mr. blackman wrote the city and this i would have that the city has 60 days to process the process and the city was not in compliance and the city to comply with state law. i put this on the monitor to address the second point the city wants to address that somehow at&t explicitly waved its rights to comply with indicting can. the first is snauflt you can't explicitly wave a law you have in writing. the second point sfauflt you can't explicitly wave statute rights i can't wave my right to council rights that are granted by statutes have a high-level of protection the city wants to argue we waved our right to have state law they don't provide legal citations that support such an argument. the next point? city's brief i'd like to address it is important for the way the board conducts business occurs on page 10 with your permission i'm going to read the paragraph. the brief states at&t argues that dependings denials for the excavation permits vicinity public utilities this argument is not before the board the board lacks the power to declare the ordinance unconstitutional or to refuse to regu

mr. justice blackman and mr. justice stewart raised whether the mandamus case is properly here. we did refer to the fact we were trying to bring before the court for review before judgment in the court appeals the order of the discrick court which we said the president tried obtain review of in two ways in two cases of the district court -- in the court of appeals rather and gave docket numbers of the two cases. if that's certiorari petition file on the 24th of may, and the judge, respondent as justice stewart properly notes in the mandamus court of appeals was served with a copy of the certiorari petition, as indeed all of the respondents otherwise before the court, the defendants in the united states against mitchell. on may 28th, in accordance with motion filed in the court of appeals, a copy of which i believe in the files of this court, the court of appeals transmitted to this court the record in both of those cases, appeal and the mandamus case. now mr. justice stewart, with respect to the judge's appearance here he is a party before the court and i believe there's a lette

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 recognize ms. blackman for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. barra you've mentioned several times in your comments today's gm. so my assumption is that you are going to run gm in a different manner than it has been run in the past? and that >> that's correct. >> and you are making some changes. i want to ask you just a little bit about time line. helping us to get our hands around this because this is the first investigation we're going to do. we're going to have others. and continue to look at this to get answers and figure out what has happened here between you all and nhtsa, and also within what happened at gm. so you mentioned in your testimony that this came to light on your watch. so i am assuming that there was no widespread knowledge in gm about this issue until you became ceo. am i correct on that? >> at the senior level of the company, we learned of this after the recall decision was made on january 31st. i was aware in lace debtber december there was analysis going on cobalt issue. bu

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 recognize ms. blackman for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. barra you've mentioned several times in your comments today's gm. so my assumption is that you are going to run gm in a different manner than it has been run in the past? and that >> that's correct. >> and you are making some changes. i want to ask you just a little bit about time line. helping us to get our hands around this because this is the first investigation we're going to do. we're going to have others. and continue to look at this to get answers and figure out what has happened here between you all and nhtsa, and also within what happened at gm. so you mentioned in your testimony that this came to light on your watch. so i am assuming that there was no widespread knowledge in gm about this issue until you became ceo. am i correct on that? >> at the senior level of the company, we learned of this after the recall decision was made on january 31st. i was aware in lace debtber december there was analysis going on cobalt issue. bu

mr. chairman, that, it seems to many me, is an issue the i subcommittee should look into and i yield back. >> now recognize ms. blackman for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for being with us today. overseeing this implementation and getting to the bottom of a o lot of the questions, i think, is very important. do continuing to do our due diligence and i know that englan several people have mentioned the new england journal of medicine article from last week. the health reform and changes in health insurance coverage. f my friend across the aisle have wanted to tout that as being something to their point.hat i think that it's important, ghg though, to go in here and look at how the authors came to the i conclusion that 5.2% more had a insurance. that there was a decline in those without insurance from september 2013 to3 june of 2014. and then the authors mentioned the limitations of their study.e they said that the study did nop distinguish between persons enrolling for the first time and those who were changing their enrollment and i really wonder how many of those that had to buy more expensive