have made in tokyo, and before, ,hat is important to give a new credible legitimate government the chance at success. a chance at of developing the economy, the society, their own natural resources to the point they can be even more independent in the future. view.t's my own i think we are moving towards a more normal relations, where it's got to be based on respect for the sovereignty of afghanistan, for and free choices of the government and so forth. yes, we always try to influence country's choices, but i don't think we should be meddling politics.han

interferingf not with the dynamics of the election. i think we could have done more to create a less fearful making clear that keep some post 2014 there as long as the election results are credible legitimate. >> i would hope that after we have an election, we have a put togetheru will his government, have a program the after began people, then i would hope he would come to the united states, meet with the administration, meet with the united states congress, thank the american people for all they have done to isp the country get where it now. offer his plan for where the

country is going, and what he would like america to do to plan.t that and start rebuilding a bipartisan consensus that this beenn project has important for america and it's support. continued if a new leader does that, i think that bipartisan support can be rebuilt over time. >> if i may add to this, that from the afghan perspective, it clear now after the pronouncements made by parliament in afghanistan, civil society, candidates, that they do value the they relationship with the u.s. and international community. just because of aid that is afghanistan, but because of everything that has

happened over the last 13 years, shared so much together, and blood and treasure and so on and so forth. there is one expectation of the international community and the that hasn't been met fully, and i think has been a thorn on of mr. karzai and the relationship with the u.s., and and thehow the u.s. international community is going to deal with the real issue of and radicalism in the region and especially what is and what exists beyond our borders, the safe havens and the role that pakistan can play. so i think that is going to new afghanth a administration. they will continue to expect the u.s. and international community more positive and more robust and more constructive to bring more stability to the region. will require probably a strategy.

>> my question is for both the speakers. you just mentioned the security statest that the united -- thinkch importance do you the the manner in which these ahead has vis-a-vis the continuation of u.s.-afghan post 2014?p support shoulde should -- support?ontinuation of >> i think that we are a democracy, too, and our thatratic process means any administration has to go to the congress to get funding for

its initiatives. and the bottom line is that our very much about the credibility of the governments that we provide assistance and support to. so i think even if you could that oural argument security interests dictate theort no matter what, elections that if the are fraught and seen as it legitimate or disaster, that undermine political support here for the assistance that afghanistan so needs. >> it's not that we're imposing criteria. what michelle is saying, it is a here.cal reality but i don't think one should be too concerned about it, because political reality here

requires exactly the kind of afghan government that the want themselves to come out of the election. so there's a complete alignment of interests between what we told like to see in order insure politically we can continue to support and what the afghan people want to see in that it can lay the foundations for the future. so we can have this it'srsation, but in a way not really material, because we're both pulling in the same direction. >> a question for michelle. said you think that who ever will -- election you see the process of forming a government could take quite a long time. military planning point of view, when does that really proper happen to have plans in place for next year? >> well, from a military view, militaryof

planners will wish that the was already signed months ago, that's when they would have orderly see it for an process. i point is that as much as understand that desire to for, you know, clear timelines and such, we shouldn't allow that to interests.trategic and i think the truth is that i believe if you have a legitimate credible government in place, could possibly, you know, hopefully you'd get a b.s.a. very quickly, but if you were up against the deadline for withdrawal under the current have an existing status of forces agreement that to extend our presence with the permission of government or the request of the afghan government youe we're finishing up, know, the b.s.a. process.

it will be, so i think it would messy, it would be difficult, it would be challenging from a logistics point of view for the u.s. military. but it could be managed, i believe. it's harder, because many of our nato partners who do alongside us and stand alongside the afghan likee, in the case of some germany they have to go back to parliament for a separate, a new legislation that gives them a new mandate, and so forth, so that will take some time. risk is thate there will be, you know, there thed be a dip in international presence for a period while those steps were being taken. and before nato countries could necessarily conclude their own agreements, pass their own come back. and then and we don't want to see that. i think aiming for the b.s.a.

to be concluded as soon as new government i think is still the right objective. but we shouldn't allow these timelines to undermine what is in our strategic interest. >> amen. >> i have a question about said aboutall have what the afghan people want or, there was more enthusiasm than trepidation. data, on what basis you all say what, how the afghan people are actually process?t this i'm just curious, is this polling, what is it? >> yes. there have been surveys conducted. i mean, i can point you to surveys that have been conducted over the last several years, and and every one of them shows afghans beingf more hopeful, having actually

more trust in their government do, havingnk they definitely a lot of trust in forces who have done an incredible job with the the international community, in stabbing up. today 350,000 afghan police and army including 11,000 women forces are going to be securing the polling stations on saturday. to a few thousand international forces helping them. and you see also a strong see this now on the ground every day through the media, by looking at each gathering of each candidate brings out tens of thousands of people in the most country, in of the areas where people thought that security is pretty bad. single day. that is going to end tomorrow.

i think it's an indication that people want to participate, they want to send a leaders both to their and their future leaders and to the supporters. as an afghan, again, i'm comparing this over what i have seen in my country over the few years, before that during the soviet, the taliban time, you cannot deny the fact there is enthusiasm. and that there is a willingness and an eagerness to continue this path and want to go forward and not backwards. >> i guess for me it would be the limited conversations i've had when i've gone to mostly there'st a community now of 30, 40 people who spend and continue to spend a huge amount of time in that country. been saying for a number of years is that in

afghan'sversation with people have complained about the exclusiveness of the government sense of impunity of the government and that they want to thattheir government back, there needs to be a political reconciliation not just with taliban, there needs to be a political reconciliation with of afghan society who have felt excluded. and that, everyone i know who has spent a lot of time in afghanistan for the last two saying that's really the challenge here. been, and whyas so many people have worked over the last two years for these that this election can be the vehicle for if you will, that national reconciliation that tohans talk about wanting have. >> we'll wrap it up right there,

thank you all for coming. the panelists for their good words. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> during this month, c-span is pleased to present our winning entries in this year's student documentary competition. student cam is c-span's annual competition that encourages mid students tochool think critically about issues. students were asked to create ther documentary based on question, what's the most important issue the u.s. ingress should consider 2014? andlie daly, alix swann, spring,er from silver maryland are our second prize winners, they want congress to consider the issue of global warming. >> the overwhelming judgment of science tells us that climate real, that human activities are fueling that

take actionwe must to avoid the most devastating climate change. climatel warming, change, this problem goes by many names. but one thing is certain. hurting our planet. >> the changes that are polar recent on seem to be quite far away, and wonder whether those really have an effect on us here in the united states, and do.ally they the first thing is that the state of alaska is actually part the arctic above circle, so there are many citizens of the united states in the arcticive recent on. but more than that, the changes polarre happening in the regions are actually transferred world.rest of the >> as these changes become more

obvious, awareness increases. taken, theaction is problem will only worsen. unfortunately, not everyone problem toere is a fix. >> the percentage of democrats convince of global climate change went from 83% in march up amid the high heat and drought of the summer of 2012. and even among republicans, the whoer of believers acknowledge that climate change 45% to 53%.t from hallmark inose congress is denial of climate change. >> and there's many people in congress, strictly republicans who think that we don't have the now with the economy the way it is to kind of close down cole fired power still working, that heat our schools or cool our schools depending on the year, they keep the lights on, and they think that

that's more important because need rightt people now. >> the global warming is an toue that desperately needs be addressed. rising sea levels will affect the united states as well as they other country in world. over the last 100 years the sea by about risen 20-centimeters. to actuallyt it accelerate over the next 100 years. level rise may continue to 60 centimeters over the next 100 years. that would primarily impact the coastalons, so areas around the united states could be impacted by sea level rise. out around the chesapeake bay you'll find that communities are flooding or finding that the salt water is intruding on their or two a year. so one affects the other one is to be extreme weather, more drenching rain, that's

continentson all the of the world. if you warm the world you evaporate more moisture, you put water vapor into the atmosphere and that's the energy that drives storms, so when you get theseccurring you flooding rains. and they can cause a lot of problems. >> there was -- there's been an acceleration in sea level rise over the last few decades. and there are a number of reasons why this is happening. the primary reason is that the getting warmer, and as we warm up the atmosphere we also warm up the ocean. the ocean, itarm actually expands. >> when you talk about climate we start as if the is changing.e but when you talk about impacts, occurs and starts at a local level. youow is it going to affect or your community or your state or your region. region around the country is different.

so the 19 it 0's we did the first assessment of sort of scientific report of impacts around the united states. we divided the united states into 20 different regions and we workshops in those regions and we had them each think about what the most important issues were. it turned out the one that was common among all of them was water. water going to happen to resources. but it was very different that we were talking about what was going to happen to water in the pa northwest, where it's very in texas where it very dry. dry area they're concerned about having enough water, and in a concernede they're about are they concerned about will it come as rain instead of downpours.se other people are saying no, we need to worry about this because problem,ously a global and the flip side of that is if we do something here in silver or even in thed united states, that's one thing.

but global warming by its nature includes, so that china, india and other major countries that have increasing levels of pollution and development. so even if we do something here enough to help globally. >> the world has suffered many effects of climate change, sea level rise. this animated sequence show what is would happen if all the ice in antarctica and green lab melted, causing the sea levels rise by a few hundred feet. one of the things that's happening right now is an rise,se in sea level where the melting of the ice is contributing to sea level going up and of course that will have an impact all the coastlines of the united states. >> the long-term effects of beelt change could disastrous. congress needs to address this issue immediately. if we delay any longer there not be enough left of the world to save. >> to watch all of the winning about and to learn more our competition, go to

c-span.org and click on student cam. and tell us what you think about the issues these stands want congress to consider. your comment or student tweetfacebook page, or us. >> on the next "washington guests include tim griffin of arkansas, a member of the ways and means committee, comment on the retirement of committee chairman dave camp proposal.o.p. budget we'll focus on ukraine with senator ben cardin, he's a of the foreign rests committee. and abigail jones, a senior "newsweek" will join us to discuss her article on alzheimer's disease, and that 16 million americans will have the disease 2050. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you can join the conversation on twitter.and

>> the house budget committee will mark up chairman paul ryan's budget plan today. in a session that's expected to evening. into the our live coverage on c-span 3 10:30:00 a.m. eastern. >> i think probably the most telling statistic out there has procurement of metals, specifically purple hearts. the united states made so many purple heart medals anticipating casualties in the invasion of japan that we are still giving purplet same stock of hearts today. any american who is wounded in afghanistan receives a purple heart that was forged for tooldier who was going invade japan. >> american and japanese strategies at the end of world war two. saturday night at 8:00 eastern, part of american history tv this weekend on c-span 3.

>> now a discussion of the effect of edward snowden's revelations of n.s.a. surveillance perhaps. andge polk awards program the "new york times" host this 45 minute event. >> lowell, please take your seats. and welcome back. promise, isent, i going to be interesting. the a skypeed interview on snowden revelations, and it four skypes.ally that's a miracle of modern and it will either work or not work. it's very tricky. go down,dy may somebody may have a time delay, which is happening with one of three guests.

to the it's analogous quadruple somersault ringling brothers done by miguel vasquez in 1982. with us, we'll have problems from time to time, team ofave an excellent techies, i know, because i can't they say. anything and it is now my pleasure to interview ir, roger cohen, the op ed columnist for the "new york times." you. [applause] morning, ladies and gentlemen. so we're going to rely on much technology to try and bring this about. mayignore who ever may or not be listening. say that in fair to

the media landscape there is before and after edward snowden, revelations about global backeddata vacuuming, with concrete evidence, the feeling, i think, that many of had since 9/11 that something had gotten seriously in the appropriate balance between national press freedom, the state, the surveillance state to liberties.ivil and as a result of this, e wrard snowden is a rock star to some. to others of course he is a tray for. here today -- a traitor. we have they skype three journalists who were entrusted by snowden, chosen by be the recipients of archives. n.s.a. here with us are an award

winning documentary filmmaker and journalist, finishing a trilogy of movies on the post 9/11 america and this last movie, focuses on snowden. greenwaldwith glenn she traveled to hong kong last snowden.terview bud gellman is a senior fellow the century foundation, author and pulitzer prize winning reporter over many years on national security issues. is angreenwald investigative journalist, author, and columnist now at first look media which is the journalistic venture, which as you know is backed by the e founder. formerso a constitutional and civil rights

lawyer. hi, everyone. obvious fact about the three of you right now is that here.e not and i remember glenn when i met rio, you saying that there was a nontrivial chance to the you traveled united states you would be arrested. youould i begin by asking if you still feel that way and do?you >> i feel that way even more now since you were here, which i don't recall exactly when it was, but it was a couple months ago, there have been other episodes where international security officials have made it view what we're doing as being not just improper or dangerous but actually criminal. james clapboard the senior national security official in the u.s. government has been running around calling the reporters who work on this story accomplices, perpetrating the

.erm the house of the intelligence committee said that he thought that what i was doing in particular was criminality and thiefery. pounded this theory that those of us free ransing around the world have been selling documents, which is what a lot of people have been doing for deck a. so i think there's been an create these tieries that could criminalize the journalism that we're doing. said to you back then and i believe more so now, i think it would be wrong to allow kind of intimidation to prevent us from doing what we includingight to do, we're trying to -- still think it's a nontrivial risk. i'm sure there are factions that don't want that on the legacy. so my belief is still that they right thing. >> so are you going to come back? >> yes, definitely. i mean it's inevitable that i

will, we're still figuring out that will be. honored, thewere three of us, there was a willony on april 11 that be an interesting opportunity to go back to. there's other opportunities like still figuring out. but certainly at some point soon i intend to have the proposition that the united states guarantees press freedom through the constitution. muchura, you've been harassed at airports and elsewhere over several years, sure you share some of the same concerns and maybe you feel tell us also how you about coming back. add in question. edward snowden appeared recently skype at south by southwest, americanck drop of the

constitution. is mr. snowden an american your view? having me andor for having this event, it's great to be here with my colleagues. let me take this in stages, so in terms of coming back, i mean documented that i've, across from the border i've been sought for several years, for things like having my notebooks copied and confiscated. not worried that i'd be arrested, i was worried that they would subpoena me or electronics, so i don't think it's trivial, and it's real. will come back for sure and right now i made the choice stay out of the country for source protection reasons. as journalists, the real

urgency of what we need to do is talk about the resources it takes to bring forward.on in that context, we put our to revealhe line illegal government spying thatps or spying programs were being done in secret, and were collecting, that could have entire countries' information. i think he put his life on the line and i think we all owe him.t of gratitude to >> bud, are there legitimate secrets?t >> sure there are. step back for a second and talk about the legal significant it is director used the word accomplices, that the inspector general of the united states referenceord agent in to us reporters.

have those are terms that criminal law implications. but we've had the legal theework, and the in espionage act of 97 years ago with which a government could journalists. and it's been a political culture that's created the barriers to that. the question is whether, what debate inside the u.s. government is going to begin to shift that. secrets, sure, i think there are legitimate national security secrets. i think the government is protecting security externalople against threats. thathe question is whether concept is -- the question is whether the boundaries will be drawn by the people to some extent at the principle, that the government represents, or

whether the government gets to do all on its own in secret. bydo you systematically run the government response on these stories you've done on the snowden revelations or other stories about the n.s.a.? do you feel that is still an essential part of what we do as journalists? >> i talked to the subject of my stories about every story and career, andin my certainly a national security story, which i spend most of my i've donerting on, the same. so there are times when i'm confident, i understand what the say and what my independent reporters say, and i tell them what the story is sometimes you learn things, often i do. every now and again i discover i knewmething i thought might not be right, i have to go back to the drawing board. and sure, it's an opportunity for them to say we would ask you or that, forh this the following reasons.

all, my sense is that we need to require them to authenticity and the truthfulness of the fact we have that conversation. were -- and second of all i'd like to know the reason. importantly the executive editor of the washington post toes have to be actually that there would be damage, that is theingful that outweighs public end of the story. way, you feel the same glenn? >> i think in all of the n.s.a. done, ig that i've haven't, but people with whom i have worked, editors, have gone to the n.s.a. the same way as would go toey anybody else and say this is what we intend to report about you, what is your comment, i think it would be ridiculous not

to do that. would youournalist want less information rather than more. i have though been critical in of the process where by journalists spent lots of time of collaborating with the government and almost negotiating what it is that can published.e he often spent months with senior officials talking about the stories he wants to publish. to me seems like we're crossing a line between an one thatal press and becomes collaborative where you government on your editorial bore. i don't think that the "washington post" and other done any of that, but i think there have been cases in past, and i do think that rely --rs the most infamous case being the ontoyork times" holding the bush n.s.a. wash

eavesdropping story for 15 publishingfinally because it was about to be published in a book. in general i think that process is important legally, that youill tell you give the government an tub to have their input. but i think it's really become a that it not means by which the government can overly influence the reporting. the stories ie of worked on, 99.5% of the time said we government don't think you should publish that, those views have been disregarded and we published it any way because they didn't have any rationale. >> glenn, there's a strong feeling among some people that has threatened the security of the united states, that he took an oath and on it.neged and there have been stories revealingrevelations n.s.a. intercepts of transmissions between taliban fighters or intercepts of e-mail

recording -- regarding intelligence assessment on iran. that's not domestic surveillance, it's not spying on allies. it's what intelligence services world do. the orhow is that illegal immoral, and how is it not damaging to the united states of america? >> well two things about that. first of all the oath that oathen took is actually an that a member of the intelligence community through and he --tution tohink it's really important understand the process that he a book.do this as to get it so distorted. has not published a single document in the last months. >> but you have. >> i have. bart has, laura has.

dozens of others reporters have. difference?e >> because he did not think that he should be in a position to documents ought to be published and which ones ought to be suppressed. wellme to well established regarded newspapers and asked the journalists in those institutions within he was working to make those judgments about what is in the public publish and what is not. specifically a lot of what is u.s. for back ground, for contact, for understanding, but i don't think all of this i justbe published, if wanted all this published i could justed you, i upload it through the internet myself. like,ries about things think of a story that has been published that shouldn't be, i why wase question about this publish ought to be posed to the journalist who decided to publish it and not necessarily to snowden. but i will say that things that countries do to one another are incredibly news worthy.

the "new york times" reported that the israelis and the in cyber were engaged wear fair against the iranians sophisticated viruses. that -- >> glenn, do you in your head draw a line somewhere between endangering?nd >> sure, and the reason why nine or 10 months into the story we published many hundreds of top secret documents but not all the ones in our possession is we're constantly engaged as our source demand that we do that analytical process. harming innocent people. and i think we've done a very that, and the proof is that there is zero evidence, zero, not a little bit, but zero single story with snowden

material has harmed any individual or endangered security. all we get are the very familiar vague scripted rituals that government officials always use, but nothing specific or concrete harm being done. >> laura, please feel free to jump in on any of that that to.d like but i'd also like to ask but the question you raised and i know heart, ofdear to your how our sources to be protected, the obama administration which was earlier described as the freehostile to the free ever, has embarked on a very aggressive antileak campaign targeting leakers, and the technology is there to trace them. going forward, what's to be done about that? >> sure. that's why i thought we were gathered here today, and i would about those issues. i think first of all our job as

journalists are to protect that we have to do that. experiencew from the we can joo in james rise' case and james rose thean the using technology to find out who terrorists are talking to. obligation to use means to protect our sources. think thaty that, i mainstream news organizations also need to learn about how to use these tools if they actually want to get sources to come to them. that's beenhings most shocking to me is the lack amonghnological awareness news organizations in terms of liken krip things shun, which -- like encryption, which are not to use if youed want to protect your communication, and there are every day when we log into our bank account, we're and forcryption,

journalists to have tools so they can speak privately to sources. >> but laura, the most familiar accusation for any foreign certainly in a sense tough situation like a war is that you're not a journalist, you're a spy. encryptiontart using or even elaborate encryption, somebody that just going to the perception of those who might be detaining you that in fact you're an agent, journalist? everyl, we use encryption day when you connect to the internet. think a result of this is that encryption will be easier to use. think that's going to become you big which us the, because expect privacy. e-mail is not meant for the

government, it's to their i think there will repercussions. now that we learn what the government decembering with our information. willdon't think that endanger or flag people. encryption.eed more in?art, you wanted to jump >> yes, i do. cartoon issue that the n.s.a. wants to know everything about everybody, that's not accurate. able to knowe anything about anybody. encryption asrds a threat, specifically uses the talks aboutwhen it encryption products, antivirus products, anonymity products. it acknowledges no realm, no human communications which is prepared to be denied to.ss it wants all of your secrets, it

wants anybody that it wants. problem is that does include journalists in a number of in the n.s.a., general..s. in which bycause leaks, definition are anything that the government is doing that it does conferencepress about, the counterintelligence threat, having intelligence is one of the principal missions of the u.s. intelligence committee. regardingtart journalists as a counter intelligence threat and you do the criminal most extreme kinds of surveillance tools become available to you, and you start using that sort of also iogy, and completely agree with laura of learningcessity and that includes encryption and anonymity which

makes it hard to tell who is whom, there are some problems that can't be solved that way. and the one that comes to mine contact problem, which is to say almost all the sources i've developed over the years i've met, say,e group ofi ran into a military folks looking for weapons of mass destruction. at a promotion ceremony in washington. leads to ahat conversation or a coffee or a phone calm. five, 10e first conversations it's all normal, ad gradually you develop relationship of trust and interest, and you start straying closer to the line at which they are not supposed to be talking because their bosses don't want to talk about that subject in public. longen you've got a digital -- person.ct to that i would say edward snowden is

one of a very small has beenful in my entire career with mery first contact entirely nonenas crypted. progress here. there's a terrific program, a terrific technology that is beg developed at the freedom of foundation called secure easier toh makes it make a first contact with a reporter through anonymous and but weted tech niece, have a long way to go on that. >> sounds like maybe we should differentg some things at journalism schools days. encryption? basic technology of privacy is encryption and anonymity.

government's the side that we won't need to subpoena journalists any more theyse we know exactly who are talking to any way. do you think that describes the affairs, glenn? >> yes, definitely. think that there's been a lot of attention paid to the threat, to the fourth amendment and by systems in which there is surveillance, by which i mean what bart said, not that every person's every wore is being monitored, but is monitored. to being well to --rom or to, it's the campaign ability to surveil. there's a lot after tension to -- how do we as human being as dament our behavior in a world in which you can't be certain what we're saying and doing is actually being monitored and

for are the implications our freedom. but there's very little attention paid to the the firstns for amendment, in particular the freedom of the press, which is freeo you engage in journalism, how do you have a free press if the government is know every person who is communicating with you journalism becan done that way or how can attorneys investigate important on behalf of their clients. or how can informants talk to organizations and to do so with the security that they're not willing to be exposed of having implications range of -- i think that is critical. encryption is vital, but it

shield metaally data. it shields content. you can shield, some parts of melta data, but it's a real threat to press freedom. when people like jane mayer warn investigative journalism is coming to a stab still in the united states because of what the u.s. government has been don't mean the journalists in prison, they mean that that's become unnecessary that because the climate of fear that is created by source prosecution, by journalists and by almostlance makes it impossible for people to another.te with one president putin has just and then an ex-ed --

invaded and annexed crime yea. even talk misplaced in war.ew of a new cold thatorried should we be mr. snowden is vulnerable to the services inlligence this tense situation between the two countries. >> at the time he arrived in russia the united states government canceled his passport, making him for travel stateless person. a press conference at one point that's been forgotten,

i think, in which he made fun of u.s. intelligence services and kind of trade is it. is under you know international asylum in russia to -- as far as the security threat, he deliberately did not break, not bring any of the documents with him to russia, to the purpose of making bee that he could not compelled to disclose them, he didn't break any means of obtaining those documents and i don't think i should go any that.r into so his intentions, which was

quite effective, was to make sure that he could not be forced to disclose it. he told, said in a letter torture i can't give ie russians, he meant literally can't produce it. >> thank you. you that one statement that referenced has been so widely distort bid so many people for idea that --the >> how can you distort a statement like that? it says.hat >> i'm about to plain to you how, as the way you just did actually. just read it. >> i know, but i'm as i'm sure au know, you can take sentence out of context and distort its meaning. wasn't standing up and placing russia in general as a of human rights, any more than when somebody is the unitedlum by

states and. it doesn't mean that they are praising guantanamo and the invasion of iraq and all the other things the government has done. he was simply saying in this particular case thank you for asylum from persecution i would face at home and for defending my particular human rights. but i always think the question -- feelsyou think he uncomfortable in russia right now? >> i'm going to let him speak himself on those questions. but i think for us as journalists, it's convenient, i mean, bart is right about the recounting of events and how in russia because the u.s. blocked him from leaving, not only did they take his passport they prevented cuba and other countries from giving him safe transport. him by sayinge he's in russia. to me the bigger question is why did somebody who comes forward with information that exposes programs that our own court said is illegal and unconstitutional,

flee in order to escape being put into prison, the prison, that to me is a much more substantive question than trying to figure out the details of whether snowden should be standing up holding a press conference on something he knows nothing such as crimea. i think the pressing question is why does he feel the knee to flee after watching the parade of whistle blowers that have been put in prison for a long time for blowing the is whistle conduct.er government >> people can judge for themselves what they think of theden, his motives, quality, it's a legitimate question. baffled whens people, i'm not saying, when tople pretty much only want talk about no den, whether he's right and wrong and his bigonality, rather than the issue that we're here today to

talk about, which is the conduct of the u.s. government. you worry sometimes that in your determination to be adversarial to the u.s. government you're insufficiently adversarial to some other governments around the world? >> no, i don't ever worry about that. ( laughter ) principal role as citizen of the united states to hold my own government accountable for the acts that it does. i think that good reporting factsyou present all including what other governments are doing. but the reason we are have a free pressment and a is not because we need american journalists to criticize government several thousand miles across the world. it's to make sure that the people who exercise power within country aren't abusing that power. so that's my focus, and i think we need a press adversarial to the u.s. government, at least as reporting need people on things around the world.

>> laura, i'm sitting here in times" building bastion of the mainstream media. you too have been of establishment journalists. against us?have fewell, let me correct a things, i've actually published a few things at the "new york times." >> i know that. published a short guantanamo,about one about n.s.a. surveillance. and i was very happy that the that, and --ed that -- there's a feel >> let's face it, there are who tow the line and that.seen withholding of jim risen's story year. it's very hard to justify, or

not using the wore torture when we were torturing people for many years. why didn't the "new york times" deal with torture, i don't think a proud moment for journalism, and i don't think the invasion of iraq is a proud for journalism. but there was great journalism done about the war in iraq and torture, in the "new york times" and the "washington post" and the new yorker. so there always be journalists who will try to get to the truth. also be the fact that large institutions that have relationships with governments are going to, you know, be persuaded by what the government thinks can and should be public. think the fact that the n.s.a. is now spying on congress releasing a report on torture, as u.s. citizens we ashamed. this is not a proud moment. so i don't think it's or outsider radical

to find these things objectionable. thati think is radical is we're spying on congress or spying on entire countries and we're doing all this in secret. i think should be part of a public discourse. i feeln't fell that i'm, what we're doing as citizens and what our obligation to do if we if we have skill sets that can contribute to greater understanding. job.at's our >> more than radical, it's unconscionable. result ofnk, as a your extraordinary work, all you feelyou, laura, do that the tide is turning in some 9/11that this great post disorientation, this abuse of and technology, do you think the awareness is growing the greatnt wrong and power of american society, or

powers, it'seat its ability historically to correct course, to change. think that's happening? shield laww federal proposals, other things. isright, i don't think that actually going to signature until a change. that's, the pendulum shifts back, but it's that it's beene swinging in one direction. why is guantanamo still open? it's a national shame that it's open. a prison where people are being held without being charged of a crime. so i am hopeful that there would be a corrective when the obama administration came in you, but that hasn't happened. the thing that,

has been positive in terms of disclosures is it's reawakened an adversarial press, and the have been shocked that these things, these decisions about surveillance are being completely in secret, completely without public debate. that there does seem to be some kind of an awakening, but i it a shift of the pendulum. >> bart -- sorry, go ahead. vein, the crucial thing that's happened here is an increase in transparency. obviously information is power. is very powerful coupled withen surveillance. because of this transparency journalism not only building on itself, but all kind of other things in the private sector, you have now for the

first time in my memory a real privacy.ce for there were small outposts of that before, but they were boutiques. you now have large companies topeting to demonstrate consumers because consumers are worried about their privacy, the cause of -- because these revelations. as a result of some of the reporting en crypted all the yahoo, entween krieption by defall between its computers haveow now promised that it will en of it by last january. so.t has done in the legal field you have boston's challenge whether some

of these programs violate statute or the cons tuition. which were thrown out that the plaintiffs could not prove they were affected. now they can. so the law suits are reawakened. we will find out which of these are constitutional and which are not. you have members of congress who went along with these programs and said they seem fine who now are hearing from and all of civil society are reawakened. and then we get to align. >> one quick comment. i agree with all that. but i also think that one of the most significant aspects of what has changed is just the way people think about all of these issues not just in the united states but around the world. i think one of the most

underappreciated parts of the story is just how global it was. if you look at the nsa scandal of 2005, american companies involving domestic calls. start talking about facebook, yahoo, google, you're talking about the principle global means of communication. we've done reporting all over the world. i think that it has altered the domestic politics and the political discourse and so many countries around the world about how the united states is perceived, about the dangers of allowing the state to exercise great power and secrecy about the whole of journalism and the media vis-a-vis powerful factors. once you start affecting consciousness that way and shifting it a little bit, i don't think that the primary change is going to come from legislation of the u.s. government introduces to limit itself. i think it's going to come from very difficult but still quite significant even profound

shifts on how people around the world start thinking about all of these issues as a result of these revelations that people around the world or mo have found really shocking. >> all of that is encouraging. maybe american reinvention is alive and wole. we're getting toward the end of the time here. i would like to ask all three of you to say try and leap forward in your minds a decade or two and say how you think mr. snowden will be remembered. in american, indeed global history. another, daniel eelsberg, something different. how will he in your view be recalled? >> i think -- we're at a cross roads in terms of how we decide to treat our cases of privacy and i think he will be remembered a person who has created a point in this that if

we find ourselves in more orwe willion universe and n a decade or more communication, i think everyone will look back and see that he at least gave us the options to make these choices. >> glenn. > i think this is the most instructive example because in dern times these universally perhaps not universally but why are they considered to be relevant? nobody will attack daniel's records, but if you go and look at how he was talked about in 1971 and 72 and through that decade and the courts and government and media and by most americans he was talked about in exactly the same terms as edward snowden. and over time he was vindicated and history so appreciated the information that he let us know about the government was doing that all of that sort of died

away and we realize that he engaged in incredibly heroic and self-sacrificing act that he didn't need to do for the public good and i -- edward snowden around the world is viewed in those terms and in the next decade will be viewed even more around the world and the united states as well. >> i don't love the term whirble because i think -- whistle blower. first, you only get to use whistleblower if you use certain terms and it's illegal. so the public interest is way beyond what is illegal. the question is what the law should be and where we want to draw the line as a society. so if anybody glows along with me, which nobody will, i would say that what he has done is

enabled us to grab what the balance is. nobody gets to maximize their interest. there is a fundamental conflict sometimes between security and accountability, between self-defense and self-government. when you get to work in secret as the nsa has done, out of perfectly good motive of defending the country you're going to use every tool available to you. but by doing so, you are removing the possibility that the people you represent are going to be able to set your boundaries. so what snowden has done is allowed us collectively to make that decision. >> thank you all very much. we seem to have lost glenn at the last minute. i hope it's nothing sinister. but anyway, thank you very uch.

>> the chair would like to ask my distinguished republican colleague if he would take the chair. would the gentleman please take the chair. [applause]

>> the house will be in order. [applause] the chair yields to the distinguished speaker of the house for whatever comments and for how long a period. >> mr. president, i have to remind you, you have to put the question on the resolution. >> well, i thought -- would you prefer that i do that before you speak on behalf of your own resolution, mr. speaker? >> it's always better to get the resolution passed before the speech. >> without objection, the resolution is passed. [applause]

> thank you. i want to say, it's a great pleasure for me to address you mr. speaker, and to say that all that you have said and my good friend dave said has been a very touching thing for me and particularly to be here on this last day of the 103rd congress with so many of my colleagues and to have a chance to say to you, all of you, republicans and democrats, what an honor it has been for me to serve with you. and also, to all of my colleagues past and present,

who have honored me by allowing me to serve with them. this institution is a great institution. it is unfortunately not always seen in its full and proper dimension business our fellow citizens and i think that is a great tragedy because of all the institutions of our public life, it is in the congress and particularly in the house of representatives where this country's judgments and hopes and concerns and ambitions and decisions are made for the future. we have a task i think all of us, those in public life and those who leave it, to ensure that the true dimension of the work that's done here is understood and appreciated. because other countries have presidents and courts and

magistrates. but it is this institution which for so many of the people of the world has represented a congress, the place where we come together to speak the voice of american democracy. and it is that voice that is found echo and resounding throughout the world today. the american democracy has been a symbol of liberty and freedom for so many hundreds and hundreds of millions of people. so we have a special responsibility to ensure that our own citizens do not fail to understand the value and importance of this, their house of representatives. so in leaving, i thank you. and i salute you. and i wish you all, those of you who are leaving with me and those who will be part of the 104th congress, every success

in the future. i wish to all who follow in this great responsibility that they will have some of the same satisfactions and some of the great opportunities which i have had. and for which i will always be deeply deeply grateful. thank you. good-bye. cheers and applause] [applause] >> mr. speaker if i might exercise the prerogative of the chair for just a moment. nd that is to say to my dear colleagues on both sides of the aisle, first mr. speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to wield this gavel at least one time and actually sit in the chair. t was something.

[applause] but more important, the speaker ust spoke with great eloquence and insight to this institution and what we do here as a body. and i just want to say to all the members on both sides of the aisle how much i appreciate the camaraderie and the cordiality that i've enjoyed during my tenure in this body and all those wonderful good things that have happened to me this past year have -- and your acknowledgment from time to time is overwhelming. and i just want you all to know some of us chose to leave voluntarily, some obviously did

not. but that's the way the system works. the more important thing is i guess those memories that we take away from this body hopefully they'll always be cherished ones of those wonderful days we spent as a member of the u.s. congress. thank you each and every one and i yield back to the distinguished speaker. >> thank you. [applause] >> find more highlights from 35 years of house floor coverage on our facebook page. c-span created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today by your as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> on our next "washington journal" tim griffin of arkansas, a member of the ways and means committee. he will comment on the retirement of committee chairman dave camp and the g.o.p. budget proposal, will focus on ukraine with senator

ben carden. the maryland democrat is a member of the foreign relations committee. and abigail jones, a senior writer for newsweek will join us to discuss her article on alzheimer's disease and predictions that 16 million americans will have the disease by 2050. "washington journal" live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2014] captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--

>> i now convene this hearing of the oversight called the gm ignition switch recall why did it take so long. if you would like to take your seat, please. hank you. >> this question is the focus of our investigation. as soon as the chevy cobalt rolled off the production line in 2004, customers began filing complaints about the ignition

switch. these customers told general motors that just by bumping the key with their knee while driving the cobalt it would shut off. in 2004 and 2005, gm engineers twice considered the problem and even developed potential solutions to fix it. but fm decide it the quote tooling costs and piece prices are too high and the quote none of the solutions represent an acceptable business case. the solution gm ultimately settled for was to tell their dealers they ask cobalt drivers to remove heavy objects from their key chain yet just a year later gm decided to fix the ignition switch. in 2005, gm told their supplier delfi to increase the torque in the ignition switch so the key wouldn't move out of the run position and into accessory mode. gm was not alone in examining problems with cobalt.

the lead government safety regulator, the national highway traffic administration known as nhtsa was also evaluating concerns with the cobalt. but nhtsa didn't look at the ignition switch problem just air bag nondeployment. re-evaluating concerns. but they looked at nonair bag deployment. in 2010, the chief of nh the asa proposed that the agency invest gauze he spotted a quote, nondeployment. and internal presentation noted a spike in warranty claims for cobalt air bags. a total of 29 crashes causing 25 injuries, 4 deaths and 14 field reports. yet nhtsa decided not to investigate even when the issue was raised three years later in 2010. nhtsa again passed on investigating. gm was also looking into the air bag nondeployments. as early as 2007, gm started to track incident where cobalt air

bags did not deploy in crashes. in 2011 and 2012, gm assigned at least two groups of engineers to examine the problem. according to gm's public statements it wasn't until december 2013 the company finally put the pieces together and linked the problems with the air bags with the fally ignition switch. almost ten years after customers first told gm the cobalt ignition switch didn't work. we know this. the red flags were there for gm and nhtsa to take action but for some reason it did not happen. why didn't they put the pieces together for ten years? why didn't anyone ask the critical, important questions? why did gm accept parts below their own company standards and specs? when gm got a new ignition switch for the cobalt in 2006, did they recognize that the faulty switch poses a sif they problem? why did gm keep the old part number which led to confusion. when gm replaced the switch, did engineers consider how the faulty ignition impacted other

systems in the car like air bags? why did gm replace the ignition switch in new cars but not the older models? why did gm think a memo about the size of key chains wu enough to solve the problem? why did nhtsa twice decide not to investigate and why not make the keys of the accessory position and air bags not deploying? did anyone ask why? for both are people talking to one another? did gm and nhtsa have a culture where people don't pass information up and down the chain of command? to borrow a phrase, what we have here is a failure to communicate and the results were deadly. a failure to communicate both between and within gm and nhtsa. today we'll ask them what they're doing to not just fix the car but to fix a culture within a business and a government regulator that led to these problems. this is about restoring public trust and giving the families and crash victims the truth about whether the tragedy could have been prevented and if

future ones will be prevented. it is my hope and expectation today we'll not hear a blame game or finger pointing. the engineers and workers won't matter if the people don't care and people don't care that you know until they know that you care. this investigation is only three weeks old and determined to find the facts and identify the problems so that tragedy like this never happens again. this investigation's bipartisan, as a priority of the members of the committee. i want to thank mary barra for being here and the head of nhtsa, david friedman and ranking members for working with us. i now give the remaining of my time to dr. michael burial jess. >> i thank the chairman for yielding. i thank the witnesses for being here and being so responsive to the committee's staff request. we are here to examine a very important matter. the hearing is appropriately named "we do have questions for general motors. we have questions for the national highway traffic safety administration. two chances to open up formal

investigations into the recall general motors cars both in 2007 and 2010, nhtsa examined problems with the vehicles and both times, both times decided that no investigation was needed. we need to hear from nhtsa today how you intend to improve the process going forward and we were just here five years ago with the toyota investigation. we heard a lot of things out of nhtsa on those hearings. i would like to know how they improved the process and how we can expect to have confidence in their ability going forward. i yield back. >> now recognize the ranking member of the committee, ms. degette of colorado. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. like all of us i'm deeply troubled about what our investigation has revealed about gm's business practices and its commitment to safety. here's what we know. we know that gm has raumed over 2.5 million vehicles because of defective ignition switches. we know they should have tunnel it much, much earlier.

we know that gm failed to provide federal regulators with key information. and sadly, we know that at least 13 people are dead and there have been dozens of crashes because of gm produced cars that had a deadly effect. mr. chairman, i have a copy of the ignition switch assembly for one of these vehicles. and this is it. a spring inside the switch, a piece that costs pennies, failed to provide enough force causing the switch to turn off when the car went over a bump. gm knew about this problem in 2001. they were warned again and again over the next decade but they did nothing. and i just want to show how easy it is to turn this key in this switch. if you had a heavy key chain like my mom key chair or if you had -- if you were short and

bumped up against the ignition with your knee, it could cause this key to switch right off. mr. chairman, we now know that these switches were defective from the start. in february of 2002, gm's ignition switch supplier dell if i informed the company that the switch did not meet gm's minimum specifications. but gm approved it anyway. now, yesterday we sent ms. barra a letter about this decision. i would like to make it a part of the hearing record. >> without objection. >> soon after the approval, the cars were on the road and it didn't take long for problems to appear. in 2003, june 2003, the owner of a saturn ion with 3,474 miles on the odometer made a warranty report that he or she, quote, bumped the key and the car shut off. gm would receive more than 130

similar warranty claims of owners about this problem over the next decade and never informed the public or reported the problem to federal safety regulators. the minority staff conducted this warranty analysis and again we prepared a memo about the claims. i would ask unanimous consent to put that in the record, mr. chairman. >> without objection. >> initially, gm opened multiple investigations into the ignition switch issue. each which concluded the switch was bad. it department meet the minimums. in 2005, gm identified solutions to the problem but concluded that, quote, the tooling cost and piece price are too high. thus, none of the solutions represents an acceptable business case. documents provided by gm show that this unacceptable cost increase was only 57 cents.

mr. chairman, we have this document that we got from gm. somehow it's not in the binder. i'd ask youian mouse consent. >> without objection, so ordered. >> another investigation in 2005 led gm to issue a technical service bulletin advising dealers to distribute key inserts to help reduce the problem. this was a simple fix to reduce the force on the switch. mr. chairman, these are the keys of one of my staff members who actually owns one of these cars. and as you can see, there's a long, long insert. what the key inserts were supposed to do is go in the middle and create a little hole so the key and the keys wouldn't go back and forth. unfortunately, gm never made this bulletin public. more than 500 people out of the thousands of drivers who had cars with faulty switches got

the key insert. and gm knew it. soon after this decision, company officials quietly redesigned the switch but they never changed the part number. and an astonishingly this committee learned that when gm approved a new switch in 2006, they did it with still knowing that the new switch didn't meet specifications. the company even put more cars with bad switches on the road from 2008 until 2011. and we still don't know all the information about this. between 2003 and 2014, gm learned hundreds of reports of ignition switch problems through customer complaints, warranty claims, lawsuits, press coverage, field reports and even more internal investigations. but time and time again, gm did nothing. the company continued to sell cars knowing they were unsafe. i know we have a lot of family members here, mr. chairman, and

i want to express my deepest sympathies to them and tell them something more. we'll get to the bottom of this. we'll figure out what happened and we'll make sure it doesn't happen again. mr. chairman, i want to thank miss barra for coming. she is brand new at the company. i believe she's committed to fixing the situation. we have a lot of questions to ask today, though. and i know every member of the committee is concerned about this. thank you very much. >> gentle lady's time expired. recognize mr. upton for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we know that with a 2-ton piece of high velocity machinery there is, in fact, a zero margin for error. product safety is indeed a life or death issue. but sadly, vehicle safety has fallen short and it's not the first time. during the late summer of 2000 in this very room i led the oversight hearings that examined the ford firestone recalls, a tire malfunction causing violent

crashes and americans did not feel safe behind the wheel. we gathered testimony from the company and agency officials and reviewed thousands and thousands of pages of documents. and we found that the system indeed had failed. information about the defective tires had been shared with the companies and with nhtsa. the parties failed to protect the public safety and over 100 people died. after that investigation, i introduced the tread act to correct many of the problems that contributed to the ford firestone tragedy. that bill was meant to ensure data about safety is reported so that defects can be quickly identified and fixed and lives ultimately saved. the tread act is now law since november 2000. yet here we are investigating another safety failure. deja vu all over again. one month ago gm issued a recall for an ignition switch defect in six vehicles of 1.6 million cars. and last friday they recalled

another 900,000 vehicles. gm acknowledges that a dozen people have died in automobile crashes associated with that defect. two were teenagers from my own community. gm's ceo and acting administrator friedman. first step in the quest to find out what went wrong. the committee's purpose the same as it was in 2000. making sure that drivers and families are protected and cars are safe. i'll repeat what i said on firestone tires in 2000. today's hearing is very personal to me because i come from michigan. the auto state. the auto capital of the world. that is no less true today. michigan is proud of its auto industry and while michigan citizens build cars obviously we drive them, too. document pros deuced to the committee show that both nhtsa and gm received complaints about and data about problems with

ignition switches and air bags. these complaints go back at least a decade. nhtsa engineers did crash investigations as early as '05 and twice examined whether complaints with air bags constituted a trend. gm submitted early warning reports to nhtsa including data of crashes in the recalled cars. with all that information available, why did it take so long to issue the recall? in this case, just as it was with ford firestone, it was news reports that brought the attention to the nation's attention. brought the problem to the nation's attention. this investigation of the recall is indeed bipartisan. as it should be. we'll follow the facts wherever they lead us and we're going to work until we have the answers and can assure the public that, indeed, they're safe. i'd like to note that the chairman of our cmt subcommittee mr. terry will be joining us for questions this afternoon. with his subcommittee's record

on motor vehicle safety issues he will be watching closely as this investigation unfolds so that he can take our findings and determine whether and what changes may be needed to the laws designed to keep drivers safe

in my district saturn eye i don't know has been recalled made at that plant there in springhill so this is something important to my constituents, those that have worked with gm i thank you for being here and we look forward to the answers. i yield back. have worked with i thank you for being here and we look forward to the answers. i yield back. >> now recognize ranking member of the full committee, mr. waxman for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a sad sense of deja vu sitting here today. i was part of the committee holding the ford firestone hearing in 2000. i led the committee's hearing on toyota's problems with unintended acceleration in 2010.

each time, we heard about how auto manufacturers knew about potential defects and about how federal safety officials at the national highway traffic safety administration missed signals that should have alerted them to defective cars on the road. and here we are today under similar circumstances. over the last month, the full dimensions of another auto safety disaster have unfolded. general motors has recalled 2.5 million vehicles due to a defective ignition switch and the company has acknowledged that these cars have caused dozens of crashes and 13 fatalities. mr. chairman, i know the families of some of these victims are in the audience for today's hearing. i want to acknowledge them. thank them for coming. we owe it to them to find out what happened.

the facts that we already know are hard to believe. gm has known for years about this safety defect and has failed to take appropriate action to fix the problem. the company installed an ignition switch it knew did not meet its own specifications. numerous internal investigations resulted in nothing but a nonpublic technical service bulletin that partially fixed the problem for fewer than 500 drivers. a new analysis i released this morning revealed that over the last decade gm received over 130 warranty claims from drivers and gm technicians who experienced and identified the defect. drivers reported that their cars shut off after hitting bumps or potholes at highway speeds when they did something as simple as

brushing the ignition switch with their knee. one gm technician even identi identified the exact part causing the problem. a spring that would have caused at most as much as a few postage stamps, a couple of dollars. because gm didn't implement this simple fix when it learned about the problem, at least a dozen people have died in defective gm vehicles. what's more, new information the committee received last week suggests that gm still has failed to fully own up to potential problems. gm finally modified the ignition switch for later model cars but delphi, the manufacturer of the ignition switch, told the committee that the switches installed in model year 2008 to 2011 vehicles still do not meet gm's own specifications.

gm finally announced a recall of these vehicles last friday. but told the public that it was because of bad parts installed during repairs, not because of defective parts originally installed in the vehicles. there are legitimate questions we need to ask about whether nhtsa did enough to identify and uncover this problem. in retrospect, it's clear that the agency missed some red flags. but nhtsa was also laboring under a handicap. there appears to have been a lot of information that gm knew but they didn't share with the national highway traffic safety administration. we need to make sure that nhtsa and the public have access to the same information about safety as auto executives. that's why today i'm introduced

the motor vehicle safety act of 2014. this bill's modeled on the legislation that the committee passed in 2010 but was never enacted into law. it will make more information on defects available to the public. and it will increase nhtsa's funding and increase civil penalties for manufacturers when companies like gm fail to comply with the law. mr. chairman, we should learn as much as we can from this investigation. then, we should improve the law to make sure we're not here again after another auto safety tragedy in the near future. i want to yield back my time. thank you. >> gentleman yields back. i'd now like to introduce the witness on the first panel for today's hearing. miss mary barra, chief executive officer at general motors company and has been in this role since january 15th, 2014.

when she also became a member of its board of directors. she has held a number of positions in this company. from 2008 to 2009, she served as vice president of global manufacturing, engineering. and pro2005 to 2008 she was executive director of vehicle manufacturing engineering. she's also served as a plant manager and director of competitive operations engineering as well as numerous other positions. i'll now swear in the witness. miss barra, you are aware that the committee is holding an investigative hearing and has a practice of taking testimony under oath. do you have any objections to testifying under oath? >> no. >> the chair then advised you under the rules of the houts and the committee you are entitled to be advised by counsel. >> no. >> in that case, if you would please rise and raise your right hand, i'll swear you in. do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but

the truth? >> i do. >> thank you. miss barra, you are now under oath and subject to the penalties of the united states code. you may now give a five-minute summary of your written statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and committee members. >> please pull your microphone close and make sure it's on. >> can you hear me? okay. thank you, mr. chairman and committee members. my name the mary barra, the chief executive officer of general motors. i appreciate the opportunity to be here today. more than a decade ago, gm embarked on a small car program. sitting here today, i cannot tell you why it took so long for a safety defect to be announced for this program but i can tell you we will find out. this is an extraordinary situation. it involves vehicles we no longer make but it came to light on my watch so i'm responsible for resolving it. when we have answers, we'll be fully transparent with you, with

our regulators, and with our customers. while i cannot turn back the clock, as soon as i learned about the problem we acted without hesitation. we told the world we had a problem that needed to be fixed. we did so because whatever mistakes were made in the past we will not shirk from the responsibilities now or in the future. today's gm will do the right thing. that begins with my sincere apologies to everyone who has been affected by this recall. especially the families and friends who lost their lives or were injured. i am deeply sorry. i've asked former u.s. attorney to conduct a thorough and unimpeded investigation of the actions of general motors. i have received updates from him and he tells me he's well along with his work. he has free rein to go where the facts take him, regardless of outcome.

the facts will be the facts. once they are in, my leadership team and i will do needed to help assure this does not happen again. we'll hold ourselves fully accountable. however, i want to stress i'm not waiting for his results to make changes. i've named a new vice president of global vehicle safety, a first for general motors. the top priority is to quickly identify and resolve any and all product safety issues. he's not taking on this task alone. i stand with him and my senior leadership team stands with him, as well. and we'll welcome input from outside of gm from you, from nhtsa, from the customers, our dealers and current and former employees. the latest round of recalls demonstrates just how serious we are about the way we want to do things at today's gm. we've identified these issues and we've brought them forward

and we're fixing them. i have asked our team to keep stressing the system at gm and work with one thing in mind. the customer and their safety are at the center of everything we do. our customers who have been affected by this recall are getting our full and undivided attention. we are talking directly to them through a dedicated website with constantly updated information and through social media platforms. we've trained and assigned more people, over 100, to the customer call centers and wait times are down to seconds. of course, we're sending customers written information through the mail. we've empowered our dealers to take extraordinary measures to treat each case specifically. if people don't want to drive a recalled vehicle before repaired, dealers can provide a loaner or a rental car free of the charge. to date, we have provided nearly 13,000 loaner vehicles. if a customer's already looking

for another car, dealers are allowed to provide additional cash allowances for the purchase of a lease or new vehicle. our supplier is manufacturing new replacement parts for the vehicle that is are no longer in production. we have commissioned two lines and have asked for a third production line and those parts will start being delivered to dealers next week. these measures are only the first in making things right and rebuilding trust with our customers. as i have reminded our employees, getting the cars repaired is only the first step. giving customers the best support possible throughout this process is how we will be judged. i would like this committee to know that all of our gm employees and i are determined to set a new standard. i'm encouraged to say that everyone at gm up to and including our board of directors supports this. i'm a second generation gm

employee. and i'm here as our ceo but i'm also here representing the men and women who are part of today's gm and are dedicated to putting the highest quality safest vehicles on the road. i recently held a town hall meeting to formally introduce our new vp of safety. we met at the technical center in michigan. this is one of the places where the men and women who engineer our vehicles work. they are the brains behind our cars but they are also the heart of general motors. it was a tough meeting. like me, they are disappointed and upset. i could see it in their faces. i could hear it in their voices. they had many of the same questions that i suspect are on your mind. they want to make things better for our customers and in that process make gm better. they particularly wanted the know what we plan to do for those who have suffered the most from this tragedy. that's why i'm pleased to

announce that we have retained kenneth feinberg as a consultant to help us evaluate the situation and recommend the best path forward. i am sure this committee knows mr. feinberg is highly qualified and is very experienced in handling matters such as this. having led the compensation efforts involved with 9/11, the bp oil spill and the boston marathon bombing. mr. feinberg brings expertise and objectivity to this effort. as i have said, i consider this to be an extraordinary event and we are responding to it in an extraordinary way. as i see it, gm has civil responsibilities and legal responsibilities. we are thinking through exactly what those responsibilities are and how to balance them in an appropriate manner. bringing on mr. feinberg is the first step. i would now be happy to answer your questions. thank you. >> thank you, miss barra.

i want to acknowledge the families are here and have sympathies, one kelly erin ruddy of pennsylvania is one of those we offer sympathy to the families and we have all of you in our hearts. miss barra, our committee reviewed more than 200,000 pages of documents. what we have found is that as soon as the cobalt hit the road in 2004 drivers began to immediately complain to general motors that the cars ignition systems didn't work properly. you can imagine how frightening it is to drive a car that suddenly you lose the power steering and power brakes. when the switch for the cobalt was being built back in 2002, gm knew the switch did not meet its specifications for torque. am i correct? >> yes. >> gm engineers began to look at the problem and try to figure out how to address it. gm understood the torque and the switches measured below its own specifications. is that right? >> yes. >> is it common practice for gm to accept a part that does not meet gm specifications?

>> no. but there's a difference between a part meeting or not meeting specifications and a part being defective. >> so under what scenario is accepting parts that don't meet gm specs allowable? >> an example would be purchasing steel. you'll set a specification for steel but then because of the different suppliers and availability of steel to make products, you'll assess the performance, the functionality, the durability, you know, the aspects of the part or the -- in this case, steel, that is necessary to live up to what the performance and the durability of the safety needs to be. >> well, let's -- >> that's an example of when you would have a part or have material that doesn't meet the spec set out but is acceptable from a safety, from a functionality perspective, performance, as well. >> is that switch acceptable? >> the switch -- i'm sorry sigh the switch acceptable? >> at what time frame? i'm sorry. >> the beginning.

didn't meet the specs for gm s. that acceptable? >> as we clearly know today, it is not. >> so in 2006, gm changed the ignition switch and gm switch supplier delphi put in a new spring to increase the torque. is that correct? ? >> i didn't hear the last part. i'm sorry. >> increasing the torque. is that correct? >> there was a new part. >> thank you. now, in the binder next to you, if you would turn to tab 25, this is an e-mail exchange between delphi employees in 2005 discussing the changes to the ignition switch. the e-mail notes that a gm engineer is asking for information about the ignition switch because, quote, cobalt is blowing up in their face in regards to turning the car off with the driver's knee, unquote. if this was such a big problem, why didn't gm e place the ignition switch on the cars already on the road? the cars where the torque fell well below the specifications instead of just new cars, why?

>> what you just said does not match under tab 25. >> it's the bottom of the page, should be something there. >> just note that what i said -- i apologize for that. >> okay. >> there's a statement the cobalt is blowing up in their face, by bumping of the driver's knee. >> clearly, there were a lot of things that happened, a lot of statements made as it relates. that's why we've hired anton valucas. we're spanning over a decade of time -- >> you don't know why -- >> i do not know the answer to that and that's why we're doing the investigation. >> given the number of complaints about ignitions turning off while drooifg, why wasn't this identified as a safety issue? >> again, i can't answer that. that's why e weir doing a full and complete investigation. >> in the chronology gm submitted, gm states it didn't make the connection between the ignition switch problems and the air bag nondeployment problems

until late 2013. when switching ignition, did the company examine how the faulty switch affects other systems? >> again, this's part of the investigation. >> should they? >> should we understand -- >> should they look at how it affects other vehicle systems? >> yes. >> let me ask another question. when gm concluded and heard from my opening statement that the tooling cost and price pieces are too high, what does that mean? >> i find that statement to be very disturbing. as we do this investigation and understand it in the context of the whole timeline, if that was the reason this decision was made, that is unacceptable. that is not the way we do business in today's gm. >> well, how does gm balance cost and safety? >> we don't. today, if there's a safety issue, we take action. if we know there is a defect on our vehicles, we do not look at the cost associated with it. we look at the speed in which we

can fix the issue. >> well, was there a culture in gm at that time that they would have put cost over safety? >> again, we are doing a complete investigation. but i would say in general we've moved from a cost culture after the bankruptcy to a customer culture. we've trained thousands of people on putting the customer first. we have actually gone with outside training. it is a part of the core values and it is one of the most important cultural changes we're driving in general motors today. >> i'm out of time. miss degette, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. gm knew about the defect as far back as 2001. 13 years before the recall. correct? >> the -- >> yes or no will work. >> the investigation will tell us that. >> you don't know when gm knew about the defect? >> i will -- >> take a look at tab 7 in your notebook, miss barra.

this is a gm document. and what this gm document talks about is this switch. it says, tear down evaluation on the switch revealed two causes of failure. low contact force and low detent plunger force. do you recognize that document, ma'am? >> this is the first i've seen this document. >> okay. well, so you don't know how long gm knew about this? >> that's why i'm doing an investigation. >> okay. in fact, delphi, the manufacturer informed gm in 2002 that the switch was supposed to be 15 minimum torque specification but, in fact, these switches were between 4 and 10. didn't it? >> the specification is correct that it was supposed to be 20 plus or minus 5. >> and these switches were

between 4 and 10. correct? yes or no will work. >> we know that now. >> and -- and gm was notified by delphi of this. correct? yes or no. >> i'm not aware of being notified. >> okay. >> can i correct? >> i need a yes or no. i only have five minutes. i'm sorry. as far back as 2014, 10 years ago, gm conducted a problem resolution tracking system after it learned of an incident where the key moved out of the run condition in a 2005 chevrolet cobalt. is this correct? >> again, you're relatting specific incident that is happened. >> you don't know? >> our entire investigation -- >> you don't know about that? take a look at tab 8, please. yeah. and by the way, ma'am, i'm getting this information from the chronology that gm provided to nhtsa. >> right. >> let me ask you.

again, as far back as 2004, gm conducted a problem resolution tracking system inquiry after it learned of an incident where the key moved out of the run condition. is that correct? >> yes. >> thank you. now, after the prts inquiry, one engineer advised against further action because there was, quote, no acceptable business case to provide a resolution and the prts auz closed. is that correct? >> if that is true, that is a very disturbing fact. that is not way we make decisions. >> okay. again in 2005, gm received more reports of engines stopping when the keys were jerked out of the run condition. further investigations were conducted and engineers proprosed changes to the keys. is that correct? >> it's part of our investigation to get that complete timeline. i understand -- >> much of this i'm taking from the timeline gm has already done. >> what was a summary. >> okay. so as a result of the

investigation, a technical service bulletin was issued to dealers that if car owners complain, they should be warned of this risk and advised to take unessential items from the key chain but this recommendation was not made to the public. no public statements were issued, no recall sent. is that correct? >> to my understanding, yes. >> thank you. in 2006, gm contracted with delphi to redesign the ignition switch to use a new plunger and spring that would increase torque force in the switch. is that correct? >> yes. >> and for some reason, though, the new switch was not given a part number and instead shared a number with the original defective switch. is that correct? >> yes. >> now, this new switch also did not meet gm's minimum torque specifications either. this one delphi said in the range of 10 to 15 and it really should have been 15 at a minimum. is that correct? >> i have not seen the test results from that.

>> you don't know that. okay. now, despite these facts, gm continued to manufacture cars with these same ignition switches for the model years 2008 to 2011. is that correct? >> yes. >> and between 2004 and 2014, no public notices were issued as a result of gm's knowledge of these facts and no recalls were issued for the over 2.5 million vehicles manufactured with these defective ignition switches. is that correct? >> yes. >> and finally, through three recalls were made this year, 2014, two in february and one just last february. is that right? >> related to this ignition switch? >> i have just a couple more questions. the first question i have, ms. barra, gm is intending to replace the switches for those cars beginning april 7th, right? >> we'll begin shipping -- >> will you put a completely new

redesigned switch or the switches of 2006 in the cars? >> a switch that meets the -- >> is it going to be a newly redesigned switch or is it going to be the old switch from 2006? >> it's the old design that meets the performance that's required to -- >> okay. i have more questions, mr. chairman. perhaps we can do another round. >> an important part, follow up, members may be concerned. there's an ongoing investigation. you cannot comment on these yet. are you getting updates on a regular basis as this is going on? >> from mr. valucas? >> from anyone. >> yes, i am. >> now go to the chairman of the full committee, mr. upton, for five minutes. >> once again, thank you, ms. barra, for being here this afternoon. i want to make sure we ask similar questions of you and both nhtsa. we want to ask about did documents submitted on a timely and appropriate basis to nhtsa and in fact what did they do with that information. the documents that we have

looked at produced show that gm received complaints about its cobalt ignition switches for about two years that ult matly resulted in a redesigned ignition switch in 2006. who within gm would have known about those specific complaints? what was the process back then? >> i was not a part of that organization at that time. that's why i'm doing the investigation to understand that. >> so you don't know the folks that would have been reported to at this point? is that right? >> i don't know the people handling this issue at that point. >> but you are getting updates. when's supposed to happen? looking back, what should have happened when the reports came? n? >> in general when you have an issue, a product issue, a safety issue, a field incident, any type of issue that comes in, you have a team of engineer that is are the most knowledgeable that work on that. if they see there's an issue, they elevate it to a cross functional team that looks at it

and then it goes to a group for decision. >> now, we know that the ignition switch was, in fact, redesigned because it didn't meet the specs that were there. is that right? >> yes. >> now, i would guess engineering 101 would normally require that when you assign a new part or replace a new part or replace a part with a new part that that newly redesigned part, in fact, should have a different number on it. is that right? >> that is correct. >> so that didn't happen, right? >> that's correct. >> didn't happen. who within gm made the decision to move forward with that redesigned switch without a new part number? do you know who that is? >> i do not know the name of the individual. >> will you be able to find that out for us? >> yes, i will. >> will you give that name to our committee? >> i can provide that.