is external surveys. >> how many years did you receive those bonuses? >> i'd have to check. >> so you'll provide thes to os the commission? >> sure. >> and will the bonus program be revised to include an explicit safety component?

>> it already has safety as a piece of it. i will go back and review to make sure it is explicit. >> because he said he reviewed it and he's not certain how expansive it is and what goes in to considerations of safety. >> i will make sure it is explicit. it's a good suggestion. >> will gm's compensation structure for all employees including below the leadership levels now include a safety component? >> again, when you speak of all employees, 220,000 employees around the world, we comply with the different laws in those compensation programs. but we have sent a strong signal that quality is important and recei represents a 25% across all levels. >> i would recommend that as part of your overall for all employees to encourage considerations of safety that is made much more explicit to all those employees.

in the past, gm has put into place in-send i haves for high level employees to make improvements. if gm is serious about its new focus on safety, there should be stronger incentives in place for executives and all of the other gm employees at the very least to identify safety problems and improve the safety of all gm's vehicles. now i'd like to ask about the and you h adequacy of the recall. they have assured the public that it will fix the position. i hope you can assure me that this is the case. >> it's been vallu validated extensively and nitshtsa has reviewed it. >> issue number one is that the force required to turn the switch is too low. and issue number two is that a driver's knee can hit the key or

key fob and turn the switch to the off position because it is placed too low. the fix to the recall will be to install a new ignition switch with higher torque writering more force to turn off the switch, is that correct? >> right. but if you look at the switch, cylinder and key and you look at how it works as a system, it's been validated to not only talk about the issue that you're talking about about turning, but also the potential knee interference. both have been validated. >> what will the torque specification that the new switches will make? what is the new torque specification? >> the specification is 20 plus or minus five, but the more important thing to look at is the overall performance of the system and that's what we've done. >> is that 20 newton centimeters? >> yes. >> and do you know how gm arrived at that specification? >> that was a specification, but we've gone back and tested extensively with varying levels of keys on rings with varying

heights of -- size of people. it's been an exhausting testing. >> here's the concern. when the committee interviewed several gm engineers, they all told us they had no idea of the basis for that specification. and gm has received multiple reports indicating that the placement of the ignition switch in these vehicles could cause a driver's knee to hit the key or the key fob and turn off the switch isn't that right? >> neither of those individuals have been a part of the company as we have done or been involved in all of the extensive testing and validation that we've done specifically with the new product integrity organization. so they're really not in a position to comment. >> but certainly that would raise a concern if your former engineers tip to have concerns over the fix. >> i don't find mr. degorgio credible and i've reviewed the testing done by very seasoned engineers and i'm confident that the right validation has been

done of the system in the vehicle. >> i yield back. >> now recognize mr. griffin for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. barra, we've talked about the compensation trust fund and you have indicated that mr. feinberg will set parameters, but you don't have those yet. he will determine who is eligible and he'll make the determination as to how much they're eligible for. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and do you know if he's going to determine, is he looking just at -- because most people have focused just on the air bag deployment and your list of 13 that you know of at this point only includes air bag deployment issues. do you know if he's looking at other parameters? >> we have told him we want to make sure anybody who suffered harm, either loss to loved one or suffered serious physical injury because of the defect with the ignition switch, that

they should be a part of the program. >> so you acknowledge that if you're traveling down the highway at a fairly good rate of speed, and all of a sudden your car cargos into a stall, you have to put it in neutral and restart it, that will be responsible for a number of the accidents that took place whether or not the air bags were deployed, there might still have been an injury as a result of that, you acknowledge that? >> if the ignition switch was part of the issue, we want them in the program and there are other sdipincidents. >> so i have to question why you have one of the two folks in the incident referred to in trooper young's accident report, one of those two people is on the list of 13, but the other is not and that raises the question. she was in the back seat. so the air bag doesn't affect her, but clearly that accident

made very we may very well have been the result that you had a young driver who suddenly finds themselves in a an emergency situation on the highway going 48 miles per hour and they don't have an engine that works anymore. and you would agree that if the engine is not working, power is 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 questionning delay of the ignitn switch recall.

an "f" on transparency and freedom of information. and i think my colleagues in journalism would give a similar grade whether they're liberal or conservative. the freedom of information process is a joke. it was well on its way prior to the obama add murgs. but this administration has perfected the stall, the delay, the redactions, the excuses. and really, it's shocking, because i feel very strongly that the information that they withhold and protect many times belongs to the public. we own it. but there's no sense of that when you ask for it. they covet it as if they're a private corporation, defending their trade secrets rather than understanding that what they hold is information they've gathered on our behalf. >> emmy award-winning sharl attkisson on the q&a.

marco rubio of florida, ted cruz of texas and mike lee of utah are among the speakers at the faith and freedom coalition's annual policy conference in washington, d.c. also speaking to the gathering were u.n. ambassador john bolton and former u.s. representative alan west. faith and freedom coalition founder ralph reed opens the event. it's about 90 minutes. >> it's my great privilege to introduce our first speaker of today's program. senator mike lee, who is a great champion for our principles, our values, and has been a tireless advocate for the constitutional principles upon which our nation was founded. mike lee graduated from his undergraduate education at brigham young university. he also graduated from byu law

school. he was in private practice for several years where he specialized in appellate and supreme court litigation. he clerked for then circuit court judge samuel alito in the third circuit prior to samuel alito's elevation to the supreme court. he served as the assistant u.s. attorney in salt lake city. he was an aide to governor jon huntsman. when he decided to run for the u.s. senate in 2010, as one of the first candidates of what would become known as the tea party movement against a powerful, entrenched, incumbent republican senator, virtually no one gave him a chance to win. he won at the republican convention in a shocking upset. he went on to win the general election in 2010. with 61% of the vote. he has a 100% score on the faith and freedom congressional

scorecard. he's pro-life. he's pro-family. he's advocated social security and entitlement reform. he's advocated a next generation of welfare reform, called for basing our criminal justice reform on the right on crime principles. and he's also called for a new reform conservativism that offers an agenda for the 21st century, and a tax credit to strengthen the family. i think he's one of the brightest stars in the political affirmament today. please welcome mike lee. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, ralph. it's an honor to be here with all of you here today.

it was great a minute ago to see dara, sammy and esra leading us in the pledge of allegiance. it wasn't that long ago when my kids would have been drowned out by this podium. it won't last very long, they will grow up faster than you know it. it reminds me of the fact that when my twin boys, my two oldest, were just about 16. i had an interesting conversation with them. about three years ago. i was driving down the road with james and john. they're both good students, both good kids. we were listening to a popular song on the radio this particular day. a song that i had heard many times, but i hadn't paid attention to very closely. on this particular day, i happened to notice the words. the words were awful. the words were exactly opposite of what any christian god-fearing father of children that he wants to raise to be god-fearing children would want his kids listening to.

so i seized the volume control in the car stereo and turned it down and said, guys, have you ever listened to the words? they're terrible. my son john, who is a good kid, didn't miss a beat. without batting an eye he said to me, dad, it's not bad if you don't think about it. i thought, oh, my goodness, my son john must be advising the president of the united states. well, you're all here because you are thinking about it. and i'm delighted to be at this event once again. because i always enjoy spending time with conservatives who are thinking about it, and who understand the essentials and inex trickable link that exists between faith and freedom. for those of us who are here at this conference, we recognize the artificial nature of any division between economic conservatism on the one hand, and social conservatism on the other. these are simply terms of

convenience used to describe two sides of the same coin. for conservatives, faith and freedom are both rooted in respect and reverence for the dignity of human life, whether advocating on behalf of the unborn, or championing the moral and the material superiority of free enterprise. conservatives are animated by the same moral truth of human dignity. this is the essence of the self-evident truths expressed in the declaration of independence. that all human beings have an equal claim to self-government, and all endowed with unalienable rights with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. human dignity is the undeniable basis for everything we stand for as conservatives. it's the reason we cherish human freedom, and the right to live

according to our own beliefs. it's the reason we insist on economic opportunity for all, to earn a good living, and build a good life for our families. and it's the reason we hold up voluntary civil society, formed by free individuals, as the best and the most ennobling place for citizens to cultivate bonds of cooperation with, and service to one another. today's conference is called the road to majority. this title reflects the importance of transforming the conservative movement into a national majority. but we should recognize what's needed to be successful in building this road. first, we must know where we are, and second, we must know where we're going. some have suggested that the ultimate goal is a majority. i respectfully disagree. i believe that like a road, a majority is a means to an end.

our ultimate goal is to enact conservative policies that restore the proper role of government. reenergize our economy. and create the conditions in which all americans have a fair chance to pursue happiness, and find it. starting there, we can start to work our way backward. our task, to paraphrase james madison, requires two things. first, fidelity to the object of government. which is the happiness of the people. and secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained. to enact conservative policies, we will need conservative majorities in the house and senate. but this alone is not enough. we will also need to elect a conservative to the white house who will unapologetically fight for the principles we believe in, the values we share and the policies we all know will actually work. [ applause ]

now, that does mean winning elections in 2014 and in 2016. but to do that, we must earn a mandate from the american people today. starting right now, we must win their support for our vision. a conservative reform agenda that redesigns our unwieldy welfare status and outdated government programs so they address the growing lack of opportunity for the millions of working families of, or aspiring to the middle class. i don't think i need to go to great lengths to explain the problems with our current government. there's no shortage of facts showing that our fiscal situation is unsustainable. but suffice it to say that we have become far too comfortable with the word trillion in our political discourse.

more and more every day, we're confronted with the real-life consequences of a government that tries to do things that it cannot, and should not do. our federal government is so overextended, that it's failing to fulfill even its most basic responsibilities, like caring for our veterans, securing our borders, enforcing our laws, and conducting a coherent foreign policy, that at the very least does no harm to our national security. and the liberal ideology driving this state seems to subordinate the dignity of the individual, to the political agenda of a progressive government. this is an agenda that denies the sanctity of life, that rejects the inviable human right to live, according to one's religious convictions. and is utterly blind to the moral and economic consequences of our nation's growing marriage crisis. this is where our road begins.

at this unsustainable and unacceptable state of affairs. what stands between us and a truly healthy, flourishing society, one filled with vigorous citizens, stronger families and more rear rowic communities, is a conservative reform agenda that doesn't just cut big government, but also fixes broken government. federal programs cost too much, because they're part of a broken bureaucratic system, one that cannot be fixed simply by pouring more money in, or simply by taking money out. to fix our broken government, it's not enough to simply roll back ineffective policies that concentrate too much power in washington. we must also roll out full conservative reforms that empower the people closest to the problems, to test and refine solutions that work best for their communities. this bottom-up approach to

solving public problems enables service providers to experiment with different approaches, and it allows consumers, and beneficiaries of those services to figure out what works, what doesn't work, and how to keep improving. conservatives can be confident that these kinds of reforms would reduce the size and cost of government. but perhaps only incidentally. the primary goal should always be to build a functioning government that works for all americans. especially for the poor and the middle class. and protects the space for them to meet the challenges of life in the 21st century. these are the basic principles behind a new line of legislative proposals that i've been rolling out, aimed at reducing the costs and increasing access to the staples of working in middle class economic security. to mitigate the economic costs of raising children, i've proposed a tax reform that would

get rid of the marriage tax penalties and the parent tax penalty. i've introduced a transportation reform proposal that would dramatically reduce the power and influence of the washington filter, while empowering the states to improve their own transportation systems so their citizens can spend less time stuck in traffic and more time at home with their children. to reduce the skyrocketing costs of college, i've proposed a bill that would open up our higher education system to more diverse, affordable and responsive educational options, aimed at expanding post-economic opportunities for the students who are truly left behind by the current system. for every one of my legislative proposals, there are a handful of others coming from a new generation of conservative leaders in congress who are committed deeply to meeting our challenges with principled, positive and unapologetically conservative reforms. this election season, we've

already seen the kind of momentum that these kinds of reforms can generate. as many of the most promising and conservative candidates around the country have embraced these ideas. and they're winning. this is exactly the kind of model that we can replicate at the national level, again, in 2016. the key to expanding the conservative movement, expanding it into a conservative majority, is to get more and more people to sign on, and run on these reforms. this is how we win elections. this is how we succeed in implementing the real alternative, to big government, a thriving, flourishing nation of cooperative communities. where your success depends on your service. it may seem like a long haul to get from our starting point today to the end of the road, where a conservative president is leading the effort to enact bold conservative reforms, but

there's no place i'd rather be. i'm thankful for all the efforts of all the happy warriors in this room. and i look forward to continuing to the end of this road alongside all of you. thank you. and may god bless the united states of america. [ applause ] >> thank you so much, senator. and now it's really a great privilege and honor to bring our next speaker to the podium. he's a man who understands the importance of freedom and liberty, because his parents came to the united states in 1956 as the specter of castro's communist tyranny began to fall over that country. he knows that freedom isn't for free. he graduated from the university of florida. we'll forgive him for that.

i'm a bulldog. he then graduated from the university of miami law school. he practiced law. he interned in the office of congresswoman illiana latham, which was pretty darn good training. he ran for the state house in miami in 2000. and let this be a lesson to you of the importance of a single vote. he won his primary for his first legislative post by 64 votes. so turning out to vote really does matter. he was elevated by his colleagues to be the speaker of the house, where he helped lead the way on fiscal responsibility, reducing taxes, and reforming florida's educational system. after he left the state house, he ran for the u.s. senate against the incumbent governor of florida, charlie crist.

when he got into that race, charlie crist had $6 million and the endorsement of virtually every republican politician in washington. all marco had was the grass roots. he not only won that primary, he chased charlie crist out of the republican party, for which we are eternally grateful, i might add. [ applause ] in addition to being a miami dolphin fan, something that is very important to him, he's also a family man. he and his wife, jeanette, have four beautiful children. he flies home every weekend. he not only knows who he is, he knows whose he is. he knows to whom he belongs. he's been a leader on our issues, on issues like religious liberty, where he ventured his bipartisan legislation to repeal the obamacare mandate that

forces employers to violate their conscience and assault their own faith, by providing health care services that undermine their beliefs. he's been a leader on calling the veterans administration to accountability for its many scandals. he's somebody who's been a great friend of faith and freedom. not just the organization, but the values of faith and freedom. please welcome united states senator marco rubio. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you very much. let me clear the record on a couple things. i have nothing against the university of georgia. you've got to have someplace for people who can't get into the university of florida to go to college. [ laughter ] and as far as charlie crist is concerned, i sometimes -- sometimes i -- i don't know if you know this, but he's now a democrat. ran as an independent, now a

democrat. but a few weeks ago he announced that he's interested in potentially traveling to cuba. so there might be another party change yet ahead. so we'll see. i'm really honored to be with you here tonight, or today, or this afternoon at this event. for all of what you guys do at home for the cause of our faith and freedom and how those two things are combined, let me start by telling you a little bit about my own family. ralph talked about it a little bit a moment ago. but i think we all come from where we come from. we're all deeply influenced by our backgrounds and the people who shape us. and i'll highlight the importance of that in today's america. my grandfather was born in 1899 in rural cuba. one of 13 children. raised in a rural area to a farming family. when he was 6 years old, he had polio. so he lost the use of one of his legs. he was left disabled permanently. he couldn't work the farm. so his parents sent him away to

school. that was the only channels he could have to get ahead. he learned to read and write. and he became educated. by the way, he was the only member of the family who knew how to read. when he left school, he went to work at a cigar factory. he would sit in the front of the room while the workers were rolling their cigars and he would read to them, first the newspapers, then a novel. when he was done he would sit at the tables and roll cigars himself. a few years after that he went to work at a railroad station. he actually ran the station. life was not bad by the standards of early 20th century cuba. then one day he lost his job. overnight. he lost it to someone who had a political connection. someone who was connected to power and to politics, and life was never the same for them again. life in early 20th century cuba was hard for a disabled man to provide for his seven daughters. he wound up in havana, cuba, fixing shoes in a little space

he rented out in a barbershop. before finally having the opportunity to come here to the united states. years later, my grandfather was like my best friend growing up. he lived with us in our home. i would spend countless hours on the porch of our home listening to his stories about all the things he learned reading the novels and history and politics. one day it was about the cuban revolution and the next day it was about world war ii. but the most important lesson my grandfather left with me is something that shaped everything i've done since. the notion that i have chances to do things that he didn't have the chance to do. my grandfather was born like almost anyone who's lived on earth. into a society where your future was determined by the circumstances of your birth. if you were born to a rich family, with political connections, you, too, could get ahead. but if you were born to a poor family, with no access to power, then your future was usually

very limited. but what he wanted me to fully understand is that i was born in one of the few places in human history where that was not true. it was beyond anything else the lesson he wanted to leave with me. i'll never forget on the day that he died, as he slipped away into coma, i grabbed his hand and i told him, i don't remember the exact words, but i basically let him understand that i was not going to let the opportunity that i had go to waste. and even as he slipped away, i remember him squeezing my hand as if to say, that's exactly what i wanted you to know. the reason why i say this is to you is not to make you feel good about me or you or our country in general, but it reminds us what makeses special as americans and a nation. the reason america is special and what defines us as a people and as a nation, is the idea that anyone from anywhere can accomplish anything here. because we believe that everything human being born anywhere on earth has a

got-given right, not a law-given right, but a god-given right to take you far. we've put in place a limited government political system. and a free enterprise economic system that made that possible here more than any other place in all of history. the problem we face now is that there are millions of americans that don't think that's true anymore. they feel as if that dream of equality, of opportunity, is slipping away. and the irony of it is that the people in charge in the white house today actually ran on the promise of helping people like that. and yet by every conceivable measure, people who are trying to get ahead are worse off today than they were six years ago. why are these things happening? one is because the world around us is radically changed. the nature of our economy has changed. a moment ago you heard from a great reformer, mike lee.

my colleague with whom i work closely on, on many of these issues. our economy is different. we used to have a national economy. now it's a global one. our competition is often halfway around the world, not halfway across town. you see the jobs that have slipped away because of automati automation, and because of outsourcing. we also see challenges in the fact that all the better paying jobs in the 21st century require a higher level of skill and education. but you also see an erosion in the values that have made our economy and our people strong. you can't have a strong country without strong people. and you can't have strong people without strong values. the world around us has changed, and yet our laws, our government and our institutions have not changed with them. they are relics of the 20th century. the policies of this administration, they're not just wrong, but relics of an age that's gone. every problem has a

government-sponsored solution. they think the economy will grow if we borrow more money and spend government money into it. they think they can educate more people by simply pouring more money into an outdated and broken educational system. and they completely ignore the importance of families and values in our society thinking that instead those things can be replaced by laws and government programs. the good news is that we still have time to reclaim the american dream, to restore it, to help it reach more people than ever before. but to do so, we must do what mike lee just talked about, we must give our nation a 21st century reform agenda, that embraces our free enterprise and federal government under the challenges of the 21st century. there are three simple goals we need to lay out. the first is we need an economy that will create millions of higher paying jobs. and those higher paying jobs are created as a function of one of two things. innovation, or investment. someone builds and creates something new, or someone takes

money they have access to and they risk it to start a business or grow an existing one. we have to make america the best place in the world to invest and innovate. right now, we are no longer the best place to invest, because our tax code is among the most complicated and expensive on the planet. other countries are targeting investment away from us. they brag about how their tax code is better than ours. the second thing that -- the other thing holding back innovation is runaway regulation. here's the dirty secret about runaway regulations. some of the strongest supporters are established industries. big companies, big corporations, and status quo industries, who use regulations to prevent competitors from ever existing. imagine for a moment if blockbuster video had successfully convinced the federal government to pass a law that required that in order to rent the movie, you must go to a retail outlet to represent the video cassette or cd. because in their head, it would

be a way to protect children from watching "r" rated movies. if they had ever come up and passed a law like that, we never would have had the ability to download streaming video like we do today. it's not outside the realm of the imagination to see a law like this being proposed in another industry. but time and again, we have seen established industries use our laws and our regulations to protect themselves against competitors. of course a big company may not mind big government. they can afford lawyers and lobbyists. but if you're trying to start a business out of the spare bedroom of your home, you can't afford lawyers and lobbyists. by the way, you're probably violating the zoning code. the second thing we need is a modern 21st century education system. one that gives people the skills they need for the higher paying jobs of the 21st century. what does that mean? number one, we have to stop stigmatizing career education. in this country we still need welders and plummers and

electricians and airplane mechanics, and we should be able to graduate high school kids with those skills to make it to the middle class and beyond. [ applause ] we need a higher education system that is available to people who have to work full-time and raise a family. if you are a single mother with two girls, you have to work full-time, you wake up in the morning, you make those girls' breakfast, you drop them off at day care, you work nine hours, you rush back to pick them up before day care closes, you make dinner and they do their homework and it's 11:00 at night and you're exhausted. the only thing available to you is the higher education cartel. established higher education system that does not allow any competition. these universities will tell you, we offer online courses. yes, they do. the online courses oftentimes are more expensive than sitting in a classroom. we need to provide a new form of higher education for people who have to work full-time and raise a family, so they can package

learning, life experience, work experience, online course work, often that is free. and some classroom work. so that they can get a degree that allows them to get a better job. the receptionist needs to become a paralegal. the billing clerk needs to become an ultrasound technician. they will never be able to do that with our broken higher education system. another example of an established industry, a higher education cartel that crowds out innovation and choices. the cost of higher education is completely out of control in america. [ applause ] i don't have time to get into all the solutions, but here's two in my mind that make sense. when a kid takes out a student loan, that university should be required to tell them, here's how much people that graduate from our school make when they graduate with a degree you're seeking. so the great philosophy majors will understand that the market for greek philosophers is tight. [ applause ]

and the other is we need alternatives to student loans. hey, i owed over $120,000 in student loans. when i came to the senate, i still had over $100,000 in student loans. we need to create alternatives to student loans. i propose one called the student investment plan. it allows you to go out and find someone who will help you pay your higher education and in return you pay them back with a percentage of your income over a defined period of time. i encourage you to read the "wall street journal" last week that featured that idea and how it's used in other countries to open options for people around the world. the first two things we have to do is make america the best place in the world to invest. it will create millions of jobs and give people access to the skills they need. but here's the third you never hear discussed. we must reinvigorate the role of values in our country. you see, i believe you can have all the diplomas on the wall you want, if you don't have the values of hard work and discipline and self-control,

among others, you will not succeed. and the trick is, that no one is born with these values. there is not a person in this room, in this country, or on this planet who was born with those values. those values were taught to you. and they were reinforced. they were taught to you in strong homes and they were reinforced by churches and synagogue and by the community around you, and your family as well. it is eroding around us. the greatest contributor to economic and educational underperformance in america today is the breakdown of families. the single greatest contributor to poverty in america today is the breakdown of families. i don't say this as a way to give up on the people. i say that as a way of saying we have to do everything we can to help people that are growing up in these challenging circumstances. because all the government programs in the world will not help them overcome this, unless something happens. and there's some things government can do. for example, we have to empower

parents. it is unfair, it is immoral, it is unamerican that in this country, four people are the only ones who cannot choose where their children go to school. every parent in america deserves the right to send their children to the school of their choice, not the school board's choice, and certainly not washington's choice. [ applause ] we need to make family life -- keep up with the cost of living. mike lee talked about pro-family tax reform. a real health care reform, not the disaster that we have today. but one that allows families to buy the health insurance that they need, at a price they can afford, from any company in america that will sell it to them, no matter what state they're in. [ applause ] but the last point i would make is, the last point i would make is, we have to talk about this. you see, in this country, we tell people all the time not to smoke, because it causes cancer.

i have no problem with that. we tell people to be careful not gain too much weight because it causes heart disease and diabetes. i have no problem with that. we also need to tell people, it's important for you to keep your family together. it's important for you to be good parents. it's important for you to instill values in your children. because you will struggle to succeed in this country and this world if you do not. too often we have too many leaders in both public and private life that will not do that. because they are afraid to be seen as sitting in judgment of someone. at least those of us inspired by ju deo christian values, we're not seeking to sit in judgment of anyone. but we know that there are fundamental truths proven through thousands of years of human history. and we have an obligation to our country and to our fellow man to use our positions of influence and to highlight those values. no matter how much we spend or reform education, no matter how

attractive we make america economically, we cannot have a strong country without strong people. and we will never have strong people without strong values. and that's why i encourage you to keep doing what you're doing. i'll close by saying i'm not typically considered to be someone that came from a privileged background. at least if you believe the american dream is how much money you make or how famous you become, that would be true. but i did come from a privileged background. you see, my parents both grew up poor as well. i told you about my mother's struggles because my grandfather struggled to raise them. my father when he was 9 years old lost his mother and went to work, and would work basically for the next 70 years. both of my parents came to this country because it was the only place on earth where people like them had a chance at a better life. it wasn't easy here either. here they never became famous or rich. my dad was a bartender, my mom was a cashier, a maid, a stock clerk. yet my parents fully lived the

american dream. they were able to find jobs that allowed them to make it into the american middle class. they were able to provide for their children, a strong and stable home where we were loved, and felt protected, and safe, and we were encouraged to dream. a home where our parents loved each other and they loved us. and they saw their children grow up to do all the things they never had the chance to do. i had the privilege to grow up in an environment like that, and all those things are an extraordinary advantage. i would rather live in a strong and stable home raised by loving parents, than in a broken one raised by millionaires. and so i did come from a background of privilege. the greatest of all is to be a citizen of the one nation on earth where the son of a bartender and maid could have the same dream and the same future as the son of a president or a millionaire. today there are millions of people that seek the same for themselves and for their families. and whether america remains

exceptional or not will be determined by whether those dreams become possible or not. if we ever become a nation where people like my parents can no longer get ahead, we will lose what makes us special. but if we return to the principles of our founding, the free enterprise, to limited government, to the notion and reality that government is supposed to serve the people, not people serve the government, to the fundamental truths of strong values equal strong people, then we can reclaim the american dream. then this 21st century can be an american century. at the end of his life, my father never lived to see election day. but he did see me win a primary. on the day of my primary, he wanted desperately make it to my event. he had been sick for a number of months, had not gotten out of bed for weeks. and so i went to check in on him, in the middle part of that day. my nephew opened the door, he lived with my sister at this

point. he's smiling. i said, what are you smiling about? i walked into the back of the house and my dad is sitting fully dressed ready to go in his wheelchair. first time he had been out of bed in weeks because he wanted to go to his son's victory party. he was a proud father. as i look back i realize he wanted to be there, not simply because he was proud of me, but because on that night, his life was affirmed, that all the sacrifices he made, that all the difficult decisions he had to make, all the nights he didn't feel like going to work because he was 69 and tired, but he did, it meant something. it had a purpose and a meaning. and what makes this special is we are one of the few nations on earth where that story has been possible for millions of people. including almost every single one of you here today. what we are called to do in this generation is not just to preserve that, but to expand it to reach more people than it ever has. and i believe that we will.

in less than two years, we will have new leadership, god willing, in the white house and both houses of congress. and then we can do what every generation of americans before us has done. whatever it takes to ensure that our children inherit what we inherited, the greatest single nation in the history of all mankind. thank you for the opportunity. god bless all of you. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you so much, senator rubio. now i am beyond honored and delighted to introduce my brilliant and wonderful friend, senator ted cruz. [ applause ] of all of the superlatives that apply to senator cruz, brilliant

public intellectual, inciteful writer, harvard debate champion, gutsy leader, a true senate maverick, great husband and father, good friend, american patriot, the one that breathes life into all of those things, this man of principle. he is truly one of the most fearless men of principle in the country today. and sometimes i think america hangs by a thread, but is still only hanging on because of senator ted cruz. [ applause ] ted cruz is elected as the 34th u.s. senator from texas. he won victory in both the republican primary and general election. the "washington post," it killed them to write this, called his election, quote, the biggest upset of 2012, a true grass

roots victory against all odds. the national review described ted cruz as a great reagan-ite hope. he's argued 43 oral arguments in front of the supreme court -- nine, excuse me, before the u.s. supreme court. he graduated with honors from princeton university and with high honors debate champion at harvard law school. he served as a law clerk to chief justice william rehnquist on the u.s. supreme court. every day, and i follow the senator on twitter, as well as in other areas, and every day i see senator cruz taking on the big issues in order to try to save america before it's too late. there is ted cruz taking on obamacare. there is ted cruz taking on fast and furious. there is ted cruz taking on benghazi. and the irs. and the va scandal. and the bergdahl swap. and the out-of-control government spending.

and the president's lawlessness. the list goes on. whenever i see him taking on yet another big issue, i invariably tweet, must ted cruz do everything. and the answer is, invariably, yes, because with the exception of his fellow warriors for freedom here today, he literally has to do everything himself. and thank goodness he's willing to do it. please welcome, a true hero of this republic, i'm honored to call him a friend, senator ted cruz. [ applause ] >> well, thank you so very much. thank you, monica, for the very, very kind introduction. what a fantastic fearless voice for liberty, monica.

and what a blessing it is to be with all of you. you know, the scripture tells us where two or more gathered in his name, he will be there. and there are a lot more than two of us here today. it is a real honor, it is a pleasure to be here with you, to be joining you today. you know, many of us, we go to church on sunday. we'll see the pastor going back to the original greek. you look to the etimolog of the word politics. there are two parts. poly, meaning many, and tics, meaning blood-sucking parasites. which is a fairly accurate description of washington, d.c. so, welcome to the swamp. the place that combines southern

efficiency with northern hospitality. you know, these are extraordinary times in our nation. the threats we're facing in this country are unprecedented. for five years, we've been trapped in the great stagnation millions of americans struggling to get jobs, struggling to achieve the american dream. abroad, we see our foreign policy collapsing, every region of the world is getting more and more dangerous. and america for five and a half years has failed to stand with our unshakable ally, the nation of israel. and we are seeing at the same time liberty under assault. we're seeing our constitutional rights under assault like never before. what i want to talk to you about today is one aspect of liberty

that is imperiled like never before and is precious and cherished by every one of us. and that is religious liberty. there is a reason why the very first provision of the bill of rights, the very first phrase in the first amendment protects the religious liberty of every american. because we were formed by people from all across the world fleeing religious oppression and coming to a land where every one of us could speak out the lord god almighty with all of our heart, mind and soul. you know, i've been blessed for much of my life to have the opportunity to stand up and defend religious liberty. when i was solicitor general of texas, i was honored to honor the ten commandments monument on the state capital ground. we went to the u.s. supreme court and we won 5-4. [ applause ] when a federal court of appeals

struck down the pledge of allegiance because it includes the words "one nation under god," we went to the u.s. supreme court defending the pledge of allegiance, and we won unanimously. [ applause ] and when a federal court in california struck down the mojave desert veterans memorial, a 70-year-old monument, a lone white latin cross to the men and women who gave their lives in world war i, i was honored to represent over 3 million veterans, we went to the u.s. supreme court defending the mojave veterans memorial and won 5-4. [ applause ] today the threats to religious liberty are even greater. i want to talk about them both here at home and abroad. here at home, we have an irs who

is asking citizen groups, tell me what books you're reading. tell me the content. tell you something, the federal government has no business asking any american the content of our prayers. [ applause ] last year, in alaska, an air force chaplain posted on his blog the phrase, there are no atheists in foxholes. he was ordered by his commanding officer to take that down. i guess it was deemed insensitive to atheists. i kind of thought it was the job of chaplains to be insensitive to atheists. [ laughter ] to welcome them into the forgiving arms of a loving god. but it's very interesting to look at the origin of the phrase, there are no atheists in

foxholes. it came from a 1954 speech to the american legion given by president dwight d. eisenhower, a man who i might note had some passing familiarity with the military. in the course of that speech, president eisenhower describes the story of the four immortal chaplains. that story arose from the uss dorchester, that world war ii was hit by torpedoes from a german u-boat as it came around the southern tip of greenland. and the dorchester began to sink. and they realized with horror that there were not enough life jackets aboard for all the men on the ship. there were four chaplains on the dorchester. two who were protestant, one who was catholic, one who was jewish. each of those four chaplains

when they realized there weren't enough life vests, each took off his life vest and gave it to another. and then they stood arm in arm and they sung hymns as the four chaplains went down with the ship. and the origin of that story is that when those chaplains were handing their life vests to another, they didn't ask, are you a protestant, are you a catholic, are you a jew? they simply stepped forward and sacrificed their lives to save the life of their brother. that's the origin of the story. that is the american tradition. the idea that our federal government is coming after religious liberty now is just astonishing and heartbreaking. now, you look at the intrusions on religious liberties that are represented in obamacare. take obamacare.

please, take obamacare. you know, the u.s. supreme court is considering right now the case of hobby lobby, a christian owner that has stood up and said the federal government cannot force them to pay for and provide abortion-producing drugs to their employees. the obama administration is litigating against them to try to force them to violate their religious views. there's another case that's even more stark. the little sisters of the poor. this is a catholic another casen more stark. a catholic convent of nuns, who have taken vows of poverty. and the obama administration is litigating against them, trying to collect millions of dollars of fines to force these catholic nuns to pay for abortion

producing drugs. let me give you a simple rule of thumb. if you're litigating against nuns, you have probably done something wrong. and then you look at the threats to religious liberty abroad. right now all of us are horrified by watching what's happening in the nation of iraq. as isis, a group of radical islamic terrorists so extreme, they were thrown out of al qaeda is systematically taking over more and more of that nation. they're stated objective is to create an islamic califate that runs from syria to iraq, and then to work to exterminate jordan, israel and ultimately america. the 1990s, there were roughly 1.2 million christians living in iraq.

today there are fewer than 300,000. christians are being persecuted in stunning numbers. they are being stoned, they are being tortured. they are being beheaded, they are being crucified. that's what's happening for people speaking out to their faith. and that's not just people from other nations. pastor saeed abedine. he's an american, an american citizen, a resident of idaho. he was in his native country of iran, building an orphanage when he was sentenced to eight years in prison for the crime of sharing his christian faith. eight years in prison. his wife and his two little kids live in idaho right now.

i've had the opportunity to sit down and visit with his wife. she shared a story before this sentence where she and her husband were both captured in iran, threatened with prison together. and were told, if only you will renounce christ we'll let you go, and they said no. she described how one of the commanding officers who captured them asked all the other army officers to leave, and he sat down at the table with the two of them and said, tell me about this jesus. as pastor saeed languishes in an iranian prison while the american government negotiates with the government of iran, a negotiation that i think is only increasing the likelihood of iran developing nuclear weapon capability