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 is like if you guys were writing a column, and your 3/4 of the way through, and your editors said, stop and turn again, and that is the way this bill is going to be monday. is probably does not play well to my republican constituency, but i consider chris dodd of friend. i hope we get to a bipartisan

bill. i want to say this, and this will be the first disagreeable thing i have said to chairman dodd. this is a very important bill, and i cannot imagine a committee member -- republican or democrat -- having a bill with this kind of substance in it out of a committee in a week. i think that would be a travesty. i know this goes against what he wishes to happen, and it is the first time i have said it. all of you asked, and i said, chairman dodd will tell you about the schedule. if senators can pass a bill of this substance out of a committee in a week, a 1200-page

bill out of substance of has a real effect on the industry, then the state that elects them might as well send robots to the senate, so i hope people on both sides of the aisle will look good this problem and really debate in committee and get it right, and i can tell you i stand ready. i talked to mark warner a few minutes ago, and we're both disappointed, because we still have all worked -- a bit of work to do. it will not get completed in the way we had hoped. there are some judicial issues. there are some other issues. we made a lot of progress on capital issues one of the things we need to deal with -- i am surprised about where many of the are republicans came to the

middle of the road to meet half way, and what i hope will happen -- there are americans in this country that were taken place. no -- taken advantage of. no question, but i think most people in america realized there were a lot of people that are on monday that should not have fared in the first place. -- should not have borrowed in the first place. at the bottom of the theorem it, meaning there were people who borrowed -- the bottom of the pyramid, meaning there were people who borrowed who should not have, and that is a very important. i look forward to working with chairman dodd, shelby, greg,

bennett, of the guys on our side, all the guys on the other side. . i am going to get a good night of sleep. i am going to wake up in the morning, and i am going to continue to do what the people of tennessee collected me to do, to continue to work with people across lun and south to try to solve our nation's problems. -- to work with people across this out and try to solve our nation's problems. >> the you think it is possible senator dodd is going to push this through on a partisan basis, what is your expectation? >> i think chairman don wants a

bipartisan bill. >> and the white house. >> i do not speak of things i do not know. i know the elephant in the room is reconciliation and trying to get a bill out of committee prior to that time, and the fact of the matter is the thing he is a victim of health care policy a. >> [inaudible] >> there were some issues relating to iraq's detention -- to risk detention. the house passed some risk detention issues, and many of you probably read a headline about the fact that credit is starting to percolate again, and

one thing you have to be really careful as we look at risk retention is we do not have the unintended consequence of shutting down in the commercial market securitization, so we are trying to work through some issues, trying to focus on the issue i mentioned a minute ago, and that is if you are going to retain risk, maybe you do not retain risk if you are writing a mortgage on a 15% down payment home. maybe you create an incentive for people to actually write more. like in canada or other places where the homeownership is equal to ours, so working through those issues, we had judicial issues we are still working through. the big piece that was not going to be ready was derivatives with judd gregg and jack reed, very bright guys, very complex area.

the devil is in the detail. there were some issues coming of. -- coming up. i will mention one since it has been reported, but access was going to be an issue we have agreed to let issues he put forth, but 5 is a line in the sand. but concerns of briefly about the activist groups getting involved. there has not been a single issue yet we have not been able to work through. i colin jim gardner this morning ena -- i called timber ratner ts

morning -- tim geithner and thanked him. they have been tremendous partners and trying to deal with the issues traded >> it sounds like -- what is the message they're sending to consumers? >> i think we are going to get there. i think it is full of substance. there are four things in the bill the other very important. it is an important piece. secondly, the absolute knowing if you have an orderly liquidation of large companies -- that is important to get back

in the american psyche. that is something republicans and democrats are united by. if you are a large company and you choose not to go through bankruptcy, you are going to go through painful liquidation, and thirdly, derivatives. think about what happened with derivatives. to have regime that calls on people to put collateral, the you think aig would have happened had we had an appropriate derivatives regime? i think we're going to get there. i am disappointed with where we are today, but i am equally energize to continue to work with the staff and others to get a bill. i think we will get there, but i think it is going to get far messier. i find we are willing to grind out every issue, grind it out.

our staff has been working 24-7. that is when you get good legislation. >> is this going to be inflicted before the answers? it seems to be an issue, and people have said there were investment to these crises. what did you mean by that? >> i did not say anything about that. what i am saying is if you look at what has happened in our financial crisis, and you start off with the fact that we had bad mortgages written, and you have easy credit. we have low rates.

whenever you have low rates, it is the value of real estate in slates. it is an inverse relationship that occurs, and then you have the fact that we had a bunch of institutions over leverage. 30-1 leverage, and then you have the ability to multiplied that with derivatives and just take a base value into a huge value, but at the bottom of the pyramid, you have mortgages that were underwritten. that is my point. i did not mean the bottom of pyramid as far as society. thank you for clarifying. i am not sure we know enough to do the right thing on ratings, but we have a present a pretty painful cause for rating agencies if you're one of the large ones.

i know the house basically wrote some of those occurred. -- rove the lot of code. on the credit riding side, we had a pretty high liability on credits reading agencies, and i think it causes them to pay a lot more attention to what they are doing. >> is there an issue with the need for collateral? >> of the end of the day -- >> any one of those or all of those? >> on the derivative side, jack reed and judd gregg -- if you remember, chairmen dog work on the health-care debate one night, and he -- chairmen do dd worked on the health-care debate one night, and he signed derivatives to them. the idea has been how many

inclusions. i have not seen their language, nor has chairmen daughteodd seer language. i give some additional slack, because i think he knows it is going to take probably a couple weeks to resolve their differences, and i think he feels the need to move ahead. i probably felt the better way would be to leave that section out when it comes, but i understand. >> where were you when the talks broke off last night on banks' supervision regulations? >> talks did not break off. you mean where were our discussions? issing said consumer title -- i

think the consumer titled chairman bododd puts forward wil be shaved by our discussion. -- shaped by our discussion. the question is how is it appointed -- how is the fed appointed byron the president. they cannot say, we are almost there. we are still almost there, but it looks like we're not going to get there. the thing about the fed is, the president said he wanted an independent source of funding. the way the fed works is the fed gives surplus by to its treasury chair. that was a way of solving the problem, because a consumer protection agency would have a source of funding.

i think the people shown look -- i know there was a lot of negative reaction, but the fence off a lot of problems. it did not really report to our chairman, so it was a lot different than people thought. here is where it has been. don did republicans -- conservative republicans have agreed to broad scope rulemaking. we are talking about rulemaking were the shadow industry has to live by the same rules that the regulated market does. that is breaking ground. we do not want the consumer in

enforcement. if the consumer issues exist, we want occ to implement or the fed to implement. we do not want rulemaking and enforcement combined. there was a veto process. we made the first real offer on consumers, and we feel better. it was the first real offer to try to get a deal done. there is a process. it is consultative. there is a veto process. if systemic risk is created, there is a veto process by regulators, and we offered that in the beginning. by the way, dick shelby, doug gray, were in discussions in a way that really do work for us. we made offer, and it was a accepted.

we were down two issues i promise none of you ever dreamed of in your life. we were 20 rungs in treasury working through. if there is a conflict and the judgment, and how does that all work out? it got down to judicial issues. that is the fine tuning we got through as a consumer, but the major concept absolutely agreed to. >> what about independent ability of consumer agency to conduct compliancy? >> they had to go in and joint examination, which is always what we said, financial and consumer joined together -- >> conducted at the regulatory level? >> conducted at the regulatory level. what we are concerned about is

that enforcement, and i think that is an area we were able to reach each other's accommodation. we accommodated on the democratic side issues, and we had to ensure enforcement would not be part of this entity. i think i have answered that. let me say, i am going to come clean on this. i think the rearranging of deck chairs is one of the serious efforts i have seen. it reminds me of being in business years ago, and you have a company in trouble, so what do they do? they change their organization chart. they still made lousy product, but they had a meeting and nothing changed. still, really lousy widgets. that is what this whole rigger note -- whole reorganization is

to me. it is not worth the effort. going into occ, that makes sense. everything else is moving deck chairs about to act like you have done something. what we need to do is make sure the regulatory agencies do the things they are supposed to do, so i should probably not be saying this. i think the end of the day, this is my prediction. nothing changes much. let me say this. a lot will change as it relates soon -- relates to the standards these entities are held to. the fed is going to have its wings clipped. there is no question. it will still be supervising. i know the way the bills if they will still be supervising the large entities, but the debate

today is over whether the fed will do the small institutions they now have, and there is all sorts of lobbying taking place by board fed governors around the country. they like their marble buildings. i am being funny. i am not trying to make fun of them, but i do not see any reason to change that. it seems silly to me. it is like we're doing something but we're not doing anything. >> we need to go to a new person to regan -- to a new person. >> are the lenders going to be included? >> they are included. >> federal regulation. remember, the rule making scope covers everybody involved in financial of activities. everyone. >> to they would inquire -- to

they require charters? >> they all have state charters the ftc and forces, and the ftc has been hamstrung because -- and this changes that because they have of a standard across faulkner committees. -- across all committees. one thing i think many of you are missing is that credit unions, many banks, people across this country like to see a level playing field. everybody is focused on this consumer issue in such a buyer for its way. they do not realize -- in the -- in such a backwards way. we want to make sure everybody has to live up to the standards they live up to.

the dodd draft and the franc drive, originally no user rate issues, but the fact is this is a major step forward, and all republicans want to make sure there is enforcement. you do not get consumers out of bounds to. there is a veto process, but i think we have accommodated a good balance. >> what can you say about reconciliation? >> starting monday, there are two weeks left. >> why you feel like that puts pressure? >> i think should the house passage, it would end up the last few days before recess, and i think he feels pressure to try to get something out of

committee before that process occurs. >> you think the proposals and a bird dog puts out monday will be where you left off -- you think the proposals he put out on monday will be where you left off. why is that? >> even some of the things we have worked through, unfortunately, the language will not be crafted. it takes a long time to get the language crank out, but even some of the things we have worked through, unfortunately, will not make it into legislative language as a result of hitting the button yesterday. we did not have an all-night session last night. we are not going to have won tonight. the bill will be you coming to cover the press conference, and you start writing your column, and you get halfway through or 2/3 of the way through and stop.

that is the way it will be. it will be a much better product than offered in december, and we will continue. this is not going to affect my attitude in one way. we are going to continue to get a good regulation bill. >> we have got to give up the room. >> it sounds like what you're saying -- [inaudible] >> this is typical. the consumer is not the cause of the breakdown -- there has been no breakdown. we're on the five-yard line and the lights went out. there has been no breakdown, and we are going to try to work on things. i am disappointed, especially after all the things that occurred over the last few

months, but i think republicans want to see a thin financial reform bill. i think democrats want to see a good financial reform bill. we cannot do anything in the united states senate anymore. we hope we will get this done. >> [inaudible] >> now senate banking committee chairman chris dodd response to senator harker and talks about his plans for financial regulations. he says it will be presented on monday. this is a 15-minute news conference. the house passed its version of a financial regulation bill in december with a party line vote.

>> take your time. thank you all very much. i apologize. let me know when you guys are ready back there. >> hold on, hold on. >> can we have a musical number? >> a musical number? >> it is almost st. patrick's day. >> one thing that disabuses the notion i navy irish genetically. -- i am irish genetically.

i am tone deaf. are you all set? let me first of all thank all of you. i have already put a statement out this morning indicating we are on a positive, optimistic track coming to a conclusion of the financial reform package in the senate. let me commend my partner for the work he has been doing. we are not there yet. bills of this magnitude, nothing is done until everything is done, you have to keep working. while we have made great progress, we need to keep moving

on. i have put a proposal on the table, and that is the next step. each week we'll let it slip a little, because we probably could get a little bit further along in developing a consensus until the committee print does reflect a lot of the ideas bob corker brought to the table, but clearly, we need to move on. what i am facing is what i call the 101st senator, and that is the clock. that becomes are rather demanding member. as time moves on, you limit the possibility of getting something down -- something done, particularly a bill of this complexity. we will come back almost to the

middle of april, so we have a limited amount of time in april. we have a break in may, a break in july, a break in august, so it is time to get this done. the idea of putting this on the table is not a reflection of something breaking down. quite the opposite. i thought it was time to put a proposal on the table, short of a broad bipartisan agreement at this point, so i am grateful to bob corker. let me say there are four major points to the bill. one is we plan to stop forever the notion that some financial institutions are too big to fail. that is going to end. we have reached broad consensus on this, and bob corker has worked on that. that is a major issue to this bill that should -- never again should the american taxpayer been exposed to this because the

company is too big to fail. second, we need systemic risks the weekend -- so we can pick up the things that put our economy at risk. thirdly, we want to be in a situation where we are dealing with derivatives and exotic instruments. they are working very close on how we provide transparency and accountability as a major source of factors that contributed to economic problems, and how do we better protect our consumers, including the possibility of having a stronger agencies that will be able to engage in the consumer's need. all of this is going to be further advanced by having a proposal on the table. otherwise, there are a lot of conversations, but i think

members as well as those with the strong interest in this, on monday will have a chance to react to that, and my goal is a week after to begin a markup of the bill, utilizing the week to continue the conversations we are having, to bring ideas to the table with the goal of coming with a consensus bill and coming to the floor of the senate, so i want to express my sense of optimism about this. i know there is a tendency to wonder if there has been some sort of retreat. i have had tremendous support in the committee over the last number of weeks on this issue, and i would like to particularly recognized bob corker, because he has stepped up, and i would like to get to a bill, and that has become so valuable in this process. let me stop and address

questions. >> how you plan on finishing the consumer part of the bill? >> we are working on it. i cannot negotiate at this table. that is a major issue. a lot of progress has been made. we are trying to find a proposal but would enjoy broad support. i do not expect universal support, but broad support. >> and he said there had been a deal on creating it in the fed and veto power. >> we will see. i am not going to put it on the table today, but we will take a look on monday and see. it is going to be a different proposal done the one i proposed in october and november, so it will be changed from the proposal, but i am not going to negotiate in your presence.

>> wouldn't be a travesty to alphaville in a week -- to have the bill and a week, and you were remarking it takes more time. >> and will. all of you want me to give you a time schedule, and by doing that, it gives me my own sense -- set of problems. i am more interested in getting this right then getting it at a certain date, but i need to set marks to drive the process. i have been involved in a lot of markups. i have learned a lot from democratic and republican leaders over the years, and one thing is fairly consistent. you need to move things forward. you need to put proposals on the table and set times to go forward. getting this right is more important to me than getting a date, but i emphasize, i do not have a lot of time left.

all of us know how this can go quickly. this takes sometimes days to go through the procedure to get to a vote, so i'm hoping to avoid a lot of that if we can develop a consensus. >> if we want to get to that with reconciliation on health care, but was putting pressure on new and raising pressure of whether health care -- [inaudible] >> it is an issue we are all aware of, but the in ministration cares deeply about this bill, and we want -- the administration cares deeply about this bill, and we want a bill. we talk about this every day. the chief of staff calls, what is the status? where are we? we have a great interest in moving forward on a bill, and there are other matters on the table. the real problem we're facing is the clock, and 101st senator --

i do not know who coined that phrase, but it is something you can appreciate in an election year what happens. the longer you get in the year, the 101st senator can play havoc on getting anything done. >> in going for the markup now to try to get progress made, how concerned are you withholding on? do you think this could go the same way as health care? >> i fully recognize io is think the best product of every major bill i have been involved in is having a partner. going back to child care legislation, family medical leave, there is not an exception i can think of the there was able to move something without that relationship, and i think

that is true here as well. i have mentioned four major pieces, and they require cooperation. it is not just the political factor. i am determined to try and get that, fully recognizing if i do not it is going to be a lot harder to get a bill done, so my relationship with bob corker, with members of my own committee, going down the list, zero critically important. i talk to them all the time, -- they are critically important. i talk to them all the time, and i am going to talk about what those conversations have revealed. >> lawmakers are still stuck over how to do this. >> we are not just dealing with one issue. we are dealing with the set of issues that have gone unattended

for almost 80 years. you go back to the 1930's to the last time there has been any major effort to reform. we're not going to deal with every issue but major issues -- too big to fail. $700 billion. i am determined before this congress ends we're going to close the door. that may be the single most important thing we are going to do, making sure we can regulate or provide accountability of exotic instruments that contributed. we need to fix that. we need to have the ability to look over and see what is going on in our economy. the idea no one saw this coming i do not buy, but the idea of allowing to make this critically important and giving consumers -- how many times have we talk about legislation passed in

1994? there was a major reason we saw the tumbling of the economy. this bill will address all those issues, maybe not exactly as i would write them but as well as i could build support. >> how will you get ahead of regulation, and how will that affect profits for you? >> all of these factors. there are a lot of issues, and that is one we are all aware of. we're at a point where we can talk about a bill. we have had 52 hearings alone this year on the bill. i put down a proposal in november. a lot of discussions, trying to find someone who would work on getting a compromise proposal. the moment has arrived. the moment has arrived to put down a proposal, and we do want outside interests to be able to

react. they need something on paper they can say i like this, i do not like this. what does this mean? how does this work? that only works if you have a proposal on the table. >> what is the possibility you might put the bill forward in an effort to get too big to fail past? >> we would have to postpone the reelection, because if i did this in pieces, it would be impossible. >> will it be what you negotiated with corker so far? >> i have got 22 members in the committee, so it is not just two of us. we are dealing with a lot of members with a lot of ideas and a lot of interest. as chairman of the committee, i need to pull that together in a way that produces a consensus

bill, and that means a consensus on both sides. i am trying to report where i think there is consensus. if there is not, we will have to reflect something different, but that does not mean we foreclose the idea of getting a consensus. >> how concerned are you about holding on? >> it is a complicated institution common -- institution, so you have to do all sorts of people. >> to what extent? >> you have got to put their proposal on the table. every day i hear a story about what is in and what is out. you cannot put the building in that way, so this will give you something to actually be able to report on. >> do you have a price tag? >> dollar amount. i do not know.

i would say this to you. the price tag is doing nothing. i can guarantee it was far more exorbitant then what we are going to do here. if we cannot end the $700 billion in bailing out of firms that had an explicit guarantee by the government that they would not fail. that is something i am determined to end. i never want an institution to reach the status the the american taxpayer had to pull them out of the fire to that extent. >> when the you have to get a bill out to the senate committee -- wendy you have to get a bill out to the senate committee? >> sometime this spring, because varney has worked hard,

weeks ago. it was hard for home -- hard for him given the complexities. i just want to stay away from deadlines. >> do you support chairman frank's proposal to have this conference and put it on c-span. >> i want it all night, all day, every camera you can find. thank you. >> [inaudible] is that going to be in there? [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> tomorrow morning, we will talk to a republican congressman about a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. we will also get an update on health care legislation. later, steven emerson of the investigative product on terrorism will discuss the recent story of an american woman known as jihad jane, who is accused of aiding foreign terrorists. that begins each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. after that, on c-span 2, a discussion of the senate's use of the filibuster, a parliamentary maneuver that blocks the action on legislation unless 60 senators vote to end it. live coverage at 8:30 a.m. eastern. now live with the affect health care legislation could have won the 2010 -- now look at the

effect health care legislation could have on 2010. this is 50 minutes. >> good morning, and welcome to the second and final day of what i hope you found to be a wonderful conference. i have the distinct privilege this morning of introducing our speaker, amy walters. after doing an apprenticeship with some of the best analysts in the country, amy has made a name for herself as one of the best young political journalists covering washington today. as the editor and chief of the hot line, washington's daily premier briefing on politics, she provides a fresh voice in an

industry dominated by long tenures journalists and editorialists. her reliable and accurate analyses of the environment is featured in her column and has earned her numerous accolades, including "the washington post" crystal ball award. amy has been named one of the 50 journalists by washington magazine and is dubbed one of the most powerful people in politics by "george magazine." she frequently appears on cnn as a political analyst and has served as an analyst and commentator on face the nation. she has appeared on "meet the press," c-span, "the early show" on cbs, and she provided election night analysis for the news hour in 2008, commentary for cnn in 2002 and in 2004 and

was a member of cnn's emmy-award winning election night team in 2006. amy is a multi media, multitask for. -- malta tasker -- multitasker, and in 2007 she operated as a senior editor. given her extensive experience, she will speak about a congressional culture and the washington political scene. her astuteness and wit stems out amongst a crowd. now she is a graduate of colby college and has served as an adjunct professor of american university. and -- in the's range of expertise include engaging presentations. please welcome any walters.

talk to us about washington politics. [applause] >> thank you. i do not know if i can really up sell. i did not have any horses greeting me when i came in this morning. it was quiet outside today. thank you for that, and i love this set. we know each other so well now. maybe should not -- maybe i should invite people up here. i just wanted to give an overview of where things are in the political environment, how we got here, what it could mean for the 2010 election and

beyond, and open it up to the floor, to be able to engage on this. as was mentioned in my introduction, i am going to lay it out for everybody here. my job is to call it as i see it, and we have an electorate right non -- you might have noticed this -- that is very angry. every time we turn on the television, every time we checked into the political environment, we are told about the tea party movement, about this frustration with the status quo. cnn ran a poll but said 86% of americans believe government is

broken. "the washington post" had a poll recently were by a 20-point margin voters believe smaller government with fewer services was something he would rather see then bigger government with more services. 58% wanted smaller government. the set a time when voters were saying they feel they are stuck economically -- this at a time when voters are saying they feel they are stuck economically, but for all the talk and all the focus on the anger and the anti-government focus, i really think it is a stretch to say what voters are telling us is that they hate government. what they are telling us is that they hate ineffective government, and they hate incompetence -- that is really more of the issue, and i see

this in focus groups. i see this in the way candidates are engaging, how they are engaging the voters, and in some of the polling we have done. the ones that really stood out to me -- the national journal group does a fantastical 546 times a year called the heartland pol -- five or six times a year called the heartland poll, and they ask this question. how active a role do you want government to play in the financial sector? what role do you want the government to play in the economy? given everything we have seen with the tea party and the anger out there, you would have thought the answer would be i want government out completely. the best government is no government, or government is best when it does police, so the

answer is this -- when it does police, so the answer is 35% did agree with that sentiment. here is how it was worded. "government is not the solution to our economic problems. government is the problem." it is not surprising most of these voters were republicans, and this compares with 25% of their overall population that considers themselves republicans. this is an overly republican population. another 29%, 30% agreed with this statement -- government must play an active role in regulating the marketplace and ensuring the economy benefits people like me.

half of those people were democrats, but another third said they want to see government play an active role in the economy, but i am not sure i can trust government to do that effectively. that is 33%, so i added up and say 2/3 people in the country believe government has our role to play in the country. it is just half of them do not think government is doing a good job of it. that is very different from saying government is the problem, that we should throw government out and start from scratch, and i think this is really the challenge for candidates as they are coming into the midterm election, especially if you're an incumbent, to convince voters government can solve the most pressing problems in this country. there is a great "new yorker"

carton -- cartoon i think everyone should carry with them when campaigning. it is a guy standing up in front of a hostile crowd with people holding signs that say, " government, no." id says, i know you're angry with me. i am angry at me. it is a joke, but it really is not. i am already starting to see this. when you look of the candidates who have been successful so far, they're actually positioning themselves as outsiders to the system they are part of, which is fascinating to me, and it is working. the real issue is people said they want to start from scratch, so did everybody who has ever been associated with politics out of the process and bring in a whole group of people, and you would not see the kinds of people rising to

success. for all the talk about scott brown and his success in massachusetts, this guy was not exactly an outsider. he did a brilliant job of creating that issue with a pickup truck and the whole thing, but the guy had been in politics for 15 years. he is a republican, and since there are about four of them in massachusetts company you are not linked with all -- in massachusetts, you are not linked with the scandal. it seems like every week someone is indicted with boston politics. he positioned himself that way. the government of texas is the longest serving governor in texas. he won by running as an outsider. he won it by 52% because he was running against someone in washington. for those of you watching the

florida senate race, marco has been getting tons of press. he was on the front cover of the tea party candidate. you have seen him mentioned by national prognosticators as the outsider who is going to take on the establishment, the republican governor, and he came in and supported obama on stimulus. for most of his adult life, he has been -- wait for it -- in politics. he was the speaker of the house. he is not exactly an outsider, but he is a tea party candidate, and you can see this in case after case. it is the positioning that is

much more interesting than the actual calendar, so that is why i go to this. voters are not saying if you have been involved in politics, you are bad. you need to meet voters where they are. they are frustrated that government is not doing enough. really, how did we get to hear? if you go back to the summer of 2008, 50% of voters said they wanted to see smaller government, but 45% said they wanted government to have a smaller role. it is now a 20 point margin in support of smaller government, so how did we so quickly get to this point? it is pretty obvious. i am sure to most of you in the room, what happened in june, 2008. you had bader bailout. you have aig bonus scandal. -- you had auto bailouts.

you had anything scandalous the government was involved in, including pushing money out into cropping up failing institutions, and voters have not releasing any benefits. now you can see the seeds of this have been planted some time ago, and i was sitting in a focus group last summer, back when we thought the stimulus was semi popular. a guy in the audience said, here is what i do not get. we spent some money on these things that seem to be making a lot of money, and i do not seem to be getting a job. >> it is not that the money ran out the door. it is that there has not been a return on that investment.

i also warned this is more than just government, and this is a frustration with offing's -- with all things institutional. i thought this was fascinating involve staple, where they ask voters who they would -- in the polls, were they asked voters who they would trust to give financial advice. not surprisingly, they did not want to get it from congress. few trust congress on this. how you manage the financial risks you face. how many of you would like to see major corporations help you manage those risks? 56% of you said, no. none of you. which is a little higher. they're actually fell slightly better about elected officials in washington. among them, 37% said, never

labor unions, 53% said, no. national banks, not so much. how about a financial advisor? maybe. .

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the chair will recognize himself for five minutes, and he is getting ahead of himself. it has been a very long day. i would like to recognize the administrator. he certainly has some opening statements. this is for the purpose of the open statement. >> this statement is not as important as the questions of the committee, and i know that you want to get the business.

>> this is a great beginning. >> thank you so much for your kind words, and before i begin my formal remarks, i would like to take a moment to talk about the note about the human toll. we have a tremendous amount of debt, and i am very proud to report this good news. 33,000 people, this is a tremendous number of people. the personal toll that this takes on a family, this is absolutely catastrophic. in my time that i served as a staffer, on the commerce committee, i have had time to spend with countless individuals, including the mothers and fathers who have killed their children by backing over them, and others who have

suffered these defects, and you can never properly captured what this means to people. i am aware of the responsibility that i have, and every day we have a single goal, to keep people alive and safe on the road. we are never able to do that job well enough. but this does not mean that we cannot try. we can put forward the maximum effort that we have, to make certain that we accomplish the goal. this is taken well to hearts. >> members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, to discuss the department of transportation and the vision for the future of the national highway administration. transportation safety is the debt -- the highest priority of

the department. these programs are an individual -- are a great part of this. before i was sworn in as the administrator, i knew that this program was working very well. we continue to see a dramatic reduction in the number of highway fatalities. the secretary released a report, projecting that traffic fatalities have declined and will be 33,963 in 2009, the lowest level since 1954. but we have to do more. the loss of 33,000 people represents a serious health problem to the nation, and we will not rest until this number is 0. how will we get there? this is a complex problem, and there is a broad spectrum of programs with behavior and vehicle-related causes of death.

there is bad, good science, and careful engineering. when i was sworn in a couple of months ago i thought that it was important to look to see if there was a way to improve the effectiveness. in the local marketplace and the rapidly-changing technology, i would question whether or not they are being well served by the statutory authority on which they rely, directly. the reality is that the current authority is working, and the agencies are working together, these were written in the 1960's and the 1970's, when the world and the automobile markets were very different. the questions that i want to ask our whether or not the statutory authorities accommodate modern automobiles. the modern, competitive marketplace. do they allow for us to regulate

in a way that allows the industry to sell safe products, and do they allow us to have safety and fuel efficiency, as they provide affective regulatory oversight. i asked the legal and program staff to look at the existing report, to answer these questions and make the best recommendations. i believe that this assessment is critical, to support the president with his accountability in government. and as we are taking a hard look at the authority, i asked that we look at the current ethics rules. i believe that these standards are the highest ever established, and i fully support the secretaries desire to enforce these rules across the department of transportation. if there is any evidence of any violation, swift and appropriate action will be taken.

the next question i asked is if we have what we need to support this program. they have the person experienced workforce that we will take full the vantage of, with their skills and talent and expertise, and if we discover that we have to shore up the work force, we are currently requesting for them to hire 66 more people next year. we will use this to meet the programming goals. it appears i am out of time. i will end my remarks right here, and i thank the committee for their recommendations and stand ready for questioning. >> thank you. the administrator and the chair will recognize himself for five minutes.

as it stands, mr. administrator, the role of the subcommittee as it relates to ntsa is to look forward and determine, for ourselves, what is the best way to assist you in the primary goal of protecting american citizens and drivers. as i look at toyota as a framework, i am wondering about the safety and the quality of the safety, of the automobiles

and the highways in america. what reasons can you give us today, that we should not be thinking that the recent toyota recall -- that this would not replay itself, with any other automobile dealers -- people who manufacture automobiles for the american highways. can you tell us that this toyota recall is really just something that is -- that this relates to

the automobile safety? >> the toyota recalled, this was a wide-ranging, but this is indicative of how they use their authority to get to the bottom of things. when the secretary of transportation took office said was the acting administrator, they were observing certain issues with toyota, and they felt so strongly about this, that he went to japan to tell toyota that they did not feel that toyota was holding up their obligations to inform and interact with them to address the safety concerns. this effort began on december 15. this was the day of my confirmation hearing, which is why the entire senior staff was actually in japan and not in my

hearing. we heard them explain to toyota what they were doing wrong, at the hearing in washington. >> i was updated about these issues on january 4, and toyota was beginning to experience these problems. i met with them on january 19, and they executed this on january 21. the effort was because of the fast action of the career staff, and the leadership of the secretary of transportation. toyota is not indicative as an example of failure. and when the professionals use the information and make the case, going forward, we get the results that we need. tokyo that, in the wide-ranging

recall that was executed, that is the response that i would want have as an administrator. and i would hope that in the future, other automobile companies would do the same thing. >> can you give me with the subcommittee any assurances that the automobiles -- as far as you are concerned, had all level of safety that is of greater -- or greater than what we have experienced with toyota? >> there are a couple of parts of the answer. i will go to the discussion that we just had. we have the lowest number of deaths since 1954. nhtsa is accomplishing their

mission. will they be safe without toyota? it is their responsibility to want to comply with the federal order of vehicle safety act. the job that we have is to enforce and police the market. the auto makers have to comply with these standards, and it is my job to make certain that they continue to hold those standards and we will continue to hold this line. >> the chair recognizes mr. winfield for five minutes. >> thank you for joining us this afternoon. as i have said in my opening statement, the agency should be commended, because the highways are safety today, that may have

been in a statistical standpoint. we have heard a lot of articles written, and there was one of them recently that said that nhtsa had not been accomplishing their mission and they were a lapdog for the industry. there has been a lot of criticism about the agency. and as the administrator, how would you respond to that, in a general way? is this criticism true? >> we have been a very active agency. the agency has been very active since the new secretary took over and in my review of the work that has been done with toyota, we opened eight separate investigations over the time when there were complaints about the sudden accelerations. a lapdog does not do this.

the goal is for us and the statutory order, to find any defects in the vehicle safety that caused risk. anytime that there is an anomaly in the number of complaints with what we see in the early warning system, we go forward and investigate. we cannot, under the statute, forced the mandatory recall. this does not mean that we think the vehicle is safe. we cannot make the statutory case. we keep looking and when we find this, with the floor mat entrapment, with the 2010 preakness, we act very quickly. i do not think the history of the actions were here before i took office, and the time that people are looking at. this agency has been very

active. >> when you find this, you can require a mandatory recall? >> this is correct. >> i have also heard about the heating, and i understand that you can issue the information requests. and the manufacturers have to respond to that? >> there is a difference between the subpoena and the information request. we are able to compel this for documents. we want to get every document on a question. they will have to give this to us. they also have to respond to a request for information. we actually asks -- ask direct questions that must be answered. this is what we use, quite frequently. in fact, we sent three questions to toyota about the timing of their submission of information,

regarding the floor mats. there was a recall asking for them to answer questions about the sudden acceleration incident. this is a large amount of documents and data. if we find that there is a violation, we will move forward accordingly. >> do you believe that this is the agency, doing their job effectively? >> toyota has been slow, but they have not been as responsive as they should have bed. they have been very responsive, with this issue -- i have no evidence that this has been a problem. >> i know most of the budget

money goes to the states, and the rest -- this is for the behavioral science. and also the safety. i know that in 2005, congress asked you to conduct a crash survey, and this came back and said that 95% of the crashes were because of the fault of the driver, or negligence. are you familiar with this survey? >> i am somewhat familiar with this, but i can talk in more specifics about this. that is the largest component of risks on the highway. that is one reason that they are attacking the highest risks. not driving the belt or driving

distracted. that is a huge risk and the vehicle the facts are very important. in terms of the overall risk profile, and the highway safety, this comprises the largest risk. that is why we are defined the way that we are. >> the chair has recognized for five minutes. >> my questions -- these are yes or no answers. >> mr. administrator, do you believe that they have made their mistakes in response to the recent toyota recalls? and should they have pushed toyota to initiate the recalls earlier than they have? >> we pushed these when we have the evidence of the defects.

>> yes or no? >> the answer is that we have responded appropriately. >> what authority do you like, with which to address the defects in the automobiles and public safety? please submit this answer. do you have a place -- have in place a ranking system with the priority of the defects investigation? >> the answer is that we do not, but this is profiled internally. >> thank you. we have heard more about the need to increase the resources available to carry out the mission. do you need these resources? >> we have more resources. we have the resources that we need. >> please submit to us, for the record, how much more resources

that you need, and i want to have this submitted directly to the committee, and not through omb. in my questioning of the chief of sales, we have revealed the decision to recall the vehicles in north america, were made in japan. do any other manufacturers require information for the details, with the decisions that are made relative to the recalls, in any country outside of the united states? >> it appears that toyota is unique. >> it strikes me that this is a bad situation so far for the safety of the american people. >> the system could be much more

efficient. >> there may be a response that can be made in the united states, to respond to the law. >> if they had somebody we could react more quickly. >> i would appreciate if you could submit for the record how we could be correcting this. what is the difference between domestic and foreign automobile manufacturers, for inquiring about information? >> the domestic manufacturers respond faster. >> what is the cause for this? >> there are several reasons, in terms of the design of leadership, as you have mentioned, and other factors. >> this is because of the information that has to be prepared for toyota?

>> this has been identified by toyota. >> this is also true with the recall? the decision is made by toyota? >> this is true. >> is there a difference in the information that is provided, for the automobile manufacturers at ford motor company? >> the quality of the information is very similar. >> this does not mean that this is the same. >> they have different information because of the process, and they comply to this system. they are similar. >> why was it that the secretary of transportation, and the secretary and the leader of nhtsa had to go to tokyo to get the cooperation of toyota on the recalls in their production?

>> they were responding to this its up -- responding to nhtsa on this. >> what they have to go over there? -- why did they have to go over there? >> they did this because the message was to urge toyota to comply more expeditiously? >> that is correct. >> they had to do this to get cooperation from toyota. thank you. >> the chair now recognizes -- for questioning. >> thank you. on september 1, 2009, proposed rules were put out, dealing with the automatic reverse system.

this requires automatic reversal systems in those windows, and equipped with closing or express operation. in a letter from march 10, 2010, this is sent to mr. strickland. this was henry waxman, chairman rush, and myself, and we said that these windows generally have technology to reverse that, and they are found in the driver's window, and the intention of the legislation was to protect children. here is what i find surprising. you have a chart. this was the first of five

proposed alternatives. the first alternative is what i described. it says, on this chart, the cost for each window for this remedy -- it says, $0. the incremental costs were $0. the annual fatality benefits, $0. annual injury benefits, close to zero. the preferred alternative to protect children was at no cost, no benefit solution. i would think that it was embarrassing, not only to put that in writing, but to choose that as the preferred action.

i would hope that nothing like that happens again. let me describe the second alternative. the power side windows -- they meet the european standards. the cost for each window, $6. most people would find this reasonable. the total cost is $149 billion. the annual fatality benefits and the annual injury benefits were $850. 850 injuries and two deaths. that could be saved. that was with $6 per window. i want to talk about the family's of the children who

were strangled by these windows. this may have been protected by $6. this is the standard for the european union, -- so why is this not the standard here. i believe that we should reject this alternative. how does this happen? can we expect that this will not happen anymore? that a no-cost, no-benefit solution will not be proposed? >> as you know, i cannot engage in discussion on a rule that is currently being worked on. i understand that we have received new information from the constituents, including those who were close to you and the agency is taking a hard look

at this information. when we finally have a rule we hope that we will see this item. it will be based on sound information. this is the one thing i will tell you. >> let me make a strong recommendation that you do not propose rules that have absolutely no effect, when congress has said, very clearly, that they want to protect children. i am certain that you will agree with that. i will yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa. >> thank you. in the opening statement that you have received, on the first page, of the first paragraph, he

said, one of the first questions i asked is whether the current statutory authority that was drafted in the 1970's is sufficient to address the modern automobile and automotive marketplace. have you answered that question? >> they are still working on that question. i have a great deal of experience at looking at consumer product safety and you have to be very careful in examining these things. we have to make certain that there is a lot that is functional, working well. we want to improve upon this, and my legal staff and my program staff while undertaking that right now. we'll be happy to share our thoughts and we are looking forward to working with you.

>> i look forward to having that conversation. we have the legacy of the agency that you have had. in your statement, you said that safety is the highest priority of the department of transportation. are you standing beside that statement? we know that the office of odi is at the front line of the battle against defective products. you were asked a very appropriate question. you have the power to recall, can you explain why your agency has not initiated a recall since 1979? >> you can influence a recall by going through the initial stages of the process. most times, an auto company will

not want to go through the whole process. the public process and a lot of automobile companies think that you are hiding these defects, and they know that the agency -- they can have a voluntary recall. most of the recalls are voluntary. all of these are voluntary but there are a huge number influenced by the agency. that is the number that you need to look at . we influence half -- we influence half of the recalls, and that is the real number that is indicative of the power of o d i -- odi. they did not have to sign the order. auto companies will take care of this voluntarily. >> i am is skeptical that in 31

years, there has not been an incident where the automobile makers acted responsibly, with recalls of a product defect in 31 years. one thing i want to speak to you about is how you described the agency and how the mission has changed in response to changes in the automotive industry. do you remember that? >> this is 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 leader in automobile manufacturing. >> i am talking about something different. i grew up with muscle cars, or you could tear apart the engine in your basement, with a basic knowledge of the engine. you cannot do that anymore.

one thing that came out during the earlier hearing was the concept of the black box technology, that is driven by complex computer codes, sometimes that the manufacturer is willing to share with your agency, and sometimes, they have been very reluctant to share this information, and the ability for your employees to have the key to the kingdom to interpret that information independently. one of the things that i am concerned about is the internal committee report for this hearing, because it suggests that your agency -- the budget of your agency that is dedicated to vehicle safety has remained stagnant over the past 10 years, and your resources are far below the resources available for this kind of investigation, when the agency was added. my concern is that, based on the

testimony of the previous hearing, when you have a demand for computer engineers and electrical engineers, and people not based on mechanical backgrounds, i am concerned that the staffing of personnel may not be adequate to meet the incredible demands of the changing technology. have you done the independent review to make your own independent judgment on whether or not this is a critical case. >> i have a couple of responses. >> the work of the automotive engineers -- they are some of the finest in the country. as the technology is evolving, i can give you the quantum number of those on deck to do the job. we have five electrical engineers.

we have engineers based on this facility and resources for the consultants. we need the additional expertise. what i understand from taking office, there is not a notion that we do not have the proper expertise to handle the automobiles today. we recognize that you can always work on what you have, and the president has provided us these resources. we use these to leverage the resources and strengthen these things. we will be looking at how we can respond to these studies of these complex systems, that the secretary spoke about. is it my confidence that we will be able to handle the current marketplace? are we going to be strong in this area? >> of the 62 employees that you

have identified, how many of them will you allocate to odi? >> i am working to find out what the resources will be in this area and i will come forward with this information when this is available. >> can you break down the people working with engineering degrees by their name and their job title, and their particular expertise with being an engineer. >> i am happy to do this. >> the chair will recognize the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you. i am close to mich. -- >> ohio. >> this is ok. administrator, thank you for being here. i have a number of questions.

beginning with the question of the black box technology. we have heard about the secretary -- he indicated a difficulty in getting the information that was in the black boxes, and that we do not have the capacity. we do not have the keys to the kingdom, and i heard you talk about having access to information, you talked about having this in a similar way, whether this is toyota, which keeps information in japan, and the domestic automobile industry. i believed that we actually cut access information from the domestic manufacturers, in a way that we cannot get from toyota.

can you clarify? >> i took from his question about the warning report from the automakers, the information that was received. there are differences in how we present this. that is what i meant. in terms of reporting information, you are correct about this. toyota has a system that, until one week ago, there was only one tool in the country usable to read this. if we ever wanted to get information from the recorder on this toyota vehicle, this would be very difficult. my understanding is they have provided the staff three of these tools, and i am not certain about the status of the data recorder. toyota has promised that they will provide them. in terms of his question, and in

terms of the information that comes into the quarterly call to the automobile makers, there is a difference between the detroit auto makers, which all use this tool, we could use this against toyota and we could not one week ago. >> now that you have this equipment, this was the only thing keeping you from having access to the black boxes. >> we are able to access this, but we still need a rep. this is not fully transparent. i believe that we do need for them to have toyota representation, to discover what happens before the crash. that is the information on those boxes. >> is this required? >> at this time, we are undergoing -- by 2012, if the

auto maker chooses to have this on board, they will have to have certain readability and information, but they do not have to have the data recorder on board. >> we will have to see about the consequences intended, and if the others are of that making. >> with respect to what we have been reading, with the "the washington post" about those who were working at nhtsa and the car companies, toyota is in the headlines. the article mentioned that couple of the investigators left the agency and immediately took jobs at toyota, managing the

federal investigation. do you believe that there is a conflict of interest? we are charged, as members of congress, to make certain that the public interest is always important, and you understand that people are more than a little bit concerned with the revolving door. >> there were no ethics laws that were broken, but the former employees -- when they left their employment, they were at the level that everything that they did it complied with the current federal law, providing limitations. i will not fight with you on the appearance. the secretary was very clear in his statement, to this committee, and the oversight and

the government reform. he is committed to strengthening the ethics requirements in the department of transportation. i am supportive of his efforts. and i will hold every employee in nhtsa to the highest standard and the obama administration has said that this will be the most ethical administration. we are looking forward on this basis and handling this issue of an appearance, at an arms-length distance, for the employees when they moved to this -- >> the public trust is critically important, in making certain that things are working as they should. if i would ask one last question. during the hearings that we have

had with the representatives of toyota and secretary led -- lahood, we heard about the recalls in other countries, coming from problems that arose from this country, and there was a recall after much tragedy had happened. is there anything that requires auto manufacturers to report to nhtsa with problems beyond the borders, through vehicles beyond this country? >> there is a foreign recall and they have to report on foreign service campaigns, for these vehicles. the question is whether or not

this is timely. we have received a lot of information from the early warning system, and we're looking at other ways and other kinds of information that may be helpful and we are looking forward to working with congress and finding a new way to work on these abilities. >> the chair is requesting, he is on the subcommittee. we seek unanimous consent that he be allowed to ask some questions of the witness, and hearing no objection, you are recognized for five minutes. >> the yankee for your hospitality. as you know, the early warning system that i was helping to create during the 2000 trade out, was intended to provide the department of transportation and the public with early in --

early manufacturers receiving complaints. almost all of this information that was submitted was made by the bush administration to be confidential. as far as the public was concerned, the early warning system had become a secret. i have a summary of the public information contained in the early warnings that were submitted in 2008. there were seven reports of deaths or serious injury, and this is all the information that we get. the public cannot learn if these relate to sudden, unemployment acceleration. they cannot learn if any consumer is made complaints about the similar problems that did not result in a serious

injury or death. the early-warning system does not really tell the public anything specific, or useful about the potential automobile safety. >> the one thing i would like to tell you is the information that we provide is the most transparent in government, and we have been noted by the federal government, this is part of the information sources that we provide. as far as the obama administration is concerned, the more transparency that we have, the better. we have the early-reporting system to improve transparency going forward. >> the consumers can report their complaints to nhtsa as

well. when the consumer reports of the safety problem directly, does this go into a public data base, but if a consumer does not know about this complaint, they will take the safety problem to a car company. this becomes confidential business information, without a requirement that the public should be notified? should this also be forced to made -- to be made public as part of a public report? >> this administration believes in transparency. we would like to talk to you, going forward, about how we can make this more transparent. >> this information? >> -- >> should i have had this information as the owner of a toyota camry? >> we would speak to you on a going-forward basis. >> president clinton tried to

implement the early-warning system, for the maximum public availability of the inflammation. this clearly has not happened. my goal right now is to work with you, in order to accomplish this goal. we thank you for taking the job, by the way. we have enjoyed working with you over all the years, especially on the fuel economy that you did in the senate. although nhtsa can undertake the mandatory recall, you may have to go to court to prove the problem. when things are taking time, this may cost lives. you were the lead staffer in the senate, and you were given the authority to tell the public

about product safety hazards, even if the current process was not complete. do you believe that this authority would be able to help nhtsa inform the public of serious safety problems, and will you work with us for this? >> we have the authority on several of the processes with the consumer safety agencies. the federal rail administration has this authority, and this has proven to be very helpful to them. i look forward to having further discussion, because this is very important to consumer protection and this may boost other ordnance as well. >> at this country is very lucky to have this. thank you. >> the chair would ask the indulgence of the witness, for a few more minutes.

i would like to authorize a series of questions, and the chair recognizes himself for two minutes. on the vehicle safety programs -- for the past 10 years, from my perspective the budget for this year allows a few million dollars from the year before. odi, which focuses its activities on the new vehicles, in the last five years, they have been given less than $10 million to police new vehicles. according to chicago public schools, this would be about 10 cents per vehicle. the budget is suffering as well.

they have made efforts, and congress has been compelled to legislate and mandate for rollover statistics and child safety. the agency, as far as i can see this -- [inaudible] this is very clear. i know that there is an increase of the new personnel, as you get more resources, for the safety programs, where will you find these resources? >> the safety mission is not simply with odi because this is also the behavior of side as well.

the federal budget provides resources for these new missions with new personnel. we will take a look at these personnel and we will deploy them at the places that we need, to improve and strengthen the investigation in other places where we can also help to further the safety missions, and in terms of the resources, overall, we have accomplished the mission with the resources that we have. the president has given us a budget, and we will use this for the safety missions. >> congress has to prepare a budget. we will approve the budget and -- do you have any objection if we gave you more than a budget

for 6 cents per employee? >> the budget of the president allows us to complete our mission. if we are given more resources we will use them judiciously. >> and the sounds like a good answer. two minutes. >> i do not know how much money that we have to give you. [laughter] >> thank-you. >> you have an excellent job, and we thank you very much. -- you have done an excellent job, and we thank you very much. [unintelligible] at the beginning of this hearing -- thank you for your patience. >> thank you. it has been an honor. >> the second panel -- i would

like to reemphasize the policy for outstanding referendums with the schedule. please, accept our sincere apologies. the chair wants to introduce the witnesses. the second panel. on my left is the former administrator for the national highway and traffic safety administration. we want to welcome you. sitting next to her is the

safety policy council for the consumer's union. we want to welcome you, also. and lastly, we want to recognize and also say hello to our former colleague, a member of this house, a very able member from oklahoma. very bright and intelligent. the honorable david mccurdy, from the alliance of automobile manufacturers. we welcome you, again, to this subcommittee hearing. we would like to recognize, for

five minutes, for the purposes of the opening statement, -- >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. i am the last person to require an out of company to have a recall. this was 31 years ago. i would like to say that when you do find the defect, the automobile companies will do a recall, and you do not have to go to court. but sometimes you will have to go to court. in the toyota case, this elaborates on that. there has been a misconception on the defect. the last case that was litigated by the department of transportation on this issue, the federal court of appeals made several important comments. this is not in my testimony. i hope that this will be on the

record and i know that this is an important issue that has come up several times. what you have said is that to find the defect, you must find that the vehicle itself is defective. and that is manifest itself in materials to the automobiles and performance. this may be a defect in the performance. they do not have to show that there are 500 or 10,000 consumer complaints that have risen. and often, those complaints are not allowed in court. the agency will rely on this -- they will not have a successful result. there was the court of appeals judge in a different case that said that the determination of the defect does not have a predicate of identifying engineering or manufacturing

failures, and that the determination may be expressed exclusively by the vehicle components. i believe that this changes as you look at the toyota case. this is not about toyota. this is about the agency. this changes the way to approach these investigations. i believe that the agency has fallen into a trap, with the toyota case and others. they seem to be accepting the burden of having to define the the fact, with the failure of performance. this is the responsibility of the manufacturer, because they put the vehicle together and they made the design drawings. what happens is their responsibility. if there is a failure in performance, the agency will find the defect, and the company will have to fix this. that is what they have said, and it is very important to make

this clear. my testimony has seven things that i would like to mention, very briefly. one of them is that there has been a low priority on enforcement in the agency, and a lack of resources. the other issue is that a court of appeals in the 1980's found that consumers did not have the authority to file a lawsuit if this was taken down by the agency. there is no authority to go to court. there is authority for them to go to court if the rule-making decision was made -- and we have gone to court on many occasions, helping to make the statute better. this is because of the higher- quality rating, the monitoring system, the amount of inflation in the tire, and the early-