collaboration between our agenesis for us to be able to apply our expertise, so we make sure we protect people. when there are malicious attempts to go after the data, we have ways to keep people protected. >> i appreciate that. we know that the data collection practices from the auto makers and others in the industry can be used to provide some increased safety protocols. i think consumers are interested in that, but they want to guard their privacy, and they want to make certain that the data that is there is useful information. it is utilized in an appropriate way. yield back. >> the lady yields mback. chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, for five minutes. >> i've been watching you intermittently on television, both of you look good on television. thank you very much. mr. chairman, i'd like to focus

my questions on the safety bill i introduced with the ranking member and congresswoman capps. the companion legislation pass td senate with bipartisan support as part of the senate's highway bill, and is supported by the rental car industry. many of them are here today. consumer organizations and general motors and honda and others. it would ensure that rental car companies fix recalled vehicles in their fleets before renting or selling them. so let me ask you, mr. administrator, thank you for coming today, come to opponents of the legislation said rental car companies should be allowed to rent or sell unrepaired, defective, recalled cars, unless the manufacturer has specifically issued a, do not drive warning. is there any federal standard for when a do not drive warning must be issued?

>> thank you for pointing that out because that do not drive issiis issued by the manufacturer, not nhtsa. they're determining whether or not the criteria would be to allow that to occur on a rental or used car. that happens extremely rarely. >> so state again for the record, who decides when such a warning is issued? >> the manufacturer who has the defect, create td vehicle, determines the do not drive. >> can you give us some examples of defects where do not drive warning was not issued by the manufacturer? for example, has any manufacturer issued a do not drive warning for takata air bags? >> that would be the example i would give. given that's the largest recall in auto mihistory for sure, may the united states. there is no do not drive out on any takata air bag. >> thank you. that's what i needed to get into the record, mr. chairman. i yield back.

>> gentleman yields back. chair recognizes the gentleman from houston, texas, mr. olson. f five minutes for questions, please. >> i thank the chair. welcome, dr. rosekind, and mrs. mithal. i started driving in 1978, vehicle safety depended on turning wrenches in socket, and now it's about key boards and electronics. my first question is for you, dr. rosekind. in nhtsa's view, should cybersecurity weaknesses be treated the same way as traditional vehicle safety defects? if so, what federal motor safety standards is nhtsa using to make that determination? if not, how is nhtsa addressing cybersecurity weaknesses in vehicles? >> there are a few questions in

there, and i'll try to go to the core. you're right, things have changed dramatically. the secretary and nhtsa are really excited about seeing technology innovations accelerate our work and safety. but cybersecurity is one of the areas that's going to take a collaboration across government, manufacturers and roothers to figure out what needs to be done. we have tools from rule making to all kinds of voluntary efforts that the manufacturers want to do. so we have to absolutely acknowledge that information sharing and analysis center was created by the auto makers, to make sure they could get together and identify and share information, a critical element. i point out that you can ask for all the regulation you want, but in cybersecurity, nimble and flexible is necessary. we have to identify current and new tools to deal with this issue going into the future. >> is this using the

cybersecurity framework to guide its work in keeping vehicles safe? >> one source. we have been in contact with a full change, dod, homeland security, anybody that has expertise, including private technology companies, of course, that have done protection for our mobile phones and other elements. we're in contact with a full range of trying to learn from them and how we can apply it to cybersecurity and the auto industry. >> data collection, dr. rosekind, section 4109 a would prohibit the rental of a vehicle by a rental company if there is an open recall. i have a few questions regarding data collection attributed to this change in the highway bill. how many lives can nhtsa estimate would be saved if every rental vehicle under open recall is grounded by rental companies as required by section 4109 a of the grow america act?

>> i will get you that analysis as part of our technical assistance. we will get you that. for used as well as rental cars. >> how many injuries did nhtsa estimate will be prevented if rental car groundedenacted? >> we will include injuries and fatalities and crashes for you. >> thank you. ms. mithal, how many data security cases has the ftc brought against car companies in the last five years? any idea? >> we've not brought any car cases. we've brought 55 general security, from care to cameras and phones. all the principles apply equally to connected cars. >> so zero for cars so far? >> correct. >> okay. what is the commission's expertise with respect to the security of critical safety systems and vehicles?

are there differences in how criminal safety system vehicles should be treated compared to other infrastructures? >> our focus has been on process. so all of our 55 cases stand for the lesson that companies need to implement processes up front to make sure to protect against security violations. for example, companies including car companies, need to hire people responsible for security. they need to conduct risk assessments, oversee their service providers, keep abreast of technologies surrounding them and emerging technologies that affect their areas. that's consistent with the cybersecurity framework approach. >> as dr. rosekind mentioned, be nimble because this changes like that. we have to keep up with the changes. i yield back. thank you. >> the chair recognizes the gentle lady from california. five minutes for questions, please. >> thank you plrks chairman, ,

holding this hearing and accepting my willingness to participate. this touches on many issue, and i want to explore a topic brought up by the two last questi questioners. the critical issue that has been omitted from the draft, rental car safety. in 2004, two young sisters, rachel and jacqueline, were killed when their rented pt cruiser caught fire and crashed. the sisters were returning home after visiting their parents just outside my district in california and had no idea that the car they were driving was subject to a safety recall that had not been fixed, nor acknowledged, before the rental company gave them this car. despite receiving the safety recall notice a month before renting them the car, the rental company failed to get the free safety repairs done. while federal law prohibits car dealers from selling new cars

subject to recall, there is no similar law to prevent rental companies from renting out dangerous recalled cars. there is a safety oversight and one that can and must be fixed. that's why, as has been acknowledged, i introduced bipartisan legislation with my colleges, walter jones and others, to close this loophole. it would fix federal law to prohibit rental car companies from renting or selling recalled cars. it's supported by many, and the bill passed the senate as part of the drive act and change td petition to pass the bill recently started by rachel and jackie's mother, has been signed by 150,000 consumers across the country. yet, i'm disappointed this issue is not mentioned in the draft we're considering today. administrator rosekind, i know nhtsa and the administration have been working to address this important issue. does nhtsa support legislation

to prohibit the rental of recalled vehicles? >> yes. >> opponents of the bill erroneously claim that the bill would not improve consumer safety. given nhtsa's support for banning the rental of recalled vehicles, i think it's clear that you, perhaps, disagree with this assessment. would you briefly elaborate? thank you. >> new, used or rental vehicles that have a known defect should be remedied before they're on the road. >> thank you. despite the broad support behind hr 2198, the groups are fighting against this common sense effort. under pressure, the alliance of auto manufacturers is, instead, proposing potentially harmful alternative, that only requires rental companies to disclose that the vehicle is under recall before renting it out. their proposal only prohibits the rental of recalled cars with do not drive notices, as was referenced, despite the fact that notices represent only a

tiny fraction of safety recalls. administrator rosekind, last year, nhtsa provided a letter to senator s boxer expressing its position on the proposal. >> i will repeat to be clear. new, used rental, if it has a defect, it should be off the road. as we were discussing, the do not drive is determined by the manufacturer of the defect, not nhtsa. it's very rare. >> thank you for clarifying that and making it -- underscoring it. some opponents have argued that nhtsa recall -- because so few come with do not drive requirements. does nhtsa issue frivolous recalls? by definition, aren't all safety recalls due to serious safety risk? >> yes.

we have a specific investigation process to determine those defects. >> thank you. and i will yield back my time, but before doing so, i ask consent to enter into the record november 2007 letter from nhtsa to the senator, outlining the agency's response to the auto alliance proposal. and i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentle lady yields back. seeing no other members present to ask questions, let me ask the ranking member if she'd like new redirect? >> no. thank you. >> let me, dr. rosekind, i wanted to make sure that we offer, once again, the concept of people checking their vehicle identification numbers against the database you provide. perhaps you could just detail how someone would do that if they wanted to check.

>> chairman burgess, every time i appear before you, you graciously make sure that we provide information for consumers to do something about recalls. i can't thank you enough for that because i don't think we are ever done getting the information out. people can go to safer car.gov. safer car.gov. look up their vehicle information number and see if there are any open recalls. what's most important is that they find something, they have to act on it. call their dealer, get it fixed. >> what if, like, they don't know their vehicle identification number off the top of their head? is there a place to find that information? >> good point because i'm not sure any of us would know that off the top of our head. you can find that at the bottom left of your windshield. it's usually on the insurance card. there are multiple places you can go. we have a mobile app you can look it up now. >> very good advice. our trip out to your location, you're fine people and informed me i had a problem with a

vehicle. not the one i was expecting but, nevertheless, it was important information to have. lest people think we come here with assigned talking points and never listen to each other, i wanted to point out your testimony earlier in the year, and we were doing the appropriations bill for the department of transportation, and i did offer an amendment that night because of your testimony during the day, that took $4 million from the secretary's general and accounting line item on the budget and moved it to your line item on the budget for additional safety work. i think afterwards, when i discussed with you, the offer still stands. i'll be happy to discuss with you or even go with you to the appropriate appropriations subcommittee when the budget request is made to the appropriations committee next year. because this is important.

just one -- one final observation, and then i'll go on. the inspector general's audit report, your response, the appendix to the audit report, your response to the things that were brought up, i wanted to highlight one of the bullet points. use of safety systems approach to look for possible relationships between a symptom in one vehicle system and a possible critical failure in other system. as we were going through, and this was prior to your tenure, but last year, we were going through on another subcommittee, the ignition problems on the cobalt vehicles, and the non-deployment of air bags, that being such a critical finding. it was of concern to me that this would appear in accident reports. albeit, over a ten-year time span. there weren't a large number, but nevertheless, any time a vehicle air bag nondeployment

occurred, it seemed like that should be something which must be unveinvestigated. you outline here that, consider, if possible, to defect theories that don't fit with previously held assumptions. in other words, look for another reason, other than something you normally would. i'll never forget the accident report where one vehicle, there were two vehicles involved in a head on collision. unfortunately, it was not survival in either vehicle. in one car, you have the air bag, the other was not. there wasn't a tree hit, wasn't a curb or anything that would jar the ignition switch. one air bag works and one doesn't. why did the one not work? i'm grateful to see that line item in your discussion of the points that were brought up by the ig's report. i think that's of critical importance. i'll yield. five minutes for questions.

>> thank you very much, chairman. appreciate this opportunity. want to thank the witnesses for being here to answer our questions. keeping in mind the millions of cars on our roads, keeping them safe is complicated and expensi expensive. the draft we're looking at today does not address increased funding, though the provisions would show responsibilities to the agency. dr. rosekind, in your testimony today, you said the failure to address gaps in nhtsa's available personnel and resource rs a known risk to safety. can you explain how civil penalties for violations of motor vehicles safety standards and other violations affect those gaps? >> all of the penalties that are collected go right to the u.s. treasury, so we don't get any of those for our work. >> okay. so no matter how effective you

are or even industry admits and/or forwards the penalties, there's no direct correlation between the amount of work that comes to your agency versus the amount of effective -- or what you're rendering. >> that's correct. the last time i appeared here, i said, if you gave us more resources, we can deliver more safety. if you give more demands without more resources, you get less safety. >> okay. thank you. this draft does not address raising the cap on civil penalties that nhtsa can seek from manufacturers for violation. the vehicle safety improvement act would eliminate the cap. in the past few years, there have been several widely publicized scandals surrounding the auto industry. in 2014 alone, nhtsa issued more than 127 million civil penalties. dr. rosekind, 35 million sounds like a large amount of money, but we continue to hear about

the egregious safety violations in the industry. nhtsa has had to be creative in finding ways to make penalties appropriate for the violations. the current maximum penalty, is that enough to be an effective deterrent? >> no. that's why in grow america, we suggested a $300 million cap. no cap is good with us, too, but at least $300 million is what's proposed to have a meaningful deterrent. >> now, if the $35 million cap were significantly raised, what, in your opinion, would effect or the expectation of how the behavior of auto makers may or may not change? >> i think our expectation would be, with appropriate deterrents, like civil penalties, we'd want to see a proactive safety culture. defects, conduct recalls earlier and faster. >> would raising the per violation fine and eliminating

the cap on civil penalties improve safety, in your opinion? >> that's the intent. the current level is not the deterrent it should be. >> when was the last time that level was raised? >> good question. i'll make sure that's in our technical assistance when we provide that to you. it's been a while. the $35 million is basically been on the books for a long time. >> for years now? >> yeah. >> and the curve on activity or the volume of vehicles and the industry dollar amount value, year to year, has that been going up? >> absolutely. if you're trying to make that distinction, yes, our authorities stated a certain level while the number of vehicles were at 265 million on the roadways now. the number of recalls is going this way, while we've been staying this way. if you look at the budget, which we talked about last time i was here, really in sort of real dollars, we're down from where we were ten years ago. >> i constantly hear elected

officials across the country talking about how we should run government more like a business. does it seem like we're running your department like a business when you just describe the amount of activity going up, the amount of dollar amount in the industry going up, et cetera, yet, your budget and your ability to create more safe activity is flat? >> no. i'll make a personal comment, which is, i have a different, unique background, having been in academics and as a scientist, had my own business with consulted with top 100 companies all over the world. i bring that perspective for efficiency, eh secretaryiffecti. it's one of the frustrations of wanting to do more with not enough resources. people, money. >> well, i'm of the opinion in this country that we're fortunate to take public safety

for granted in so many ways. it's unfortunate that we're not fortifying you with the resources necessary to keep us as safe as you can. thank you so much. yield back. >> chair thanks the gentleman. seeing as there are no further members wishing to ask questions for the first panel, i want to thank both witnesses for being here today, for their time. this will conclude our first panel. we will take a two-minute recess to set up for the second panel. welcome back. thank you all for your patience and taking time to be with us here today. we'll move to our second panel for today's hearing. we will follow the same format as during the first panel. each witness will be given five minutes for an opening statement followed by a round of questions from members. for the second panel, we have the following witnesses. mr. bainwol, the president and ceo of the alliance of automobile manufacturers.

mr. john bozzella. mrs. will sswilson. mr. greg dotson. former administrator of the traffic safety administration. mr. peter welch, president of the national automobile dealers association. and mr. michael wilson, the ceo of the automotive recyclers association. we do appreciate all of you being with us this morning. we're grateful for your forbearings during the first panel. mr. bainwol, you're recognized for your opening statement, please. >> thank you, chairman. given the size of this panel, i'm reminded of what former senator john warner said we he became elizabeth taylor's sixth husband. he said, i know what to do, i'm just not sure how to make it

interesting. here i go. thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of 12 global oems based in the u.s., europe and asia, our companies are 75% of the marketplace. our industry put about a billion new cars on the road in the next decade. that's a lot of steel and a lot of aluminum. astounding level of production with massive job and economic implications. more striking is a game-changing innovation that will bring social benefits. our companies are investing $100 billion a year in research, including the development of the next generation of connected vehicle technologies. these technologies will save lives, save fuel and enhance mobility. over the last decade, your house colleagues invested highway dollars to make smart vehicles and infrastructure a reality. to build a mark of tomorrow includes $175 million over the next six years.

they're making this investment for an important reason. that's because congestion wastes $3 billion -- i'm sorry -- 3 billion gallons of fuel every year. the federal highway administration estimates 12.5% of congestion, 3 million metric tons, is directly attributable to crashes. thus, there is a direct link between reducing crashes and reducing co2 emissions. for this subcommittee, the focus is the potential of this technology to save lives. the technologies offer us an opportunity to address the 94%, if not more, of all accidents that nhtsa attributes to driver error. it's crucial to address this. more than 32,000 people died in car crashes last year. far too many. 25% below what it was a decade ago. but it's still too many. nhtsa said connected vehicles had the potential to mitigate

80% of crashes. last week, a group released a study, showing that advanced driving assist systems could prevent 10,000 fatalities and 30% of all crashes occurring in the u.s. we should all share the goal of deploying these technologies as soon as possible. how can we not? it's why the modest incentives, and they are modest, included for the technologies does make sense. a connected car with crash awareness technologies is safer and cleaner. it's not a tradeoff, it's a convergence of interests. the harmonization of the gains that these technologies offer changes the policy paradigm. it causes us to think how we accelerate this into the fleet. we applaud the committee to save lives. if passed, it can prevent

tragedies and the impact on greenhouse gas emissions is equally real. while the benefits of the technologies are profound, connectivity and data introduce challenges, including privacy and cybersecurity. we commend the committee for generating new proposals. last year, the industry was the first non-internet sector to issue consumer privacy protection principles. they built off the well-established in where and how you drive. we're moving aggressively in cyber security. as this committee knows, auto makers will stand up the information sharing and analysis center to the sharing of potential cyber threats and countermeasures in real time. yel yet, we hear you loucloud and clear. you wanted us to move further. we're moving forward with the best practices initiative, as well, so we have a fully integrated approach to addressing risks. the future of mobility is

extremely bright. we're on the precipice. technology will make this happen. it will enable safety outcomes in an economy that's more productive because people and goods will be able to move much more efficiently around the country. this committee has started this conversation by the future mobility in ernest. we look forward to working with you to build this new reality. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. mr. bozzella, you're recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, ranking member, members of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify today. mr. chairman, thank you for your thoughtful work on motor vehicle safety and holding this hearing today. our industry has been in the news a great deal lately, and not always for the best of reasons. this hearing gives us a chance to discuss onion going efforts to improve motor vehicle safety and enhance public trust through

the research and development of new technologies. the draft bill released last week contains a number of ideas designed to advance our goal of improved motor vehicle safety. we appreciate the sub committees commitment to address new and emerging challenges associated with the development of vehicles that not only ak ctively avoid collisions but talk to each other and the surrounding infrastructure. one, recall notification during vehicle registration. two, adoption of connected car technology. three, industry efforts to stay ahead of privacy and cybersecurity challenges. consumers should be informed of the recall status of their vehicles. auto makers believe the effective way to achieve this end is to use state dmv offices to notify owners of open recalls at the time they register or renew their registration.

we have initial data that suggests there is public support for this approach. in a survey commissioned by global auto makers and the alliance of automobile manufacturers, we looked how consumers respond to and think about recall notices and found overwhelming support for the idea of receiving recall information from the dmv. over 70% of those asked about this issue supported not only notification at registration, but a requirement that recalls be remedied prior to registration. more research needs to be done, but these initial results indicate the subcommittee is moving in the right direction, as it explores ways to increase recall completion rates. we are also please thad the draft bill recognizes the substantial benefits associated with the installation of dedicated short-range communications that allow cars to communicate with each other and the surrounding infrastructure. leading to fewer crashes, less congestion and other potential

benefits. nhtsa agrees this technology could be, quote, a game changer, unquote, potentially addressing 80% of vehicle crashes involving non-impaired drivers. encouraging the fastest deployment possible of dsrc will spread the benefits of this life saving technology more quickly and more widely. the enormous benefits of connected car technologies outweigh the challenges that come with living in a connected world. as auto makers bpursue these innovations, we recognize cybersecurity and privacy protections are essential to building consumer confidence. to ensure the security of safety critical driving systems and to protect the privacy of consumer data, we have begun establishing best practices. these best practices will allow auto makers the flexibility to quickly and effectively respond to the dynamic nature of cyber challenges. this builds on steps we have

already taken, such as the creation of industry privacy principles to protect consumer information and the launch of the automotive information sharing and analysis center, to share intelligence on immediate threats and vulnerabilities. last year, u.s. auto makers took steps to protect the privacy of consumers through the responsible stewardship of information collected from in-vehicle technologies and services and the meaningful disclosure of privacy principles and practices. we engage with privacy advocates and the trade commission during the development of these principles. as early as january of 2016, all major auto manufacturers will be accountable to the ftc for these privacy commitments. we have questions about how the privacy provision outlined in the bill would interact with the commitments that have already been made by auto makers. in august, u.s. auto makers incorporated the auto isac.

by the end of the year, we expect the isac infrastructure to be operational. this is not unique to auto makers. any approach to address cyber threats should be consistent with approaches used in other industries. thank you, again, for the opportunity to appear before you today. happy to answer any questions you may have. >> chair thanks the gentleman. you're recognized for an opening statement. >> thank you. chairman, ranking member and members of the subcommittee, i'm ann wilson, the senior vice president for the association. thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify today. more than 1,000 companies manufacture components and systems for use in light and heavy duty vehicle, original equipment and after market industries. our members provide more than

734,000 direct jobs nationwide, making the motor vehicle parts industry the largest supplier of manufacturing jobs nationwide. suppliers work closely with vehicle manufacturers to provide cutting edge and innovativepone vehicles. 2/3 of the value of today's vehicles. today, i'll focus on the safety benefits of address driver assistance systems. these are included in the draft in the term, advanced automatic technology. as is widely recognized and previously discussed, motor vehicle safety continues to improve. the safety factors are improvement to the structure design and technologies. we recently published a study on the benefits of the technologies. a complete copy has been

circulated to all the committee members. the mema study focused on current technologies that can pr live safety benefits and form the pathway to a partially or fully autonomous vehicle plate that can eliminate traffic fatalities. however, this study did find that technologies that are currently available have a potential to prevent 30% of all crashes nationwide, a total of 10,000 lives saved every year. today, however, relatively few vehicles on the road have these technologies, and their penetration in the market is only growing at 2% to 5% annually. since the vast majority of accidents in the u.s. are caused by driver error, the adoption of this technology in the u.s. fleet is a missed opportunity. i'd like to take a minute and discuss exactly what the eknology e technology is. it can be grouped into three.

that he has that can aid the driver, assist the driver in performing the systems. it includes night vision, rear mounted mirrors that enhance the rear vision, adaptive lighting and surround systems. features alert the driver of potential dangers. park assist, collision warning, lane departure warning, which activates a beeper or causes the driver's seat to vibrate when the vehicle drifts out of its lane. other warning systems include blind spot and rear cross detectors and monitoring systems. they actively engage steering, accelerate and/or braking systems, as is needed to ensure the vehicle's safe operations. such features include collision assist, adaptive cruise control, self-parking and lane keeping assist, which actively returns the vehicle to its original lane

when it's in danger of drifting from it. there's also pedestrian avoidance, which warns the driver of an impending collision with a pedestrian and in some situations will assist the driver in steering and braking to avoid the situation. marketing incentives will increase the adoption and lower the costs of these tech meteorologies. mema supports the efforts of the committee to promote the technologies through the new car assessment program and advance credits for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions. we do have the following comments on the committee draft. in title 5, section 501, buyers must be included in the automotive technology adviser committee. we believe 35% threshold specify for inclusion of the technology on the label is too high. collision avoidance systems are currently available and if they are in new vehicles, they must be lifted in the rating as part

of all new vehicle labels. section 502, mema supports avoiding credits for advance in t for the green house emissions. however, there should not be a difference in the credits for vehicles with at least three advanced safety technologies and vehicles with one connected vehicle technology. mema thanks the committee to provide greater consumer acceptance and technologies. the industry is committed to working with you to establish new and innovative ways to increase the adoption of these life-saving technologies and to address other critical issues. thank you. >> the chair nothanks the winnt. you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i'm vice president for energy policy, center for american

progress. we're dedicated to improving the lives of american. many americans rely on their cars and trucks to get to work, do their jobs, transport their family safely. for these reasons, the industry has regulated in different ways to minimize accidents, our dependence on oil and prevent pollution from choking our economies. the result is that today's vehicles have attributes once believed to be incompatible. today, i'll focus my testimony on sections 502 and 503, the discussion draft. i have provided a lengthier statement for the record. i'd like to highlight the five important reasons that the sections are flawed. first, the discussion draft presents a false choice by asking members of congress to choose vehicle safety over pollution reduction. that's an unnecessary tradeoff. the fact is we need both safer motor vehicles and cleaner cars and trucks and there's no reason the american people can't have both. second, there is not a sound

analytic basis for the proposal. the bill would encourage auto makers to use this technology by giving them pollution credits for every car they manufacture with crash avoidance technology, like automatic emergency braking, or technology that helps with congestion mitigation, like an in-dash gps. unfortunately, there isn't sufficient data to support the credits. in 2012, the environmental protection agency and department of transportation examined this issue. auto maker dimeler argued it should provide the credits for the crash avoidance technology. the agency said the credits should be awarded where there were real-world improvements to fuel economy. they must be verifiable and transparent. the agencys -- technologies for satisfied.

it's best left to nhtsa's exercise of vehicle safety authority. the discussion draft would reverse this conclusion. section 502 a provides a credit of three or more grams of carbon dioxide per mile to any vehicle equipped with advanced vehicle technology. the bill offers a credit of six or more grams of carbon dioxide for any vehicle equipped with connected vehicle technology. it's more than dimeler argued epa was warranted for this technology in 2012. though epa is determining the extent of volkswagen's violation, in the estimates, the excess pollution from the non-complying vw vehicles is less than three grams per mile. the fact is, three grams per mile, every day, every year, for every car, adds up to substantial pollution. third, the discussion draft would allow more solution for using technologies that are going to be used even without this incentive.

for instance, last month, ten major vehicle manufacturers publicly committed to making automatic emergency braking a standard feature in all new vehicles. it makes no sense to give these companies incentive for something they intend to do anyway. fourth, the loopholes created by the bill could only grow bigger over time. section 503 a would authorize the secretary of transportation to select any technology and award that as many credits to incentivize, unquote, the adoption. there's no upper bound limit on how many credits might be awarded under this language. finally, the bill as currently drafted would curb the role of states in innovating carbon pollution reductions at the state level. as we have seen time and again, the states are the laboratories of innovation. they have demonstrated countless successes, and there's no basis for stripping them of their important role. it was the state of california that led the way in detecting the vw emissions scandal.

mr. chairman, ranking member and members of the subcommittee, it has not been easy for the united states to establish a regulatory structure that's transparent, data driven, technology based and effective. i urge you to reject for new special interest loopholes and maintain the current system. the american people expect a system that cuts pollution and increases safety. let's not sacrifice one for the other. i'd be happy to take any questions you have. >> chair thanks the gentleman. you're recognized for five minutes for your opening statement, please. >> i thank you very much, mr. chairman and ranking member and members of the subcommittee. i'm the consumer chair add advocates for highway safety and former administrator of nhtsa. i appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on an important issue, the safety of our family and friends on our nation's roads and highways. let me share important statistics as you begin

considering this bill. 33,000 deaths and over 200 million injuries annual ly. 613 recalls already in 2015 involving 40 million vehicles. for these recalls, at least 200 people innocently killed and hundreds injured because auto makers sold cars they knew had safety defects. house and senate hearings, ten of them over the last two years on gm ignition switches and exploding takata air bags, where heard countless tours of testimony and indignation expressed by members. criminal justice, department of justice and civil fines against recalls since 2010 because of the nhtsa enforcement and justice enforcement. nhtsa safety budget, a measly

$130 million a year. measly $130 million. 11 family members behind me today, millions of americans expect their legislators to enact sensible solutions for serious safety problems. one opportunity to get it right. congressional hearings, media reports that dot inspector general reports incovered industry misconduct and nhtsa missteps that put millions at danger on the highway. we need legislation that addressing the underfunded and understood staff understaffed agency. a lack of civil, adequate civil and criminal penalties to deter auto makers from putting profits before public safety. a predisposition by nhtsa to needlessly withhold information from consumers about safety problems that thwarts their ability to challenge the agency actions. that is now changing under mr. rosekind. thank you. a loophole that allows consumers

to drive off the lot of a rental car company or used car dealer with a vehicle under recall but not repaired. agency powerlessness to take swift action. the draft bill will set a safety agenda for the agency for the next six years. at a time where motor vehicle death and injuries are climbing, safety standards are needed. serious problems have been exposed and new challenges face the agency. what does this bill do to enhance safety with the legal and financial tools to fulfill its mission? very little. instead, it seriously dilutes critical vehicle controls and wastes taxpayer dollars by turning nhtsa into the national highway traffic study administration. it conducts 16 studti ties and reports and puts one safety for

the emissions. we know the technology exists to build safe, fuel efficient and safe cars. other provisions delay public notification of recalls until nhtsa is in receipt of all the vehicle information numbers subject to the recall, and nhtsa is required to draft the non-compliance in coordination with the manufacturer. something that alimited to. the bill provides an exemption for vehicles intended for testing and evaluation. these give aways are unnecessary because this already has a regulatory process to do this in the law. furthermore, the draft bill provides a breathtaking double standard for manufacturers at the expense of consumers. in second 406, mandates that industry failure to follow dot voluntary guidelines cannot be used as evidence in a civil action. industry may be compliance with the guidelines to show compliance with pujt regulbudge

regulations in the same civil action. the real intention of these and other provisions and advisory committees and councils are not to prevent safety but thwart the regulating industry and keep the public out. problem solving proposals to the problems identified by the hearings. you've heard again and again, and found in hr 1181. it has been introduced by pallod subcommittee ranking member january schakowsky. it's a comprehensive approach that includes tougher penalties, hazard authority, improved transparency, pedestrian safety measures, prohibitions on renting vehicles or selling used cars under review and actions on recalls and revolving door selections. to the agency to draft -- address the tragedies of unattended children left behind in a vehicle and 200 some of

them die a year. unless this committee acts to pass meaningful legislation, the string of scandals will fire. tires, sudden acceleration, faulty switches, exploding airbags and now cheating diesels. there are no credible excuses for delaying, increased penalties, strengthening nhtsa's authority and resources and proved standards. that can really save lives and prevent industry fraud. thank you so much for the opportunity. >> mr. welch, you're recognized for five minutes please for an opening statement. >> mr. chairman, ranking member schakowsky, i'm peter kawelch. i'm president of the national automobile dealers agency. a nationwide trade association that represents the new car and

truck deal earls throughout the country. the draft bill before you today contains a number of provisions nada supports. dealers support 100% recall completion rate and, again, we commend the subcommittee for its efforts to help us achieve that goal. the recall system congress enacted depends on new car dealers to fix the millions of vehicles now under recall. last year alone, our members performed 59 million warranty and recall repairs and unfortunately set to break this record again today with the burgeoning number of recalls that are being issued. for the owners of recalled vehicles, it is the local dealer that remedies the defect or noncome form answer. with a notice and fail to act, many dealers contact their customers to schedule a service appointment. one of our texas dealer members found that sending bright pink postcards reminding the owners

that the vehicles are under recall get them fixed. currently, the completion rate around 75% which means there's lots of room for improvement. back ordered repair parts and notices are two main reasons that the completion rates lag. it is not unusual for a dealer to wait 60 days or more for a back ordered repair part. some instances, unavailable for over a year. i don't know of any dealer not eager but they need repair parts to do that. inaction by consumers after receiving a notice also hinders completion rates. one idea nada suggested to nhtsa at the workshop for nhtsa for a campaign to target those groups that are les likely to respond to recall notices. improving nhtsa's recall database and look-up tool is

another way to boost the completion rate. the current system was designed for single vehicle look-ups by consumers. it was not designed for commercial use. the dealer can have dozens to thousands of used vehicles in its inventory. this bill should include a provision directing nhtsa to update the databait to allow dealers to check on a daily basis which used vehicles are under open recall. a tool that's batched multiple requests is critical to n a deal earl's inventory and getting them fixed. we also support sox 203 which would provide notification by state dmv. it's all about notification an awareness and a good idea to help increase the remedy rate. section 205 would extend the period for which cars are

recalled from ten to 15 years with the average vehicle on the road at 11.5 years, this makes sense. in conclusion, congress must ensure that any new recall policy it enacts is data driven. the most vefl highway safety policies such as enactment of safety belt laws and anti-drunk driving measures were all based on hard data and now are proven countermeasures. we xhepd the subcommittee for the hard work and stand ready to work with you to protect america's driving pub. thank you an i look forward to answering any questions. >> chair thanks the gentleman. mr. wilson you are recognized for five minutes. >> chairman burgess, ranking member schakowsky, thank you for the opportunity to steph. i'm michael wilson, ceo of the automaker's recyclers

association. we represent the interests of over 4,000 facilities in the united states who each day sell over 500,000 recycled parts to consumers, mechanical shops, collision repair shops and automobile dealers. these quality recycled original equipment parts are built to make the requirements for fit, finish, durability, reliability and safety. these parts are often reutilized in repair and service of vehicles and they continue to operate as they were originally intended in terms of form, function, performance and safety. i urge congress to add language to provide the industry access to critical original parts data on all motor vehicles. the critical data includes part numbers, names and descriptions tied to each vehicle, vehicle identification number. the straightforward reason for this information is necessary because manufacturers and

dealers in the industry speak a totally different parts language than those in the auto recycling community. automakers and dealers utilize original part numbers while there's part numbers. the interchange enables those enthusiasts to find parts they need to keep the vehicling running and in original condition. the interchange indexes millions of parts and equivalents of other vehicles. for example, a specific part that is in a ford f-150 is also interchangeable with the same part of a ford expedition, a mercury mount near or a lincoln navigatorment it's only through the utilization of the interchange part numbers that automotive manufacturers and recyclers can come together to enhance overall motor vehicle safety, improve recall remedy rates and comply with the

statute for used equipment in the tread act. first i would like to address the challenge recyclers face in defective parts in current inventory. regrettably, the tread act and rule makings did not compel essential parts data making it impossible for stakeholders to comply with the federal statute. au automakers are fully aware of the life cycle. this recognition was underscored in august 2014 when general motors contracted with the third party supplier to coordinate the purchase and return of certain parts subject to a product safety ignition switch recall from facilities. in a third party notice to recycling facilities through the correspo correspondence, also detailed the specific gm part and the ac

delco numbers so the manager identifies the parts being recalled. the notice includes the interchange number for ignition switchers. gm understands that a specific part number are vital to locate the effective parts. in nhtsa's current site individuals or companies who sell a significant number of vehicles or parts do not have the vin look-up capability to necessary information and are severely limited to objections to allowing interinauguration of important data to enhance safety. just as problematic is the data of the automakers of safer car.gov is a recall narrative than part numbers, names or descriptions making it all but impossible to identify specific recall carts electronically. it is essential that recyclers identify those parts associated with vines which have been

recalled and not remedied before cars are potentially purchased at auction or acquired from the general public. with access to parts data it will allow the community to comply with the obligations and can help protect the nation drivers from the detective parts. while some concede to the need of the original equipment data for the defective parts, it is important to understand this is not enough. the number of parts in the marketplace is increasing at alarming rates. some 100 million vehicles recalled since the beginning of 2014. these campaigns create multiple challenges for my members who provide safe and quality parts to the marketplace. consider the original parts that automotive recyclers sell today and subject of recall at a future date. there is no specific part number to track it going forward if there's a subsequent recall on that part.

most agree that the private sector developed or can develop solutions to the vehicle and the part identification along with the remedy tracking problem. however, these systems would only be as good as the data the companies have access to and provide to the effective parties. unfortunately, ihs and other data providers do not have access to important data needed to track recalled parts and significantly increase recall remedy rates. automakers are accountable for the safety of all original equipment parts in the life cycle and should be reared to share whatever information is needed. the practice of sharing original equipment part numbers should not be an anomaly. especially in light of the new safety norm. consumer demand for a safe replacement market makes it imperative that congress include

language to remove the barriers so all parts data is available to all those in the industry. thank you. >> the chair thanks the gentleman and thank all of you for your testimony. we'll move into the question and answering portion of the hearing and i'll begin that -- >> mr. chairman, i have a unanimous -- >> you may present. >> i'm beginning with 45 minutes. may i submit my questions for the record and ask the witnesses to respond later in writing? >> the gentleman certainly understands there's a lot of members wanting to ask questions and i would be prepared to yield to the gentleman to go first. >> you're very kind and i can talk fast. >> proceed. the gentleman is recognized. >> miss claybrook -- >> i'll hold all the other members. >> you very kind. thank you for coming. as you know, i have worked with lewis capps and miss schakowsky

and others and in mai we introduced 2189 the rachel and jacklyn houch safe rental bill. i'm disappointed it was not included but it was included in the bill that the senate is working on. do you share in my disappointment in any way that the text of 2189 was not included as a part of the title? >> i certainly do. as you heard add min stray rosekind, he does, too. we believe that all cars that have been subject to recall whether they're new cars or used cars or rental cars should all be fixed immediately. >> thank you. why is enacting a national standard so important? >> well, it's important because it causes death and injury on the highway. unsuspecting owners or renters. and that's the bottom line. safety on the highway. >> and to the best of your

knowledge, do the vast majority of rental car companies support a federal rental car safety standard? >> that is my understanding. to the vast majority do. and the public does overwhelmingly. >> okay. does anyone on the panel that would dispute that? consumers for autoreliability and safety and the consumers union and the consumer federation of america, aaa and the rental car association all support 2189 and they have called on this committee to move the bill. either on its own or part of a larger package. do you agree or disagree? >> oh, i completely agree and warning is not enough, by the way. the car has to be fixed. the vehicle has to be fixed. >> finally, for mr. welch, thank you for coming and you know we have a member named peter welch from vermont. your association, mr. welch, believes we should focus more on fixing rental cars instead of grounding them. it seems to me the rental

companies have an incentive to repair a grounded vehicle and get it back on the road as soon as possible. so i would think that a rirlt to ground an unrepaired vehicle would actually speed up the repair rate as you know federal law already requires new recalled cars to be grounded until they are fixed. do your members prefer to fix these new recalled cars quickly or simply have them to sit on the lot? >> of course, our members are the ones that perform the vast majority of recall fixes and remedies across the country. with respect to the rental car bill, we're supportive of the premise behind the bill that vehicles that are unsafe to drive should not be put in the hands of the public. our issue is with that bill is the definition of when is it unsafe to drive a vehicle and differentiating between recalls

that would not render a vehicle unsafe to drive as determined by either nhtsa or the original equipment mafr manufacturer of the vehicle. i hope we have a discussion drawing a bright line on when a vehicle is unsafe to drive to distinguish it between the types of recalls that would not affect the safety of driving the vehicle. we have a number of other issues. i can get into it if you want but in the interest of time, specific provisions on that bill, for instance, it is overly broad because it paints all of the vehicles with the same brush. it's -- we think it's unfair to small businesses. 80% of our members are small businesses. if i have five vehicles in a loaner fleet, i'm subject to the same penalties and fines that

avis and hertz is. >> do you think they'd have the same incentive to repair? >> of course, that rafzs another issue and that is the fight for parts. as i mentioned before, the only thing that's holding us back from fixing any vehicle that comes on to our lot is the availability of parts and we have a commissioned a number of research on that. and the average delay part on trade-in vehicles, for instance, is 60 days and we had some concern that the rental car companies might get in a tug-of-war with the manufacturer for availability of the parts and affect our customers coming in to get their vehicles repaired. >> thank you. thank you. >> one thing? >> yes. >> it seems to me in terms of whether the car is safe to drive, that the manufacturer's made that decision. when they do a recall, they're saying this is a safety issue and the car needs to be fixed

and there are very few cars unsafe when they're not driven and seems the manufacturer has made that decision and not up to anybody else to decide nhtsa or anybody else to decide. >> if i could respond to that. >> all right. >> they have stop drive notices and about 6% of the recalls and i understand that there's a dispute between whether it whether it should be 8% or 10% or 40%. we're the monkey in the middle. we are looking for parts to fix the cars but there's a big difference between for instance, you know, a mislabel and i don't want to be -- try to in any way, shape or form characterize any recall, any violation of a statute subject to vehicle recall but there -- >> when would you fix it? you don't want to fix it today? it's okay to drive it today without a bad label? >> maybe some of the other me

believes -- >> as soon as there's the part. >> the chairman was so kind to yield to me. >> the panel -- the dias will ask the questions. >> thank you so much. >> thank you, mr. butterfield. and good luck with your meeting. i'll now recognize myself for five minutes for questions although that was an interesting exchange. let me just ask mr. bainwol about this isac, the gathering of data. what is the mechanism for disseminating information back then to your members or anyone else involved? >> so the isac, again, which will be stood up in a matter of weeks. i think today an announcement with the board of directors and very much in process. the board is comprised of auto

companies. this is form for members. oems to share information about risk and counter measures and so the mechanism is the isac itself and why it's been established. we are augmenting the isac which by definition deals with problems after they have been manifest with the best practices to preempt the possibility of problems so this is a comprehensive approach. we're going to be working obviously with nhtsa, operating, using guide posts as we develop the best practices including nist but the isac itself is comprised of the oems and including suppliers down the road. >> how do you then get the word out? is it certified mail? carrier pigeon? >> the process is established. they're talking to each other.

the oem community -- >> you don't see that as a -- >> when that happens, it will be very quick, accelerated and not a problem. >> very well. mr. welch, if i can ask you a question because, of course, this committee and another subcommittee is very involved on the airbag recall and, of course, in the dallas/ft. worth -- i'm sorry, i meant to say the ft. worth/dallas area i represent, the back order issue you brought up of the recalled repair parts and what has been the experience with your member dealers as far as being able to get the parts, specifically the airbags for replacement when someone brings their vehicle in to have it fixed? >> well, that's been a particularly troublesome recall as you know. there's some 24 million vehicles

are involved that. and in order to produce sophisticated airbags, in sufficient numbers to replace 24 million of them, are going to take time. in fact, the back orders on those depending on the make, the model, what factory they're coming from, availability, could be well over a year and the dilemma that we face day in and day out because of the publicity of the recall received, you know, we have to deal with our consumers, your constituents that come in and we don't have the replacement part. and the dilemma is they don't affect all of the vehicles the same depending on the cry mat, there's a humidity issue with them. and whatnot. and i think our partners, the manufacturers, are doing as good a job as they can trying to triage the availability of the parts and get them to the regions of the country where they have largest impact with respect to it. we have to wait through that. and do the best that we can with

the availability. we have got databases with people waiting, priority issues. and, you know, some of them want us to just, you know, disengage the airbag and there's another dilemma and we don't think that's a good idea. and then there's the debate, you know, between the risk of the occupant having an airbag since not all of them have the defect in them. it's a very complex issue, mr. chair. >> of course, in the hearings we have held on this, this is all made more difficult because no one knows what the central defect is and the replacement parts that you're putting in the cars that do come in subject to the recall and require replacement part, no complete assurance that the replacement part is compliant with -- since we don't know what the defect was in the first place. you brought up getting the information out to targeted

demographics. and that's something that's been the subject of a lot of discussion in this subcommittee, as well. because typically this is the third or fourth owner 0 of a vehicle. in the market in the dallas paper one of the automotive manufacturers took out full-page ads in the newspaper to, you know, if you have like one of our cars, of this vintage, call the number or bring it in or whatever their requirement was. but it's very, very difficult to get the information out to, again, that third or fourth owner who may not be someone that reads the newspaper regularly and difficult to reach that individual so is that one of the things your association is working on, as well? how do we get people in? >> any way to contact the customer base. unfortunately, as the vehicles get older in age, they don't continue to bring into the franchise dealer for ordinary

maintenance. the completion rate, the remedy rate for vehicles five years old or newer is 85% and one of the primary reasons for that is those vehicles are still coming in for warranty work and any time a vehicle comes into a service department, we're scanning the vin, running it. if we have access to the database and snagging them there. >> my time is expired. yield to the gentle lady from illinois. five minutes for questions please. >> thank you. i wanted to ask a yes or no question of a couple of them, for mr. bainwol. did the alliance of automobile manufacturers ask the committee for the provision in the bill that would give automakers a break from emissions requirements in exchange for adding safety features? >> we did not request it per se. we had a conversation with the

value -- >> yes or no? do you support that provision? >> we certainly do. >> you do? >> sure. >> mr. bozzella, i'm asking the same question of the association of global automakers. did you ask the committee for that provision? >> we did not. >> do you support it? >> the provision to incentivize life-saving technologies we think is very important conversation to have. >> i want all consumers to understand that, that manufacturers of automobiles support a provision that would actually increase pollution in exchange for provide -- i'm not asking now. i'm talking. that would -- to improve safety of the automobiles. i think it is outrageous. consumers like myself who now have a hybrid are seeking that. i would imagine that auto dolors would find the consumers are coming in and wanting more fuel efficient cars. and to add this as an incentive

to get safety often for safety features that are readily available is completely outrageous. i want to thank you, mr. dotson, for your testimony on this matter and i want to move on to something else. >> may we -- >> briefly. >> i'll try to be brief. >> no. you will be brief. it's my time. go ahead. >> it is your time. so the challenge here is i think to some extent is we're talking past each other. you define it as a matter of defect policy. so when you look at the issue, this chart i think makes it pretty clear. 94% of the challenge coming to death if not more, if not close to 99% is a function of driver error. the magic of this technology is that it will address the totality of the problem. >> what are you talking about? we are talking about incentives that increase auto pollution --

>> we are -- we are talking about maximizing and accelerating the deployment of life saving technology. >> exactly n. a way that increases auto emissions. i'm sorry. i want to move on. it is my time. this is for miss claybrook. over the last several years we have seen multiple scandals of auto manufacturers and major safety defects internally reported and allowed to endanger people for years before the company did anything about them. nhtsa's ability to collect safety-related information from carmakers is critical to catching and ficking those problems, the draft we are looking at today asked nhtsa to conduct eight new studies and reports without providing any additional funding. meanwhile, almost nothing to improve the communication of agencies. my legislation, the vehicle

safety improvement act, would facilitate communications. as former nhtsa administratoadm do you believe that more information would allow the agency to be more effective in the safety mission? use your microphone. would you push the button? and start over. >> absolutely i believe more information is necessary. the early warning system that was created by the 2000 law for the tread act did not give a lot of specificity about what the manufacturers had to report. they often report inconsistent information. it is very difficult to understand. and they don't -- they fail to report information, many have been fined for that recently. so that law needs to be upgraded an your bill does a good job of helping to do that. i also there needs to be criminal penalties when manufacturers fail to give that information willfully and knowingly.

>> do you think the penalties currently are adequate? >> no. first of all, if you look at what the u.s. attorney fined toyota, $1.2 billion and general motors $900 billion and nhtsa's max penalty is $50 million. and also criminal penalties. when a manufacturer knows they might go to jail, they behave differently and pay attention to what's going on. when the general counsel of general motors said he didn't know about settlements of lawsuits involving the ignition switch and that they were covering up information from the lawsuits, that was just incomprehensible and i think there needs to be stronger penalty provisions. >> i appreciate that. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky five minutes for your questions, please. >> thank you. thank you for having this hearing. i apologize. there's another subcommittee of this committee going on. i was in the other one during

your opening remarks and some of my questions repeat those then i apologize. we'll give you a chance to elabora elaborate. this is for mr. bainwol and then mr. bozzella. have nhtsa and the auto industry had discussions on how to apply the risk management frame work to security? >> not directly nist but discussions with the administrator of best practices. we met with him in september and his view that the pace of innovation is so rapid that it would be wise for us to move forward with best practices and would be in his words more nimble and as a result of that conversation, as a result of discussions with members of this committee we made the decision and this will be part of the frame work evaluate as we move forward. >> mr. bozzella? >> yes. i will just simply build on mr. bainwol's comment by says the nist frame work is part of our

discussion as an industry and i think it is important to recognize that though we have had ongoing conversations with nhtsa, that we can't afford to wait. it's really important that we make sure that our customers have the confidence and the trust in the products so that they can take advantage of the benefits, the life-saving benefits of the technologies and moved forward and continue to consult not only within the industry and with a broad number of stakeholders and certainly the nist framework is part of those discussions. >> how are car companies dealing with the security of aftermarket or third-party devices being plugged into the vehicle through the obd-2 port? >> this is a very really important question. the -- as you know, congressman, the industry has voluntarily

adopted a set of privacy principles that treat sensitive permly identifiable information really as sack ro sant. we care deeply about the customers know we treat where the vehicle has been or other personal data maybe bio metric data if the car is able to collect that type of data or driver behavior data differently than other kinds of data and we think it is very important that we continue to work with the broad set of stakeholders to understand the implications of what might happen if an aftermarket device is plugged into the obd port and we think consumer education is important in this area. it's a very important question to understand, is the manufacturer of that device -- do they have the same types of privacy policies?

have they adopted the same practices? so that actual entrance into the vehicle is -- sort of represents a very important question of how we think about cyber security. >> okay. >> i would simply add that by way of example i have a progressive device, it's allstate device i plug in for insurance purposes. that doesn't run through in terms of privacy question through the manufacturer. that's a relationship with the insurance company and i derive a value from that because i derive cheaper insurance and an ability to understand better the driving behavior of my children and something we all i think aspire to. so this does get complicated and the point of the example is whether it's insurance for whether it's google or apple or carriers, the relationships here that now really impel us --

compel us to work with suppliers and other folks we have not traditionally worked with so on privacy and on cyber, we're going to have to reach out and we started that process. >> okay. do you have a comment, plisz wilson? >> i represent also aftermarket manufacturers and we have been working with manufacturers to create an iso standard to make sure when they're plugged into the obd port they meet some kind of standards known throughout the industry. >> all right. thank you. and i'll just -- we have talked on fuel efficient standards and safety and i want a fuel efficient car that's safe. but they're not unrelated because if you're going to go for fuel efficiency, i know this area pretty well. companies try to take weight out of a car and keep it safe. that's how you get fuel efficient. they're interrelated and if you incentivize and automotive

companies trying to get to the new cafe standards. which does add to the expense of the car. so if you can -- and the security issues and safety issues are expensive. so if you can give some relief in one area for safety and security first, i think that's important. and then you move to fuel efficient cars, this's a number one priority and they're interdependent. >> and my testimony, congressman, i used the phrase safety equals green. this is a changed paradigm when these technologies, accident avoid answer technologies, yield better safety outcomes and better emissions records and certainly more productive economy. >> gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, five minutes for your questions, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the panelists and witnesses here for their testimony. wanted to touch on section 202 of the draft bill requiring nhtsa for notices with auto

manufacturers before going public and would not be published any all vehicle identification numbers are made available to nhtsa. i believe the first panel touched on this a little bit, as well. miss claybrook, if you can, in some of the recent major recalls we have heard concerns that the recalls made public before any information about whether specific vehicle was included in the recall and led to some customer confusion. at the same time you noted that the delayed notice could have deadly consequences so i wanted you to kind of get you to expand on that. how would you navigate through the tensions? >> first of all, i think at the bottom line, the public, the consumers, the people driving the kars, they're entitled to know there's a problem with the vehicle and maybe do something on their own to avoid the

problem while they're waiting for the recall to occur. any delay in announcing that recall i think is disadvantageous and i urge the administrator of nhtsa as i did as director put out a public alert. this provision in this bill suggests they could not do that, that they would be limited the administrator limited in the way that they could communicate to the public and wait for the manufacturer to say okay. i think that's completely back assward. woir. and so -- >> i got what you meant. >> backwards. and so, the administrator's hands should not be tied that way. >> i believe -- his words and note mind but i believe dr. rosekind spoke those words that if the government is sitting on the fact of a problem and notdy

v vulging that information i don't think there's a position any administrator would want to be in. the act gives nhtsa an authority of a recall when an agency determines a recall or noncompliance increases the serious injury or death. so, miss claybrook, how do you think this authority is add van they you to nhtsa? >> oh, absolutely. because there are occasions where the car is so hazardous that recall ought to be handled immediately. and i would say, also, that this provision that's in the bill was in an earl ler bill about 15 years ago and consumers were extremely upset about it and it was taken out of the bill because the committee came to realize that it was really

totally unfair, that the administrator would not be able to inform the public. >> also eliminate azumi understanding original recalls and americans are much more mobile than they have ever been in the past and just because a vehicle is registered in a particular region does not meenl that the vehicle is only driven in that region. all recalls would be carried out on a national basis and prioritize the part of the country when the parts is limited. so, once again, could you explain how the elimination of the original recall aspect would improve safety? >> well, first of all, original recalls are not in the statute. it's just completely informal thing that the manufacturers about 25, 30 years ago came to the agency said we would like to do a regional recall and the agency said okay and then standard operating procedure because it's much cheaper for the manufacturers, only to recall a small number rather

than nationwide. vehicles aren't stationary. that's a silly thing. they go all over the country and the car is fixed because you bought it and lived in florida and moved to minnesota it doesn't make any sense. i think that the agency could prioritize. i think they have the discretion under the law to prioritize and say if you're doing the recall and it's more likely to happen in a particular area because of the weather, then we would prefer you do it that way. >> just briefly, unfortunately, i have a few second left but in your experience, would eliminating the original recalls but allowing nhtsa to prioritize the aloe case of regional parts, have an affect on nhtsa's ability to execute a recall? >> no, no. it absolutely would not. i think the experience we have with the misbehavior of manufacturers as we have seen in covering up recalls, delaying them, not doing them for years and years and the rest, means

that in tnhtsa should be the decision makers. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee mr. pallone, five minutes for you questions, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. section -- my questions are of mr. dotson. section 502 interferes with national program that epa and nhtsa developed to reduce emissions. mr. dotson, can you briefly explain the national program and what are the goals? >> certainly. the purpose of the -- >> mike? >> can you hear me? >> yeah. >> the purpose of the program is essentially to -- the program is remarkably successful. it's -- it will essentially have the effect of doubling fuel economy or reducing emission of

cars and trucks by half. emissions by half by 2025. >> all right. so why is it important to establish standards and how will changing the requirements affect the impact of the chi mat change? >> well, the -- it's now i think a consensus among scientific community and business and faith community it is a serious threat. last year, the panel said that they have high confidence that unmitigated warming leads to high to very high risk of severe widespread and irreversible impacts globally. food shortages. >> you don't have to talk about climate change. you don't have to convince me and you will not convince my cloegs on the other side. why is it important to establish the standards? >> they're important for the

economy. >> okay. >> and the erosion that occurs in the bill, while it might sound small is significant. if you you would award a 3 gram credit, in the first year, last year, 16.5 million cars sold in the united states. you assume they drive 13,000 a miles a year or so, that's 700,000 tons of pollution in one year. >> all right. now, there are flexibilities built into the national program such as the ability to generate credits for standards that is credits that can be banked or traded and there are air conditioning improvements credits and off cycle credits. can you explain briefly what are the off cycle credits? >> certainly. the off cycle credits are credits for efficiencies they gabe unrelated to the powertrain of the vehicle. so, for example, if a

manufacturer used high efficient lighting or heating they recognize the benefits no off cycle credits. the epa and the department of transportation looking at this and found there's quote no consistent established methods or supporting data to establish -- >> in other words, these credits such as air conditioning that don't readily appear to compare to mileage or reduce emissions, they must have had a positive effect. right? >> yeah. and those effects are demonstrated through data to the agencies. using very high efficiency lighting, your car will have have to generate less electricity and might not show up in the emissions testing. >> okay. but the differences in contrast is that section 502 of this bill would expand the credit system

to include the use of advanced technologies. connected vehicle technology. i mean, automakers argued that the technology result in fewer crashes and less congestion. less congestion would they argue -- is there a way to connect lower emissions to individual vehicles? i medium just trying to make the contrast between, you know, the things you are doing now versus what section 502 does and doesn't seem to me there's any real connection if you will. >> you have put your finger on the issue. there could be, there may be ben filths of reducing emissions and there's an american car on the market today and as an option you can buy lane departure warning technology. well, the highway loss data institute looked at claims of the car with the technology or

don't and what they found is there's no reduced claims on car that is have that technology. it is not preventing accidents and not reducing emissions and a concrete example where the bill gives credits to that car even though we have data to help us understand that there are not benefits to it. >> all right. thanks so much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentle lady from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to all of your witnesses for your testimony today. federal law prohibits -- but there's no similar law to stop rental car companies from renting or selling dangerous recall cars that have not been fixed. since the sisters' death near my district in 2004, the major rental companies signed on to a voluntary pledge to not rent out recalled vehicles. while this was a good step forward, these standards are

still not enough. just last year, after the pledge was in place, a woman was killed in her rental car when an airbag exploded. as we heard on the first panel, a change in federal law is needed. and that's why i have introduced h.r. 2198 with my colleagues of miss schakowsky, walter jones and mr. butterfield to prevent the working of recalled vehicles. deexcite the industry and consumer groups and already passed the senate. i also remain baffled that the alliance of automanufacturers and national automobile dealers association actively oppose h.r. 2198 despite discussions of a compromise. for example, the alliance cites a concern about potential loss of use and other liability impacts as a reason for opposition. to address this concern we added

a savings clause to the bill stating that nothing in the bill will impact manufacturers' liability or obligations. because of this change, general motors one of the biggest members support h.r. 2198 and honda expressed support for the bill. mr. bainwol, and i'd like a yes or no answer on this. does the alliance oppose h.r. 2198 despite general motors -- >> the alliance does not have consens consensus. >> thank you. mr. welch -- so you can't yes or no? >> we don't have consensus so -- >> thank you. mr. welch, your organization has expressed concerns of the impact of the dealers. my question to you, when consumers bring their recalled cars to a dealer for repairs, and they need a loaner car, do you think dealers should be able to loan them vehicles with

unrepaired safety recalls? i ask you for a yes or no answer. >> if the vehicle has been deemed to be unsafe to drive either by the oems or by nhtsa, we would not put one of those cars in the hands of a consumer. >> so that is a no? you do not think dealers should be able to loan vehicles that have -- with unrepaired safety recalls. >> no, i said if they're unsafe to drive we wouldn't put them out there. if it involved -- >> you would not loan them then as loaner cars? >> if it's unsafe to drive. if it had a, you know, a door jam sticker or a misprinted number -- >> that is not quite my answer is but i'll just go back to the first panel and nhtsa said that every recall is a safety issue. there are no frivolous recalls. it's a simple question. the vast majority of rental companies agreed to stop.

why can't the dealers do the same? >> well, again, i'd like to draw distinction between a recalled vehicle for a noncompliance that may not make it unsafe to drive. >> who's going to determine that? >> well, we rely on nhtsa. >> nhtsa said that every recall is a safety issue. that they don't put recalls out unless it is a safety issue. >> well, nhtsa has the authority to issue stop drives or make the manufacturers issue stop drive and if they believe that a vehicle is unsafe to drive or the manufacturer does it, they can issue that notice and we would certainly honor it but that doesn't apply to all vehicles subject to recalls. >> i didn't get an answer but my time is out. thank you. >> chair thanks the gentle lady. i do just want to offer the

observation, miss schakowsky said she drives a hybrid vehicle. your chairman drives a hybrid, also. i have no problem at all if you want to make future vehicles safer, if you want to warn me departing a lane that there is a car, motorvehicle, tricycle in the other lane, i would like to know that vfrgs and i'll give up a couple carbon credits to have that available in the next version of the car i buy. seeing that -- >> mr. chairman? i'm sorry. may i add an addendum? not a question. but i would like to enter into the record and i neglected to say -- >> does the gentle lady have a unanimous consent request? >> yes, please. >> you're recognized. >> i wanted to enter into the record, a letter of rachel and jackie's mother urging passage of h.r. 2198, two letters of general motors indicating the

support of h.r. 2198 and on behalf of a colleague that needed to leave miss schakowsky. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you. >> seeing there are no further members wishing to ask questions, i would like to thank all of the witnesses for being here today. i would like to include the following documents to be submitted for the record but unanimous consent. a letter the autocare association, a letter from the american chemistry council, a letter from the motor vehicle administrato administrator. motor and equipment manufacturer's association, a statement from the environmental protection agency, pursuant to committee rules, i remind members they have ten business days to submit additional questions for the record. i ask witnesses to submit responses within ten business days upon receipt of the questions.

without objection, subcommittee will stand adjourned. >> could i ask i make a correction to my testimony? unanimous consent to do that? >> yes. i'll be happy to hear the correction of the testimony. >> thank you very much. >> you won't say it today? >> i won't bother you now. >> we're left wondering about the correction. committee stands adjourned. >> that was close. i have 2 million and 200,000 in my testimony by mistake. on our next "washington journal" we get up a date on the house speaker's race. republican congressman tim

huelskamp talks to us and then lanny dave with his take on hillary clinton's testimony before the house benghazi committee. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span and you can join the conversation by phone or on facebook and twitter. c half span this week presents coverage of hillary clinton as she testifies before the house select committee on benghazi. live coverage begins thursday morning during "washington journal" with reporter interviews and early scenes of capitol hill. tune the in to r-span3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern for live coverage and your phone calls afterwards. c-span2 will reair it in its entirety starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern and also watch our coverage saturday and sunday at noon eastern on c-span. julian hattem of the house

select benghazi committee, when's the breakdown numbers wise? >> it's republican majority and seven republicans, five democrats on the other side. >> trey gaudy of south carolina is the chairman. how was he chosen for this position and tell us a little bit about his background. >> sure. he is a former prosecutor so kind of has a natural proclivity of being tough and fair was his reputation and there's speculation and analysis that the reason that he was chosen for this job is because he was not a year and a half ago considered a super partisan candidate and not extremely conservative. he had not been a thorn in the administration's side before. so there was some sense that the speaker wanted to send a message that this is a serious committee, a serious investigation and not a super hyper partisan one even though that's what the criticism ultimately turned out to be. >> let's go into the backgrounds

of the other republican members. there's six republicans on the committee. tell us about them and how they were selected. >> sure. it's a mix of folks. there are people like congressman mike pompei owe, lynn westmoreland. they're bringing to it. there's also jim jordan of ohio and tends to be -- he is more of a conservative thorn in the side of the administration. he has been a little bit more aggressive, a little bit more out there and outspoken in the past. and i think that that's more of his character to be more pointed and to be more aggressive, more pointed i guess. martha robi is very stick to the facts, just the facts, ma'am. i think that's -- i'm hitting everybody but, you know, it's a mix of folks i think they're hoping to represent the full broad cross-section of the house but also a relatively serious

side. there was -- there was some controversy. there was some criticism of people like daryl issa and known to be controversial and going on a sparring contests with the administration. he was not on the panel and pushback from him that he's been shut out of what he thought would be his committee as the former chairman of the oversight committee and helped launch the probes initially. there's an effort clearly made to make it from the republican side while certainly aggressive and certainly active, not overly partisan and not overly controversial. >> so let's look at the democrats. four of the five democratic members are also ranking me believes of other committees. clearly the democrats looking for more leaders on their side in the house side. start be elijah cummings. tell us about him and his background. >> sure. ranking member of the benghazi committee as you note, a ranking

member of the house oversight committee and been there for a while and he was there now and then when daryl issa was the chairman. he's had a fairly long experience the minority democrat on a committee going after and probing the obama administration. so he's had to come to its defense many times in the past. and in doing so, he's had to have a stiff back, a stiff upper lip, and he's been somewhat of a fighter. there's a fair amount of speculation that he might end up running for the senate in maryland and yet to announce. he says he won't make a firm commitment until after this hearing with secretary clinton but recent polling shows that if he wanted to do that he certainly -- that option would be there for him. he could jump into the fray. and would probably do pretty well in that open senate seat in maryland after senator ma cull ski steps down next year.

he's gained a lot of recognition and might take it to the upper cham bier. >> adam schiff, adam smith, linda sanchez, tammy duckworth. any of those names stick out as someone who is -- was especially qualified to serve on this committee? >> sure. so mr. schiff for instance the ranking member on the intelligence committee? >> ms. duckworth is running for senate. this is another opportunity for her to boost her profile. she's taking on senator mark kirk in illinois, hoping this will raise her and elevate her profile. mr. smith is the ranking member on the armed services committee. there are serious names and serious people who the democrats hope would bring a serious front here. and a lot of them have been relatively critical of the gop-led committee, especially mr. shift has suggested that

maybe democrats might not stick with it, that he's floated the opportunity that democrats should pull out of the committee entirely, which was some of the early speculation before this committee was made, there was a lot of talk about whether democrats should participate at all given that they see this as a largely partisan witch hunt. ultimately they decided not to, they decided to stick with it that it's better to have someone if the room rather than not in the room. there's been a lot of skepticism that this would be a fair investigation and fair committee. to a person, all those democrats say this committee has been a partisan exercise, and that's been their position for the last year and a half, and it continues to be so. >> julian hattem of "the hill." thank you for joining us and committee.background on the can you read julian at the hill.com. he's also on twitter at

jmhattem. thanks for joining us. this sunday night on q&a. amy chosic of the shares her experiences from hillary clinton's presidential campaign and compares what it's like now to 2008. >> to be honest, i was a lot younger. i was sort of the traveling person. i wasn't in a senior role, and i also, you know, when you're traveling all the time, i got to know the people who traveled with her. i felt like i got to know her pretty well, because she'd come back on the plane and talk to us. but at the same time, i didn't have the same sort of sources of the campaign and high level people that i have now. and whether that's a function of be being of the times or a function of being more a senior role. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. virginia lieutenant governor ralph northam spoke about the importance preventing unwanted

pregnancies. his remarks came at the brookings institution. this is two hours. welcome to brookings. my name is ron haskins and along with richard reeves. it's an announcement of sort. i run the center on children and families, and my former director is fortunately here to watch me carefully and correct all my errors, which will take about a third of the event. i'm glad that you were able to come this morning. our audience is always -- if we start at 9:30, everyone comes at 9:40. it's amazing knew works out. but that's the way it is. i'm going to make some introductions. then we're going to have bell review the volume of future children.

we're going to talk about the policy, but the volume, i think is the best, if you want to go to one place to know about the status of research and thinking about marriage, this volume is it. it's an extremely good volume. i think eight chapters or seven chapters on various aspects of marriage, including several chapters folk on birth control and given our interest in birth control here we decided we'd focus this event on birth control. so that's what we're here to talk about. when belle finishes reviewing the volume, i'm going to review the policy brief. and then we're very fortunate to have lieutenant governor northam mere. and i'll talk more about him in just a minute. and then we'll give you an opportunity to ask him questions after we ask hem some questions. and then we'll have a panel, a magnificent panel of people who are great experts on this issue, and i'll ask them some questions, and hopefully we'll have some disagreements, and we'll give the audience a chance to stump the panel.

in introducing belle, this wonderful book, i put a tag on here to remind myself which chapter, but generation unbound. sex and parenthood without marriage. i think it's about as good as you're going to get for a short treatment. there's nothing better, and belle's one of the great experts in this in the country. belle sawhill. she doesn't get to talk about birth control. she has to talk about marriage in the volume. but thank you. >> thanks, ron. now i want a little help here on the slides. oh, good, there they are. do we need for the -- >> that's wrong one. >> oh, that is the wrong one, yeah. >> anyway, little me say a few words while we're sorting that out. thank you for allowing me to be

here today, i appreciate it. this is a wonderful volume. we do this in conjunction with our partners at princeton university. the editor in chief of this volume is sarah mcclanahan. and a number of our princeton colleagues are here today. i can't mention all of them, but there are three or four of them here, and particularly want to mention john wallace who is the editor, managing editor of the volume. john, where are you? thank you. and it's been a wonderful partnership over about a decade's time now. and, as ron suggested, this volume, i think, is one of the best volumes we've ever done. we did a volume about ten years ago on marriage. and we're asked to sort of revise and update it this year. and we got a new set of authors, and they were terrific people. and they all wrote great chapters. i can't possibly do justice to the whole volume.

i think there are copies outside, and you can feel free to take one and read it at your leisure. i will show you the table of contents here so you get a sense of what's in the volume and who contributed to it. so i can't, as i say, do more than just give you the highlights and a few comments from me. so, let's start with just what's been happening. i think, as you all know, marriage is in retreat. it's been declining from about 85% back in 1950 to around 60% now. this is for the age group 30 to 44. you can look at this in different ways, but however you look at it, you see these kinds of declines. now just because marriage has doesn't mean people aren't still having children. they're just having them outside

of marriage inside of inside of marriage. and here's the data from the volume on that issue. and, as you can he see here we have very high rates of unwed childbearing in the u.s. now. overall, about 40% of all kids are born outside of marriage. this varies, both by class and by race. if you look at education as a proxy for socioeconomic status or class, you can see that the rate declines sharply with more education. but keep in mind that this last category here, where the rates are quite low, the college educated, those with college degrees is a small group, still. it's only about 30% of the population. so the other lines here refer to the other 70%. and then, within each education

category, there are racial gaps, and we had an entire chapter in the volume on these gaps by race and by class. we also had an entire chapter on same-sex marriage, as we were preparing the volume the supreme court was considering what to do, and, as you all know in june, they finally legalized same-sex marriage. and that made this whole discussion very interesting and very timely. and what part of the debate of leading up to all the court decisions was about whether same-sex couples are good for kids or not. whether this is a good environment in which to raise kids. and there are a whole lot of research studies on that, not all of them of equal merit, but our author did a nice review of that evidence and a lot of other evidence and background, including the legal background

on this movement to legalize same-sex marriage. and he finally concludes after looking at all the evidence that you really can't come to the conclusion that same-sex relationships are not good for kids. some of the studies that have suggested that the kids didn't do so well in, with same-sex couples were done during an era or a period of time when because of the stigma and the lack of legalization of marriage, the kids were being born in somewhat unstable circumstances. they might have been the product, for example, of an opposite sex marriage, and then later that couple broke up, and the gay or lesbian parent moved into a same-sex relationship, and the children came with that parent. and that led to some instability in the lives of the children, and that, most researchers

believe, is not a good thing for kids. in the future, it will be very different. and my book, which ron was nice enough to mention, talks a lot about people drifting into parenthood. and i use the word "drifting", very cautiously, because i think that's a lot of what's happening. this is unplanned pregnancies and births, but in the same-sex world, by definition, when people have kids, they do it by choice. now we had another very interesting chapter on the extent to which marriage matters for child well-being. is a child who grows up in a two-parent family better off than a child that grows up in a one-parent family? are children in married families better off than children in co-habiting families, and this adds to all the literature on those issues, and basically all

of that literature, of which there's a ton now, has led, i think, presiden think, pretty much to a consensus that on average, on average, growing up in a two-parent married family is better for kids than not. that said, you have to then ask, well, why should marriage matter? and one reason it matters is simply because the people who marry are a self-selected group. they have other characteristics like income and education. and this author david rieber goes through all those reasons and in the end concludes that all of them have some evidence of making a difference for children's lives, and that if we wanted to replace marriage, for example, with government programs that made up for the lost income of the second parent or other things