and the problem of naked practices need particular attention. on a purely speculative basis -- in the short term, we must ensure that member states acted in a coordinated faction -- fashion -- we must ensure that member states act in a coordinated fashion. at the same time we will push forward. . @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rvn

longer. >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you president. the qu as a greek member opposed as a greek member i wanted to make the point to you that greece will get through this stuff period of testing and we are responsible for this. it is a test of endurance and disciplined for greece. i'm very happy to hear you speak of the g20 as a group in which the question of swaps will be debated. on top of the grease we have

been hard hit by market speculation increase and i would like to hear you say a little more about that in fudgy 20 context. are you going to put forward any initiatives to establish clear rules with respect to uncovered purchasing, naked purchasing of credit-default swaps. >> it's important to say it comes from excessive debt. there will probably speak to that attacks but because they saw an opportunity. now, we have to support the increase. greece has announced very important measures and we fully support those measures. at the same time we have to look to the broader issue. we will examine closely the relevance of banning purely speculative credits redefault swaps of sovereign debt. the question of transparency between regulators particularly on access to information on

these practices also deserves to be raised. also in the g20 and another bilaterally. last friday the commission organized in brussels a meeting with national regulators to see what we can know about the action of some of these speculators against sovereign debt and we need to proceed on the in-depth analysis on the credit swaps market so as to better determine how these markets function and if they are the subject of questionable practices. if needed the commission will use the powers it has also in that matter. >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you very much. >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: president is there any kind of timetable with respect to this mechanism providing speculation? i would like to hear if so that

way we will have some idea about borrowing capital on the international markets. >> the commissioner will present before the summer some legislative proposals regarding the directive on part of the bids and concerning the market abuse directed. the commissioner will present before the end of the year also a proposal. we believe this proposal will increase market transparency handling its risks. handling of the credit-default swaps we put in the june 20. it is in june. >> mr. daniel please. >> mr. barroso, openness and transparency our fundamental values of every self respecting democracy. if people in administration can have their expenditure not

uttered by citizens, then a senior of self and richmond can occur. we seen the last few years in the u.k.. in the dutch press it has been mentioned that mr. barroso in 2009 and declared 30,000 churros. that isn't just ludicrous large amount but quite a feat. imagine declaring 2000 year rose per day hat's off to you mr. barroso. but on a more serious note, space scrutiny of these declarations is something that really has to be dealt with because of internal audit is occurring and then people are getting their seal of approval. so i would ask mr. barroso and the commission as a whole to move away from this culture of secrecy and publish their declarations often transparently on the internet so that all we european citizens can see what it says in them. i would appreciate a response. >> i am somewhat surprised by this kind of comment in fact the

so called representational expenses we make the service of the european union namely truffle of the members of the commission, myself and the other members of the commission, and in fact if you compare these amounts with what is spent by government you will find that these are very small compared to those expenditures. the budget for the colleges fixed by the budget authority and you are part of debt and the budget has remained the same for five years. regarding the expenditures they are reasonable for the public goods detroit to serve and we are scores using full transparency. we are presenting to the budget authority to the court of auditors all elements that have been requested from us. >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you

mr. president. >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: apparently the parliament does give access but that's nonsense. everything happens behind closed doors. everything in secrecy. if he doesn't show responsibility then he should make all of this public and if he doesn't want to then he should at least at the opening honestly but if you are following all the rules, then why can't these declarations be put on the internet and need your afraid of the reaction of the citizens. just make them public. >> thank you. in a system of law we respect the rules. [inaudible] >> mr. president barroso will give an answer. mr. president, please start. >> in the system of law we respect the rules of law and to

make analysis of the intention of people is at least on a fair. we cannot attribute to me or the commission any intention behind what is the respect of the rule of law. once again i think we have to make a distinction between what are the obligations of the european commission or any public body regarding will fall or what is to give up some demagogic attacks to the european institutions. in fact in the commission, the institutions in general have the highest standard in terms of transparency and so i do not accept this kind of easy criticism populist demagogic will. [applause] >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you mr. president for your answers. we've completed the first round of questions to the president of the commission of a general nature. now we should focus on one topic

that is the implementation of the new treaty and the basic rights. the first speaker will be for one minute, please. >> thank you mr. president. i hope i'm not going to be part from the question that's going to be asked. i'm convinced mr. barroso and i agree that respect for fundamental freedoms is the most important element within the e.u. and between the e.u. and other countries the e.u. [inaudible] for the period between 2009 to 2013 billions of years for helping. now don't mr. beatty to whether mr. speed is familiar how the money will be spent but i would

appreciate if mr. speed could talk about his attitude towards the state because very often when you talk about countries with the government you don't mention so i would like to hear what mr. barroso thinks of the state of eritrea. thank you. >> thank you for the fundamental rights. of course we defend and we defend not only in the european union but also in our relations. it does not mean we can only have relations with countries that respect fundamental rights. unfortunately there are many countries in the world that do not respect fundamental rights and we have to keep relations with those countries. it is in fact a case that raises concerns in terms of respect for fundamental rights also because of the situation in which the state exists it to be considered according to some commentators

as a field state. a state where there is not rule of order because of civilian conflict because of widespread violence because of back many areas of the country the authorities cannot exercise a space power so we are in fact following the situation in all countries that can pose a problem to the fundamental rights. >> jean? [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, within the context of the date i would like to draw your attention to the body scanners in the european airports. one of the principles of the european policy is the protection of health and safety and fundamental freedoms of the citizens of europe so we must not agree to a situation in

which the feeling of three of the security and safety. we are so easily waiving the right to the protection of privacy. i have a feeling that the situation with the scanners is similar to the one which we lived through during the five new flu pandemic. we have invested a lot of money into the vaccines which were not needed and we know that today. we believe we are also trying to force the situation in order to use body scanners here. mr. president i would like to hear on this issue. are you for or against the body scanners? thank you. >> if the member states agree because i think it should be and normalization of the rules of security and safety in our airports. what happens now is some of the member states are introducing

body scanners in the report's authors are not. so as you know the commission has presented some time ago a proposal for body scanners that was refused. we believe of course this raises some concerns but we should try to find if possible a position regarding any security and the european airports. if not we can have a kind of discrimination of the evaluation of the security and our airports >> [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: the treaty respects the rights of local authorities and regions across europe and this will be an important factor for example when you start discussions on the future of the policy. i wonder if you could tell us why you start those discussions

on the upper region report that he would assure us that you will have those discussions with local authorities regions on the policy and of course with this parliament. >> yes, this is not for the fundamental rights but of course we will discuss these issues with local and regional authorities. it is for us a social and economic and territorial commission. this is now recognized by the lisbon treaty as one of the goals of the european union. in the new 2020 strategy that i presented some time ago we make it clear that the collision will remain a central feature of our proposals and we want i also mentioned in that document i just referred to the need to consult a committee of regents.

>> catherine please. >> thank you. a live like to raise an issue about fundamental rights. -- i would like to raise an issue about fundamental rights. i was approached by a boy named douglas who read a case that relates to what the first speaker is saying. he and his family were persecuted for being christian. the persecution of christians is a subject i know you are familiar with, and he managed to escape to italy and glasgow in scotland where someone cared for him and looked out for her as their own daughter. if she is facing deportation back to italy where she first sought asylum, and we are doing all weekend to appeal to those who can help her. she asked to be kept in a loving

care of her foster parents. this was mentioned in media scotland yesterday. what can the commission do to protect fundamental rights? thank you. >> thank you. fundamental rights? thank you. .. our concern to express to any person that sees human rights violated but about the specific case i would be more than happy to react in a riding. thank you.

>> thank you. >> thank you. on the fifth of march the president of italy signed a decree into law a legal interpretation which allows for the ground rules to be changed in the reelection campaign and on his own time it says in a meeting on thursday that text to produce thyroid the internal ministry -- produced by the internal industry was endorsed by may. article 57 says the president shall promulgate laos and illegal acts, -- illegal acts. they cannot be involved in the drafting of legislation and

legal decrees. he said this is a distortion of our democratic system. mpy says that this is a distortion of her democratic systems. and this decree changed the electoral ground rules as undemocratic and those who broke the law can do so for electoral advantage. i wonder why this parliament is always happy to act on its own laws but won't do anything -- my. >> one minute questions. please, keep this rule. it is very important. >> madam once again, don't ask me to get involved in an internal political issue. the commission has a responsibility in the area of fundamental rights when we are talking about executing european

legislation either on the european or national level but this is not the application of a community law that is in question here but from what i can gather from your contribution, this is more of an internal issue in your country. perhaps it does have a dimension that links into the legalities, but we really can't get involved in the issues of political personalities. >> thank you. >> thank you. president barroso, the fundamental rights are thus far the only international document that talks about discrimination on the basis of orientation and bands that form of discrimination. now, europe has made in

achievement here. listening to the e.u., there were three countries, the u.k., poland and the czech republic which have not incorporated the fundamental rights, so i would like to know about what you intend to do in the commission to protect the rights of and transsexual people to defend their rights. here, we have got directives on employment legislation and we want to stop discrimination. we want people to be able to debate their love lives without fear. >> there are two questions there. don't know if i can respond to them in one minute. first of all regarding discrimination on sexual orientation, the previous commission directed against any

form of discrimination including based on sexual orientation outside also of an employment. we are committed in legislation and member states measures fully respect the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. they are the principles as you know are not enshrined in european union charter of rights. regarding poland and the united kingdom, the protocol for the application of the charter and that the united kingdom and the ability within these member states. it states in particular the charter does not extend the ability of the court of justice or any court or tribunal or of the united kingdom to find the laws are provisions practices or actions of the united states are fundamental rights freedoms and principles.

so we have to see still what is going to be the way. the european court of justice will make the interpretation of the protocol of those two member states. >> thank you. mr. ashley fox please. >> countries around the world have finally worded ills of rights in their constitutions. rather fewer of for genuine protection to their citizens. do you agree that what matters is not the structure of protection of rights but rather how that protection is practiced. in the united kingdom, we face a general election within three months. if elected the conservative party will repeal the human rights act and replace it with their own bill of rights. this would mean that the european convention of human rights would no longer be directly applicable in the u.k. domestic law. esther president, will you explain to what extent plans for the e.u. to sign the european convention of human rights will

take into account the different positions of member states? i party also seeks a treaty change to guarantee the charter fundamental rights does not affect u.k.. how will you ensure that the e.u. doesn't interfere with the u.k.'s right to opt out of those structures we don't wish to participate in? thank you. >> i partly already answered the question when answering the previous question. the united kingdom and other countries have a protocol regarding the charter of fundamental rights. and it has the rights. they were negotiated and we had an intergovernmental treaty that recognizes this. having said this i prefer all member states to accept the charter of fundamental rights because i believe this charter is a fundamental comp is for all european policies. we are also now ready to exceed the european convention on human

rights. it is a system of protection of fundamental rights. secondly i respect the united kingdom as a democracy. it is a country that has given during the centuries the most important contributions to democracy and that is why i regret that the united kingdom does not want to be with all its partners in the first line to have human rights not only at the national level but also at the european project. >> thank you very much. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you very much, president of the commission. women's rights is a basic fundamental human right and we need to champion that in the european union that we see that there are huge inequalities that

exist and are actually becoming worse, including salary differences between gender. we also have more poverty and more precarious work among women thomas so it is not enough to pay lipservice to women's rights it is not enough to do that unless we have a full discussion with organizations who work with women, and i am wondering if the commission is available to give it a priority to this subject with two measures for example by drawing up a strategy in favor of the quality of the european parliament is drawing up a report on the strategy. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: last friday, commissioner redding and i

presented a document in this area and we reaffirmed our commitment to work in this area in september. the document in question will be followed up through a strategy in favor of equality, so we do have a broad framework for the commission to work under, to provide more equality between the genders, so we are very much in line with what mrs. ichiro said because we do have to guarantee these rights. the letter was published to celebrate the 15th anniversary of the beijing summit, and the commission and various committees of the european parliament are working in this area. tomorrow we will be having another meeting, so this won't

be the first one. >> thank you are a much. >> president barroso the question i would like to race today concerns the financial situation in greece. article cxxi of the lisbon treaty is for the first time being used to push through structural reforms in that country. the good people of greece now find themselves that between iraq and a hard place and it becomes very clear that the country-- does this mean you are sending your officials to sort out the financial situation that you can now redress but only as the governor of greece? if the measures your officials putting greece don't work, do you have a plan b? if so, if it agrees to use the eurozone and friendly cert you intend to send in your officials to other countries suffering hardship for example portugal, spain and italy? thank you. >> thank you very much but i would like to explain to our

topic is implementation of the new treaty and respect the fundamental rights. so please keep to this topic. are you ready to give an answer? >> i try to be always ready at her request of members of of the parliament mr. president. your question mr. distinguished member of parliament, comes out of an assumption that is not correct. that is because greece is having some problems. in fact, we have countries outside of the euro area that have similar problems. in fact in some cases even more serious. in the european union, for instance iceland i am asking to join the european union precisely-- [inaudible] in fact it is a complete mistake to think that the problems of

greece are a result of greece being in the euro. it is precisely because greece has not respected the rules of respect that greece is now facing difficulties and that there is a difficult adjustment it has to make her co. >> thank you very much. >> mr. president, thank you. could i just ask it perez question with respect to the storage of data which the german constitutional it is still unclear to what extent unsupervised data storage and access to data is compatible with human rights.

no information is given on the storage of data in the eu treaty must -- and the eu treaty must come into force there. should we not check whether the catalog of fundamental rights is correct? >> thank you. >> it is an article states of fundamental trigger we now have a framework for the collection of personal data. this is essential to ensure a common approach to all data processing activities within the european union since the procedure also applies for a third pillar areas. we must also ensure a fundamental rights of european citizens continue to be protected.

a european and united states agreement on personal data protection could be important and we're working for this. currently, they are taking consultations to collect the views of stakeholders and citizens. transparency and collects the use of stakeholders and citizens. the commission plans to make a draft recommendation to authorize with the united states her co-. >> mr. president during the last decade international cooperation with counterterrorism has been made more difficult egos of humans rights concerns including the practices of the u.s. administration. we had hoped to put that behind us with the obama administration. sadly we have learned that

unfair military commissions and indefinite detention without trial will carry on even if guantánamo is closed. these departures from international and domestic legal norms make transatlantic data sharing projects even more problematic then they would otherwise be. what representation does the commission make to the u.s. administration in order to uphold fair trials and warning that their absence will prejudice cooperation? i hope that nowadays, unlike the past, there is no danger of the e.u. or its member states colluding with gross breaches of fundamental rights and counterterrorism. >> of being the first as far as i remember to raise the issue. with the united states president, former united states resident of the need to respect the fundamental rights and look law also in dealing with

terrorism regarding the issue of guantánamo. myself and then president of the european council, then prime minister abbas or raise the issue and the matter has always been an issue of dialogue with our american partners. so you may be sure that this is going to be in the agenda. re: regarding protection, we believe that we should work also with the united states for a framework or gorgeous mention that in a previous response. at the same time we need to have a framework to combat terrorism together so the question is to find the right way of responding to two needs that are important the need to freedom respect and protection and the need of security because without security there is not the possibility of freedom. >> thank you. one minute please. >> one of the key issues in the

new lisbon treaty is the increased drawer of european union in the world. with this new strengthen foreign-policy we as a union must be more active in the promotion and defense of human rights from fundamental rights in third countries. my question to you is what are you and mr. ashton planning to do to strengthen the e.u. promotion of democracy policy? second question, but you'd be supporting greater funding for the european instruments for the democracy and human rights in the next budget? human rights always seem to take second and third place in our dialogues. i think we need to spend more time and money in the promotion and bh or european endowment for democracy. i would like to hear your opinion on these issues. thank you.

>> up her vision of the treaty promotes rights throughout the world. european union has adopted guidelines on human rights and issues from death penalty to be support for human rights defenders. under these guidelines the european union ranging from diplomatic-- i myself the in raising the issues of human rights and summits with heads of government from countries. just recently in the dialogue we have made the point on fundamental rights, precisely in the last sum it, the summit we had just last week her co-of european union has established human rights dialogues with partnering countries around the world would serve as a form for detailed discussions. the commission programs around 150 million each year to support human rights across the globe. and we try to insert the humans

rights clause in every framework we conclude with a country. >> thank you very much mr. president. >> thank you resident. one of the fundamental principles is freedom of movement. on the night of the issue between libya and switzerland hundreds of e.u. citizens, workers that cannot answer libya to work. my question is what is the european commission doing to seek a solution to this issue urgently? it is acceptable that one country such as switzerland takes eight in the latter role decision that affects all citizens and in particular the workers that would like to work

in libya to earn their daily bread? >> we are very concerned with this case. the commission has expressed suspension by libya of visits to the areas. in addition the situations are current with the positive trend of relations between libya and the european union. intense efforts are ongoing to find a solution to the crisis. one of the two-- justice members have discussed it respectively and have supported the continuation of diplomatic efforts. i believe it is essential to keep the dialogue open and make effort of understanding its party's positions with a view to finding a solution as soon as possible. speak thank you for giving me

the floor. now that we have had the ratification of the treaty and lisbon respect for fundamental human rights has been enhanced. if you look at a number of decisions passed by the court of justice we do have to do something about strengthening these rights even further. in the luxembourg case, in fact, this has had implications for human rights. here we are talking about equal treatment to people earning wages in respect of their nationality and here we are talking about workers being given the same pay and similar working conditions to domestic workers, workers from the country concerned. now i think that we have to look at what mr. barroso said in the past before he was reelected as president of the commission. when can we expect, this is my

question to put forward a legislative proposal to solve this problem which has come into being after the court's ruling? can the commission president already today give us assurance? >> when these rulings were made public, we expressed our position very clearly. myself and then commissioner responsible for employment and social affairs making it clear that in our understanding those rulings could not put in question the fundamental rights like the right to strike, to write a trade unions, like the specificities of some mechanisms of labor relations in our countries. we are working on some proposals to address these issues. i cannot give you concrete states. i am sorry because i was not expecting this question now but as i have said before, the

election of this commission by the responsible commissioner is an issue we will address shortly. >> translator: thank you chairman. i would like to ask fundamental rights, the new treaty and external action. according to the budget committee, there have then 43 deficient financial transactions. how does the treaty, our engagement for fundamental rights and enhance the reduction of the number of errors in the budget its performance and they are reporting 43%. that is a sample showing the

level of financial error. >> as you know we have been working over the years to redeem financial ayers and the accounts of the european union. many of those errors as you know are the responsibility of the member states and an implementation of many european programs. i am encouraged by the recent opinion given by the european court of law that is recognizing the progress made so far but i believe in this area we should not be complacent and we are ready to work to diminish all kinds of errors in implementation of the european union budgets. >> translator: thank you resident. yes the treaty does speak about how we are to safeguard fundamental human rights, and

those countries that wish to become members of the e.u. must conform with what the e.u. is requesting as well as other countries that became members with us. with regards to the president's beliefs, or regards to fundamental human rights, turkey must do a lot and what is the commission doing to ensure that before the turkish economy is stable, but for turkey is what we are requested, fundamental human rights are the most important aspects and i am sorry to say that these are inexistent >> i will not say not exist and frankly speaking. in fact we don't believe that it is still compatible the

standard of respect the fundamental rights and the rule of law compatible with european standards and this is precisely part of the work we have been developing with turkey over the years and each year, because turkey is a candidate country to the european commission, the european union reforms and all matters related to fundamental rights. there is progress in some areas to be fair. there are others where we are requesting more efforts from a turkish authorities and i believe the way of keeping these dialogs and in fact these negotiations is indeed the right way to have progress in the matters of respect to fundamental rights and generally speaking the rule of law and democratic reform in turkey. >> thank you very much for a very interesting debate.

a hearing with officials from the highway traffic safety administration. after that, michelle easton, founder of the policy institute. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the health-care debate moves to the house budget committee monday as committee members mark up health care legislation. we will have live coverage beginning at 3:00 p.m. eastern and on our web site. the budget meeting is part of an effort to put the matter to a vote by marched 19. democrats want to have the committee approved a bill under expedited procedures. the rules committee will meet wednesday to work out the

structure for the debate. house speaker nancy pelosi says she hopes to start the day thursday when the votes possibly later in the week. -- to start a debate thursday with the votes possibly later in the week. logon to c-span.org. you can also find cost estimates to the bills and hundreds of hours of video from the house and senate floor debates committee hearings, markets, and other debates. c-span.org/healthcare. >> now any walter, editor and chief for the national journal hot line talks about health care and its effect on the midterm elections. this is about half an hour. >> riveted at 7:30 a.m. thank you for that.

i did not have any horses greeting me when i came in. thank you for that. i love this set. i feel like we know each other so well now. maybe i should invite people up here. we can talk. we can be casual. i'd just wanted to give an overview of where things are in the political environment how we got here, what it can 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 just going to

lay it out for everybody here. my job is just to call it as i see it, and we have an electorate right now -- we might have noticed this, that is very a grave. that is what we are told 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 the people hit the establishment. -- hate the establishment.

the polls showed that 58% wanted smaller government. this as a time when voters are saying they feel as if they are stopped economically and obviously, we're not in a heyday we were a few years ago. 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 a paid government. what they are telling us is a hate ineffective government and incompetence. that is really more of the issue. i see this in focus groups. i see this in the way candidates are engaging.

the one that really stood out to me -- the national journal group does a fantastic poll about 56 times a year of the heartland: 3 did five or six times a year called the heartland poll, and they ask voters this question -- how active a role do you want government to play in the financial sector? given everything we have seen you would think the answer would be i want government out completely. government is best when it does police so the answer to it is this. -- when it does the least. then enter is this. 35% agreed that government is the problem.

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 scratch, and i think this is really the challenge for candidates as they are coming into the midterm election, incumbent, to convince voters country. everyone should carry with them when campaigning. of a hostile crowd with people "government, no." 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 linked with the scandal. politics. 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. tea party candidate.

you have seen him mentioned by national prognosticators as the 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 is not exactly an outsider, but he is a tea party candidate and you can see this in case after case. 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 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 so how did we so quickly get to this point? it is pretty obvious. room, what happened in june, 2008. 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 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. to be getting a job. out the door. return on that investment. i also warned this is more than just government, and this is a with all things institutional. involve staple, where they ask voters who they would -- in the polls, were they asked voters 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. 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. but 33% of those folks said, i

would not trust them at faulkner. who would you trust them a 64% picked as bows or close family member. my brother-in-law is pretty smart. he is -- 64% picked a close family member. my brother-in-law is pretty smart. 74% picked themselves. that is who i trust. it makes a whole lot of sense in a world where people are looking at major institutions that have let them down at every single turn. it is not just a wall street banks. as i said two years ago and what other company do you think would be involved in runaway -- what auto company do you think would be involved in runaway

crazy cars, toyota would not the top of your list. if this institution after institution, so for folks who think their answer is to get government out of the way and let private industry helped, voters un not going to be embracing of that either. -- voters are not going to be embracing that either. this is very important to understand as well for folks who are engaging with real people out there. the other thing that happened and why we have gotten to this point is you had an election in 2008 that was predicated on change, and everyone changes differently. your version of change could be different from mine. i've they wanted change to something. you may have voted -- i may have

wanted a change to something. you may have voted to change from something so we will be disappointed in the real world and when they do not match of. what these people really expected from this president and this congress was something that looked markedly different from where we are today. .

@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bb@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ b@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

bb@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@ @ @ bb@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tt@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bt@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@

@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tt@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tt@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@

@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tt@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tt@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@@

@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tb@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tt@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@@@

.

the fact is we should have that authority, because we are not going to bring cases we don't think we can win because that's a waste of our time and energy. there should be a better balance of power. if we bring a case, they can intervene. second the agency has been engaged in excessive secrecy. the early-warning system is a great example. we don't know how many times

toyota in recent cases filed the early warning report to the agency and what it said and how many consumer complaints it had, how many warranty complaints, how many field complaints, all that is secret. if that book or open, the public would have access and could help the agency by letting them know when they had a problem. and their web page is a mess. if you went to the web page to try to figure out if there had been early-warning reports on the vehicle you are driving, you would not be able to figure it out. third, i think the penalties the agency has the authority to impose our insufficient. they should have a party for knowing and willful violation of the acts. it's in the fda lot and meny sister agency laws. the same should be available for nitze. in addition to penaltienhsta, it should

be available for nhsta as well. we think the penalty should be $100 million because that is something they would pay attention to. fourth the agency is underfunded. $132 million in the entire budget for the motor vehicle of ardi. not much above what it was when i was there in terms of dollars. in terms of inflation, is way below. it's been drastically cut. the topics discussed it's only 33 full-time ones. they have -- the agency cannot handle the

rulemaking program which is critically important. because of lack of capacity. information gathering and the data systems are totally insufficient. they should have been funded at four times or five times what they were, given the design of the systems when they were first created in the 1970's. a key issue is the black box. a voluntary standard. voluntary standards do not work. toyota's system is not being made available. the deadline for compliance is supposed to be 2010 but extended to 2012. it's a five-year lead given for voluntary standard, which is ridiculous. we think the black box ought to be mandatory. it has a standardized downloading for the data, it should have that. they ought to have one

standardized downloading system for every car company. i think the way the agency could be drastically enhanced is exciting would be to have the black box data when it's down loaded, one of syria's crash occurs -- when a serious crash occurs have that data go to nhtsa so that can be the basis for their evaluation of defects and of safety standards and the data would be voluminous and it would be fabulous. far more than what they have today. it would be much less expensive. i hope the committee will consider that issue as well. the new safety standards should come out of some of the work that goes on in the defense area. for years nhtsa feedback has failed when they hid them in the rear at 30 miles an hour. if the seat back fails you cannot control the car.

many people become paralyzed as a result. in the toyota case, a break override's standard -- brake override standard and the new accelerator standard. it was issued in 1973 and is not even electronic, so it's irrelevant to the current model. finally, i believe that's conflict of interest rules lead to constraints. nhtsa has a test facility in ohio, but it's owned by honda motor co.. it used to be owned by the state of ohio. i think that should be changed. there are opportunities to do that. thank you very much, mr. chairman. i am sorry that i am over my time slightly. >> by unanimous consent, the chair will accept the extraneous

material and putting your full statement into the record. >> thank you, sir. >> you are recognized for five minutes. >> chairman rush, ranking member whitfield, and members of the subcommittee. thanks for the opportunity to testify. i am the policy council with consumers union, the nonprofit publisher of consumer reports. the recent toyota recalls involving an accelerated in -- and intended accelerations have focused nationwide attention on this. it deserves a coordinated effort by the government, auto makers and independent consumer groups. we recommend the following government actions to improve auto safety. consumers union believes government regulators could have moved more aggressively to pursue sudden unintended acceleration and to protect customer safety. various news reports and are on an analysis of documents point

to a pattern of missed opportunities. nhtsa and toyota were aware of unintended acceleration as early as 2003 when the agency received a petition to investigate the problem. we are pleased nhtsa is looking into potential electronics issues behind events involving toyota and we eagerly await the agency's findings. we believe nhtsa can take actions now to improve safety. we like to see improved public access to safety information. nhtsa office of defects investigation collects complaints and data about cars from the public and manufacturers in two separate data bases. the consumer complaints database and the agency's early-warning reporting system. both have limitations and the data they provide are not integrated, making it more difficult for investigators to spot issues and for consumers to find information. consumers should not have to visit different sides to see all the information or before a suit -- to search it using tools that

are less than user-friendly. information should be visible in a single consumer website. nhsta should invite more drivers andto participate in data gathering and have more public information. it should promulgates certain safety regulations to prevent sudden unintended accelerations in all automobiles. it should require that cars be able to stop within a reasonable distance with a sustained press on the brake pedal even when the throttle is fully open. one method to reduce stopping distances is smart throttle technology that allows the brakes to override the trial. other methods may also become available. the most important safety feature is to ensure that a vehicle can stop within a reasonable and safe distance. nhsta should require simple standard controls that can easily turn off the engine and

an emergency. in many current toyota vehicles when the car is moving, it requires a sustained three- seconds was of a button to turn off the engine. thoseit is an action many owners may not be able to do in a panic situation. ignition controls should be easy to operate especially in an emergency. it should require intuitive clearly labeled transmission shifter is in all cars. if your car is accelerating out of control, hitting the brakes and shifting into neutral is your best strategy, but you want to know where neutral is when you are panicking. there should be consistency for shifters all across vehicles. and it's and require minimum distance between the gas pedal and the scoreboard. formats have been a major focus in recent recalls. people frequently used ill fitting mats or stacked them on top of each other. nhtsa is to make sure there is significant clearance

between the pedal and formats. it should improve the compliance process. the average consumer response is 74%. manufacturers notified dealers about recalls and the dealers then notify car manufacturers once the cars are repaired in response to the safety recall. consumers union suggests that going for it the car manufacturers submit such data to nhtsa. disinformation which manufacturers already have should include individual vehicle identification numbers of cars subject to a particular recall as well as when the rrecall repairs were performed. nhtsa would then be able to match a safety recalls with a consumer friendly searchable database. dominca urged states to consider linking safety recall compliance with the ability to retain --

obtain vehicle registration. -- we are urging the states to consider this. this could help people who purchased used cars to let them know whether recalls have been made. we recommend congress look at the reports of revolving door at nhtsa and whether this impacted safety. we are pleased to hear today the administrators comment that the administration -- that nhtsa will look into this particular issue. finally, we are urging congress to adequately fund nhtsa. in 2007 motor vehicle crashes accounted for 99% of transportation related injuries and fatalities. yet their budget amounts to just over 1% of the overall dot budget. the budget and staffing for auto safety and consumer protections functions should be commensurate with the realities of traffic safety. consumers union bank the committee for the opportunity to present its recommendations as you move forward. >> the chair thanks you.

five minutes for the purpose of an opening statement. you are recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman and ranking member with fielwith field for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the department as a whole. i must admit as you made your introduction, there was chagrin on a personal part as i look that the membership of this subcommittee in that i actually served with the fathers of three of the members. [laughter] there is a homecoming of sorts. it is good to be back with you. as you and your colleagues consider the road ahead for national highway traffic safety administration, it is important

to remember three key points. the administrator who we are delighted that david strickland is now the administrator of nhtsa, as he pointed out in the department of transportation highlighted today and i have a chart that is displayed that motor vehicle crash fatalities and injuries are at historic lows. that is very important. that is the mission of the organization. second cars have never been safer and they're getting safer every day because of innovative safety technologies, including advanced electronics. third, we need to be careful not to inhibit the innovation or the speedy identification in remedy of defects. on the first point there's a chart that indicates -- sometimes when you see a chart like that it is confusing but

to put it in perspective, this decline -- this figure reports of fatality per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. so there are 1.16 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled. that is down from in excess of 2. but added terms of human lives we all know that this is too many. that is a significant reduction from back in 1970's when it was as high as 51,000. that is a decrease of 17,000. it's a very important point that there is a significant and steady reduction. despite increased ownership and increased vehicle miles traveled. this is the goal that we share

and want to continue to work to support. as far as the safety of vehicles by every single measure, these vehicles are dramatically safer than years ago. in the last 15 years we have seen a revolutionary expansion of advanced vehicle safety technology including increased number of electronic components and features. it was mentioned you can take apart a car > and we did you used to be able to take apart a crater in the basement, but not today. a lot of the technologies you see today to meet fuel economy requirements ignition controls, to provide safety of because of these advanced electronics. also voluntary standards do not worked, according to ms.

claybrook, but many things were initiated like electronics stability control. that saves anywhere from 5000 lives up to 9000 lives annually. departlane departure warning, save many lives. air bags, five of them. safety belt reminder. forward collision warning adapted headlights, all these are things the industry introduced ahead of legislation. second, it is important to recognize electronic systems are often far more reliable over time than mechanical systems. i used represent the electronics industry. i will tell you that the advancements in solid state technology provides increased performance.

it enables vehicles 2 cents diagnose, and to have fail-safe modes not possible with traditional historic mechanical systems. -- it enables the vehicles to sense. that is helping us meet our goals to a sustainable mobility. third, we have to be careful not to inhibit the cycle of innovation. this industry innovates more rapidly and gets into the marketplace technologies for consumers. so we need to maintain a positive framework embraces technology-based solutions federal regulation. i don't think the public would be well served if auto makers were forced to wait for the government to catch up with the industry innovations. we have thought a lot about recalls, but the vast majority of recalls are voluntary. this chart talk about detecting and correcting defects sooner.

in fact, the number of recalls are up. some say that's a sign of problems. in fact, that is a good thing. the number of vehicles defected are going down. so lawmakers are using recall system based on data it receives from the consumer directly and from the agency to initiate these actions, to identify defects and the remedy, and get the vehicle back into the marketplace. just in closing, i want to make a couple of points about some suggestions for this committee. i appreciate -- i know how the committee works and how this chairman works. you build consensus on a bipartisan basis to address significant concerns. we would respectfully submit that congress really does need to ensure that nhtsa has the resources to do its job. we would support this committee in its efforts. we have long advocated

additional resources to fund the national automobile -- system which is underfunded. we support other legislative elements we hope will be included in the reauthorization such as state inducements, in other words are working to encourage states to adopt primary enforcement safety belt laws. i know that scherman oberstar is looking into this in his reauthorization. our industry spent hundreds of millions of dollars and campaigned to try to pass the primary seatbelt enforcement laws across the country. we've made real progress with the three states this year alone. we also believe there should be a first offense for -- with ignition interlock requirements for impaired driving, drunk driving. statistics are not reported 33,000 deaths. unfortunately, 30% or more of those are the result of less

than 1% -- one-half of 1% of drivers of those that are compared with drunk driving. we need those seat belt laws. the graduated license laws, based on best practices, the stand up act, which supports that. then there are other things that can really work to support high visibility enforcement efforts such as click it or tickets and under arrest provisions. again, there's an opportunity to support the driver alcohol interlock device research program called "roads safe act" to develop research to prevent drunk drivers from getting access to vehicles or starting vehicles. we appreciate very much your work. i understand how challenging it is. we look forward to working with you to help develop common-sense

solutions to some of these challenges. >> the chair thanks all the witnesses and the chair thanks mr. mccurdy. the chair recognizes himself for five minutes. mr. mccurdy, but there has been a lot of testimony at this hearing and in past hearings. some of it is centered on the black box as a technological solution, a recording device that would help gather data and also determine the cause of accidents. one of the interest -- what is the industry's response to this phenomenon of the black box? >> we believe the information from the data recorder is it is

important for nhtsa to do its job. they do have a rule that has standardized or recommended standards or the type of data that would be acquired. i think the industry is moving rapidly towards deployment of that system. over 60% of all vehicles today modern vehicles, have that capability. the only caution i would give -- and having come from the intelligence and defense world and we talk about black boxes or the world of aerospace, where some people think that in an aircraft there's a black box that they recover after an accident -- actually the data systems are embedded throughout vehicles. it is not just one solitary device. it is important that there are commercially available tools to access that. so i think the agency is going to be addressing this.

we look forward to working with them. i think this is something that can be addressed. >> ms. claybrook, you indicated that you think nhtsa's current budget is inadequate that the president's budget for this year or next year rather is inadequate. what do you think as a former administrator, in today's dollars -- how much should the budget to be and where do you see categories we should look at increasing more personnel and other resources for nhtsa? >> thank you, mr. chairman. the budget should be doubled. it is $132 million, a pittance by any measure in the federal

government. it should be doubled the year after that. this agency is starving to death. it cannot do the research or collect the data it should. it cannot -- does not have the expertise it should. or the enforcement personnel. all of us suffer from that because of deaths on the highway. i think mr. strickland is going to be a good leader for this agency. i look forward to his work. i think he needs the resources to do it. i have been talking to him and the secretary about this a little. i think his answer was very appropriate, that they would use wisely their resources that congress will decide to give the agency. he did not say they did not want them or could not use them, but he said they would use them wisely. i think that is as far as he is allowed to go on the -- under the president's rules and on pleased to see that he's done that. >> you have given us several --

>> one other thing, mr. chairman. issues have been raised today about the reduction in death and injury on my way, which is magnificent. but after the oil crisis of 1973 there was a reduction of 9000 deaths a year because the economy was down. if you look at the documents as compared by the agency itself for example, this is a list they put out today of their crash data. every time there's a downturn in the economy, there's less discretionary driving and a downturn in death and injury, but it comes right back up again. should anyone suggest this is a permanent fix for the agency, it is not. you are still going to need those resources, the safety standards. there are many others i did not mention today, which i will submit for the record of safety standards that the agency is woefully behind initialing. >> just one point

clarification. the administrators said it had decreased 15.5 straight quarters. that is more than the current recession. so i think this is a long-term trend. it is because of the regulatory efforts and because of the work of the industry cooperatively with that agency, and with the work of congress. >> the pactiv administrator, one who went to japan, -- the active administrator said safety technology between 1960 and 2000 saved 2500968 lives. -- 2,568 lives. these safety features can make a big difference. they have made a difference in the number of lives saved.

the number of deaths on a highway today would be far, far greater were it not for this agency doing its work. but there's much more that can be done. we will see more deaths and injuries when the economy improves. >> five minutes. this has been quite an interesting hearing. any time we think we talk about death on a highway -- and all of us have known people killed in a car accident or have had loved ones that have been disfigured. there is no way not to be emotional about individual debts on the highway. i am walking away from this hearing feeling a little bit better about things and understanding that toyota issue is out there. but when you have this kind of reduction in the deaths per 100 million miles , in the middle

1970 pose a where was and down to where it was last year, it does not make a difference what the economy is or is not, we are talking about 100 million vehicle miles. i think that is something we should really celebrate, to see that the fact of this fatality rate is coming down. when we talk about the budgets of nhtsa i think the total budget is somewhere in the neighborhood of $900 million, but a lot of that goes to state grants. you all may be more familiar with that than i am. ms. claybrook is right as far as vehicle safety. $132 million is what there is for vehicle safety. i referred earlier for example to this congressionally mandated study in 2005 about the causes of vehicle accidents.

it's said that 95% were doing to the driver, primarily driver mistakes. and that 2% were related to vehicle or equipment defects. 40% or 50% related to tyires. i am wondering if we should start focusing more money on educating drivers, better educational programs for drivers. every state sets their own laws for how old you have to be and what kind of program you have to go through to drive. should we, because of the fact that 95% of all accidents are caused primarily because of driver neglect or whatever, should we be focusing on core programs to provide better

educational opportunities for drivers, to make them better prepared? i would ask each one of you that question to see how you would respond. >> first of all thank you so much for pointing this out and i appreciate your question. first of all i would like to submit the problems we see with this causations study. it is quite complicated and i don't want to take the time today, but there are a lot of deficiencies. assuming that 95% of the crashes occurred because of driver error, -- >> is your speaker on? >> yes, i am sorry. 95% of the crashes occurred because of driver error, it says. you have to look at what causes the death and injury. the first nhtsa administrator put together a matrix that had re-crash, crash, and post-crash.

you are talking about drunk driving, falling asleep, the brakes don't work, whatever it may be in the re-crash field. >> there's only about a minute left. did you disagree with what i was saying? >> not necessarily. i will submit for the record the information. you want to protect the driver and the occupants. to do that, you make sure the car is safe, regardless of what causes the crash. on driver education, nhtsa has done a lot of work on that and have shown that it does not do much for the long-term driving the ability of most people. i like driver education. >> do you have any comments on that? >> in our testimony resubmitted for the record, we look at the question the committee is asking. in light of the because we've seen in recent weeks are there areas that we see for improvement. we have made a recommendation accordingly. we are pleased that the agency

and secretary lahood is focused on distracted driving something that has been a big problem. we do see value in that particular kind of service. >> mr. mccurdy? >> thank you, mr. whitfield. in fact, in addition to the driver behavior and performance, there is the driving environment the condition of the roads and like of safety features their. the weather all that is factored into%. -- 2%. the other instances can be attributed to the vehicle. i would tell you since we reference older vehicles i will provide a record for the record, a copy of our playbook. it is -- it has an interesting photographs of the 50

anniversary event at the national institute of highway safety insurance institute. they did a 40 mile an hour head- on crash of two vehicles. one was a 1939 chevrolet vehicle. we're not picking on chevrolet. 1959, most of us it who work around that was a lot of metal. with a 2009 chevrolet malibu, which is a smaller car in the crash. the results were dramatic. the cage the front seat passenger area of the 1959 vehicle, those passengers would have been killed. there's no doubt. severely injured, a tremendous impact, a crushing of that compartment. in the new model, the cage is intact. it also has front air bags, air bags side curtains. the technology in the new one also has other features that

improve the likelihood of survival in a head-on crash. regardless of the cause. the last point i would make, the comment made about the three- second stop. i drive a vehicle that has pushed button --push push-button. are we asking consumers today -- it's in the manual -- you cannot take three seconds to press the button? i know that we do panic and there are instances but there is a need for education. there is a needed. maybe one of the positive aspects of the investigation and the reporting is maybe consumers are having to pay attention to the vehicles they are driving. what are the shifters, where is

neutral? my son drives a camry. when this came up the recall, he asked what to do and i said you put it in neutral. you don't want to turn off the first. those buttons are there and the three-second delay is therefore reason. if you don't want to shut off the engine in an birtley because the engine could lose our land that would affect steering and other conditions. let's find out the right approach, let's work together. that is what nhtsa and the industry should be discussing. there's not one solution but i think there's a genuine concern about it and a genuine way to try to get some solutions. >> mr. chairman, may i respond to these comments about the push button? >> certainly. >> our recommendations have to do with when the consumer is in an emergency situation. since we have talked about

sudden unintended acceleration. i will note that, given what's happened it's my understanding that toyota is working on reconfiguring their push button ignitions so it can be turned off with multiple quick prez's in a short amount of time. that's what we're talking about -- quick presses. >> the chair recognizes the gentle lady from illinois for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i apologize for the witnesses for not being here for your testimony, although i've looked at it. i want to take this moment to say what a tremendous resource we have bin ms. claybrook who served as head of nhtsa. i hope that our subcommittee and nhtsa will take advantage of all of the years of experience she

has had not only as an administrator but as an advocate. i thanked mr mccurry and ms. dy andf ms. gadhia. in looking at the priorities that you laid out for legislative and administrative, there's a couple of things that are clearly legislative if you think penalties need to be enhanced i think that is legislative on our part. what are those things that you think the committee in particular has to deal with that cannot be done administratively to meet the goals that you have set out or that the problems you have identified?

>> i would say it certainly in the penalty area that is a legislative issue. and in the funding that is a legislative issue. if the president's budget is what it is -- and it is totally insufficient -- it is not this committee's responsibility, although you do authorize, of course. i think that in the area of transparency, if there have been decisions made by the agency that this committee can change. in the early-warning act while there was a lot of discussion about information being open, the way that it was written, in fact, was interpreted as not being opened. i think it would help for clarification on transparency with the early-warning system. right now it is not available to any of us. >> that would require a change or clarification on my part? >> it would be helpful to have a

clarification of that. in terms of consumers being able to bring a lawsuit when the decision of a case is closed in the enforcement area, we definitely need legislation there, because of the court of appeals decision. i think it would be very helpful to have some legislative support for improving the black box. this is something that could be done administratively by the agency. it would be really helpful because if the black box is mandatory, if it has gathered a lot of really good data, if it can be downloaded easily, all that data could come into nhtsa data systems and it would vastly enhance the capacity of the agency to analyze problems, out what is going on, on the highway, because this would be rich information from crashes that occur right then on my way.

disinformation is totally lacking in the agency right now. gathering them through the national accident sampling system, which is after the fact accident investigations, there were intended to be 20,000 of them a year, but it's now 4000 because of the cost. this would never get to the 20,000. why not take advantage of the data that's going to be collected anyway in the black boxes under what is going to beat what i think it's a mandate for the black boxes and use that data for the operations of the agency, as well as particular crashes. >> you seem to be nodding at the that. would you like? to like >> -- would you like to comment on that? >> we think the data needs to be collected. the data is there but we need to make sure the agency has the tools and resources to gather it.

my only caveat on that -- and i think this is something we need to work on -- i don't believe the wholesale release of robert and not verify data would help to quickly identify defects. if anything, it could lead to more litigation. i don't think that's the answer. >> all i would >- >> i have a microphone. i don't think it would do that. i would hope, before the gentle lady leads we could talk about one of the principal issues that you are the key sponsor of, which we supported. the role we played in the -- act. this is one of our priorities. it shows where we can work together to address significant problems. some of the most tragic things

we know. we've worked with senator sununu and senator clinton at a time as well as your staff and the committee to make that happen. >> exactly. >> the industry fully supported that. i want to make sure that is on the record. >> i appreciate that. is there any way, mr. chairman, that ms. claybrook could respond to that? >> i don't think this data should be public as to individual crashes. i would say it would be for statistical purposes. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. claybrook, let me follow-up on what was talked about. isn't the box in the person's car, that box would belong to that person? person >>?

-- it would belong to that person right? >> yes. >> should there be an opt out for that person? but there should not be an opt out. >> it collects speed or location. will it go beyond that as far as the weight in the vehicle or driving habits? it sounds like you want to expand the black box. many people are concerned about how the federal government will handle this data. if i don't want -- if i cannot opt out of the box under your persuasion, then it goes to the federal government, how -- is to be public? on public internet's will private citizens be able to go see that about their neighbors driving? there are some privacy implications i'm concerned about.

>> i appreciate your question. i did not mean to suggest that everyone is driving -- every crash that occurs should be publicly exposed on the internet with the name of the person and their car and all the rest. the black box is generally collects data 25 seconds before a crash. >> so it does not come on during the whole time? >> no. it is a limited time frame. it records whether your foot was on the accelerator or the brakes, a lot of aspects of the engine the speed of the vehicle, and so on. that data, when i'm talking about having to go to the federal government, it would only be statistical data. all privacy information would be erased. if the level government would not even have it. it would just be that a crash occurred and what the circumstances were, so you could then accumulates data and say these are the kinds of crashes occurring and these are the kinds of remedies we need to the about applying because of that.

so i do think it needs to be mandatory. it should be in every vehicle. gm ford, and chrysler readily revealed the content of their black boxes in litigation, because they think it's advantageous. >> i guess this committee would have to be concerned about privacy. i have another question. mr. mccurdy, nice to see you. eddie town's doctor bill in 2009 which was directed department of transportation to issue regulations which would mitigate the safety hazard caused by near silent hybrid and electric cars. i was in a parking lot, and going into the gross restore and i was just walking and was not thinking on my blackberry, and hybrid vehicle came up and i did not hear it and practically hit me. my question is, i think both general motors and nhtsa have proposed and come up with

methods to address this. i guess, concerning the ever- increasing desire to have silent cars and hybrids, you cannot hear them. winston churchill almost got killed when he came to united states and got on the wrong side of the road. if cars was silent, he might not alive. if the concern would be ever- increasing danger and inconsistency of the industry response so far. do you think nhtsa needs to take further action to have industrywide solutions something like the bill that i introduced with congressman towns, the pedestrian safety enhancement act of 2009, with 210 co-sponsors. hr-734. >> i know the bill well. good to see you. we refer to this as the quiet car legislation. i think we ought to recognize

john, from the national federation of the blind. we at the alliance have been working closely with nfb. our member companies have been contesting -- conducting acoustic testing. it's ironic that we have been pushed for years by some to say we have to reduce noise. we have been pushed by other is saying we have to eliminate the internal combustion. >> no one's ever happy. >> we are moving rapidly to hybrid and electric technology. they are quiet, if not silent. i cannot resist the point when you say that you were walking with your blackberry, a little bit of distracted walking. >> that was my fault. >> we are mixing issues. >> i am a pedestrian and i have the right of way. >> i spoke to the nfb convention

earlier in the year when they were in detroit quite an event. i think they will tell you that we've reached out to them. we have worked closely with them. what i'm trying to do is understand the challenges, to really understand -- >> can you give us a timeline? >> we've been doing the research. of the question of implementation, but i think we are not far from finding it. >> a year? or year >> it depends on the front end and back again. i think we are making real progress. we want nhtsa to engage with us as well. i think there's an opportunity for real stakeholder conversation. it is not confrontational at all. i think the question is of -- [buzzer sounding]

it is a question of understanding the problem and bringing to bear the right science and engineering. i think there will be a solution. >> should nhtsa have an industry-wide solution? >> it should be. i think it's going to be global. japan and others will be actively engaged. >> recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there's a great episode on a tv show where one of the characters in cages with a low-speed chase with a toyota prius and seeks up on another character which demonstrates the importance of this legislation. [laughter] voluntary can be a relative thing. you talked earlier about some of the voluntary changes the industry made to respond to safety concerns, but a lot of the changes that were made also think the industry initially

resisted. one of the great things about the country we live in, we have a system that allows people from all different walks of life to work together both in a public setting like through nhtsa and through our private enforcement methods to try to hold people accountable and work together to improve the technology in automobiles. you mentioned that you had concerns about the use of electronic data recorder information and you suggested it could lead to more litigation. i would challenge that statement, because i believe if you had a system with standards for accessing and downloading that information and a clear understanding of what it represents you can reduce litigation. right now much of the expensive lot of the crash worthiness cases is people trying to understand how an accident occurred how the occupant compartment was compromised and potentially contributed to the

fatality or severity of the crash. so one of the things i would be interested in hearing from you is we have been talking about the standards for electronic data records. -- recorders. there are already been proposals by the institute for electrical engineers and proposed regulations that nhtsa is considering. it has been my impression that some members of your alliance have been objecting to the enactment of those regulations. are you able to make a statement at today's hearing on behalf of the alliance that it supports the enactment of standardized regulations by nhtsa that governs the use of electronic data recorder information? >> i believe we are moving in that direction. the industry is well over 60% the most recent number of 2005 models that have edr's. we may have been confused on all the information. i think some of the early-

warning information is where we had some concerns. the pipe of information in the edr is probably less of a concern. -- the type of information. i think there can be movement on this. i think the stakeholders and working with nhtsa have an opportunity. my hesitation was because of my experience in the electronics field was that some people have a suspendedsimplest idea of what this is. i think we are moving in that direction. >> i want to talk to you about that ms. gadhia. mr. stearns began his question by asking about the ownership of the data and assumed that it belongs to the vehicle owner.

durham anin the early years the manufacturers took the position it was for proprietary information that belongs to them, not the person who pay for the automobile. how to become a with a system that makes easily available and downloadable information that achieves privacy concerns but provides us with better data that helps to solve the underlying problems that lead to a occupant injury? >> as we noted in our written testimony, the nhtsa regulations require e -- vehicles that have edr's to collect data for 2003 models and so on. we would like to see more of that. there are privacy concerns about ownership of the data.

in the past, consumers have submitted comments to nhtsa. there was information proposed in 2006 that i would be happy to share with your office. >> please do so i would appreciate that. differential diagnosis is when a physician is presented with a sick patient. they come up with a hierarchy of the possible causes of their illness, beginning with the most likely and descending to the least likely. then the physician goes through a process of testing and evaluating to try to rule out what could be causing the illness, to be able to reach a final diagnosis and plan of treatment. one of the concerns i have with the response we have seen to some of the problems with the toyota recall is that the differential diagnosis that toyota engaged in appeared to many of us to a mechanical failure. now they have participated in massive recalls to address

sticky accelerator pedals and problems with formats. yet we still see reports of sudden unanticipated acceleration in vehicles where the retrofits have been made. can you comment, based on your experience as a former nhtsa administrator and public service at decatur, on what needs to be done to get to the underlying cause? >> well, a toyota is the only company -- the only entity that can do that. they designed the vehicle created the software, they have software engineers. the national highway traffic safety administration should not designed to remedy. it never has. if not in any case ever. it does not have the capacity to do the kind of evaluation is necessary to figure out what the underlying cause is. a lot of people have said figuring out a software glitch is almost impossible in some cases, particularly if no marker

is left that it even occurred, a marker left in the computer that a glitch occurred. for a lot of people have talked about a break over ride at the only possible solution, because we don't know -- maybe toyota does -- but we do not know what the problem is. i think it is interesting that toyota has had a floor mats recall of 5 million cars, yet the remedy they are putting in most of those cars is not to remove or fix the pedal or flow met but to put in a break override. why are they doing that if the problem is the accelerator pedal or the floor mat? i think it's because there's a software problem. if the vehicles have been fixed and they still run away, then there is obviously another problem. i think there are also vehicles that are not covered by the recall that may have these

problems. they may not be identical. they may use a different software. there's no question in my mind that this is a product issue. i think the company took the position early on that it wasn't, but that hurts their sales with consumers. if consumers don't like software glitches they don't understand. now if they change their minds they will be subject to 18 years and going to jail. they are in a difficult position. i was at a senate hearing the other day and there were 21 people representing toyota sitting in front of me. i said to them, you have a lot of lobbyists. they said, no, these are communications people. i think they're looking at it as a communications fix as opposed to a real sixfix. >> i thank all of you for your testimony.

i yield back to the chairman. >> the chair thanks all the witnesses for your patience and your time that you have contributed to us. your testimony has been invaluable. as we proceed down this path for reauthorize the nhtsa. the chair thanks you and i want you to know the american people feel you have done a great service to the public today. thank you very much. the subcommittee stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the health-care debate moves to the house budget committee today. as committee members mark up health care legislation.

we will have live coverage beginning at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. on c-span radio as well and on our c-span.org. . the budget meeting as part of an effort to put the matter to a vote by march 18. today they say democrats want to have the bill approved under expedited regulation approvals. venables committee will meet on wednesday to work out the structure for the debate. house speaker nancy pelosi hopes to start debate on thursday with both possible later in the week. stay tuned to c-span for the latest on the health-care debate and visit our health care hub. you can read the legislation but the president and members of congress are saying, and joined in the conversation yourself, on twitter. you can also find cost estimates for the bill, and hundreds of hours of video from the house and senate debates, committee hearings markups and other events.