these delphi switches due to electrical failures and delphi's inability to deliver parts for testing purposes. taken together, this evidence would seem to indicate a problem for greater than we were initially led to believe. now with that ignition switch, these issues have come to light, have you gone back and reviewed these concerns and determined what delphi will do in the future? >> we did go back and look extensively at all the documentation, and we found nothing that was abnormal in terms of product development. and ultimately how the problems were addressed that you sometimes run into as you move from development to production, etc.. as i said, our product has met the requirements. it injured and ignition assembly

products,t had other i'm assuming the other products met their requirements, but when they come together they form a saidm and as mrs. bauer earlier, it's someone else's job to make sure that those products work in total harmony when they come together. back ande gone understood our role in that. ofhink the new legislation how safety systems interact from , and we perspective will work diligently with general motors over this issue. >> in 2006 gm authorized a changed in the ignition switch but did not change the part number. as a supplier, is it a common practice for delphi to allow him a new factor to change apart and

not change the part number? about 120,000had engineering changes and only about 40% of those actually had a part number change, so it's quite normal not to change the part number. >> do you allow the manufacturer to do the same thing? >> yes. >> my time has expired. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, madam chairman. report, when your did the legal team know about this problem? back tonk you could go their investigators, it would have been in the range of 2007, it was called to their attention . there began an inquiry about

who wasinvestigator assigned to the gm legal team. >> when did they know about the ignition switch problem? period ofloped over a time and the first time i can recall the matter was being called to their attention in some way, it may have been as early as 2009-2010. >> mr. milliken, how long have you been the chief counsel? quick since the middle of 2009. forve been with the company 37 years. >> that you were in the legal side of the company before that. >> yes sir. >> when did you first find out about these two problems? >> i first found out about the ignition switch recall situation the first week of february of this year. >> how is that possible that nobody would have told you before the first week of february of this year? >> my information is based valukas report.

there's a long time when there was not a connection made between the ignition switch problem and the non-appointment of airbags. in terms of looking at the results of the report, i think it all came together for the lawyers at the time of the milton deposition in 2013 and from that point on there was enough information in the legal staff for people to have taken action and to have caused the engineering organization to take action. tragic,.'t, that was >> give me those dates again from the time you think that enough information to take action until the time you found on with five i'm basing it the definition in april of 2013. >> and you didn't know until february of 2014. i'm going to ask mr. valukas

this as well, but with this kind of problem be allowed to happen again? what have you done to prevent those same set of circumstances from happening again? >> before any case can be , if it or taken to trial involves a fatality or serious bodily injury it has to come to me regardless of the amount of the settlement postal and i want it brought to me with full explanation of the case, with a focus on any open engineering issues, so that i have an opportunity to cause open engineering issues to be addressed if they are not being properly addressed. >> is there anyway to trigger this before you have a serious bodily injury or fidelity or lost sock -- lawsuit? it would bring to my attention cases on a more regular basis than were brought to my attention before. >> is it your view that the changes that have been made would prevent what happened from ever happening again?

>> ugly based on what i noticed taking place that the answer is yes. one of the things that is happened here is the flow of information which you are able to identify quickly enough so that the engineering department was not acting on it and going back to comments that have been made earlier, the legal department of be in a position to force that to take place. >> have employees been let go because of this? mr. milliken, have employees been let go because of this? are anythey have to >> of them challenging their dismissal? >> they are not. >> you are selling lots of cars. also recalling lots of cars. i think 25 million is the number in the last 12 months. why would there still be so many recalls? i'm not suggesting that is necessarily a bad ink, but why's that number so high?

>> will we learn what happened with the ignition switch recall, we went back and redoubled our efforts. places.d at a number of we tackled all of those. we went back extensively and looked at information we had to see if we could more quickly put together any trends. as it relates to every safety giorgio hadr. do responsibility for, we looked and assessed every single one of those. in some cases there's not even any field information to suggest there is an issue, but as we get our systems engineering analysis, if we saw that by adding an insert into a key we could make the system more robust, we did that. we are intent on being a company known for safety. this was an important step and we will continue to look for those items to make sure we have a company that is dedicated to the safety of our vehicles. >> you have been watching our special look at the gm recall issues. we are joined by the washington

.ureau chief what is the status of the house and senate investigation? >> they are ongoing, especially in the case of the house. they have several issues they are pouring through, 2 million documents and trying to come up with proposals for new legislation. of the commerce committee said he expects to introduce reform legislation early next year. senator rockefeller and senator mccaskill have both introduced separate measures to give the government more power to more quickly get unsafe vehicles off the road, and impose much tougher fines. so those bills are likely not to come up until early next year and both likely will be rolled into a highway bill given that the current highway bill will expire next may. >> and all of this as gm continues to deal with the

recall issue. a headline from the detroit news barra is sending letters to 1.9 million car owners in the ignition switch recall. >> jim is really working overtime to try to get people to get these vehicles fixed. worldwide they have recalled 2.6 million. in the u.s. roughly 2 million. of those vehicles they have fixed about 800,000. so this case it's about ensuring that people who actually order can actually get those vehicles fixed. some have not bothered to follow through and get those parts. if you remember when the issue first came to light in february and march, they did not have any parts. so gm was paying for thousands of loaner cars and they are still building parts in mexico through their supplier, delphi, running multiple lines basically

24 hours a day so they will not deplete the total production of parts until the end of october. in the meantime they have parts and they want people to quickly get into the dealership. they also advise owners of the new more in-depth website where people can get more detailed information on what specifically the issue is with their individual car. >> the other issue is of course the big of the crashes caused by the faulty parts. kenneth feinberg in that senate hearing we showed talked about the process being open on august 1. where do things stand with the filing of those claims by victims? >> as of yesterday, ken feinberg told me they had received 212 total claims, of those 87 or for people who were in fatal injuries. the key thing to remember, they

have not done any of the approvals, these are the first stage of the review. as set forth simpler claims, the nonfederal claims and it will take in about 90 days to make a determination. with the federal claims it will , since the180 days victims compensation fund will accept claims to the end of december, potentially the fund could be up and running through the middle of next year. at the same time there's a federal court in new york who is overseeing over 100 lawsuits covering more than 1000 items for a variety of ignition switch related claims, not just injuries but also economic loss claims. >> meanwhile the recalls go on. the headline in a piece you co-authored in the detroit news, largest forhe saturn vue, 66 so far.

what is the company doing in terms of addressing additional recalls? >> is pretty staggering. u.s. auto industry, all companies both foreign and domestic recalled a record 30.8 million vehicles. the industry today has recalled .bout 45 million vehicles the entire industry has shifted gears. gm is moving far faster to recall vehicles in part because the ceo has said they have completely changed the culture, they no longer look at the cost when assessing its thing should be recalled for a safety issue, but also in may the national highway traffic safety administration proposed a fine on gm for failing to recall ignition to the vehicles in a timely fashion. as part of that, gm has agreed

to up to three years of intensive monitoring with the government which means sometimes daily phone calls to talk about what potential safety issues they have coming. this is way before they even get to the recall stage. so you have intense government oversight and a company that is basically recall first, ask questions later. as a result that's why you're seeing so many campaigns. it really is a huge number compared to historical averages. >> a quick reminder to our viewers. you can see all the hearings would cover on our website, c-span.org. our thanks to david shepperton, the washington bureau chief of detroit news. >> next tuesday our issue spotlight programming continues with a look at the irs targeting of conservative programs.

that's next tuesday beginning at 8 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> tuesday's pentagon briefing included questions about the defense department programs to tovide military equipment local police department. you can see that news conference online at c-span.org. here is some of the discussion. >> how and where, under what circumstances the equipment gets used is up to local law enforcement agencies to determine. my question is one i take the next step and review it. secondly, can you tell us what the defense department has given ? theour question that's

secretary is digesting information he got just this morning. i'm not going to get ahead of any decision he may or may not make with respect to this. , the fergusonn police department since 2007, the defense logistics agency has transferred to them access property, two humvees, one generator and one carbon trailer to the ferguson lease department. in all st. louis county, over that same time, which includes ferguson, six pistols, 12 rifles, 15 weapon sites, one robot, three helicopters, two of which are being used by ferguson. that's what they got. to with this directly ferguson or through st. louis county are to the state?

>> i don't know exactly the chain of custody here. all that equipment went to st. louis county police department and how they apportion it is up to them, not the pentagon. >> does anybody the building think that somehow the ferguson police department misused or these the right to use humvees in any form or fashion? >> we don't take a position on the way the equipment is being used. that is up to local law enforcement to determine. we have rigorous compliance and accountability standards and by and leave the defense logistics agency spot checks many of these local law enforcement agencies in the states to make sure they're keeping proper accountability, inventory of the equipment. but we do not dictate, we don't mandate any kind of certain use. that is up to local law enforcement. >> on the next washington journal, we look at the role local and state police have in

civil disturbances. o'donnell, aeugene former police officer. our great society series continues with a discussion of president johnson's immigration law. smithjoined by marion with the u.s. citizenship and integration services. then a focus on the housing act signed by president johnson in 1965. washington journal is live on c-span every day at 7 a.m. eastern. >> in a few moments, a heritage foundation discussion on relations between the u.s., japan, and south korea. in a little more than an hour, we will re-air a special programming focusing on the general motors ignition switch recall including congressional hearings and other events.

>> now a heritage foundation discussion on relations between the u.s., japan, and south korea. speakers include retired admiral dennis blair, the former director of national intelligence and an ambassador to the u.s.. this is a little more than an hour. [applause] todays good to be here among so many good friends. korean, japanese, and many others. we're here to talk about a pretty serious issue as interest in southeast asia go. history we are talking about japanese occupation of korea leading up to world war ii. it's funny you never talk about -- you never reference post-world war ii history when you're talking about history. many decades now of japanese

contributions to international relations and the economy, but nevertheless we know what were talking about when we say history. for now we will just let the word history speaks for itself and let our guest help unpack it for us. call it american optimism if you like, but i hope we can actually get to some conversation here about how we isolate the disputes that japan and korea have over matters of the past and talk about some ways that we can manage those issues going forward and focus on some of the real priorities in the japan career relationship as well as the trilateral relationship with the united states. to lead off the gush and we're very pleased and honored to welcome admiral blair to the stage. former u.s. pacific command and former director of national

intelligence and former director of national intelligence. chairman of the board of the peace foundation usa. sps in tokyo was very kind to post dement in tokyo a couple of months ago. we have copies out front if you would like to take a look at it. you can go to our website to find a copy of the speech. he also hosted us and president dement in washington. we are very pleased to be in a position to return the favor and invite admiral blair to the heritage to the foundation to share stock -- thoughts on the stage. admiral blair. >> thanks very much. it is a pleasure to be here to talk about what is a very

serious subject. the spanish philosopher once famously remarked that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. this ringing phrase has generally been taken out of context and use it to justify false analogies for current actions. a more intrinsic quote has been contributed it often seems to me these three powerful countries in the region of china, republic of korea, japan all with long entangled histories are rolling down the stream of history, facing backwards. they are rowing hard, lots of

energy, blades are flailing the water, foam is flying everywhere. moving somewhat faster than the currents would carry them, however, they mostly see their own wake. they've mostly see the water and the shoreline that is really behind them. they see what is ahead of them only when they turn their head and take a quick look over their shoulders. they do not seem to have a quick destination in mind. did not have a sense of how quickly the larger currents are carrying them down the river. consider china. chinese leaders are driven by what they see as 120 five years of history of humiliation and are determined never to suffer a time like that ever again. yet as they are steering by the way got their powerful past humiliation they are less aware of the huge currents propelling them down the river tom and the

greatest of these are the currents of greater economic relations and mobilization. yes, it is true european countries and the united states carved concessions out of china in the late 19th century but also true for the same entries that has propelled china to become the second-largest, second most powerful economy in the world. or consider japan. japan is making the new defense policy not so much by defining its interest, look into the future come up but by revising a single constitutional interpretation of the past. that interpretation of its ability to exercise the right of collective self-defense. the currents in the big river, nature of the river bank has changed fundamentally since that time. militarism of the 1930's

developed into rising era of passion system and worldwide depression that bread desperation and extreme activity to political views and many countries around the world. the world of the future is not one of ideological motivated our blocs contesting for world dominance. rather a world of contesting individual nations come and sometimes acting individually, sometimes cooperating and functional multilateral groups of various kinds. a world in which failing states pose as much danger as to powerful states and which extremist violence can pose dangers to develop and it interconnected world. a world in which a major country like japan needs to deploy diplomatic, economic and military powers in sophisticated ways to cooperate with like-minded allies to preserve security and prosperity for themselves for the region and for the world. japan requires major changes for

security policies, not just legacy concepts from a past age. finally, consider korea. korean leader attitudes are driven in part historical fears that both japan and china somehow look down on korea based on historical experience. they fear economic domination by china similar to the military domination of korea in the past. they reject japanese apologies for it actions during the colonial time because they do not consider them to be sincere. korean suspect they did not respect them. they celebrate to national separate holidays on japanese colonial rule. independence day commemorating the effort of 1919 march first and national liberation day august 15. just this year joining with the chinese they completed a new on boreal honored as a patriot but condemned as a terrorist in tokyo for a fascinating general of korea and former prime

minister of japan in 1909. yet the big currents of world development have propelled korea to a much more secure position than it has upheld in the past. it has a security treaty with the united states, the most powerful region in the world. territorial conquest has been discredited. economic prowess counts for more based on hard work, adaptability, other forms of soft power such as cultural influences were increased we import and and by these measures korea is a very powerful country. it can deal as appear with all nations of the world including china and japan, and should take counsel of the ambition not of its fears. history is important. historical ignorance can cause a country to repeat the same mistake twice. however, remembering too much history, understanding too little is the difference between

the past and present can conjure up also historical analogies, restrict the country's ability to make rugrats and cause it to miss opportunities for positive change. -- make progress. there is another care restrict of the effective history of the country's international policies we should note. psychologist tells us that for most people, individuals, the memory of pleasure is more important and lasting than is the measure of lane -- the memory of pain. poor nations it seems to be equally selective but in different directions. for countries it seems past failures, past injustices are the most powerful memories fake can have and propel action. china, for example, still thinks of itself in part as the developing and we country but china is the second largest economy in the world with nuclear and armed forces to match. the rest of the world thinks china is a very powerful country.

japan's attitude is somewhat dominated by memories of just 15 years, 19421945 when the ramp control of the government and ran the country into disaster. the veneers of restraint and except larry behavior since that time did not seem as important in japan self image. the republic of korea in many ways inks of itself is a small, divided country, a shrimp among whales, many times invaded. rather one of the largest economies in the world with a gdp per capita exceeding more than any of its neighbors. a worldwide reputation for menu fracturing excellence and international peacekeeping operations and major contributor in of peacekeeping and international appeal. finally, the politics of history that also play a role. government exploits history for partisan and power purposes and

episodes of history the most useful for the purposes are often the ones most nucleating -- most humiliating. democracy is like -- japan and korea exploit insults to bid for political power to appeal the groups with whom the issues have special resonance. it is easy to fall under this syndrome, no politician in a dictatorship or democracy ones to be vulnerable to accusations of inadequate patriotism, softness and supporting the countries on her. -- honor. they mostly believe they can control it. not so much that it causes damage to their countries. there is a thin line in any country between healthy patriotism and nationalism. the introduction of controversial historical events in the car policies and politics often blurs the line and sometimes crosses it.

even if nationalism does not become extreme, it certainly prevents progress in other areas. whatever the root cause is and explanation, the exploit and tatian of the nations painful past -- exportation of the nation's painful past is a conscious political decision, he nation's painful past is a conscious political decision, whether it is a controversial wartime trying, raising the comfort women or raising emphasis on an especially brutal long and brutal for. there have been recent extensions to train japan and china on one hand when historical issues did not play such a large and crippling role. leaders in all three countries understood the benefits of cooperation in many areas, business, cultural, people two people were more important to

the countries development, while not denying or covering up the historical issues and in many cases taking steps to knowledge apologize for to them. they did not allow it to dominate the relationship that it prevented progress in the other -- in other areas as is the case now. historical animosities clearly can be a malia rated as aches the experience with germany and most of rest says -- rest of asia's experience. so much for admiring the problem as historical issues and nationalism and international relations. the much more difficult relation -- question is what to do about it. he has two panels that follow our talks that hopefully can come up with ideas about it. let me give you mine.

i mentioned earlier, the solution ultimately lies with political leadership. they must decide it outweighs the advantages. as i mentioned, this has been the case in the past when relations between japan and china were relatively cordial" operative. however, there are other actions that can be taken by others and by their friends and -- my friends in the united states. as a first step they must understand their own histories in a more sure way. all countries have painful past.es in their the united states has a least three major instances of unjust and brutal treatment of large groups of citizens. slavery against african-americans, slaughter of native americans and x per creations of their land am

internment of japanese americans in world war ii. in most major historical episodes like these, some leaders and some ordinary citizens access aerobically. some acted despicably. until a country achieves a full country, itg of its cannot handle the internal pressures to simplify and exploit that history for political advantage and cannot handle the external pressures from other countries from repeated apologies for denial or leverage. however, in my mind there is a much more fundamental and important reason for the citizens of the country to understand their history. as human beings we have to make sense of our lives and the know how we've reached the current situation, what our forbearers .id on the how that affects us it applies to individuals,

families, nations. there will always be elements of myths in family and personal and national histories, but as we become more mature on the we need to get below the myths and enter the reality, complex mixture of heroism, cowardice, loyalty, endurance and surrender that makes a real history the way it actually happened. now it may be too much to hope that china can achieve historical honesty under the current form of government. dictatorships are basically threatened by their own history, and that is why they work so hard to control it. even when they try to deal with it a come up with oversimplifications. they censor serious works of history like the recent biography. however, i do not believe it is

too much to hope democracies like japan and korea can pace their own histories more honestly than they do. facing history is much more than just a sentence or two in a school textbook. it is the encouragement and widespread discussion of serious works of history such as the recent books of japan 1941, an examination of why japan decided to go to war with the obviously more powerful united states. on examination of korean troops conduct in the vietnam war were aldiers had an -- had reputation for brutality that surpassed other countries. it is based on facts, not on whether book hurts or helps. political cause. research and books are critical. so too are movies, documentaries that reach a wider audience, often with more emotional power. the popular director clint aboutod made a movie

hiroshima. it is interesting the movie from the japanese view is more popular in the united states. received more oscar nominations than did the one from the american point of view. also, based on the american cases of coming to grips with the country's history never ends. it is not the case of putting the sentence and official school textbook, entering and accepting apologies and then moving on. a case of continued research on the facts and research of the time, book about african-americans or in 1960's outlook.different in this sense there really is no place for apology for tea. shameful at says in national history will always be painful and embarrassing and will have to be faced and learned in

greater depth. isgetting the history right one important step but there are others. opinion makers, public figures come a media commentator should emphasize the important trends of the future as much as they talk about the narrow, historical issues of the past. great games countries have made since the end of the cold war, civil war in china have all been enabled by international operations. the economic miracles in japan and china have been based on foreign investment and exports, political developments have occurred through political contact with the rest of the world. territorial aggression has been discredited among advanced nations as a way to increase power. in fact, military aggression whether by the soviet union in afghanistan, united states in considered toally

be hugely expensive for dubious games. things have changed since the 1930's and 1940's and 1950's. so while the opinion makers and influential spokesman should not disregard or cover up historical issues, they should place them in a wider context of changes that have taken place since those years. most of all, this puts a premium on national leadership. it requires careful calibration of the flick statements along with private medications. big public actions, even accompanied by very public are simply fodder for exploitation by political opportunist. public opinion eads to be shaped by smaller steps, thoughtful public statements on days of historical significance, encouragement to private

initiative to the history right, public admonitions of statements whether made by a political ally or political enemy, wherever they are made. there is a particular role to be played by leaders who have strong nationalist credentials. they can uniquely lead their countries to put historical animosities he heightened them without the risk of inciting domestic backlash that might in turn only create a further spiral of acrimony. as richard nixon's lead an opening to china, an opening to capitalism, so some current or future nationalist leader in japan or korea has an opportunity to leave his or her mark on history. in addition, an important place for very private communications among national leaders. trusted emissaries need to be used to test whether an overture would be reciprocated. because public dayton's and not actions are so subject to true intentions they need to be conveyed through trusted channels.

national leaders and immediate staff need to resist the temptation to week everything they do to the press to get the appearance of action and the appearance of masters of the situation. so let me conclude by providing the rest of the store by george santi ando's famous quote about history. about the dangers of forgetfulness, he goes on to explain manhunt and true orgress in which no events habits have grasp onto instincts. this is truly the challenge for the leaders and citizens for the powerful countries of southeast asia. they need to understand their own histories and understand what has changed since the time the historical events occurred. they need to avoid history impeding development of a better future, rather than rolling ships a state while facing the stern, they need to face forward on the ground a teller and steer

confidently into the future. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, admiral. hoping to look into more detail on the program. heritage has a long history of .elationships none closer with those in south korea. that is why i am honored to introduce you to the ambassador of the united states. he was appointed just this year the president. fire to this he served as ambassador to foreign minister trades. serviceeen at foreign 36 years. needless to say, far more than i

can go to in their brief introduction. suffice it to say the ambassador is an outstanding representative of the country, good friend of the heritage foundation and someone we are proud to welcome to our stage. thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon. i should begin by thanking our invitingfoundation for me to the seminar. this morning i was having breakfast with one of you, and i said it is amazing 200 people would show up on the relationship between korea and japan in august. i said it would only happen in only washington, d.c., no other place in the world. i guess we both much of it to it fact that you organized

at the heritage foundation, so thank you very much. -- at the samee time i have to say was very inspiring. thank you, admiral blair. upon issues ing history. he was depending on psychology and then depending on political science. termsruly at in disciplinary approach he has applied to japan. at the same time, i have a far simpler approach should. i will be a book to presented in mr -- far more simpler manner. in order to do it let me raise three questions and then try to answer the three questions as

observed by traditional relations and japan. my first question is what is the present state of relations in korea and japan? there simpler answer would be not the best. be very simple answer would very easily shared by all of you. but i would have to add in the sense that if you look at the part, and if i look to the , i am more optimistic when i look in the future. when i look upon the past 50 years, then korea and japan normalized the relationship in 1965. so next year we would celebrate the 50th anniversary of normalized relation -- relationships. there has been ups and downs.

all in all there has been tremendous progress between the relationship of korea and japan. is why i feel very much encouraged about the relationship. , i am look to the future will grow from strength to strength. why? because we share so many things. same values, same interest. they always say, geography is destiny. so when i think about all of this commonality between korea and japan, i am very confident for the coming 50 years and beyond we can develop the relationship from strength to strength. there has been ups and downs.

could apply history and perspective and political science perspective and apply even a psychiatry at this -- psychiatrist perspective. at the same time i think whatever perspective you take there is ups and downs. there wasrn has been recognizing the past as it was and taking responsibility for the past, it created a political space for bringing the relationship to a higher place. that has been a pattern we experienced over the past 50 years. our is the reason why in view we are deeply concerned about what is happening in the past several years. time, what ime think about the future i am very confident we will be overcoming

the relationship between korea and japan. for the time being let me think about the second question, which is given the fact that we could develop relationships and positive manner and are so confident about the coming six years and be beyond, what should be done today, that will be the second question. the simple answer to the question would be a lot. there are so many things we could be doing together between korea and japan. there are a lot of things we could be doing today and then we could be doing them on two different tracks. i would call it the track of history. the reason why i said that his korea-japan relationship is a nation to nation relationship. we know how we can develop relationship. we can strengthen the

relationship insecurity. we can strengthen it in the economy. that is what we do. that is what korea does. does.s what japan that is what we should be doing in the normal way. years ins i spent 36 koran foreign service. these days i often look back about what i personally did when it comes to the relationship between korea and japan. then i cannot be reminded again and again about what korea used to do. personally walked hand-in-hand the time when korea had to walk very hard back in

1996. when i came to geneva back in be9, then i used to responsible for human rights issues. again, i was walking closely with my counterpart. at the time the gentleman who later on became an ambassador of course. then i used to walk very closely with him on which issues? human rights issues. i impression at the time is there are large number of member countries of the human rights commission at that time. the time isn of other countries coming from asia , no other countries and japan with which we could share so many things when it comes to the human race issue. in 2000 to an increasing number of soccer fans in the united states. in 2002 korea and japan we were

supposed of football games. it does not happen too often. a very limited number when more than one country, two countries will join forces and that happened in 2002. i personally worked on the issue. 2003, president of south korea came to japan. --the time i was directional director of international issues and was wondering if there is anything i could do to develop a normal listed relationship between korea and japan and i came up with this idea. i think many of you have been to international airport is aged. nearer. another one far i thought about tokyo.

at the same time it is far nearer here to tokyo. so i came up with an idea. go all the wayto fly? thathy can't we is the idea that i came up with. then we made a proposal in japan and the japanese like the idea. that is how it began to fly. that is the reason why each time felt much pride about and i was encouraged when i saw high school students coming to korea on a school expedition. fact, i could see a large group of high school students

coming from japan who were on theto visit korea political flight. these are the examples of some of the things i personally did. so we in fact have been doing many things to strengthen relationships. getting back to admiral layers point recognizing the past is important but at the same time we have to continue to make for as, practical efforts normal relationship between korea and japan. then i have to tell you this, again i am quoting admiral blair. issues we should be addressing.

and then again admiral blair was the interdisciplinary approach about how we should be understanding issues of history, but at this time time, let me repeat to you there is a clear and distinct pattern in the relationship. there is a reason why we keep on one in fact i already shared with you what i personally did in 1990's and 21st century to strengthen relations in japan. one reason we cannot do that very unfortunately these days is because of some of the statements coming from japan. very difficult actions being made in japan. that in fact is the reason why we keep on saying the importance of recognizing the past in a

fair and honest manner. that is important in the relationship between korea and japan. so as a matter of fact i raised this issue not only with japanese but those in washington , and the other day i was talking to one diplomat coming had a very, and interesting experience behind him in the sense that he is a european diplomat but at the he started political reform phd at tokyo university and his dissertation was on modern history of japan. this is whate of he had to say. he said when it comes to issues of comfort women, the japanese are suffering from the problem of their own creation.

recognized accepted, the issue of comfort women and a fair and honest manner, the issue would have long been gone by this time. they are creating their own problem and struggling from their own problem and very painful to look upon them as somebody who spent so many years in japan studying japanese history and working as a professional in japan it is very painful to watch them. that is what i heard from the european diplomat here in d.c. so when it comes to japanese leaders i think there are two different kinds. i think all japanese leaders, are thinking about making a proud country out of japan but at the same time some of them thinking they are doing that through recognizing the past as

it was that we in fact can make a proud country. think it isme that through denial of what happened in the past that we cannot reach the same objective. i think as i already told you there are ups and downs. when we have to deal with the tendency to deny what happened in the past, it makes it very difficult to strengthen our relationship. having said that, i have come to the third point, which is when i was ambassador for one year now which i am come to base again and again in a very different corners of washington. there is where we as americans look upon the relationship between korea and japan, how could we do in the united states

theave you to improve relationship between korea and japan cap code that is a i received over and over again for the past one year. my simple answer is this, which is more of the same. in theu have been doing u.s. congress and department, the white house am a what you have been doing in the pink tanks, what do been doing in the u.s. newspapers, that in fact has been very helpful for us to try to related -- improve the relationship. why do i say that? it is because i am getting back to the point by admiral blair, which is less -- let's recognize the past failure honestly and that is what president obama has been saying again and again.

andad a press conference that is exactly what he said. the first thing that might -- must happen is to recognize the past failure and honestly come is the same message is the message from the department of state was said and prime ministers. they wanted to recognize the past as they were. that as we know it has been helpful. those states have been helpful to improve -- improve the relationship within the u.s.. that is the message coming again and again from decision-makers as opinionn, as well makers in this town, including the heritage foundation. that is the reason why i say

thank you for what you have been iing in the united states and think you can keep on doing what you have been doing so far. there are my three points. thank you so much. [applause] >> i am going to turn it over to to think about the burning questions. nine of chris nelson has one as always. -- i know that chris nelson has one as always. >> thank you. terrific come a very important statements.

i will try to run them both and my report tomorrow. was the ambassador invited and was he not able to come for some reason to this? >> this is an independent effort. clarification in case someone wondered. you use a lot is of descriptive thinking in your speech. prime were to provide minister avi on what he should say in order to have president park and the korean friends , what with the prime minister have to say that you

think the korean leadership come andept as ok yeah see wondering from what you as a practitioner, do you think aboutpossible to talk korea, japan, political reconciliation under the current japanese leadership or is this something we're just going to have to wait out and hope for the best? thank you. as i said in my remarks, the visitors to the shrine have overwhelming symbolism that it is hard to shred out the

elements of what is true and not true. if you read the prime minister statements he makes in conjunction with the visits to the shrine, they are very good, balanced statements. the dim drowned out by of the fact of showing up at the thene with all of controversy that many experts in the audience are more familiar with than i the way it was established to what the museum says and the shrine says the fact that honor some and not others. all of that has gained a size any really dwarfs whatever japanese prime minister can say. i said in my remarks i think the way not to make -- the way to make progress is not to try to take short-term actions but

somehow change symbolism because i think that is the work of generations. i think my advice to the prime minister would be to show respect to the armed forces of japan, civilians who died in the way, whichfferent gets at the honorable, patriotic the debt we all owe to those who put on a uniform and fought for us and yet is not overwhelmed by the symbolic significance of the place. with respect to the second thoughts that just came from the floor, i think it is not necessarily who is in power in , it is not decided by the

citizens in japan and what we could or could not do but i think at the same time what is inortant is understanding korea and japan about what would work for the best benefit of japan. than a fifth of the international community and i think what must happen here is understanding what must be fromn -- must have been japanese leaders. i totally agree when he says what explanations are important but at the same time when politicians make an action and the symbolism of the actions. i think they are enormously important. the considerations could be made before any statement or action are taken and they impact would be extremely helpful in strengthening relationships between korea and japan. at theys have to look track of history, and i

sincerely hope the strengthening relations would not be undermined in the truck of history. the would like to ask ambassador. i often hear the question about way -- when there may be a summit meeting between the leader of japan and rok. i know that one japanese newspaper has argued it is quite unfair that the koreans, according to them, are asking for preconditions to be met by japan before such a meeting could take race and somehow they think why did they have to be reconditioned? could you address the issue? are

their preconditions or is that slowing down the possibility of a meeting? >> of course. the thing is there are meetings between korea and japan taken place. there are different levels of ministers. there are different military meetings, etc., etc.. and then why are we having for meeting? i think they are tools, instruments. i think we should apply the practical mind in the sense that it's a summit meeting will be there, then we should have thosen assurance that meetings in fact would go in the direction of further strengthening relationships in japan. there will behown certain expectations created,

and that expectation would be when the leaders meet, we would move to a place that would be better than where we are today. that level of expectation, if it is met, that would be good, but if it is not met, there would be frustration. frustration goes in the direction of undermining the relationship rather than improving it. i would call it common sense. way in the back. blue shirt. as the gentleman mentioned, emphasizing the importance of issues among other issues related to history, i feel you're compelled to make a couple of comments about soul-searching of the issue on

the japanese side and ask for your comments. japan in the past, on the issue, is the condition the japanese military systematically coursed recruitment of the innocent evidence after research and research shows in japan ignores such thing. there was one lone isolated case where officers of the imperial the forcefully coerced prosecution after two months it was suspended by the japanese command and officer in charge punished. this also was executed.

again and again the japanese understanding is no systematic cordial of policy. ago most recently, 10 days the most seriously dependent upon source of information for the critics of japan published a major retraction of the contention that paper has been pushing previously. there is no evident. so again and again. so what would you say to the most recent retraction, and then the background that i most recently explained? >> i am so glad we have someone

of 36 years of diplomatic experience to handle that. even so you might need a second to cool down. well the question is coming from a correspondent of reminds me of a commission with a commission on statement. then when this idea first came up from the japanese government that they would be in a sense of establishing the review, then our idea was, what are you going to do with respect? are you going to maintain or modify the code the answer was we're going to maintain it. if thatnd question was is the case, what will be commission or the mandate for the commission? they said the response was it is to further strengthen the basis

of the statement. when that review commission came out with a report, there was not disappointment on the part of korea. why? on the one hand we heard the chief critic of japan stating we will continue to support the statement. at the same time am a what is the kono statement? there were three elements. the first element was core shouldn't. coercion in the sense that the japanese military was responsible for the management of military process during this time. second was admission of pain, coached. been third point was, because at the japanese authorities engagement that hadse of the pain been caused to the members of the process, japanese government and japanese evil are under heavy response ability arising

from that. then we in fact went through the somehow thend then was the coercion was obliterated. i will not go into the details but what was suggested is it was overrated. there is a reason why we could not fully understand the motivation for setting up the mission -- commission and the first place. if they are selling -- saying the element of coercion in fact that there is something to be questioning the elements of caution, then in fact how could you say we was banned by the kono statement? that in fact is the reason why -- let me remind you a point that was made is somehow there was an issue in japan that somehow the issues of histories for which japan takes

responsibility again and again but somehow korea does not accept the responsibility and keeps on raising the issue of responsibility but as a matter of fact that few is wrong. i know that but at the same time if you look at the instances when the element of coercion, which in fact has been more than throughntly established various different channels is being questioned again and again, and that from time to time by japanese authorities, as that is the reason why in fact be historyet history and move ahead. that is the reason why we keep on saying denial will not be helpful. be thence would in fact starting point and must be the starting point. thank you.

>> could i just add a more general point? the history of asia from the 1930's to about 1955 or so is not pretty in any way that you can think about it. there were a series of brutal acts a can on a large scale by many countries, against many countries. there were a a lot of innocent victims. there were some victims who were not innocent. it was a nasty place for an long time. cann't think any country have a monopoly on righteousness in the eventshame of those 50 years. what i was trying to say is the attempt to hold a "we were "ight" and "you were wrong sweepstakes is not going to help

our children and grandchildren understand what happened there, to be able to incorporate it into their memories, and the histories of their families, their fathers, the grandparents, their ants, their mothers, and hopefully move on to a better approach that will not kill and brutalize so many people, or allow other people to do it. it seems to me, this issue is so much bigger than whether on one particular day a particular thing happened. we are playing around with shoelaces when we have a huge set of major issues we have to deal with. what i'm talking about is trying to get a large, overall understanding of this timeframe in which there were some heroes who attempted to keep bad things from happening, or who refused to carry out orders that were barbaric and right against their creed. there were some who went ahead and did it. there were many who did nothing

and did not know about it, or wish they did. and perhaps could have made a difference. it is that sort of sad understanding of what went on that i think is the key to moving on, and which will not be solved by simply, o, yes, government was responsible -- was responsible for act be, or government see was responsible -- government "c" was responsible for actd. we need to take the full extent of understanding of what went on and move forward to a better future. >> just briefly, i wanted to say that i think this frustration that some of us face, or are stuck in the middle of, we spent a great deal of time that --

telling our korean friends that the japanese have already dealt with this, have already apologized 60 times, or what ever the count is. and to some extent, that is true. but then questions like that raise the prospect that actually you haven't. we get stuck in the middle. true,arge extent, it's the government has officially dealt with the issue. but as long as you take every opportunity to reopen it, then that is what we have problems, and the ups and downs of the last 50 years. >> they should be reopened and a sense of understanding, but to use it as a clinical instrument time and again, i think, is what is keeping us for making progress. -- from making progress. >> yes, right here. mike billington from executive intelligence review. ambassador, and perhaps also

admiral blair, at think it is clear that many people here in the u.s. are anxious for japan-korea collaboration because they want them to be joining forces against china. and as is reflected with the effort to get the sad missiles the ploy, which the koreans believed were deployed against china, not north korea, and the recent effort to prevent korea from joining with china's asian .nfrastructure bank proposals i would like for you to address this. i know that the relationship with china and russia is crucial for getting peace within the peninsula and for longtime economic development. if you could address that side of the issue, please. economictrue that relations between japan and china are getting more important. was an article in the

"washington post" with a very high ranking government official in japan. ,nd there was in a sense , in the sense that it was a very simplistic theme. which was, as when there is an increasing economic relationship between europe and russia, and reasons why the country -- the countries are not reacting strongly against russia with you right -- with regard to ukraine. that thea risk relationship can create and that the united states could be undermined. that high government official thatan expression

surprised me. i was thinking about it, which must be the strategic relationship between korea and japan? in my presentation i was emphasizing again and again about common interests that we share between korea and japan. and those kind of statements someone in a responsible position in the japanese government, it could very likely have an effect on the relationship upon the countries in the region. i truly believe it is not going to happen at all, to undermine and theon between korea united states, because of the increasing economic relationship between korea and china. that is very simplistic. and i have to remind you, and myself, that the security alliance, the security

partnership, the only country allies is korea has a with the united states. and we think about security, there is only one. i could come up with hundreds of reasons why, but it is really one powerful reason why we don't think it is going to happen at all. it is the statements being made by the department of state and the white house. is not going to undermine korea's for the ship with the united states, not even by one iota. >> let me ask one question here, because admiral blair, i don't want to miss the opportunity to ask you about this, particularly if you could comment on the new guidelines on self-defense from

in thend where it fits need for u.s. activity in the region. >> i will be glad to talk about that. let me just add a quick item. i don't want to let this item stand that the united states somehow wants to get japan and korea together to form an anti-chinese coalition. that simply is not what the american interest is in this situation. china is attempting an approach in east asia, which involves trying to gain bilateral advantage in the series of individual of relationships with countries, and it prefers to operate in a sort of spoke and in itselationship interest with individual

countries, and try to increase them as the management increases. the united states, korea, and japan, i think, are all countries which believe in principles, common which applies to countries large or small in economic and security and territorial dispute and the whole rest of it. i think what the ambassador was saying about common values has to do with these values and the way we approach problems and the way we believe security and prosperity should be achieved in , byregion, by compromise that we alliples apply to. in that sense, that is what we countries ofcratic have betterpan to

relations with each other, so they can work to support these principles, which we think apply to making progress in that part of the world. on collective self-defense, as i mentioned in my remarks, i think japan has very fine military equipment, very well-trained officers and men, and an absolutely abysmal system for bringing that to bear in support of japanese and common interests around the world. set ofuilt on this principles and an interpretation of the constitution that was set entirelyrs ago under different circumstances. and i think every step that to give its armed forces more flexibility to be used by the government, to solve japan's security problems and common security problems, it anticipating problems, participating in disaster

relief, helping to deter north korea and so on, is a step to the good. i think the steps taken recently are in the right direction and i hope that they continue. shouldn't be confused a return to 1930's style militarism in japan. japan today is so far from putting the percent the month back on the bows of the ships. it.nnot even imagine i would like to separate these histories and get the history right. japan will operate in armed forces, which will operate, i'm sure, as has japanese policy been in the past 70 years, in and are -- in a responsible manner. >> thank you, we will have to

leave it there. in thankingjoin me the ambassador and admiral for being with us today. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> here is a great read to add to your summer reading list. sundays at eight. c-span's most and original interviews from people over the last 25 years. >> i knew there was a risk in the bohemian lifestyle. whether his emotional or not -- it is an illusion or not, it helped my concentration. it stopped me from be boring -- being bored.

it would prolong the conversation. and hence the moment. what i do itd, again? the answer is, yes. i would quit earlier getting -- hoping to get away with the whole thing. not very nice for my children to year. it sounds irresponsible if i say i would do it again to you. but it would be hypocritical of me to say, i would never have touched the stuff if i had known. i did know. everyone knows. >> the soviet system contains the seeds of its own destruction. many of the problems we saw at the end began at the beginning. the attempts to control all institutions and all parts of the economy. one of the problems is when you do that, when you try to, -- control everything, you create opposition and potential dissidents everywhere. they have tortists

paint the same way, and somebody says they want to do it another way, you have made him into a lyrical visited -- dissident. subsidizewant to housing, and the populace agrees, put it on the belichick. -- ballot sheet. ise it clear how much it costing. when you deliver it through third-party enterprises, fannie mae and freddie mac, when you deliver the subsidy through a public company with private shareholders and ask you to -- executives who can extract be subsidy for themselves, that is not a good way of civilian -- subsidizing. >> they are a few of the 41 engaging stories in c-span's sundays at eight. no available at your favorite bookseller. year, general

motors recalled one million vehicles due to faulty ignition switches that had been linked to 13 deaths and 54 different crashes. tonight we will take a special look at the gm recalls issue. it includes those house and senate oversight hearings. we will begin with the ceo of general motors mary barra where she took responsibility for the faulty ignition switches. then the family members speak out at a news conference. finally, a senate hearing on compensating general motors victims. >> our issue spotlight programming on gm recalls begins with general motors ceo mary

barra. in april, she testified where she apologized to the victims families for the deaths caused by the faulty ignition switches. this is about 50 minutes. >> you are now under oath. you may now give a five-minute summary of your written statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. can you hear me? ok. my name is mary barra and i am 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. it took so lor a safety defect to be announced for this program. but i can tell you that we will find out. this is an extraordinary situation. it involves vehicles that we no longer make. answers, we will 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 our responsibility now or in the future. today, gm is here to 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 have asked former u.s. attorney and the lucas to conduct a thorough investigation . i have received updates from him and he tells me that he is well along in his work. he has free reign to go where the facts take cam. the facts will be the facts. once they are in, my leadership team and i will do what is needed to help make sure this does not happen again. we will hold ourselves accountable. i am not waiting for his results to make changes. i have named a new vice president of global vehicle safety. the first priority is to quickly identify and resolve any and all product safety issues. he is not taking this task

alone. i stand with them and my senior leadership team stands with him as well. and we will welcome input from outside it gm, from you, from that set, our customers, our dealers, and current and former employees. of recallsround demonstrates how serious we are about the way we want to do things. we identified these issues and brought them forward and we are fixing them. keepe asked our team to instructing the system and work with one thing in mind. their customer and safety are at the center of everything we do. our customers who have been affected are getting our full and undivided attention. we are talking darkly to them through a dedicated website with constantly updated website and through social media platforms very we have trained and people. over 100

we are sending customers written information to the mail. we have and our dealers to take extraordinary measures. if people do not want to drive a recalled vehicle before it is repaired, dealers can provide them with a loner or a rental car free of charge. we have provided nearly in thousand loner vehicles. loanerly 13,000 vehicles. our supplier is manufacturing new replacement parts for the vehicles that are no longer in production. those parts will start being delivered to dealers next week. these measures are only the first in making eggs right and rebuilding trust with our customers. employees,ed our

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 am kurds to say everyone at gm, including our order of directors, supports this. i am a second-generation gm employee. i am here as their ceo but i am also here representing the and men and women who are -- the many men and women who are part of gm today who are educated to put in the safest vehicles on the road today. i recently held a town hall meeting. we met at our ethical center in michigan. this is one of the places where the men and women who engineered our vehicles work. they are the brains behind our cars and the heart behind our cars andhind

the heart behind general motors. they had many of the same questions that i suspect are on your minds. they want to make is better for our customers and make gm better. they particularly wanted to know what we plan to though -- you do for those who suffer the most. that is why i am pleased to announce we have attained kenneth feinberg. 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. he 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 what those responsibilities are and how to balance them in an appropriate manner. ringing in mr. feinberg is the first step. >> i want to acknowledge, we know the families are here today we offer sympathy to their families and we have all of you in our hearts. reviewed many documents. theoon as the cobalt it road, drivers began to immediately complained to general motors that the ignition systems did not work properly. you can imagine how frightening it is to drive a car that

suddenly loses its power steering and power brakes. -- new that it did not is it common practice for gm to except a car that does not meet gm specifications? >> no.

but there's a difference between a part meeting or not meeting specificications and a part being defective. >> so under what scenario is accepting parts that don't meet gm specs allowable? >> an example would be when you are purchasing steel. you'll set a specificication for steel but then because of the different suppliers and availability of steel to make products you will assess the performance, the functionality, the durrability, 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. that's an example of when you would have a part or have material that doesn't meet the speck that was set out but is acceptable from a safety from a functionality perspective. performance as well. >> is that switch acceptable? >> the switch? i'm sorry. >> is the switch acceptable? >> at what time frame? i'm sorry. ar at the beginning. it didn't meet the specifics for gm. is that what you would consider acceptable? >> as we clearly know today it is not. >> so in 2006 gm switched put in a new spring to increase the torque. am i correct? >> i didn't hear the last part i'm sorry. >> gm supplier put a new spring in to increase the torque. is that correct? >> there was a new part. >> now, in that binder next to you if you would turn to tab 25. this is an e-mail exchange between delfi employees in 2005 discussing the changes to the ignition switch. the e-mail notes that a gm engineering 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 drivers knee. unquote. if this was such a big problem, why didn't gm replace the ignition switch in the cars already on the road? the cars with the torque well below gm specificications insteado just the new scars? why? >> what you just said does not match under tab 25. >> it's the bottom of the page there should be something there.

just know what i said. i apologize for that but there was a statement made that cobalt was blowing up in their face by a bump of the drivers knee. >> clearly there were a lot of things that happened, there have been a lot of statements made that's why we've hired anton valukecass. we are spanding >> but you don't know why they didn't replace the switch? >> i do not know the answer to that and that is why we're doing this investigation. >> given the number of complaints, why wasn't this identify as a safety issue? >> again, i can't answer specific questions at that point in time. that's why we're doing a full and complete investigation. >> in the chronology gm submitted to nhtsa gm states it didn't make the connection between the ignition switch problems and the air bag nondeployment problems until late 2013. so my question is when gm decided to switch the ignition in 2006 tid the company ever examine how could affect other vehicle systems like the air bags? >> again, that'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 then. so when gm concluded and you heard from my opening statement that the tooling costs and price pieces are too high, what does that mean? >> i find that statement to be very disturbing. as we do this investigation and understood it in the context of the whole time line if that was

the reason the 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 costs associated with it. we look at the speed in which we can fix the issue. >> was there a culture in gm at that time that they would have put costs over safety? >> again, we're doing a complete investigation but i would say in general we have moved from a cost culture after the bankruptcy to a customer culture. we have trained thousands of people on putting the customer first. we have actually gone with outside training. it's a part of our core values and it is one of the most important cultural changes we're driving in general motors today. >> i understand today. we're asking about then. i'm out of time. >> thank you very much, mr.

chairman. ms. barra, gm knew about the defect in the ignition switches 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 ms. barra. >> this is a gm document. and what this gm document talks about is the this switch. it says, tear down evaluation on the switch revealed two causes of failure. low contact force and low detent funker force. do you recognize that document, ma'am? >> this is the first i've seen this document. >> ok. well, so you don't know how long gm knew about this?

>> that's right. and that's why i'm doing an investigation. >> ok. in fact delfi, the manufacturer of the ignition switch informed gm that the switch was supposed to be 15 minimum torque specificication but in fact these switches were between 4 and 10. didn't it? >> the specificication 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 gm was notified by delfi of this. correct? yes or no? >> i am not aware of being notified. >> ok. >> can i also correct i was -- >> i need a yes or no. i only have five minutes. i'm sorry. so as far as back as 2004, ten years ago, gm conducted a problem rezzluge tracking system inquiry after it learned of an incident where the key move data of the run condition in a 2005 shelvet cobalt. is this correct?

>> again you're relating specific incidents that happened -- >> you don't know? >> in our entire investigation? >> you don't know about that? take a look at tab 8, please. and by the way, ma'am, i'm getting this information from the chronology that gm provided to nhtsa. >> right. and -- >> so 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 inquiry, one engineer advised against further action because there was quote no acceptable business case to provide a resolution and the prts was closed. is that correct? >> if that is true that is a very disturbing fact. >> yes, it is. >> that is not the way we make decisions. >> ok. 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 provide proposed changes to the kees. is that correct? >> that's part of our investigation to get that complete time line. >> well, taking from the time line gm has already done. >> which was a summary. >> ok. so as a result of the investigation, a technical service bulleten was issued to dealers that if car owners complained 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 recalls sent. is that correct? >> that's my understanding. yes. >> thank you. in 2006, gm contracted with delfi to redesign the ignition switch to use a new detep punter and swing that would increase torque force. 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 specificications either. this one delfi said was 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. you don't know that. ok. now, despite these facts gm continued to manufacture cars with these same ignition switches with 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, three recalls were made this year, 2014. two in february and one just

last friday. is that right? >> related to this ignition switch? >> now, i have just a couple more questions. the first question i have ms. barra, gm is intending to replace all the switches for those cars beginning on april 7. is that right? >> we will begin shipping material or new parts -- >> are you going to put a completely redesigned switch or the old switches from 2006 into those cars? >> it's going to be 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 act -- >> i have more questions mr. chairman. perhaps we can do another round. >> but an important part several members may be concerned. you say 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. velucas? >> from anybody. >> are you getting updates? >> yes.

>> thank you. now go to chairman of the full committee mr. upton for five minutes. >> again ms. barra for being here this afternoon. i want to make sure that we ask similar questions of both you and of nhtsa. we want to learn about the documents that were submitted on a timely and appropriate basis to nhtsa and in fact what did they do with that information. the documents that we've looked at produced show that gm received complaints about its cobalt ignition switches for about two years that ultimately resultd in a redesigned ignition switch from 2006. who within gm would have known about those specific scomplabets? -- specific complaints? what was the process back then? >> i was not a part of that organization at the 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 who would have been handling this issue at that point. >> but you're getting updates. what's supposed to happen? looking back what should have happened when these reports came in? >> anyone 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 engineers that are the most knowledgeable that work on that. if they see an issue they elevate i had to a cross functional team that looks at it and then it goes to a group for decision. >> 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 that 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's correct. >> so that didn't happen. right? it did not happen. >> correct. >> 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. >> are you going to be able to find that out for us? >> yes, i will. >> and will you give that name to our committee? >> we will provide that. >> is it likely that that same person was the one that decided not to recall the defective version? where did -- where in the time line is that? >> i don't know. but that is part of the investigation that we're doing. >> do you know when it was that it was discovered, what year, what -- where in the time lime it was discovered that in fact a new part number was not assigned? >> i became aware of that after we did the recall and the time

line was put together. >> so that was just in the last month or so. is that right? >> that's when i became aware. >> but when did gm realize that no new part number was assigned? >> that's part of our investigation. i want to know that just as much as you because that is an unacceptable practice. that is not the way we do business. >> so you stated publicly that something went wrong with our process. how is the process supposed to work? >> how is this -- how are you redesigning the process to ensure that in fact it should work the way that it needs to work? >> well, one of the things we're doing is the investigation by mr. velucas i have some earnly findings from in fluke cass as we look across the company it appears at this time thrfings information in one part of the company and another part of the company department have access to that. at times they didn't share information just by course of process or they didn't recognize that the information would be valuable to another area of the

company. we have fixed that. we have announced a new position. jeff boyer the vice president of global vehicle safety, all of this will report to him. he will have additional staft and will have the ability to cut across the organization and will also have the right functional leadership who understands what's going on in the different areas. so that's a fix we've already made and he is operating that way today. >> so when gm received complaints about the ignition switches for a number of years, ended up resulting in the redesigned ignition switch in 2006, when was it that anyone linked up the ignition switch problems to look at the cobalt air bags and not deploying? was that at about the same time? was that later? what's the time line on that? >> that is something i very much want to understand and know. but i again this is -- we are doing an investigation that spabs over a decade. and it's very important because designing a vehicle is a very

complex process. that we get a detailed understanding of exactly what happened. but that's the only way we can know that we can fix processes and make sure it never happens again. >> when was it that gim informed nhtsa that in fact the redesign -- did in fact gm inform nhtsa that the ignition switch had been redesigned? >> i don't know that. >> i yield back. >> the chairman yields back. i now recognize the ranking member of the full committee mr. waxman for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. barra we have heard about how in 2002 gm approved the use of faulty ignition switches in cobalts ion knows and other cars. that's what caused many of the problems that led to the recall of the cars model year 2003 to 2007. so new ignition switches were designed and approved by general motors. these were switches that were used -- were used in the model years 2008-2010.

that all sound right to you? am i correct in what i'm saying? >> there's a couple statements you made at the beginning that i don't know to be true. >> well, in 2002, gm approved the use of what turned out to be faulty ignition switches. in several cars. >> they actually were parts that went into a 2003 was the earliest model. >> well, the tests were done in 2002. but the cars were 2003 to 2007. so we had a recall of those cars. >> right. >> and then there was a new switch, a new ignition switch designed and approved by gm. and these new switches were in use in the model year 2008-2010 cobalts and ions. >> to the best of my knowledge that's correct. >> ok. but in a briefing last week, delfi told committee staff that these new switches also did not

meet gm specificications. they told us the force required to turn these switches was about two thirds of what gm said it should be. and documents that were provided to the committee also confirmed that top gm officials were aware of the out of speck switches in 2008 and 2002 vehicles in december 2013. so there's a document if you want to look it up it's tab 39 page 6 of your binder. there was a december presentation for gm's high level executive field action decision committee. and that at that meeting they showed that the performance measurement for almost half of the 2008 -- you go 2008, 2010, model year vehicles. ignition switches were below the minimum gm required

specificications. my question to you is are you concerned that many 2008 to 2010 model year cars have switches that do not meet the company specificications? >> as we assessed the situation, my understanding that there was work going on to look at the switches again, looking at just because a switch or a part an engineered part doesn't meet specificications doesn't necessarily mean it is a defective part. as that analysis was going on at the same time we were looking across to make sure and when we recognized that spare parts might have been sold through third parties that have no tracking to know which then we made a decision all of those vehicles. >> were informed that a lot of these cars those model years had switches that were just as defective as the 2003 to 2007 cars. that those cars were recalled.

but you didn't recall the model year 2008 to 2011 vehicles until a month later. on march -- 28s. why did the company delay in recalling these newer vehicle's? >> the company was looking my understanding is the company was assessing those switches but again at the same time in parallel they were looking at the spare parts issue and the spare parts issue became very clear we needed to go and get all of those vehicles because we couldn't identify which vehicles may have had a spare part put in them. and we -- >> we recalled the entire population. >> but you've recalled those vehicles. you recalled them later. >> yes but not when you knew there was a problem. >> we recalled them. >> your recall did not mention the faulty switches that were originally installed in the cars. they mentioned only quote faulty switches may have been used to repair the vehicles. why did the company not announce that subpar switches may have been installed in those vehicles in the first place?

>> again, there was an assessment going on to understand if the specificications, the parts performance was adequate. >> wasn't it misleading to say that the company didn't tell them subpar switches may have been installed in the first place? what if i owned a later model car with its original ignition switch? your recall implies that i don't have to do anything. but my car might still have a subpar switch. will your company conduct a detailed analysis of these late model vehicles to determine if they are safe and will you provide the committee with rarnty reports and other information so we can do our own analysis? >> i believe we are recalling all of those parts. all of those vehicles are being recalled. >> they're all being recalled. well, i must say in conclusion, mr. chairman, i am concerned. i know you've taken this job in an inauspicious time.

you are trying to clean up a mess left behind for you by your predecessors. but i have one last question. how can gm assure its customers that new switches be installed beginning april 7 will finally meet gm's requirements? >> we are working very closely with our supplier, our executive director responsible for switches is personally look at the performance of the new switches. we will do 100% end of line testing to make sure that the performance, the safety, the functionality of these switches are safe. >> thank you. the gentleman's time has expired. ms. barra, i just want to be clear did you review the documents that gm submitted to the committee? >> no, i did not. there was over 200,000 pages my understanding. >> how about the document mr. waxman is talking about doid you review that? >> this page right here? >> yes. >> i actually saw this for the first time i think a day ago. >> thank you. i now recoe