agreement on health care legislation. they met with the white house health-care adviser, talking about how to move forward procedurally. will hear from house speaker nancy pelosi next on c-span, followed by senate republicans. after that, an update on the financial regulations bill. later, the new head of the national highway traffic safety administration testified on capitol hill about his agency's handling of toyota's recall. >> our public affairs content is available on television, radio, and on line. you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube. . .

>> another step is taking us closer to voting on it.

they need to take action to put the reconciliation bill on the table. those reflect the president's proposal, which honors the -- 75% of the bills are similar.

the senate bill was passed by 60 votes in the senate. we will now be addressing the changes. they will relate to affordability for the middle class beta -- class. accountability of the insurance companies. and equity for the states, changing the equity agreement. this is really important for them because he did not want to have unnecessary burdens on the stage.

this legislation comes closer to what the house had in mind but . we have talked about the cadillac plans. nancy discussed with the members what the change would be. that is that 80% would be removed from the bill. it is a medicare tax on an income. it was very productive in terms of hearing from the white house with the present proposal was.

>> reconciliation is a very narrow discipline. unless a provision is central to the budget, it cannot be considered pit them -- consider. we have to abide by the congressional budget office and all of this. we will come back this afternoon to go over some other . this is very valuable. when i go to the table and expressed concerns, my limitations prevent me from the enthusiasm for certain ideas that our members had. they made it very clear how

interested they were in certain situations that now appear in the president's bill. others would like to see if it to be something there would want to see acted upon. i think it is very predictor. action was lively and positive. >> what is your message to the democrats that right now are undecided? >> our clock starts ticking will get the final cbo score. we do not have the final yet. we have a pretty good idea.

the decisions are made. the choice have been made. we all believe in the status quo. we believe that america's families need the federal budget. we understand that from a cost template we cannot afford the status quo. as a matter of value for our country, this is not just of the provisions of the bill. is above the character of our country.

-- it is about the character of our country. they want to move forward with the bill. when you ask what is the message, we share the vision. the question is, what are some of the individual concerned? some members first voted yes. if they had some hesitation about cost. they are looking for some more cost measures. the senate bill is stronger in terms of cost. it is a general message. it is a vision that we share. that gives us an opportunity.

>> you said you had most of the information. can you run down for us how this changes top line numbers? the cost, the savings? >> we have a top line but we have goals we want to achieve. this is my hope. we want to move with the american people. half >> is there any pressure to

take a tougher stance? [unintelligible] >> this earmarked has been an ongoing one. we are talking to a couple members about what we had done. we have had significant reductions. we had unprecedented transparency on the internet. they are being publicly disclosed, not just our disclosing of it. there are a marks in designated -- are earmarks a designated. we decided to go further . new air marks beshear. -- no earmarks' this year b.

it had to do with this time of year. members are making their request for air marks. it is important to let them know that they probably should not make a request for an earmark for a business. that is not mean we do not respect some of what they have dumping give -- they have done. probably 99% of the earmarks are in the defense bill. many come from the department of defense. they cannot compete with the defense contractors. they come to us. instead, we will have an innovation.

the small businesses can come to compete for a contract, if that is what it is. we have strict guidelines as to the fact that it has to be something fresh and new that they do not have to compete with. i spend a lot of time on national security issues. they divided into needs. we say, who can do this best? they may say you have not thought of this. here are some new ideas. we think it is a better way to go and what we have now. some people -- we have a range in the caucus.

>> thank you, folks. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> now senator republicans on health care. this is 30 minutes. >> the center from arizona and i had the privilege to be invited by the present to a lengthy health care summit a couple of weeks ago. it is at the blair house. from the white house. over the seven 1/2-hour discussion, there were some discuss differences of opinion. in fact, my friend, the majority leader, said lamar, you're not entitled to your facts, and i think he's right about that. we want to use real facts. but the american people once again seem to have understood the real facts.

in the "wall street journal" yesterday, march 10, there was an article by scott rasmussen and doug schoen. mr. rasmussen is an independent pollster. mr. schoen was president clinton's pollster. we were saying mr. president, your plan will increase the deficit. this is a time when many people in america believe the deficit is growing at an alarming rate and will bring the country to its knees in a few years if we don't do something about it. the president and his democratic colleagues says no, no, no, the congressional budget office says that we don't increase the deficit. the american people don't believe that, according to mr. rasmussen and >> 60% of voters think it will lead to higher deficits. they are right about that. not included in the health care plan that the president has yet

to send up, we do not have a bill yet. we have an 11 page memo. we do not have a bill. the plan does not include what it costs to pay doctors for serving medicare patients over the next 10-years. according to the president's own budget, that costs $371 billion over 10-years. what we are being asked to believe is that here is a comprehensive health care plan that the north and to the debts, but it does not include what it costs to pay doctors to serve medicare patients.

does anybody believe that the comprehensive health care plan is complete and comprehensive if it does not include what you paid doctors to see? of course not. you have to include that in there. that in $371 billion. president's proposal, and that by itself makes it clear that the proposal adds to the deficit. now, the senator from arizona is here, and i would say to the senator this. also in the article in "the wall street journal," it said 59% of the voters say the biggest problem with the health care system is the cost. that's what we have been saying over and over again. let's don't expand a program that costs too much. let's fix the program by reducing costs. according to the survey -- remember, this is an independent pollster and a democratic pollster. 59% say the biggest problem with the health care system is the

cost. they want reform that will bring down the cost of care. for these voters, the notion that you need to spend an additional trillion dollars doesn't make sense. if the program is supposed to save money, why does it cost anything at all asked the pollsters. i would ask the senator from arizona that question, if this program is supposed to save money, reduce costs, why does it cost anything at all? mr. mccain: i would say to my friend, obviously, the answer to that question is we continue to go back and back to the congressional budget office with different assumptions in order to get the answers that they want when the american people have figured it out, and again, i know that my friend from tennessee saw yesterday's news which has to be considered in the context of the cost of this bill which congressman ryan

estimates as around around $2.5 trillion over -- in true budgeting over ten years, but we can't ignore the fundamental fact that the government ran up -- this is an a.p. article yesterday. the government ran up the largest monthly deficit in history in february, keeping the flood of red ink on track to top last year's record for the full year. the treasury department said on wednesday the february deficit totaled $220.9 billion, 14% higher than the previous order set in february of last year. the deficit through the first five months of this budget year totaled $651 billion, 10% higher than a year ago, and the obama administration, the administration is projecting that the deficit for the 2010 budget year will hit an all-time high of $1.56 trillion, surpassing last year's record of

of $1.4 trillion. i say to my friend from tennessee, these are numbers that in my young years, we would not believe -- we would not believe that we could be running up these kinds of deficits. and yet we hear from the president and from the administration that things are getding better. well, certainly not from the debt that we are running on to future generations of americans. i think an example -- and i wonder if my friend from tennessee would agree with me, that there's so much anger out there over the pork-barrel spend and earmark spending that the speaker of the house says they're going to ban earmarks in the other body for for-profit companies. why not ban them all? immediately, they would set up these shadow outfits and chairman obey says that that would be 1,000 earmarks n one

bill last year there were 9,000 earmarks. why don't we take the final step and put a moratorium on earmarks until there's no more deficit? i think that's what the american people want, to get rid of this corruption that continues there. could i also mention to my friend from tennessee very briefly, you know, the president, when he and i sat next to each other at blair house and i talked about the special deals for the special interests and the unsavory deal that was cut with pharma and how the american people as angry at the process as the product. the president's response to me and the certain accuracy associated with it he said, "the campaign is over." well, i would remind my friend that before the campaign, before the campaign, when the president was still a senator, he said this about reconciliation. he said, "know "you know, the fg

fathers designed this system, as frustrating as it is, to make sure there is a broad consensus that the system is as fair as -- that's prompt ago change in the rules that would change the character of the senate forever. what i worry about would be you slings have still two chairnlings the house and the senate, but you have simply majoritarian, absolute power on either side and that's just not what the founders intended." that was a statement by then-senator barack obama. and heent with on to say, "i would try to get a unified effort saying this is a national emergency. do something. we need the republicans. we need the dessments andious yesterday, it's time to vote. it's time to is his message which certainly is attractive. we will be a be glad to vote but

we want to preserve the institution of the senate, the 600-vote rule. -- the 60-vote rule. republicans when they are in the majority, we tried to change it as the senator from tennessee remembers. but the fact is that if we take away the 60-vote majority that is characterized -- that has characterized the way that this body has proceed, woo we will then be as the then-senator obama said, "you just have to -- what i would worry about is you have essentially two chairnlings the house and the senate, but you have simply majoritarian, absolute power on either side and that's just not what the founders intended." i wonder if that's what the president still believes, that that's not what the founders intended. mr. alexander: i appreciate my colleague bringing this up. i think it is important that the

people remember that the senator from arizona has a certain amount of credibility 0 on this. it was the republicans about four years ago when we were in the majority and we became frustrated because democrats were blocking president bush's judicial appointments. so some of us, some republicans -- i didn't, but some republicans said, well, let's just jam it through. we won the election. let's get it with 51 votes. let's change the rules. but senator mccain and a group of others said, wait just a minute. the united states -- he said then what he said just today. he said, the united states founders set up the united states senate to be a protecter of minority rights, and as senator byrd, the senior democratic senator has said, sometimes the minority is right. and as alexis de tocque vicialtion who wrote his observations about our country in the 1830's, that the

potentially greatest threat to the american democracy is tyranny. this is a place where decisionss are based on consensus. running the health care bill through the senate like a freight train is an outrage. and it would be an outrage. i would is a to the senator from arizona, don't you believe that it's not just the higher premiums and the higher taxes and the extra cost to states. that in the end, the reason this health care bill is so deeply unpopular is because of the process, because first, you know, 25 days of secret meetings. now jamming it through by a partisan vote. something this birks this important ought to be decided by consensus in the united states senate. mr. mccain: i would remind my friend from tennessee, and i -- madam president, i would like -- ask unanimous consent that senator byrd's statement on

senator d. -- senator robert byrd in april of 2001, be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: he explained his objection to using reconciliation to pass controversial health care legislation. i quote from senator robert byrd. "the democratic leadership pleaded with me at length to support the idea that the clinton health care bill should be included in that year's reconciliation package. president clinton got on the phone and called me also and pressed me to allow his massive health care bill to be insulated by reconciliation's protection. i felt that changes as dramatic ago the clinton health care package which would affect ever man, woman cialtion and child would be scrutiny. i said," quoting robert byrd, "i said, mr. president, i cannot in good conscience turn my face the other way. that's why we have a senate, to amend and debate freely. and that health bill, as important as it is, is so complex, so far reaching that the people of this country need to know what's in it." i mind you, the speaker of the

house just said yesterday, if they pass the bill, then people would know what's in it. and moreover, mr. president, we senators need to know what's in it before we voavment and he accepted that. he accepted that. thanked me and said goodbye. i could not, i would not, and i did not allow that package to be handled in such a cavalier manner. it was the threat of the united states of the byrd rule. and he finally summarize and said, "reconciliation was never, never, never intended to be a sheeferld to be -- to be used as a shaled fo shield for controvel legislation." the senator from tennessee mentioned the process. i don't think the american people understand that if the house passes the bill, the senate bill, every one of these sweet sh heart deals that were included behind door negotiations and the majority leader's office and in the white house will remain in that bill. and we republicans have all signed a letter, 41 votes, that we will not accept any change

because -- or amendment whether it's good or bad because we oppose the use of reconciliation, as robert byrd did so eloquently back in 2001. mr. alexander: i wonder if the senator from arizona would agree with me that what is happening sheer that the president is inviting the house democrats to join hands and jump off a cliff and hope senator reid catches them -- >> mr. mccain: the c-span cameras in those meetings? mr. alexander: well, when they jump, it might be. but senator reid, i would ask the senator from arizona and his democratic colleagues, they're not going to have any incentive to catch these house members who vote for the bill, because the president will have already signed it into law enforcement hhe'll be well on his way to i understand niece aia. we have 41 republican senators who have signed a letter saying that you're not going to make new deals and send them over here and change them by

reconciliation. mr. mccain: i would also take -- bring attention -- and, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that an article entitled "health care reforms sickeningly sweet deals" by kathleen parker which appeared in "the washington post" on wednesday, march 10, be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i think she says is best. and i quote her article. "skipping through the candyland of the health care bill, one is tempted to hum a few bars much "let me call you sweetheart." what a deal for deal makers, that is, not so much for american taxpayers who have been misled into thinking that the sweetheart deals have been excised." that's why i say to my friend from ten tep, it is important, the american people understand at that the senate bill cannot be changed without coming back to the senate. corks therefore, with all these deals that they have pledged to remove, we'll be in the bill that will be voted on by the other body. the cornhusker kickback, which

by the way secured 100% funding for nebraska's medicaid expansion in perpetuity, among other hidden prizes, to benefit locally based snurchtion companies. when other states complained about the unfair treatment, president obama and congress fixed it by increasing the federal share to all states through 2017, after which all amounts are supposed to decrease. but they didn't fix t anyway, so i think it's important for us to understand that these sweetheart deals have not been removed that we, the 60 vote procedure is characterized the senate has operated. i have been in the majority and minority.

some of the people who were during the great is complaining -- the greatest complaining about the fact that we have a 60 boat role here are the same ones that were defendants. that alone is enough argument press to leave the process along. i believe historians will show that there are times or the 60 vote rule avoided because of the diverted us taking actions. sometimes we read what we did not enact at that time. consistency. for five years ago saying to members of his own party that the senate is a place where minority rights are protected

and, as senator byrd has said, sometimes the minority is right. it slows things down, yes, but it forces us to get it rievment i ask unanimous consent to include following my remarks the editorial from "the wall street journal" to which i referred a little earlier. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: and i ask consent -- i see the senator wyoming on the floor. i ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to lead the colloquy in our remaining time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: could i ask the senator from wyoming, is he aware of a letter from i believe 85,000 physicians that oppose this legislation that recently came in? mr. barrasso: well, madam president, i am not aware of that article. i look forward to hearing about it from my colleague. mr. mccain: may i just mention to my friend, dr. barrasso, the undersigned state of national specialty societies representing more than 85,000 physicians and the millions of patients they

serve are writing to oppose passage of the patient protection and are afordable care act. the changes that were recently proposed by president obama do not address our many concerns with this legislation and they, therefore, urge you to draft a more patient-centered bill that will reform the country's flawed system for financing health care while preserving the best health care in the world. i just want to ask my friend, dr. barrasso, isn't it true that if -- that included in this legislation remains the so-called doc fix, that there will be a 21% curt in doctors' payments for medicaid, the treatment of medicare enroll year, and there is no one in america that believes that that cut will actually be enacted, which then makes this entire -- the entire comments by supporters of this bill false on its face, just that alone? i believe that's $371 billion;

is that correct? mr. barrasso: my colleague is absolutely correct. that is exactly what is happening. they call this a health care bill. it doesn't really seem to address the major issues that patients across the country are concerned about and my colleague is absolutely right. we need a patient-centered approach. it doesn't address the issue that doctors are concerned about. which is the issue of knacking sure that a doctor and a patient can work together toward the best health for that patient. doctors and patients alike are very much opposed to this bill, and when senator mccain talks about this dr. fix, doctors across the country, to make this bill works, it says they're going to get a 21% cut in what they get paid for take care of patients who depend upon medicare for their health care, and then keep that price frozen tor the next ten years. that's the only way they can come up in any way, the democrats can say well, this

actually saves money, when in reality in terms of health care in the country, it does not. this bill if it passes is going to end up costing patients more, it's going to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, it's going to result in an america where people truly believe that their health care, if this passes, their health care, their personal care -- and that's what people worry about. they say what's in it for me? how is this going to affect me and my life and my children? for adults, how is it going to affect our parents? they believe that the care that they receive, in terms of the quality of care, the available care that they receive, is going to be worse, and they believe it's going to end up costing more. and that's why in a recent poll just this week, 57% of americans say that this plan, if it passes, will hurt the economy. we're at a time where we're at 9.7% unemployment in this country. people are looking for work, and

the place that people find jobs in this economy right now tends to be working for the government. but the engine that drives our nation and the economy of this nation, the engine has been for decades and decades small businesses. that's who we rely upon to stimulate the economy and get job growth. that's who we should be relying on. not washington, not the federal government. and that's why 57% of americans who are focused on the economy say we believe that this economy will be hurt if this bill passes. people are focused on the debt and the cost, and 81% of americans say it's going to cost more than estimated, because as senator mccain has said, the numbers that we look at, the fact that the -- that doctors are going to be cut 21% across the board and continue for the

next ten years with their medicare fees, people of america realize that that's not going to work for health care, that people are going to say hey, how am i going to get to see a doctor, i'm on medicare, i want to see a doctor. that's why people believe that health care, their own personal care is going to get worse if this bill passes. and then the president promised we're not going to raise taxes on anyone. well, 78% of americans believe that there will be middle-class tax hikes if this bill passes. that's why people are opposed to a bill that cuts $500 billion from medicare for our seniors who depend upon medicare for their health care. and it's not just in cutting it in payment to doctors. it's to hospitals, nursing homes where we have so many seniors across the country. it affects home health agencies, which is a lifeline for people who are at home and keeps them out of the hospital. they are even going to cut medicare for patients who are in

hospice care, who are at the terminal point, the final days of their life. they're cutting that out. so all of these things are reasons that the american people say i'm not for this bill, and it's time, mr. president, to stop. half of americans say stop and start over. one in four say just stop completely. only one in four believe this is actually going to help. that's not a way to pass legislation in this country. that's not a way to find something that the american people agree with. that's not the way to get successful implementation of a program. to get something -- and i spent five years in the wyoming state senate. on major pieces of legislation, we always sought broad bipartisan support, because if you have broad bipartisan support, then people all around the community and the country would say this must be the right

solution to a significant problem that we're facing. and we are facing a problem with health care in this country, and we need health care reform. we just don't need this bill that cuts medicare, raises taxes, and for the most part, most americans will tell you, they believe their own personal care will suffer as a result of this bill becoming law. for whatever means or mechanism or parliament tricks are used to try to cram this bill through and cram it down the throats of the american people, the american people want to say no thank you, and they're saying it in a less polite way than just saying no thank you. they are calling, showing up, turning out to tell their elected representatives that we do not want this bill, under any circumstances. let's get to the things that we can agree upon and isolate those and pass those immediately.

not an over 2,000-page bill that is loaded with new government rules and new government regulations and new government agencies and new government employees at a time when 10% of americans are unemployed and people are looking for work in communities around the country. one of the things that i found so interesting and also distressing, when the president says everyone will have coverage, he wants to do it by putting 15 million americans on medicaid. having practiced medicine for 25 years and seeing all patients, regardless of ability to pay, i can tell you that there are many doctors across the country who don't see medicaid patients because what they receive in payment from the -- from the government for seeing those patients is so little. and even the people at the congressional budget office who look at this health care bill, with the cuts in medicare and with so many people put on medicaid, they say one in five hospitals is going to be unable

to stay open ten years from now if this gets passed because they are not going to be able to even cover the expenses of staying open. the same applies to doctors' offices and to nursing homes. we need a program and an approach that is sustainable, not something like this that we know is irresponsible and unsustainable. and that's what you're going to do if you put 15 million more people on medicaid by sending them a medicaid card, but as senator alexander has said, that's like giving somebody a bus ticket when a bus isn't coming, because coverage does not always equal care. and as a surgeon in wyoming, i took care of people who came from canada, came to wyoming from canada for health care. well, they had coverage in

canada because canada covers all of the people, but they don't get care in canada, and that's why 33,000 canadians, 33,000 last year came to the united states for surgery. why? because the waiting lines were so long in canada. even a member of parliament who had cancer -- and my wife is a breast cancer survivor -- a member of parliament from canada with cancer came to the united states for her cancer care because the survival rates for people treated in the united states is so much better. why is it better? well, it's more timely care. people come for artificial hip replacements because they don't want to wait in canada. in canada, come halloween, trick or treat medicine, they have spent the amount of money they are going to spend on a procedure, whether it's cataract surgery, total joint replacement, we're done for the year, wait until next year. go get in line again. and i hear it time and time

again in patients who come from canada to the united states because they have coverage but they don't have care. and then we look at medicaid and medicare, and we look at the model that the president has lifted up as the one that says hey, this is a good model for health care in america, and he pointed to the mayo clinic, which is an incredible place, wonderful care, and yet the mayo clinic in arizona said we can't take more medicare patients, and they said we can't -- we have to limit the number of medicaid patients that we take. why? because by taking care of those patients in the past, the mayo clinic says they have lost hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars because washington is the biggest debt -- deadbeat payer for health care. when it comes to medicare actually rejecting patients' claims, the number one rejection of claims, the number one

rejecter of claims in this country is medicare. the highest percentage of claims reject south dakota medicare. over other insurance companies. and having practiced medicine for 25 years, i have fought with medicare and i have fought with insurance companies all on behalf of patients. and when you're fighting with an insurance company, you can always actually appeal, appeal that if they reject it. very hard to fight with washington. this health care bill that we have now been debating in the senate and is now before the house is one that the american people say don't make me live under this. don't cut my medicare. don't raise my taxes, and don't interfere with my relationship with my doctor and don't make it tougher for me to get care and don't lessen the quality of tha]

>> he met with white house officials. they are expecting to hear how the office discuss the plan. we talked with the reporter covering the issue and asked about the relationship between house and senate democrat. >> the house democrats are stuck having to pass the senate bill. they do not like a lot of things in the senate bill. they are afraid that if they pass that in changes to not get through the senate that they are stuck with that senate bill. they had taken a vote on it. the senate is the notoriously bad about bills getting caught there. the senate rules are so much more complicated. they need 60 votes for a lot of

the bills that go through. reconciliation allows them to get 51 votes instead. it could still be a tricky process. the parliament tanner we parliamentarians -- they have not shown they can get through that body. >> this is clearly a process question. when the development came from the 41 senate republicans who could block anything that comes forward. could you explain what you wrote about today? >> the senate republicans have said that they will pull up a point of order against any provision in the reconciliation bill that does not comply with the burden. it must have some sort of upset

on the deficit. it relates to the budget. it will be looking very carefully at this bill. it they will try to find any of the poll that they can to pull something out and get the parliamentarian to rule that it has opened a budget point of order. if it goes a few days pass, we are ok with that. we have been waiting so long. the house and senate key players have said that it was something that was extremely due to max

baucus. and they do not seem to be able to pull that out at this point, especially because nancy pelosi said today that the house would have a week to look at any reconciliation bill that they come up with. no one has actually seen that yet language yet. >> the next step is, once the cbo comes with this score, would be a marked up that will be chaired by the house budget committee, and john spratt and then would go to the rules committee chaired by the chairman of new york. >> the budget committee is pretty much as something that has to be done. they are not going to make any changes to this bill. we are being told that they could meet on monday. they are trying to schedule a

meeting for monday. at least to expect language by them. they descended on it so that rules can get to it. they are not really good to have a huge debate over this. it takes 48 hours after it leaves the budget committee to go to the rules committee. that could come as early as wednesday. they are one to pick out how to get this on the senate floor. i was told that -- the house floor -- i was told that they breached the members, democratic members, on gentle ways on how to get the bill on the house floor. >> senator bob corker says the health care debate has forced the banking committee chairman, chris dodd, to push forward with financial regulation legislation. he released a statement this morning, scheduling a mark up of

the bill for march 22. senator corporate express to supplement with the decision, citing a number of unresolved issues with the legislation. he talks reporters at the capital for about 35 minutes. >> i began today feeling like i was on a 5 yard line. i thought it will be out on february 10. i never realized that health care would affect financial regulation. i knew that tensions would exist. i did not realize that it? the counter the biggest of my

life to a year in 10 months. the person you are dealing with is under stress. you need to call and sort of buck things up. yesterday morning, i knew that chairman dodd was feeling a lot of pressure. i told him there on the 5 yard line. we can get this done. let us keep our heads down. do not let anyone interfere. let's move ahead. he said, you are right. the route the day, we miss each other. finally at 3:00, we met privately. he made me aware of deatwhere we were in the negotiation.

obviously, that is very disappointing. i understand the pressures that he is under. but me say this. i have immensely enjoyed working with chairman doug and his team. -- chairman dodd and his team. i think his death ha staff has contributed equally. there is up in one issue we enough been able to overcome, not a single one. on the issue that all of you have focused on the most, consumers, we were there. what is going to be happening, i have enjoyed this immensely. over the last 30 days, is what

we came here in the senate to do. we laughed, we have debated, and we have got into the 5 yard line. even though yesterday' i was mae aware of the we need to go ahead, i still plan to work with him. our staff -- they were in shock. i want to thank our step. you think about a 12 and a page bill. we do not have a committee staff to work on it. they have been incredible. they know this bill. -- better than any staff in the senate. if they continue to play a role. i am disappointed.

i still think it is important that we get a financial regulation bill. this really is a jobs bill. the fact is that financial markets need predictability. they need to know what the rules of the road are. it is not take a few phone calls for them to tell you that we live like to have a good bill. we live like to know where it is going. we want to know the rules of the road. many of them are hoarding cash. the images mention one other thing. -- let me just mention one other thing in fairness. there is no question that white house politics and healthcare

have kept us from getting to the goal line. in a question. -- no question. i had truly enjoyed working with chairman dot. mark warren has been the best partner. judd gregg and jack reed were working on derivatives. in fairness, it may take them a little while to finish it. it is very complex. we do not have jurisdiction over certain revenues. they still have work to do. what we have to do in the senate is get things right. it is important for us before we pass legislation to get it right. this is an important topic. through this weekend, probably could have gotten it right.

i think we would have been ready to introduce and improve a bipartisan bill. i've always felt would then amended these bills. i film along constrained. i will answer any question you wish. they are getting nervous about what they were reading. they would try to ensure they could get as much as they can.

hopefully, what he will do is move to the light. for me, i think a better course of action is to introduce something in the middle of the road and have people of both sides tried to influence it. to put the positive on this, the fact is now, all my colleagues -- i want to say something this began as a very awkward situation in the first week or so. my republican colleagues have become very excited. i think they have seen the senate actually working the way the senate is supposed to work. i think that the temperatures in negotiations.

i think that a magician with all our republicans. there was a lot of engagement. they see we are talking about a bill that is bipartisan. i hope they continue. the bill introduced monday is not the bill that we would have completed. it will be a much better bill. back in december, the chairman dodd introduced a bill. i plead with him to not go forward with the partisan market. others did the same. that was not amendable. there is no way to amend that bill and get it right. one of the positives is that the bill will be more in the middle of the road. it will not be where it could have them. what happened yesterday is that

the pause button was hit. you are writing a column. 3/4 of the way through, your editor called and said to just turn it in. that is the way the bill will be on monday. this probably does not place a will to my republican peers. i consider this guy to be my friend. i consider his staff to be stand up people who are great negotiators. this'll be the first disagreeable -- we may have disagreed on policy. this may be the first disagreeable thing i said to chairman dodd. this is a very important bill.

i cannot imagine a committee member, republican or democrat, passing a bill with this type of substance in it out of a committee in a week. i think that to be a travesty. i know this goes against what he wishes to happen. all of you have asked me about the schedule. i said chairman dodd will talk to about the schedule. that is his prerogative. if the senators can pass a bill of this substance out of a committee in the week, 1200 pages, plus substance that has the real affect on the financial industry, then the state who elected them might as well have sent robots to the senate. i hope people on both sides of the aisle will look at this and will really debate it and get it

right. i can tell you this. i stand ready. we both are disappointed. even the language -- we still have work to do -- there are some judicial issues that we need to work through. there are other issues that we would like to work through. . .

the fact that there were loans made that should never have been made and people are money that should have never borrow it, that is very important as it relates to this bill on our financial system. with that, i look forward to working with chairman dodd. all the guys on our side and all the guys on the other side, i would do this again. i am going to get a good night's sleep tonight. i will dustoff and go to work in the morning can i will come back and i will continue edging in the morning.

i'll come back and i will continue -- i will dust off and go to work in the morning. i will come back and i will continue. thank you for letting me talk so long. >> is it possible that senator dodd will push this through with a bipartisan basis? what is your expectation? >> i think that chairman dodd sincerely wanted bipartisan bill. i think he feels under pressure we have to pass the bill before reconciliation hits the floor. >> why? >> i do not speak about things that i do not know. i know that the elephant in a room is reconciliation and trying to get a bill out of

committee prior to that time can effect of the matter is that i think he is a victim of health care policy. >> [unintelligible] >> when there were some issues relating to risk retention -- >> there were some issues relating to risk retention. i think many of you read a headline this morning about credit starting to percolate again could one thing you have to be really careful of -- percolate again. one thing you have to be really careful of is securitization. we return to work out some issues there.

if you are going to have to retain risk, maybe you do not retainers if you are writing a mortgage on a 15% down payment home. maybe you create an incentive for people to write mortgages that are the kind that happen in canada and other places. there homeownership is equal to ours and they do not have the defaults that we have appeare. the big piece that was up one to be ready was derivatives. this is a very complex area. it is something that we absolutely have to get right. the devil is in the details. there were some members issues that were coming up. whenever a vehicle is one that is moving -- i will mention one sense it has been reported.

proxy access was one to be an issue. i know that senator schumer had a very good meeting. we have actually given -- we have agreed to look at some governance issues that he had put forth. but on proxy access and fairness, that is a line in the sand. that concern discreetly about activist groups getting involved with some more to the needs to be done there. but there have not been a single issue yet that we have not been able to work through. i called tanning guy this morning and thank them on how the treasury has -- i called tim geithner this morning and thanked him on how the treasury has worked with us. >> 18 months after lehman brothers and aig, what kind of

message does that send to wall street and consumers? >> we are when to get there. i hope we are going to get there. this is something full of substance. there are four titles in this bill there very important. the systemic council and having the ability to gather data and returning the information and actually having some weather warnings is an important piece. secondly, the absolute knowing that you have an orderly liquidation of large companies, that is important to get back in the american psyche. that is something that americans, republicans, and the democrats are united by. if you're a large company and you fail and you choose not to go through bankruptcy, you are going to go through a very painful liquidation.

the third pieces derivatives. that is an important piece to have a regime -- that is an important piece. do you think it would have happened if we had inappropriate. this regime? and then there are consumers. i am equally energized to continue to work with the staff and others to get a bill. i think we will get there, but i think it will be far nastier. i find that when you're willing to grind out every issue, grind it out, our staff has been working almost 24/7, and that is when you get a good piece of legislation. >> how far apart are you on the rating agencies?

the bottom of the pyramid is seem to be the cre issue. the fdic, the fed, [unintelligible] i did not say anything about them. >> that is what i mean. >> no. if you look at wawhat has happened and our financial crisis, we had bad mortgages. then you have easy credit. we have low rates. whenever we have low rates, the value of real estate and flights. if it is an inverse relationship that occurs. then you had a bunch of institutions in this country that work over leveraged.

and then you had the ability to multiplied that with derivatives. take a bet -- then you take a base value and to a big emotional value. you had mortgages that were not written for. i did not mean barnum of the pyramid as far as society or anything else. thank you for clarifying that -- i did not mean bottom of the pyramid as far as society or anything else. thank you for clarifying that. at present, we have a pretty painful clause 4 ratings agencies. -- for ratings agencies. on the credit ratings site, we had a pretty big liability.

this would call them to pay more attention to what they're doing. >> [unintelligible] was it to anyone of those are all of those? >> let me be clear. on the derivatives title, zachary and judd gregg, if you remember that chairman dead assigned teams to work on the health care -- chairman dodd assigned teams to work on the health care debate. the issue that has kept them from coming to closure, although there this close, is how much end-user [unintelligible] i have not seen the language. senator dodd has nothing the language yet. i give german dog some

additional flak because i think he knows it will take -- i give chairman dodd some additional flights because i think he knows it will take some time. i've probably felt a better way of moving ahead would be to leave that section out and adding it as an amendment when it comes out. >> where were you when [unintelligible] >> the talks did not recall pit -- the talks did not break off. by the way it, i think the consumer title that chairman dodd puts forth will be very much shaped -- [unintelligible] so where it was left was how did

the fed, appointed by the president and confirmed by the congress -- things feeling great and we're almost there. it looks that we're not one to get there. the thing about the fed, the president said that he wanted an independent source of funding. the way the fed works is that they give whenever surpluses left back to the treasury. that was a way of solving that problem. in essence, the consumer protection agency would have an independent source of funding. so that saw one block. i know there was a lot of negative reaction. having and housed at the fed seemed one way to solve that issue. but it didn't really report to the chairman. it was a lot different than people thought. here is where it has been.

republicans, conservative republicans i might add, have agreed to broad-scope rulemaking. that has never happened. this is a rulemaking where the shadow industry has to live by the same rules that the regulated market does. fifa consumer person, that is sort of breaking ground. -- if i am a consumer version, that is sort of breaking ground. we do not want consumers involved in enforcement. that is the arrangements and that we have come to. that is what has been agreed to. in other words, if we want failings -- we do not want rulemaking and enforcements combined. we made to the first real offer

on consumers on saturday. it was a real offer to get a deal done. there is a process through which rules would be made. there is a veto process if the safety and soundness of the financial system or systemic risks created. there is a veto process by some officials. the show become lead judge gray, my folks were in discussion to make that in a way to make it work for all of us. we were down two issues that none of you ever dreamed of in your life. -- we were down two issues that none of you ever dreamed up in your life. -- we ewre were down to issues

that none of you ever dreamed of in your life. the major concept absolutely agrees. >> [unintelligible] >> yes. they had to go and with the joint examination, which is the -- they had to go in with a joint examination, which is what we have always said. it was a huge lanwin. what we are concerned about is the enforcement. we accommodative the democratic side, the issues -- enforcement would not be part of this round.

i think i have answered that point. i think there rearranging -- i am just going to come clean on this -- the rearranging of the deck chairs is one of the purest efforts i have seen. years ago, if you had a company that was in trouble, what would they do? they would change their organizational chart. but they had a meeting and this person moved over to that spot and some meals move dover and nothing changed. that is -- and someone moved over there and nothing changed. dot is moving into the occ makes a lot of sense to me -- the ots is moving into the occ and it

makes a lot of sense to me. i think it has all been kind of silly. at the end of the day, person, this is my prediction. nothing changes. but a lot will change as it relates to the needs standards that these entities are held to. there is no question. the fed will have its wings clipped. it will still be supervising -- i know that the way the bill sets now, they will be supervising the larger entities. the debate today is over whether the fed will do the smaller institutions they now have. there was a halt -- there is all kinds of lobbying going on right now. they like their marble buildings and their stature and their relevance.

but i do not see any reason to change that, to be candid. it seems like we're doing something and we are not doing anything. >> people one of lenders included. >> they are included. >> in the legislation? >> yes. remember, the rulemaking scope covers everybody involved in financial activity, everyone. everyone. >> [unintelligible] >> lipow have state charters like state banks do. the debt -- they all have state charters like state banks to. this creates a rulemaking standard that is across all financial activity.

one of the things that many of you are missing is that credit unions come community banks, people like that across this country, there would like to see a level playing field. everybody is focused on this consumer issue in such a backwards way. they do not realize that those people have to live by certain standards. this is the way it all is in the industry. everybody has to live up to the standards that they do. the dog track and the french draft, those -- thge didd draft and the franc draft, those were all included.

there is a veto process that exists. i think we have accommodated a very good balance. >> [unintelligible] >> starting monday, there are two weeks left. >> what does that put pressure on him? >> i think it is envisioned that, should the house passes and, reconciliation will happen in the last few days. but he felt pressure. i understand that. >> you said that the proposal that senator dodd will bring out on monday will be left to where we left off. >> we were moving in the middle

of the road and we sort of hit the pause button. unfortunately, the language will lobby crafted. even some of the things we have worked for, for july, will not make it -- we have worked for, unfortunately, will not make it. we did not have one of those all-night sessions last night. we will not have won tonight. the bill will be led to coming to cover this press conference and you start writing a column and you get halfway through and stock. that is were sent the bill is going to be. on the plus side, it will be a much better product than what was offered in december. this is not clear to affect my attitude. i will continue to wake up every day and tried to get the good

financial regulations. >> senator, we have to give up the road. >> ok. >> the consumer was not what caused the breakdown. there has been no breakdown. after the things that have occurred over the last month, i will say this. i think republicans want to see a good financial reform bill. i think democrats want to see a good financial reform bill. if we can do this in a bipartisan way, we cannot do anything anymore in the united states senate.

we hope to get this done. >> [unintelligible] >> now christopher dodd response to senator corker and talks about his plans for new financial regulation. he says it will be presented on monday senator dodd explain the key provisions that this 60- minute news conference.

>> let me know when you guys are ready back there.

when this is all over, we can gather for that evening have promised the press. are you all set? let me thank all of you. i put out a statement earlier this morning indicating that we are on a positive and optimistic track and are coming to the conclusion of a financial reform package in the senate. let me also command bob corker for the work that he has been doing. he and the staff have been great partners over the last month. over the years, having learned at the side of ted kennedy, nothing is done until everything is done. so you have to continue working. we need to move along. i intend to put a proposal on monday.

i have been promising that to many of you on this -- many of you in this room. each week, we let it slip a little bit because we think we can get a little further along. so the proposal i will present on monday does reflect a lot of the ideas that bob corker and others have brought the table. but clearly, we need to move along. i am mostly facing what i call the hundred and first senators. that is the clock, particularly in the election year. as time moves on, you limit the possibility of getting something done, especially a bill of this magnitude and complexity. i want it to get at least through the committee before the easter break. we will back up -- we will come back almost in the middle of april by that point.

there will be a break in may and in july and in august. it is an election year. so we need to get this done. the idea of putting this proposal on the table as by reflection of something breaking down. it is the opposite. things have been moving along very well. so i am grateful to bob corker. the major parts of this bill are four. we intend to stop forever the notion that some institutions are just too big to fail. that is going to end with this bill. there is broad consensus on that. that is a major achievement. never again shall the american taxpayer be where they have been for the last couple of years because institutions are too big to fail.

it is not complete. additional thoughts are coming to the table. we want to be in a situation where we are dealing with the derivatives. it is about how we provide that transparency and accountability. clearly, there's the issue of the consumer. how are we going to better protect the consumer? aside from an agency that can engage in consumers' needs, we are not thathere yet. we need to put a proposal on the table, otherwise it is just a lot of conversation. on monday, will have a just look

at it document and react to it. my goal is to begin a mark of of the bill after that, utilizing the week between the proposal down to having the conversations with the goal of coming out of committee with a consensus bill and then coming to the floor of the senate. i just wanted to come over and express my sense of optimism about this. i know we tend to look at the statements and wonder if there has been any [unintelligible] that is not my view. bob corker has stepped up. that has been so valuable in this process. let me stop now and address any questions. >> how do you plan to shape the

consumer piece of your bill? >> i cannot negotiate here. that's why we have members who are talking. obviously, that is a major issue and we are talking about it. this is a proposal that would enjoy broad support. i would not say universal support, but the broad support. >> is it going to be with the fed or what? >> i will take a look at what is out there on monday and i think you will see. there are 13 miles to this bill. it will be a different proposal from the one that i proposed in october or november. so it will be a change from that proposal. but i am not one to negotiate here. >> it was said that it would be

a travesty to have out of committee in the week. >> it may. all of you want me give you a time schedule and i have tried to do that. but that gives me problems. again, all of this is subject -- i am more interested in getting this right rather than getting hit by a certain date. -- getting it by a certain date. one thing is fairly consistent. we need to move things forward. doheny to put products on the table to get people to react to them. -- you need to put products on the table to get people to react to them. but i emphasize that i do not have a lot of time left in this congress. we all know how this can go by

very quickly. and nomination sometimes goes through days to go to a vote. i am hoping to avoid that if we can develop a consensus. there was the issue of -- >> there was the issue of reconciliation. >> the administration cares deeply about this bill and they want a bill. we are constantly in touch with them. we talk almost every day. the chief of staff called over for the status. there are other matters that are on this table as well. the hundred and first senator,

you can appreciate in an election-year what happens. it can raise havoc in trying to get the thing that. >> in going to the market, how concerned are you at holding on to that? >> i fully acknowledge and recognize that every major villi have been involved in involved having a partner. back to the days of going over the child care legislation with orrin hatch. i do not because able to move anything with that the relationship. it is true here as well.

the major pieces of this bill require cooperation. i am not sure you get as good a product without that. on a political factor, i think it is a subsidy of the value as well. i fully recognize that if i do not, it will get a lot harder to get a bill duncan obviously, my relationship with members are very important and i talk to them all the time. the proposal on monday will reflect a lot of what those conversations have produced. >> [unintelligible] >> we are not just dealing with one issue. we are dealing with a set of issues. they have been unattended for almost 80 years.

you go back to 1930's. we are not one to deal with every issue, but the major issues, too big to fail, $700 billion. i am determined, before this congress and, will close that door. this may be the single important than we do, making sure that we can regulate or provide transparency or accountability for exotic instruments. we need to fix that and we're getting close to doing it. we need to be able to look over and see what is going on in our economy. the idea that no one saw this coming i do not buy. how many times have we talked about the legislation that passed in 1994 and the federal reserve did not do anything. they could have avoided a catastrophe with home mortgages.

this bill will address those issues to a large extent. they may not be as exactly as i would write them, but i will urge the senate to pass it. >> [unintelligible] how much is reconciliation going to affect the process for you? >> there are a lot of pieces out there. this is not the only thing. we are at a point where you can talk about a bill. we have had 150 to hearings this year alone. i put down a proposal in november. i had a lot of discussions, tried to find somebody to work with who will compromise. but aside reconciliation for somebody else. the time has arrived to put down a proposal. we went outside interests as well to be able to react.

they need something on paper that they can say i like this. i do not like this. how does this mean? how does this work? and only then you have a proposal on the table. >> what is the possibility that you might split the bill apart [unintelligible] >> we would have to postpone the election that we did that. if i did this in pieces with the senate, i think it would be impossible. >> have you negotiated so far? >> we have 22 members in the committee. this is just two of us here. we are dealing with a lot of members who have a lot of ideas and interests. as the chairman of the committee, i have to pull that out in the way to still been some consensus. i will report on the part of the

bill where it and we have consensus. >> there seems to be a growing group of progressives that [unintelligible] how concerned are you to moving on to your left wing? >> this is a complicated institution. you have to deal with all sorts of people. i have been around to mark up the bill for a long time. you have to put the proposal on the table. this will give you something you will actually be able to report on. >> [unintelligible] >> the dollar amount, ladot -- -- the dollar amount, well, i do not know --

i can tell you that it is different. having an implicit guarantee from the government that eight company will never fail, i want to get rid of that. that is critically important. >> when you have to get a bailout on the senate? >> sometime this spring. we have to get into summer, in august.

it was hard for barney, even on the house rules. we are talking on -- we're talking with his staff. i just want to stay away from deadlines. >> was this commissioner frans i did to have it this way? >> [unintelligible] >> the head of the national

highway traffic association was question about the department's response on the toyota recalls. after that, vice president biden is intel of the later, there will be -- biden is in tellef leavtel aviv. >> we will talk with congressman goodlatte. later, we will have steven emerson. un-american moment -- an american woman is accused of aiding terrorists. after that, there will be a discussion on the senate use of the filibuster on c-span 2.

the american enterprise institute hosts this discussion. live coverage is at 8:30 a.m. eastern. >> the new head of the national traffic highway safety commission was question on the toyota safety recalls.

>> please accept my apology for the delay. we will now proceed with this hearing. this hearing today is a subcommittee on commerce trade and consumer protection. the chair recognizes himself or five minutes.

our main purpose for coming together today is to assess [unintelligible] last month, i promised american motorists, passengers, and pedestrians that this committee takes its jurisdictional responsibilities and we will help to regain the public confidence. this is our first occasion to welcome now it's thnhta's chairs committee. administrators trip when's first -- it administrator strickland

's first days, i expect he will speak straight with us. we will talk about legislation that members of this committee can support. i look forward to listening to both witnesses and hearing their views on what nhtsa is currently doing for its crash data analysis, its research, [unintelligible] although i am typically not very stringent about enforcing time

restrictions on members' statements and questioning, this is a different today. we are starting late. i will not hesitate to drop the gavel today to keep us on. and on the right path as much as possible. -- to keep us on point and on the right path as much as possible. i will ask my colleagues to a full understanding and to be as cooperative as possible as it relates to the time considerations. before i yield my time, i would like to see it -- say a few words about today's hearing. let me be clear. this is not a hearing about toyota's recall or its

practices. please try to restrain yourselves from straying too far away from our purpose. i would like to thank your witnesses who have taken time out from their very important schedules. we're thankful to you for your patience. let us work collaborative lely o make sure that ntsha has the capacity to fulfill its stated

mission of saving lives, preventing injuries, and reducing the cost due to road crashes with education, research, safety standards, and enforcement activities. you are all great americans. thank you again. i yield back the balance of my time. now i recognize the ranking member for five minutes, my friend from kentucky. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i also want to thank you all for your patience. we welcome the witnesses on both panels. i would like to start off this afternoon by simply congratulating the national highway traffic safety and administration. i know that today's vehicles are safer than ever.

in 2009, there were 33,063 highway fatalities, which is to many. but it is the fewest since 1964. the rate of fatalities in 2009 was 1.16 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles. when this record was first recorded back in 1979, there were 3.34 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles. i think that should make the public feel more comfortable, even though one death is one death to many. as a result local of the stories on toyota, has led some to opine that the system is broken and needs to be fixed.

mr. shawn kane, the president of the safety research and strategy company which does a lot of consulting work for trial lawyers, testified last month when he was asked the question does nhtsa need more reworking? he said that they need more tools available. as far as unintended acceleration, this is a problem that has cut across three decades that multiple administrations without successful resolution. similar to the findings in the late 1980's and 1990's, the independent examination of unintended acceleration has not

answered all questions that may not be cut -- and may not do so it to everyone's satisfaction. it is also not clear what more they could have done than what they already have done and whether the outcome would be any different. administrator strickland identified -- testified last week that there was not a strong enough case to force the issue of a mandatory recall, even if that had been nhtsa's the decision. i might also say that, to date, the office of inspector general was in the department of transportation and asked for the initiation of an audit. it would include an examination

of its handling of talia and the broader issue of the process that odi used to examine and investigate the safety defects. the inspector general's objectives are similar to those of this hearing, which is simply to determine whether nhtsa has the tools and the information available to identify possible improvements to its current procedures. i think that is what this hearing is all about as we move toward. i would yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm so happy that we're having this hearing today. withouthis hearing will give use

opportunity to explore whether n.h. tsa has the authority necessary to sufficiently investigate safety problems and enforcing existing safety rules. i want to welcome mr. shetland and congratulate him -- mr. tisch strickland and congratulate him. -- mr. strickland and congratulate him. it is a pleasure to have worked with you earlier. i know of your commitment to consumers and to consumer safety.

right now, we may find we will -- we will find some gaps in need to be filled. in addition to discussing issues on enforcement activity, i am looking for to begin a dialogue on children's safety in and around cars and other proactive safety measures. i appreciate that we had a moment before this 10:00 hearing to discuss this a bit. in past years, congress has enacted legislation requiring nhtsa to issue specific safety regulations.

i know that you are working on these issues as we speak. i hope that both standards will be very strong in order to protect children. i should tell you that i think the hardest thing that i have done in this congress is having parents come with picture with to -- with pictures of their children who are no longer with us, sometimes because they themselves and it certainly -- sometimes because they themselves inadvertently were partly responsible to those children's debts. those are unbearable to think about -- those children's deaths. those are unbearable and to think about, that they could have been presenteprevented.

i am looking for a to working with you to create standards that actually do prevent those accidents from happening. my concern is that, in the past, congress has been forced to take action because nhtsa was not initiating rulemaking on its own. i want to make sure that nhtsa has all the tools it needs and that it uses them to protect consumers. i look for to that very much. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the gentleman from iowa for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. how to apply u.s. and the ranking member for having this hearing.

if it is really an honor to have you here today, mr. strickland. we have not met before. you have an important reports of the l.a. -- and import responsibility -- you have an important responsibility. it is when something dramatic like the story of a recall hearings comes up that the public starts to understand the critical role that your agency plays -- is when something dramatic like the toyota recall hearings comes up that the public starts to understand the critical role that your agency plays. i was supposed to be testifying that day on sidesaddle fuel tank explosions involving ck general motors pickup trucks. i did not get an opportunity to

testify because the settlement was reached by your agency and the secretary of transportation and general motors corp. by $51 million was paid so that the recall hearing would not go forward, where people like me would have an opportunity to talk about the impact on human lives by defects that do not its fault. i was on to testify about a client of mine in iowa who had the right side of her face burned off when the pickup truck she was riding in was involved in a collision and the pickup roll over on its side. because of the placement of those fuel tanks outside of the frame rails, the flames went up the side of that pickup truck and engulfed her face in flames. her husband who was driving a pickup truck pulled her young son who was seated between them

through the broken windshield and got him to safety. when he went back to try to rescue his wife, he reached into grab her and pulled out big chunks of her hair that had burned off in the fire. he went back to his son and told him that money is in heaven now. but miraculously -- that money is in heaven now. but miraculously -- that mommy is in heaven now. but miraculously, she survived. she has had hair transplants and incredible disfigurement. when we gather for these hearings, we spend a lot of time talking in very arcane and technical language about sudden, unanticipated acceleration and electronic controls safety devices. but we rarely talk about the human impact of the failure to act. so when you think about the

important responsibilities your agency has, it is important not just to think about where we are today and where you're going to take that agency going forward. it is important to look back word that the legacy of this agency and why there are some people who feel it has not fulfilled its responsibility to keep the american public safe. .

>> likewise, nhtsa's decision to terminate several internal analyses related to the defective vehicles since 2003 due to a purported lack of resources leave one with the impression that the agency lacks the appropriate level of personnel with which to fill its mandate. we want to find out if that is the case today. if that be so, the safety of the american public is in question. as was the case with the sister agency, the consumer product safety commission, nhtsa has suffered sears project suffered years of stagnation and has endured and personal levels most

notably and the office of defects investigation. nevertheless, the agency possesses a number of powerful enforcement tools, many of which were augmented under the transportation recall enhancement and accountability documentation act of 2000. in addition to being able to compel manufacturers to recall defective vehicles, this imposed civil penalties for noncompliance and criminal penalties for falsification or withholding of information. this in mind, we must ask ourselves today what these authorities were not used in the case of recent toyota recalled. put another brick, are the problem with nhtsa's lack of due to an aptitude or lack of resources?

and present, it appears that the latter is more persuasive. although i will not discount the possibility that improvement can be made in the statutes of conferring nhtsa authority. our discussion of nhtsa loss of 40 must not lose sight on malfeasance on the part of toyota. it led to the recall of over 8 million vehicles to reauthorize nhtsa without a view toward compelling better behavior by automobile manufacturers would be a self-defeating exercise. two weeks ago, my questioning of the toyota had of sales for north america indicated that all of toyota's decisions are made in tokyo. more disquieting is the fact that u.s. officials, the

secretary of transportation and the then head of nhtsa had to fly to japan to persuade toyota to initiate recalls and the u.s. in brief, we must examine how best to oblige automobile manufacturers selling vehicles in the u.s. to comply quickly and fully with our regulations and laws. in closing come i suggest that my colleagues did these comments in mind as we begin what must be the first of many conversations about improving federal oversight of transportation safety. i further ask that these discussions and their resultant legislation will be bipartisan, and subject [inaudible] . i.t. why for your kindness. i thank the witnesses for appearing and i yield back the

58 seconds remaining. >> thank you. would you stand and raise your right hand? do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> let the record reflect that the witness has responded in the affirmative. the chair recognizes himself for five minutes for questioning the witness. the chair is getting ahead of himself. it has been a long day. the chair will recognize the administrator who has opening

statements. the chair recommends -- recognizes the administrator for the purposes of opening statements. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if my statement is not as important as the committee's questions. i can understand he wanted to getting to business. >> that is a great beginning. [laughter] >> thank you for your kind words. before i begin my formal remarks, i would like to take a second to a knowledge the note about the human toll. we have a tremendous amount of debt on this i was. i am happy to report good news but there the 3000 people is a tremendous amount of people to die. one person, is to many. the personal told that it takes on the family is absolutely

catastrophic. in my time that i served as a staffer on the senate commerce committee, i have had the opportunity to spend time with countless victims, including mothers and fathers who have killed their children an unfortunate accidents and people who have been disfigured and burned because of traffic accidents because of defects. you can never properly capture what this means to people. i am fully aware of the responsibility that i have in that every day this agency has one goal, to keep people alive and safe on the road. we can never do that job well enough. that does not mean that we cannot try. we will continue to put forth maximum effort, as we have, to make sure that we accomplish those goals. to what some much for your observations and they are taken to heart.

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the department of transportation's vision for the future of the national highway safety traffic administration and its importance if the programs. transportation safety is the department's highest priority. nhtsa said the programs are an integral part of addressing that. even before i was sworn in as administrator on january 4, by new nhtsa cost programs worked and worked well. we just showed numbers to show a continuing dramatic reduction in the overall number of highway deaths. the secretary this morning released a report that projected traffic fatalities have declined for the 15th consecutive quarter and will be 30,000 in 2009, the lowest annual level since 1954. but i must do more. the loss of more than 33,000 people represents a serious

public health problem to our nation. we will not rest until that number is 0. how to get there? highway safety is a complex problem and nhtsa has built a broad spectrum of programs that address both behavioral and vehicular related causes of how we death. the linchpin of all of our programs is good data, good science, and careful interned -- and careful engineering. when i was sworn in two months ago, i felt it was important to look at if there was a need to improve our effectiveness in this era of the global marketplace and rapidly changing technology. one of my first decisions was to question whether nhtsa is being well served by the statutory authority on which it provides to regulate. the reality is that while current authority does work and various constituencies have learned to work with us, there were written in the 1960's an

1970's, when the world and the automobile market were profoundly different. the question i posed, and the questions i want to have, is whether nhtsa's statutory authority accommodate the modern automobile and the modern competitive marketplace. more importantly, do they allow us to regulate in a way that allows the industry to build and sell six products that the consumer wants to drive? do they allow us to promote safety and fuel efficiency will provide an effective regulatory and enforcement oversight? i have asked our legal and program staff to look at our existing authorities. to answer these questions and to make their best recommendations. i believe this self assessment is critical and the goals for transparency and government and while we are taking a hard look at our authority, i also commit to looking at the current ethics rules. i believe that the standard set

by this administration are the highest ever established by any administration and i fully support secretary's lahood's desire to put this across the department of transportation. if there's any evidence of violation, swift and appropriate action will be taken. the next question i asked of nhtsa is do we have the programmatic expertise we need to support our programs? we have diverse and experienced work forces, and the will take full advantage of their expertise. if, as we go forward, we find that we need to shore up our work force in certain areas, we will recruit aggressively. we are currently requesting the authority to hire 66 more people next year and we will target these positions to meet our program needs. at this point, it appears i am out of time so i will submit my remarks. but i am think the committee for their patience and a stand ready

for questions. -- i thnank the committee for their patience and stand ready for questions. >> thank you. the chair recognizes himself for five minutes. as i said, the goal of the subcommittee in relation to nhtsa is to look forward and to determine what is the best way that we can and shirt and assist nhtsa in its primary goal of protecting the american citizens and drivers. as i look at this scenario of

toyota is a from work, i wonder about the safety and quality of the automobiles on america's highways in general. the question i have is what reason can you give us that we should not think that the recent toyota recall will not replay itself in any other automobile that manufactures automobiles for america's highways?

what reason can you assure us that this toyota recall is really just something that is an aberration as it relates to automobile safety? >> i would say this, mr. chairman. the toyota recalled, while wide ranging, is indicative of how nhtsa uses of 40 in a way to get to the bottom of something. when the secretary of transportation took office, they were observing certain issues with toyota and they felt so strongly about it that he went to japan to inform toyota that they did not feel that toyota was holding up its obligations to inform and interact with

nhtsa in a way to address safety concerns and recall concerns. that effort began on december 15. and that was the day of my confirmation hearing which was a good reason the entire senior staff was in japan and not at my hearing. better that they be there explaining to toyota what they were doing wrong. and when i took office on january 4, i was updated about these issues and toyota was at that point beginning to get the message. i met with them personally for the first time on january 19, and i learned about the pedal situation. that effort was because of the analysis of nhtsa, the fast action of the career staff and the leadership of the secretary of transportation.

i do not see toyota as an indicative example of failure. i see that as nhtsa doing its job and when our professionals use the data, make the case and go forward, we get the results that we need. i think that toyota, and the wide ranging recall that they executed, that is the type of response that i would want as an administrator and i think that this agency -- administration is expecting but i would hope in the future that other automakers would do the same. >> can you give the subcommittee any assurances that the automobile's right now, as far as nhtsa is concerned, have a level of safety that is greater than what we have experienced with toyota? >> there are two parts to that

answer. i will go back to the success that we just had and regarding the current data. we have the lowest number of deaths since we have been recording the data. nhtsa is succeeding in its mission. the second part of your question, do i feel that vehicles are generally safe or will be and not have any other issue like toyota? it is the automaker's responsibility that their vehicles comply with safety standards. that is their responsibility. we are not branding these cars state. but it is our job -- sake. -- it is not bringing these cars say. they have to comply with our standards but it is my job to make sure that they hold to the standards. this agency will hold that line. >> the chair time is up.

>> thank you again for joining us this afternoon. as i said in my opening statement, i think the agency should be commended because the highways are safer today than they have ever been from a statistical standpoint. you would agree with that i am assuming. >> yes, sir. >> there have been a lot of articles written and testimony recently nhtsa has not fulfilled its responsibility. nhtsa is a lap dog for the industry, not a watchdog. there has been a lot of criticism of their about the agency. as the administrator, how would you respond to that in just a general way? do you think that criticism is valid? >> no, sir. it is not valid. we have been a very active agency since i have taken office.

we have been very active since secretary lahood took office. for my review of the work done about toyota specifically, this agency opened eight separate investigations of the time period when there were complaints about sudden acceleration. a lap dog does not open eight investigations. the goal for us and our statutory order is to find any of vehicle safety defect that predicts -- that presents an unreasonable risk. any complaints or data or anomaly in number of complaints or what we see from the early warning system, our people take a look at it. they go forward and investigate. if we cannot find the defect, we cannot under the statute could forward and force a mandatory recall. that does not mean that we think that vehicle is safe. at that point, we cannot make the statutory case but we will keep looking. as we have, we keep looking and when we find a defect like in the floormat or the pedal or

brakes, we act and act quickly. and i do not think the history of our action before i took office or the 10-year period people are looking at, i think this agency has been quite active. >> if you find a defect and you can require a mandatory recall, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> i have heard about subpoena power. it is my understanding that you can issue information requests. >> yes, sir. >> to the manufacturers have to respond to that request? >> there is a difference between the subpoena and an information request. many people talk about subpoena power. we can compel a subpoena for documents. we want to get every document you have. they have to give that to us. intermission requests, they also

have to respond. that has a better purpose. we get documents and we ask direct questions that the give us answers to. it is a much sharper cool and the -- and the agency uses that quite frequently. we sent three queries to toyota regarding the timing of their submission of information to us regarding those issues and present a large recall query asking toyota for all of their information and to answer questions about all of the sudden acceleration events which will be a large amount of documents and data for us to review. if we find in the review of those documents that there is a violation, we will move forward accordingly. korff if you found a lack of subpoena power a hindrance doing your job effectively >> -- ? >> toyota has been slow in years past. i will say that they have not been as responsive as my career

staff feel they should have been in response. since i have been in office, they have been very responsive. i will hope that that will continue in the future. in terms of the ability to get information requests issued and responded to, i have no evidence that that has been a problem. >> i know most of your budgeted money goes to the states and the rest is spent between behavioral science and save the vehicle -- and vehicle safety. in 2005, congress directed nhtsa to conduct a national motor vehicle crash causation service. at that time, it said that 95% of crashes were due primarily to driver fault or negligence. are you familiar with that study? >> i am tangentially familiar

with it. i cannot give you chapter and verse but i can talk in more specifics about behavior. that is the largest component of risk on the highway. that is the reason why they nhtsa budget is designed to attack the highest risk. impaired driving, not wearing seat belts, distracted driving, those are the largest risks for everybody on the road. vehicle defects are important. we have to address them. they are significant. in terms of the overall risk profile for highway safety, the behavioral side of the house, that comprises the largest risk. that is why our program for city is designed the way it is. >> thank you. >> the chairman emeritus is recognized for five minutes. my questions will require a yes or no answers. mr. administrator, the you believe the nhtsa made mistakes in its response to the recent

toyota recalls? >> no, sir. >> should nhtsa pushed toyota to initiate recalls earlier than it did? >> we pushed the recalls when we had the evidence of the fact. >> what authorities those nhtsa lack with which to address defects hazardous vehicles? >> yes. >> yes or no, this netdoes the nhtsa the ranking system in determining the priority of investigations? >> no, but we rank risk by profile internally. >> there seems to be broad

agreement about resources available nhtsa to carry out its mission. do you need additional resources? >> the president gives us more resources? we will have the resources we need. >> please submit to us for the record how much more resources you need and in what area. i want that submitted directly to the committee and not through omv. in my questioning of toyota's chief of sales for north america, he revealed that decisions to recalled toyota vehicles sold in north america are made in japan. to any other manufacturers require that your information for details or decisions are made relative to recalls are made in any country outside the united states?

is toyota unit? >> it appears toyota is unique. >> it strikes me that this is a bad situation and so far as safety for the american people. am i correct? >> the system that toyota uses could be much more efficient. >> by requiring them to have a response made in the u.s. by somebody and power to comply with our laws. >> i feel that if they had somebody in america we could act more quickly. i would appreciate if you would submit to us for the record how this could be corrected. is there a point to the difference and response times between domestic and foreign automobile manufacturers through your data inquiries? >> they tend to respond faster than the foreign.

>> what is the cost for this? >> there are several reasons in terms of design of leadership and other factors. >> in the case of toyota it is because the information has to be from tokyo? >> that has been identified as a problem. >> this is also true with regard to the question of recall? >> yes, sir. that is correct. >> is there a qualitative difference in the data provided domestic and foreign automobile manufacturers? >> because there are requirements, the quality of data is very similar between foreign and domestic. >> similar? >> that does not mean the same. >> they have different datasets because of their manufacturing and information processes. they comply to our system. there are similar. -- they are similar.

>> what was it that the secretary of transportation and the acting head nhtsa had to go to tokyo to get cooperation of toyota on recalls and production intermission? >> they were responding to nhtsa and the acting administrator of the secretary to slowly. >> they had to go over there. >> at the time, the secretary and the acting administrator felt they needed to go directly to convey that message. >> they have to convey that message because the message was to urge toyota to comply more expeditiously with the safety concerns? what's that is correct. -- >> that is correct. >> @ thank you for your courtesy. >> the chair recognizes the

senator for five minutes. >> thank you. on september 1, 2009, proposed rules were put out dealing with the automatic reverse system and windows. -- you required automatic reversal systems in those windows equipped with one touch closing or express operation. in a letter march 10, 200010, -- 2010, henry waxman, the chairman, and myself point out that such windows generally already have a reverse technology and are usually found in the driver's window where

children do not sit. the intention of the legislation was of course to protect children. here is the point i want to make. i find it's stunning that you have a chart, this was alternative one of five alternatives that were proposed. this is before your tenure. alternative one is the one i described. on this chart, cost per window for this remedy supposedly, it says is eurodollars, total incremental cost, near $0, annual fatality benefit, $0, and benefits, near zero. the preferred alternative to

protect children was a no cost, no benefit solution. i would have found it embarrassing not only to put that in writing but to choose that as the preferred option. i would hope that nothing like that happens again. let me describe alternative to. requiring all refers windows at all power side windows to meet european standards. the cost per window, $6. most people would find reasonable. the total incremental cost, $149.4 billion the annual fatality benefits to annual injury benefits, 850.

that is a modest projections. that would -- that was at $6 per window. i want to go back to those families that came talking about children who were choked by these windows. it has to be maddening to them that this was something that could of been corrected for $6 and that that is the european union's standard. why is it not the standard here? request is -- my request is that we reject this first alternative. how does that happen? can we expect that it will not happen any more that a no-cost, no-benefit solution will not be proposed? >> as you know, i cannot engage

in a discussion about the role that is currently being worked on by nhtsa. i understand that we have received new data from a lot of constituencies including the people that worked very closely with you and other members on the act and the agency is taking a very hard look at that data. when the rule is finally promulgated, we hope that -- i know for a fact it will be based on sound data and it will be the most fit thi -- effective of city. >> let me make a strong recommendation that you do not propose rules that have absolutely no effect when the congress stated very clearly that we want to protect children. i am sure you will agree with that. thank you. much and i yelled back. >> thank you.

-- thank you, very much and i yield back. thank you. in your opening statement that we received, the written statement, on page one, third paragraph, you wrote one of the first questions i asked when i became administrator is whether our current statutory authority drafted largely in the 1960's an 1970's is sufficient to address the modern automobile and a global automotive marketplace. have you answer that question? >> that question is still being worked on by the staff. i have a great deal of experience looking at consumer product safety statutes from my prior employed. you have to be very careful in examining these things in that we have to make sure there is a

lot to that is functional and works well. we want to look to improve upon a strong authority and my staff are undertaking that work right now. we have -- when we have completed that work we would be happy and excited to share our thoughts with the committee and looking forward to working with you going for. could i look forward to having that conversation. let me get back to one of those earlier comments about the legacy of the agency. in your statement, you noted correctly that safety is the department of transportation's highest priority. you stand by that statement? with absolutely. >> we know that the office of defects investigation often referred to as odi is on the frontline of defect investigation and prevention as part of the department of transportation. >> yes, sir. >> mr. waxman as you an appropriate question when you

answered yes to mandatory recall of power. can you explain why your agency, nhtsa, has not initiated a recall since 1979? >> you can often influence a recall but going through the initial stages of the process. most times and automaker will not want to go to the formal process but it takes approximately one year. it is a public process and many automakers to realize they're facing public scrutiny fighting a vehicle safety defect. when they know that, the agency can prove it and they can effectuate a voluntary recall. most recalls are voluntary. there is a huge number that are influenced by this agency. that is the actual number one should look at. we influence well over half of the recalls that happening every year. that is the real number that i think it's indicative of the

power of odi. do not have to get to the point with the administrator, after one year of public hearings has to sign an order. automakers will go forward and take care of that recall voluntaryily. >> , skeptical that there has not been one instance when all the makers acted responsibly in every particular case responding to demand for recalls of a product defect. one of the things i also want to talk about is how you described the agency's mission changing in response to changes in the automotive industry. the you remember that in your opening remarks? >> i would not call it a change in mission but a change in how we have to approach the job because of the change in the marketplace. there was a time when america was the world's leader in

automotive manufacturer. we are no longer that leader. >> when i was growing up, it was during the muscle car era when you could tear apart a chevy engine in your basement and put it back together having a basic knowledge of the internal combustion engine. you cannot do that anymore. >> would you concede that? >> yes, sir. >> one thing that came out was this concept of black box technology that has crash data in it that is driven by a complex computer codes, sometimes when the manufacturer is willing to share and sometimes manufacturers have been very reluctant to share that data or to provide an ability for your own employees to have the keys to the kingdom so they can download and interpret that information independently. you would agree with that question but >> yes, sir. >> one thing i am concerned about is our report for this hearing suggests that your agencies budget dedicated to

vehicle safety has remained stagnant over the past 10 years and that your resources are far below the resources that were available for this type of investigation when the agency was at the previous hearing, when you have a demand for computer engineers and electrical engineers and people who are not based on a mechanical backgrounds, i am concerned that the level of funding and staffing of personnel within your agency may not be adequate to meet the incredible demand and the changing demand of this automobile industry. have you done an independent review since assuming responsibility to make your own independent judgment on whether or not that is a critical case we need to address? >> i have a couple responses. the work. odi the automotive engineers that do the work, there are some

of the finest in the business in this country. as the technology evolves, the experience of our investigators also evolves. i can give you the quantum number of people we have on deck to do the job. we have 125 engineers. we have five electrical engineers, a software engineer, engineers that are based in our east liberty, ohio, facility. we have resources for consultants when we need additional expertise. my understanding and from what i know since taking office, there is not a notion that we are not having the proper expertise to handle today's automobile. however, recognizing that you can always buttress what you have, the president has provided us resources to hire 66 new people which we will use to leverage our resources and to buttress and strengthen those people. in addition, we will look at ways at how we can do studies

and long-range studies on these complex systems that the secretary spoke about in the prior hearing. as my confidence that we can handle the current marketplace with current expertise? yes, we can put it would be stronger in that area? of course, we can. >> of the employees you identified in the budget request, how many of those to you plan to allocate to odi. >> i am working with the office of the secretary to figure out what our resource needs will be. i will be happy to come forward that information with the information is made. -- decision is made. courts -- >> can you give us their names, job titles and their particular expertise in terms of being a professional engineer? >> i would be happy to do that. >> thank you. i appreciate that and yelled back. >> -- i appreciate that and you'll the back. -- yield back.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. i have a number of questions that touch on different areas. bear with me as we shift around. beginning with the question of the black box technology, we have heard a lot about when secretary lahood was here, he indicated difficulty getting the information that is and this black boxes. we did not have the capacity whether it is as my colleague described as keys to the kingdom. when i heard you answer representative dingell about having access to data, you said that we have access to data in a similar way whether it is toyota, who keeps information in

japan, and our domestic automobile industry. i was under the impression based on the last hearing that we actually could access information from our domestic auto manufacturers in a way that we cannot get from toyota. could you clarify? >> happy to. i took from the question about the early warning reporting data which is a quarterly data review from all other makers which is a set template of data we receive. there are differences in how they collate and present it but we can understand all that. in terms of event that that report recorders, you're absolutely right. toyota has proprietary systems that up until a week ago, there was only one tool in the country that could be used to read it. we did not have that tool. if we ever wanted to get information from any event data recorder on a toyota vehicle, it was very difficult. it is my understanding that

toyota has provided odi staff 3 of these tools. i am not sure the status of if we have received them all yet but that is my understanding that they have promised those. in terms of that question and the sec data that comes into was quarterly from all of the makers, yes, it is similar. under question of data recorders, there is a difference between the detroit automakers which use a commercially- available tools and we have the ability to read it vs toyota where we could not up until one week ago. >> now that you have this equipment, that was the only hindrance to having access to the black box? >> we can access it. we still need a toyota representative to help decode the data. it is not fully transparent even when we download the box. i believe we still need to of the representation to assist us

in decoding what happened five seconds before crash and one second post-crash. >> is that something they are required in any way to do? is that a voluntary offer? >> at this point, we are undergoing the rule change. by 2012, it and all the maker chooses to have an edr on board, it has to comport with data standards. they do not have to have electronic data recorder on board. it is not mandated. >> that is interesting. we will have to follow that and see what the consequences intended and others are of that rule making. with respect to what we have been reading. we have been reading in the wash wash -- and the "washington

post" about people at nhtsa going to work for car companies >> the article mentions to former nhtsa did that investigators left the agency and took jobs at toyota managing defect investigations. do you think that there is an apparent conflict of interest? we are charged as members of congress to ensure that the public interest is always the key. you can understand that people are more than a little concerned when they see that cozy, quick turnover? could you comment on that? " certainly. no ethics laws were broken. the former employees of nhtsa, when they left, there were of the level of employee where

everything they did was fully compliant with the current federal laws regarding post- employment violations. no laws or broken perception is reality. the secretary was very clear in his statement to this committee and to oversight and government reform. he is committed to strengthening the ethics requirements at the department of transportation. i fully support his efforts and as far as i am concerned, i will hold every employee at nhtsa to the highest ethical standard as the secretary holds everybody at the department of transportation and the obama administration has made it a focal point this will be the most ethical administration in history. we look forward to working with you and a going forward basis in handling this issue of apparent an arm's length and distance for

employees of nhtsa and post- employment situations. >> i push it that answer. the public trust is critically important. -- i appreciate that answer. if i could just indulge in one last question, during the question that we have had in the past with representatives of toyota and secretary lahood, we heard information about how recalls of vehicles had happened and other countries. these recalls, stemming from what appeared to be problems that arose here in this country and lead to eventual recalls after much tragedy had occurred. is there anything that requires all the manufacturers to report to nhtsa problems beyond our borders with vehicles that are sold in this country?

>> there are a couple of requirements. have to report to us for recalls that involved components used in u.s. vehicles and they have to also report foreign service campaigns. the question is whether they did this timely. we are investigating those issues. we received a lot of data from the early warning system and other publications from the trade act. we are looking at other ways and other types of information that could be helpful to us in that mission. we are looking forward to working with congress in finding ways that we conductors' those abilities. >> we see that mr. marcus is joining the subcommittee. he is not a member but we ask unanimous can send -- unanimous consent that he can ask questions of the witness. you are recognized for five

minutes. >> thank you. thank you for your hospitality. as you know, the early warning system that i helped to create during the 2000 trade act was intended to provide the department of transportation and the public with early information that all the manufacturers receive about safety-related complaints. the bush administration issued a regulation that deemed almost all of the information on the makers submit to the confidential business information. as a result, as far as the public is concerned, the early warning system has become an early warning secret. i have a summary here of the public information contained in all of the early warnings submitted by toyota in the last quarter of 2008. it tells you that there were seven reports of death or serious injury to to speed control but that is all the

information you get. the public cannot learn whether those reports relate to sudden unintended acceleration, what happened, or if any consumers made complaints about similar problems that did not result in a serious injury or death. do you believe -- did you agree that the public version of early warning systems data it cannot really tell the public anything specific or useful about potential of a bill said the problems? >> the one thing i would like to start off by saying is the information we provide are some of the most transparent and government. we have been noted by the federal permit about our data sources provide. in terms of the early warning systems, as far as the obama administration and i am concerned as to the administrator, the more transparency we have, the

better. i would like to have a dialogue with you about the early morning recording system and your thoughts about how we can improve transparency going forward. >> consumers to report safety complaints to nhtsa, as well. these are made public. does it make sense to you that when a consumer reports a safety problem directly to nhtsa, it goes into a publicly searchable database but when a consumer and not knowing that they can complain to nhtsa instead reports it to a car company, that it becomes confidential business information without a requirement that the public learn about it. do you think that is right or do you think that information should as well have to be made public because it is given to nhtsa as part of a public report? >> this event is tuition believes and transparency. there would happily talk about how to make our databases more transparent? >> do think it should be

information the public should have question marks that information should not be hidden. and my personal opinion. >> when president clinton signed the act into law, he did it in a matter that injured maximum availability of public knowledge but that has clearly not happen. my goal is to work with you in order to accomplish that goal. we thank you for taking this job. we have enjoyed working with you over all the years, especially on the fuel economy standards. let me ask one final question. although nhtsa and undertake a mandatory recall, to win so takes a great deal of time and can require you to go to court to prove the existence of a

safety defect. there are times however when taking that long costs lives. as you know, congress gave the consumer safety commission the authority to quickly inform the public of an imminent product safety hazard even though the formal recall process was complete. do you think that sort of authority could help nhtsa more effectively protect and inform the public of serious safety problems and will you work with us to develop such provisions? >> they have the authority and several of our sister consumer safety agencies, the federal role administration, for example, has this authority. it has proven to be very helpful to them. i look forward to working with you and having a further discussion on this authority. it has proven very successful in other areas. it may bear fruit for nhtsa, as

well. >> thank you. our country is very fortunate that you were willing to accept this position. >> thank you. that is very kind. >> the chairman asks the indulgence of the witness for a few more minutes. the chair wants to authorize a series of questions. the chair recognizes himself for two minutes. nhtsa's budget for vehicle safety programs for the past 10 years has remained stagnant. from my perspective, this year's budget request is down a few million dollars from the year before. odi that in forces activities on new cars has had a a budget of less than $10 million to police

a fleet of 80 million vehicles. that is according [inaudible] the budget for rulemaking is suffering, as well. they have delayed major role making efforts to the point where congress has been compelled to let states mandate rollover standards for child safety. the agency [inaudible] the impact is pretty clear. i know there is an increase of about 66 new personnel. if you get more resources, where

would you focus those resources? >> mr. chairman, the safety mission is not simply in the odi the vehicle safety office. it is across the behavioral side, as well. the budget provides resources for us to accomplish our mission for those personnel. we will take a hard look at those 66 personnel and deploy them at the places where we need not only to improve and strengthen the defect investigations but in other places where we can also help further our sick commission and the most the efficient way. in terms of resources overall, we have accomplished our mission with the resources we have had. the president has given us a budget that gives us more resources to do more and we will use that for the safety administration. >> this congress has to prepare

a budget. we have to approve a budget. we will be looking at need and not agreed. would you have any objections if we did you more than the budget for 66 employees. >> the president's but it helps us accomplish our mission. if the decision of congress to provide us more resources, we will use them judiciously for the purposes of improving safety. >> sounds like a good answer to me. quips mr. winter, two minutes. >> i would just going to say i don't know how much more money we have to give you. >> i see no more members seeking recognition. we thank you very much.

[inaudible] thank you for your patience. >> thank you. this has been an offer -- it has been an honor. >> dependable please be seated. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [inaudible] >> please except our sincere apologies. the chair wants to introduce the