Latest Breaking News On - Steve larson - Page 12 : vimarsana.com
FAIRFIELD-SUISUN, CALIFORNIA
University of Arizona asteroid hunters overcome virus, wildfire in record year of discoveries [The Arizona Daily Star, Tucson]
Feb. 15—Asteroid hunters from the University of Arizona set another record in 2020, despite a pair of earthly threats to their early-warning telescopes high in the Catalina Mountains.
The NASA-funded Catalina Sky Survey identified 1,548 new near-Earth objects last year, the most productive year in the decades-old search for dangerous space rocks in our immediate cosmic neighborhood.
To reach the new mark, survey members had to overcome a weeklong coronavirus shutdown in the spring. Then came the massive Bighorn Fire, which chased them off the mountain for three weeks and nearly burned down their telescopes.
Henry-breanEric-christensenMount-lemmonAmy-mainzerSteve-larsonPropulsion-laboratoryAz-university-of-arizonaCatalina-skyTwitterPlanetary-laboratoryUniversity-of-arizonaTribune-content-agencyReaders Write: COVID vaccine, Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo, Minneapolis government, state budget Focus on first doses. Text size Copy shortlink:
Michael Osterholm said he thought at this time it was preferable to vaccinate as many people as possible with a single dose of vaccine rather than hold back second doses to complete full courses. As a retired infectious diseases specialist and microbiologist (although not an immunologist), I couldn't agree more. We are in the midst of possibly the worst stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and the vaccination program is failing because of inadequate doses and chaotic distribution/administration (a lottery — are you kidding?). As an octogenarian who has not won the lottery, I may be biased, but in this case an effort to save lives should trump the obligation to be rigid about the vaccination schedule.
MinnesotaUnited-statesFloridaMinneapolisBloomingtonAmericansJenniferl-wrightGaryw-kingJudy-takkunenMedaria-arradondoSteve-larsonJoe-bidenEffort aims to give another round of aid to bars, restaurants, gyms, event centers and theaters 8:00 am, Jan. 15, 2021 ×
Swing Barrell Brewing, 814 Center Avenue, Moorhead, works to open their taproom as many other Minnesotan businesses open to the public as stay-at-home orders expire last summer. WDAY Photo
MOORHEAD — Clay County bars, restaurants, gyms, event centers and theaters have another chance to receive financial aid to help them through the recent shutdowns.
County Administrator Steve Larson said the county received $1.2 million from the state based on population as part of the state's $216 million Small Business Relief package that is targeted for specific operations hurt by the pandemic closures.
Peyton-masteraSteve-larsonMoorhead-city-council-onCounty-administrator-steve-larsonSmall-business-reliefClay-countyCity-administrator-peyton-masteraMoorhead-city-councilஸ்டீவ்-லார்சன்மூர்ஹெட்-நகரம்-சபை-ஆன்சிறிய-வணிக-துயர்-நீக்கம் in paris, walked into the hotel lobby, met general mcchrystal for the first time, and he looked at me and said, all right, you're the rolling stone guy. i don't care about the article, i just want to be on the cover. >> he wrote about the commander forces in afghanistan in the june 2010 issue of rolling stone. >> i said, you know, welfare, i think it's between you and lady lady gaga making a joke, not knowing she was going to be on the cover, and he replied, put us in a heart shaped tub, and i thought, like, this is a different kind of general. this is going to be a different kind of story. >> as a result of the article, general mcchrystal was fired. he continues the story and talked about the new book, "the operators" sunday night at eight eastern on c-span's q&a. >> over the next hour, several views of the national health care law. it including comments from steve larson. this is a half hour. >> thank you so much for inviting me here today. i really have been looking forward to the opportunity to speak with you today because there are so many important health care reform issues that we're working on, and i have to say when i was insurance commissioner, i had a lot of positive experiences with the underwriter community and so, again, really pleased to be here. you all, and i know this from the past experience, really are critical partners in the health care system, and certainly in the implementation of health care reform going on now. there's so many opportunities ahead, and i know you've been working hard here and in washington and across the country to facilitate implementation in your respective states, and i just want to share with you this morning some of our thinking as hhs on some of the key issues relating to the implementation of the ata as we call it in particularly with respect to exchanges and the state-based exchanges. let me start by saying that we believe that the success and effective functioning of the exchanging will depend on a strong and active role for the agent and broker community. we believe that the aca creates an infrastructure that preserve an important role for agents and brokers and also will soon provide you with significant new business opportunities. you probably know these numbers, but the cbo, the congressional budget office, estimates that more than 14 million americans will gain access to health care through the private coverage options in the exchanges by 2015 and up to 22 million in 2016. in addition, the cbo estimated that 2 million more peel will be enrolled in employment based coverage in 2014, and other estimates from rand health care and the urban institute confirm these projections and project the offer rates by businesses, particularly by small businesses, are going to increase significantly under the aca, and these businesses are going to be accessing coverage in many cases through the exchanges as part of the expansion, so, again, in short, as it is with the private issuers because this is a private market based expansion, the aca is a major business opportunity for you all. you, i think, are going to be central to the success of the exchanges particularly with respect to the shop exchanges for small businesses. you are the people that are trusted by the small employers out there to help them to navigate the system, and you're small business owners yourself. i want to share with you a couple of findings that we at hhs that we find instructive, and you may be familiar with some of these, but in looking at the material out there, for example, the state of pennsylvania recently did, what i think is a pretty extensive survey of businesses and small business employees on health care exchanges, and first as you might expect, two out of five businesses currently don't offer coverage, and, again, as you know, they typically site the current cost of coverage as the main reason they don't offer coverage, and this is the problem of the current system and why the affordable care act is so important, and it's the issue we're seeking to address. for those businesses that do access health coverage information, agents and brokers are thee most trusted source of information, more than the company websites and at least for now, more than government websites. by 2013 and 2014, exchanges, we believe, will become the key vehicle for health care information and shopping for individuals and small business, but we think they will do so in working in tandem with, not in competition with you all, again, the trusted sources of information for so many people today. we recognize this, and we think that the states recognize this too due to the hard work you're all doing in the states. maryland's advisory groups on exchanges recently issued a report emphasizing the important vital role that agents and brokers play in the market today. the report found that 90% of small businesses who purchase insurance do so through producers. the insurance advisory committee recommended looking at partnering with existing resources out there. you all. in the states to make sure that the shop exchange is going to meet the ongoing needs of businesses and individuals there in maryland. utah, also, as you know, has developed an exchange focusing on implementing employee choice and employer defined contribution options in their small group market. this is even before the full market reforms have taken effect. that exchange also relies heavily on you all and insured agents and brokers are paid a uniform commission inside and outside the exchanges, and we're going to come back to that point in a minute, and other states are following the lead of utah that we're familiar with, and we know the experiences in massachusetts when they started and in california point to the need to work collaboratively to ensure a successful exchange experience. we, at hhs, certainly expect there to be a large number of state based exchanges, but we realize there are going to be some states when we get to 20 # 13 and 2014 that are not ready to operate a state-based exchange. i want you to know we'll continue to seek your input and your advice as we develop the shop exchanges in the states in which we are operating federally facilitated exchange. we had a meeting with janet and her team and look forward to ramping up that input in the coming months. as we continue to develop policy at hhs, there are guiding principles for us as we think about the next set of regulations and guidance in the operational development of the federal exchanges. first, we recognize that the shop exchanges and the exchanges generally have to offer a simple and efficient and an appealing process for individuals, but for employers, for employees, for agents and brokers, and all the stake holders in there. that's critical. exchanges have to add value if they're going to be effective, and we think they will in terms of the ease of shopping experience and efficiency on both administrative expenses and other costs as well. second, as i said, we an anticie that your community is going to continue to be involved in small employers purchases of coverages in the shop exchange, and to this end, we believe that we can accommodate in the technology that we are looking at a way to ensure that pewsers are -- producers are compensated even where employers or individuals enroll through the exchange, and we're actually in the process of designing and looking at tools specifically to help you all explore and present options to employees and employers and individuals to facilitate, exchange enrollment of employees efficiently in the exchange, in the coverage they select, and manage your book of business through the exchanges. that's all under development. thirdly, i think you know this, if the commission's on the shop products are not equivalent, then we risk to move business outside the market, so that is a quick survey of how we will operate will we hope in states and we expect the states will transition to a full state based exchange, if not in 2014, then afterwards. i want to share with you the statistics we look at that give us a reason to be optimistic about the progress that states are making, and let me run through some of these. first of all, 46 states have begun their background research on their markets, their current conditions, their capabilities, and 34 of the states have completed that basic research. almost all the states, about 46, consulted with stake holders, and over 30 of them continue the process required by the aca to have regular meetings with stake holders in the development of their exchanges. one of the most important things that states can do is to assess their current i.t. capabilities, particularly as it relates to enrollment and medicaid and the merger and sint thinks of the information. there's an i.t. gap analysis, and 33 states completed that initial analysis, a precursor to the subsequent work and procurements they do. we're encouraged by that. 17 states drafted requirements for key functions of the exchange such as the plan management mungs, enroll m, and 23 states developed a government model, they are in the process of appointing a governing body whether it's an advisory board or a management team, ten developed charters and by laws. 17 states have different types of authority to start exchange whether it's legislation, high pool, executive order, and then one of the -- one of the big ones we focus on is the number of states that received what we call the establishment exchange establishment funding, the significant grant program provided in the aca. today we have 28 states in the district of columbia that received establishment grants to conduct the process of establishing exchanges in their state, and we have obligated over $700 million to the states to do this work, so we view this as a key measure of success and key measure for the potential for state to operate their own exchange, and we just had another deadline in december for states to apply for another round of these establishment grants, and so we anticipate making another round of awards in february, and, again, we were very encouraged at the number of states that have come in. i think that we have not finished reviewing them. we can't talk about specific states until the decisions are made, but i would very much expect that we would be well over 30 state that is have received significant funding under this establishment grant program to proceed with their development. >> these are states across the spectrum, encouraging, and in alabama, there's an executive order setting up an exchange study commission, and the commission recommended that alabama establish its own exchange and legislative leaders in that state supported creating a state based exchange. one of the leaders out there, colds, passed a bipartisan bill to establish the colorado health insurance exchange, and there's been a lot of key involvement by great groups, national federation of independent businesses, the nfib locally, colorado association of business and commerce, all associated with the small business component of exchange there in bam. bipartisan support for the legislation that authorized their state based exchange, that the governor signed the legislation back in june so we're pleased with the progress there, and we are working extremely hard to ensure that we're getting the guidance that states need to proceed with their decision making process. we know we put out a set of five different rules in july and august of last year, and we know states are hungry for additional guidance, and we had a number of formal and informal discussions with states to gather up the typing of information they need to proceed. we're looking at that. we issued a number of, i think, significant pieces of guidance to states at the end of last year that you may be familiar with. fist of all, in november, we posted a set of what are called frequently asked questions, faq's one of the ways we get information out to the stake holder community, on a range of topics we got questions on like how are the exchanges going to be funded? is it going to cost us anything if there's a federal exchange in our state? questions about how does eligibility work if we want eligibility for medicaid, but not for the advanced tax credits? can we do that and still run a state based exchange? we said yes. how will we coordinate with the local departments of insurance, an issue, of course, that i'm sensitive to, and on that one, for example, we -- i think indicated clearly that we intend to preserve the traditional role of the departments and rely on them to do as much as they are willing to do and as much is practice call as we run a federal exchange in the state, and this comes into a play in a number of areas whether it's solvency, licensing, certifications, and rates as realm, so, again, we want to be able to rely on the states as much as we can in states where we're ultimately implementing a federal exchange. we intend to issue further guidance to the states in the coming months about those and other issues. we also, in that november q&a clarified that states have a longer time line to request funding for that establishment grant program that i mentioned, and so, for example, if a state is not quite ready to be certified as a state based exchange come january 2013, not that far away, they can continue to get funding through 2014 if they think maybe a year later they might be ready, or if they are in the partnership model, i think you are familiar with some ideas that we floated last year which is, well, it's not a black and white situation either state based or federal exchange. we can have a federal exchange, but the state can perform many of the key functions in that state even where we're a federally facilitated exchange, and the guidance we put out last year says you can continue to get funding for those state based functions even where there's a federal exchange. i think we provided a lot of latitude and longer onramp for the states to get to the exchange, to the state based exchange. i think you also know -- you may have heard, that in december, we hut october a bulletin on essential health benefits. we wanted to make sure that as states were coming into their legislative sessions this year, that they had, i guess, a sense of our thinking on the direction that we're going to go in ehbs. in the bulletin, we indicated our intent to propose that a essential health benefits be defined using a benchmark approach, and, again, the bulletin is an expression of what we intend to do, followed up by a proposed rule and a time rule giving states the benefit of where we are heading, and i think we've got a lot of good reaction back from the states on that, and that one follows the rule that we've used in many of the exchange decisions which is try to leave to the states as much flexibility as we can as they implement their exchanges, and, in this case, states have the ability to select from a number of different benchmark plans that are out there, and that would be the essential health benefit package in your state, and one of the things we did was allow them to select from existing market based packages like their existing small group market benefit packages. again, we think doing that is consistent with what is intended in the affordable care act, but avoids market disruption and also gives the state the flexibility to look to the own benefit packages as they think of what's critical for an essential health benefit package in their state. we're continuing to review all the comments we got in for the set of regulations put out last year. that's a key part of the process. we're also working closely with the department of labor and the irs to develop and provide guidance on a lot of the employer based issues relating to employer responsibility, employer spot sored insurance verification, disclosure of tax data for eligibility and other technical issues the employers deal with in connection with the offer of coverage and the exchanges. one of the other important things on the horizon for us is putting out some guidance about what does the federally facilitated exchange look like? i share with you some of the principles we're thinking about in terms of the shop exchange and your role, but we have questions from states about what is that going to look like, and when we put out regulations last year providing flexibility to the states as they set up exchange for key decisions like how is the plan management going to work or network adequacy or, you know, is it an active purchaser model or open market model? we left those decisions to the states, but we have to make the decisions when we implement the federal exchange and how to interact with states. we hope to put guidance out to states and other stake holders on how we land or propose to land on many of those issues as well as clarifies operationally how the interaction occurs between the federal government and the states, and then there's other issue about value and cost sharing reductions and the implementations that we're plowing through as well. we're continuing work on building the federal exchange. we have questions on that as well. there's a lot of blocking and tackling we're doing internally. you're probably familiar with the bissic steps for building a -- basic steps for building a new system. we have to first find the key exchange functions. what's an exchange do? we put that out and what we'll finalize soon when we finalize that regulation. we have to develop the process flows for laying out how to we accomplish those functions and then write the business requirements for implementing those business process flows, and we're working on that. ultimately, you're writing the code to do all of the things you just mapped out under that blueprint, and all of that is going on now, and we've hired a number of contractors through the procurement process to help us do that including both building the federal exchange and also building what you may have heard referred to as the data hub, a service we'll be providing to the states and to ourselves when we're running a state based exchange, where it's a one stop shop for all the verification information tax and homeland security information that states have to do to verify eligibility, one-stop shop at the data hub is under development as well. we're excited and ready. we know we're ready to serve consumers in 2014. we get that question asked a lot. we'll be ready. we're also doing as much as we can to help the states along. yeah, i know there's probably a few states out there that are going to wait until this june, but once the supreme court upholds the aca, i think they'll be ready to move forward quickly, and we're going to be there quickly. we keep saying we'll meet states where they are, and although some states may have said they're going to wait for the decision, many of those states are also the ones getting establishment grants and i think they know they want to keep moving forward as best they can, even though they may be waiting for something that may not happen, so i want to close my remarks with two other points that one of which i know is on some of your minds. this relates to agents and brokers by the impact of issuers out there to have commissions in the short term, and we have had ongoing discussions, a number of meetings with janet here, in the en, and we have revisited the issue once again with our lawyers in house, we concluded as the neic lawyers concluded when they came to us with the recommendations about the package which is we just don't see an avenue to modify or delay the mlr regulation for agent produced business. we just don't see any regulatory fixes there, and we've looked again. you know, we do -- we do in the context of the adjustments of the criteria of the states, we look at that. we did that at the recommendation, and we have, as you know, granted a number of state adjustments so that does provide relief in those states, and we continue to lock at the impact that -- look at the impact that this may have on consumers. access to health care, so we continue to monitor this, and it's not something we take lightly, but that's unfortunately, where we've landed from a regulatory perspective. second and lastly, i hope you know this, but the affordable care act even today really is having a real impact on many, many people's lives. maybe, hopefully, many people that you deal with, maybe clients or children of clients, you can stay on your parent's health care coverage until age 26 now. that means you have 2.5 million young people with access to affordable coverage that in many cases didn't have access before. you can get coverage if you have a preexisting condition now. i think you're familiar with the preexisting insurance program. we have tens of thousands of very, very sick people who did not have access to coverage who are now covered. when we look at, by the way, when we look at the diagnosis codes coming in for people enrolled in the program, over 25% of those are cancer-related diagnosis. these are people that have some cancer-related diagnosis that did not have health care and probably would not have gotten health care if not for this bridge program until we get to 2014. insurance company can't deny coverage now thanks to provisions on annual and lifetime limits. health insurance has to provide a basic, we think basic, justification when they'll raise rates more than 10%, and those justifications are going to be reviewed by independent actuaries, and the good news is states really stepped up, and although hhs does the reviews when the state is not in the position to do that, the fact is the vast majority of states conduct the rate reviews for increases, and we think that's a very important program for our consumers. these are just real world examples of the impact of the aca today. in conclusion, look forward to working with you to implement exchanges in other portions of the reform law in the future. these are exciting times for all of us, and we look forward to working with you, and i very much appreciate the opportunity to come speak with you today, so thank you very much. [applause] >> underwriters heard from house speaker john boehner who said the new health care law will bankrupt the u.s.. this is about 15 minutes. >> thank you, all. [applause] thank you very much. [applause] thank you. let me say thanks to john for the very generous introduction. let me say thanks to all of you for taking the time out of your productive lives and running your businesses to come to washington to play a role in your government. it's important that the voices of the people of our country come to washington, talk to mare members of congress about the important work that you do in your communities. .. here in washington d.c.. [applause] last night we heard from the president, and let's understand i have a good relationship with him. he is electable person. the american people like him. the fights that we have are not about ers now the. it's about the policies that we are dealing with. the president acted last night like he was in office. somehow thinking over the last three years maybe he was backpacking around europe. [laughter] [applause] so we have a litany of new proposals but it boils down to this. the president is going to double down on the same policies that have not worked, more spending, more taxes, more regulation. the idea that government knows best and the government can always do this better than the people of america. and i know that as i listen to the president's speech last night it was another litany of failed policies. not only have those policies not helped our economy and i would argue they have actually hurt our recovery, and this election coming up this year is going to be a rough one. there is no other way around it. but as we listened to the president i thought to myself you know, i have reached out my hand. i have tried to work with the president. but at some point the president has some responsibility to work with us. [applause] it was a president who ran on the theme he was going to be the great uniter, not the great divider. but as we saw last night the president's speech, the politics of dividing america and the politics of envy are central to what he is trying to do with his campaign. if i had the president's economic record i would be looking for something else to talk about then those policies. but that is not, that does not help our country. while i am trying to reach out and work with the president i can tell you that for the last four months, since last labor day the president has been in campaign mode everyday. someone in the press yesterday asked me when was the last time you talked to the president? i had to think about it. it happened to be on september 23 as we were coming together to finish the payroll tax bill. there is no reason why there should be this much separation. the president said last night he truly wanted to work with us. i'm here to say today that i'm always ready to work or the president of the united states to do what we can do to help our country, to help our economy and get the american people back to work. [applause] [applause] the president wants to act by the congress doesn't do anything. i can tell you on the house side we have had a plan for america's job creators since last may. it has been our central focus all of last year, and we have passed 30 pills that we believe will help our economy and to put americans back to work and all 30 of these bills have passed with bipartisan support in the u.s. house of representatives. 27 of these bills still sits in the united states senate. where they get no opportunity for debate and no opportunity for -- so the first place we could start as maybe the president could call harry reid or come maybe the president could urge harry reid to at least give us a debate and give us a vote because i believe that many of these bills will get bipartisan approval in the united states senate. [applause] you know there has been a lot written about the difficulty of my job. let me tell you it's tough. my job every day, i have 242 republicans in the house and i have 218 votes to pass anything so i like to describe it, what i have got to do every day is get 218 frogs in a wheelbarrow and keep them there long enough to pass bills. [laughter] but it is possible. it certainly is possible. as i look at where our economy is and the difficulties that business people around the country are facing, i was there. i have done this. i don't think anybody on the president's economic team has ever had a real job, but i know what our economy needs. it needs more certainty. it needs a fairer tax system. it needs a health care system that empowers patients rather than empowering our government. [applause] next week, next week we are going to repeal the class act. this was a long-term care proposal. [applause] this was part of the president's health care plan. the president and his administration couldn't figure out how to implement it so they decided they were going to implement it and there are other parts of this law that are facing the same types of impossibilities. but why leave this on the books if it's not going to be implemented. just go ahead and get it off the books. take this threat from the private sector away. when you look at the rest of the presence health care plan i think it is the wrong prescription and is exactly what the american people did not want. they want to be empowered to go see their own doctor. they want to be empowered to take care of their health care. they don't want big rather in washington d.c. making every decision about our health care health care system which is exactly what will happen with the president's health care plan. you saw this week for the secretary of hhs came out and ordered that every new health insurance policy is going to contain all types of mandates over what types of contraceptives have to be offered in every planned whether you want them or not. whether you are 60 years old or not, you are going to pay for it. and the conscious projections that have been part of the law for the last 50 years all get stripped away, putting many religious organizations in a very difficult position. in my view the president's health care plan will not only ruin the best health care delivery system in the world, but i believe it will bankrupt our company. [applause] when iran my business i offered a health care package to my employees. i needed professionals like you to help shape a plan that would work for my employees and work or our business. i remember when i was back running my business i had a pension plan, profit sharing plan that i fully funded on behalf of my employees. again offered by professionals and put together by professionals to help meet our needs. as someone who has been in virtually every corner of every state in our country, i know how wide and diverse our country is. whenever the federal government does something by its very nature it becomes a one-size-fits-all approach for the entire country. and invariably it never works. you know when you look beyond the health care issue and you look at the costs associated with it, i am mostly concerned, deeply concerned about the crushing debt that hangs over our economy and hangs over the american people. today some $15.2 trillion of debt. no one can quite get their arms around $15.2 trillion other than we know it is approaching the entire size of our economy. we now that we can't continue to spend money that we don't have. we know that we, weekwe, it's our responsibility. for those of us in washington and frankly those of us in our generation, it's our responsibility to take on this burden and to solve this problem. and if there is one thing, just one thing that the president could do to help make our country more secure, to feel better about our future comments to work with us in a bipartisan way to tackle this crushing debt erred and that is facing our country. [applause] well, i'm going to get out of here and let you all go home. sorry i was late and sorry for the confusion. today is gabby giffords last day and congress and we have a ceremony. [applause] we had a very nice bipartisan ceremony on the floor that window a lot longer than i would have expected that i want to thank you for doing what you do, thank you for being involved in your community, thank you for the hiring of thousands and thousands of people that you hire to help make our economy grow. because our job is to leave our country in better shape for our kids and our grandkids. god bless you and god bless the united states of america. [applause] [applause] >> the former head of the congressional budget office, at douglas holtz-eakin told the health underwriters at the new health care lobbed would be more expensive than originally projected. this is a little less than a half-hour. >> to spend a little time talking about the costs associated with the affordable care act in close with a bit of speculation about its likely future, how it might evolve over time and then answer a few questions that the audience might have. i will warn you in advance that discussing the costs of the affordable care act is not suitable for polite company, and i'm also the former congressional budget office director and it's my job to stand up and talk about apocalyptic thing so this is going to be an entirely depressing conversation. there are four kinds of costs associated with the act. the first or the budget costs and we will walk through those and talk a little bit about the job of the ceo is burdened with and how i think about the scoring of the affordable care act. pass that i think there are significant costs that are not often recognized. there some cost that i think of had missed opportunity costs associated with the bill. there are some genuine at -- economic cost that will burden the united states in its current form and then there has been some severe political fallout and i think an unmistakable implication for political future and i want to touch on each of those and close with answering your questions. the first question always comes up is, is this really going to close the budget deficit by $124 million over the next four years or not and i want to say as clearly as i can at the outset that the cbo has received an enormous amount of criticism mostly from my people, conservatives in america, about their scoring and i think they did an absolutely superb job. i think they conducted themselves in exactly the fashion they were asked to and unfortunately the ceo and analyzing the affordable care act operate with golden handcuffs and those golden handcuffs say this cbo is not allowed to ever say two things about piece of legislation. it cannot by law ever say that is not a good idea and it cannot ever say that is never going to happen so it is not allowed to ever judge the future congressmen whether they will fix something written in law partake of a set -- lot face value and not allowed to apply it to a bad idea. many of the holes and transform the affordable care act from something that is on paper balanced over 10 years is something which in my view is going to widen the already frightening deficit we face coming from the fact that the bill contained literally a menu of budget gimmicks. congress as skilled and they brought all of their accumulated expertise to this spill including things like a class act that included premium payments during the budget window and ignored all the spending that would happen after that and providing cushion in the budget. it roll some student loans savings over to the central discussion of health policy into the build. it counted on cutting about $470 billion out of medicaid over -- out of medicare over the next 10 years. these take two forms, one of which is cut medicare advantage which we can debate over the policy of that and particularly a program that is disproportionately used by minority seniors to offset that option but also pure provider cuts and we have seen provider cuts before which is that congress says this is too expensive and we are not going to do it and hinges on on the ability beneficiaries to get care. congress rethinks that, usually calling their home office and they put the money back in. the ceo can't say it's impossible you are going to take $500 billion out of medicare. they came up with the point that if we do this as it is written we are going to see hospitals closing all over america. if you put that money back and in you will see an explosion of costs in the bill. the ceo can't say the cadillac tax on high cost plan to claim you are going to impose, well we saw how that worked out during the legislative debate. the union said don't you dare and they kept pushing it further out and making it look less important. it may never happen. if so what happens if deficit? there are a whole bunch of reasons to believe that the bill as written will not actually execute and will be something instead of having $500 million in cuts, $500 billion in taxes to pay for a trillion dollars worth of spending will not get those cuts, will not get those taxes and even worse, the one place where i would disagree on a professional level with the ces analysis of the bill i find it impossible that we will see only a tiny number of americans end up in the federally subsidized exchange. it will be the case that people making as much as $70,000 will be eligible for subsidies of $7000, 10% of their income and there'll be so much money on the table that basic arithmetic will say that an employer can start providing insurance, give the employee a raise, then can take your after-tax rays and their subsidies and buy insurance that is more generous than that which their employer is giving them, they will be better off. the employer will have to pay a penalty and still be better off and thus both the employer and employee will be ahead of the game. they will end up in the exchange as a matter of economic arithmetic. the only loser there will be the american taxpayer because you and up with as many as 35 million americans and exchanges, it explodes. some players never get into the insurance business and it could be as we are finding out employers don't offer them a coverage any more. they will simply offer employee coverage and the spouse and children will be left to wind exchanges and get insurance on their own but one way or another if you put enough taxpayer dollars on the table people will show up and they will use it in the bill will be far more expensive than the cbo envisions. its might deepest concern about the future of the affordable care act in a time in our nation's history when we need to spend less, comptroller that more. we are going the wrong traction and i think that is the central cost of the bill and i want to belabor that point -- don't want to deliver that point so you pass out. point number two is there is severe opportunity cost here. in my view health care reform should have begun with medicare and medicaid reform. that was the agenda for this. [applause] by using medicare as the mechanism and using medicaid is a mechanism for expansion of coverage, the bill so intertwined with the programs with a volatile issue that it takes off the table and any reasonable way sensible reforms. the two programs are financially broken. the medicare probe them right now runs a gap between premiums and payroll taxes in and spending going out of $280 billion. it is the fiscal cancer and that program will not survive with the next generation of seniors to use it as the key part of their social statement. it is a disgrace for a country of this -- and to leave it unmanned and four at an extended pair of time. [applause] medicaid is this group knows medicaid is probably worse. many of the beneficiaries end up in the emergency room at disproportionate rates even above those of the insured. they are -- medicaid is a tax on the federal budget and a bigger tax on the state budget. at this point it's destined. we have two key elements of our social safety net which are broken and will not survive the next generation of seniors and low-income americans and we are not fixing them. that is a real cost. we have spent our time on the wrong problems and when we did it we didn't take on one problem that we should have taken on which is what is the cost of health care in america? what is a cost to actually produce, consume and deliver a better quality life to americans? insurance and i know i'm talking to an insurance crowd and i'm not displaying to the house, insurance is a sideshow in american health care system's problems. insurance is fine. [applause] our problem is the bill is too big. so this is why they hate the policy guys in the political world. that is not our problem, don't do that. and so we missed that. we miss the chance to take on bending the cost curve and we are now still burdened with the fundamental problem which is spending grows faster than the economy and we haven't taken that on at all. insurance market is unlikely to succeed, less flexible and and and less high-quality and that is a real cost. that is all the good news. [laughter] here is what i'm really worried about which is this economy is struggling along and if you pretended there wasn't this debate over health care, is this good economic policy? it is really hard to imagine that this is what we need to put americans back to work and to deliver to our children the same thing that we inherited an economy that is the largest and strongest on the earth and the standard of living -- though it is a bill which has in it hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes are. is a bill that has two new entitlement programs, the insurance subsidy and they act which may be a timely demise in the near future. instead of the federal programs at a time when we are ready had entitlement spending problems. you can look at the research from around the globe at countries that have our problem. our problem is slow growth, high debt, debt-to-gdp is 100% and expected to explode in the next decade. the recipe is keep taxes low and reform pro-growth and cut spending. not only -- all spending is created equal. those things which have been around since the founders of this republican needed to take on the scale of government employment and unnecessary transfer programs. you have to have an efficient social safety net. this bill from the perspective of doing what we need to do goes exactly the wrong traction. it sets up new transfer probe ranch which will not survive and sets up new taxes which include taxes on so-called medicare tax and debt investment income, the saving investment in new technology and capital that we need and enormous regulatory push that is simply almost impossible to battle. here i want to take a second of shameless self-promotion. i'm now president of the american national form. we have a web site american action form.org and we have a health care reform but we also have a regulatory reform and we have a fabulous web site that tracks the implementation and the implementation cost of the affordable care act. is one of the most impressive things you will ever have seen in your entire life. it is such an enormous burden between the mo are, this sort of a sick is that tax, the affordable care organizations, the list of kinds of regulatory intrusions, federal rate review. this is a recipe for bad economic performance in the insurance sector. is going to mean higher costs and employers are going to bear those higher costs. we know how this works. workers pay for those higher costs and they don't get the rates that the otherwise neat, and beyond the employer community the economy as a whole will continual tb burdened with debt saddled with higher taxes that do not promote growth and budgets that inhibits the accumulation of greater wealth in the future so this is from an economic policy.exactly the wrong medicine at exactly the wrong time and this country has spent 15 months doing this instead of solving its fundamental problems with growth than it should've been the fastest route and getting people more health insurance and getting them a job. [applause] i want to close with three points. there are several pieces of this that we do not yet understand how they will play out. piece number one is i worry about what it does to the quality of innovation and the medical sciences and the devices and the pharmaceuticals and almost every aspect of what had been some of the most vibrant and internationally successful aspects of our economy. an example of this but not the exclusive problem is the so-called independent payment advisory board. if you think about the job the ipad ipad was given and let's not denigrate the people who may ultimately serve on this, the job it was given was to find something we can do in a year that will bring medicare payments down to a target relative. no matter who they are, there aren't many leveraged that hit the budget cost. the typical one will be we are not going to pay so much for something or not covered at all. the things most likely to get singled out for reduced reimbursement will be the expense. that would be the newest most innovative technologies and therapies that are hitting the medicare population. they will be deemed unaffordable and taken off the table. if you are developing and device for therapy and you have at the end of all of your hard work a payer whose basic approaches to randomly tax you at exorbitantly high rates are cut you off entirely that is not a a super innovation incentive. and i worry that what this bill will do taken as a whole given the heavy regulatory burden, heavy tax burden and the subtle innovation centers is it will harm the core reason we have been so successful in the country. we have had greater innovation, greater technology greater productivity more than any other developed country. this is the kind of policy that undercuts that. the second thing i worry about is what it does to our policies. the united states, everyone recognizes the united states had health care health care reform. it needed a way to make patients the center of their care and a way to give them high-quality insurance options and affordable cost. there was no disagreement about that. instead what we got was a bill which meets my definition of a bad bill because it's the policy that is worse. good bills in the united states are bipartisan in nature because they are durable. they are formed by the best ideas of both sides and this bill does not meet that test. part of the law is bad lob. one of the things that happens in this is we fail to get the white house leadership necessary for bipartisan bills. i worked for the mccain campaign. i say this not as a criticism of the president himself but an observation about the way our system works. only the white house is in a position to go to his party and say you know we will campaign in your district. whatever it may be, they can do that. only the white house can go to the other side and say we understand this is a party and we don't sign. that is our pledge. they they'd they are the only ones that have those leverages. we saw the supercommittee struggle last fall. it was a sincere effort. i work closely with both sides and they worked hard. they tried hard to get a deal. they failed miserably because the congress alone can't surmount the hurdles necessary to get to the finish line. only the white house can bring it there and we now have failed during the decade when it was crucial to fix the entitlement programs and fix the health care problem. the great political cost in my view, i don't know how it plays out but in a world where my anxiety -- so i want to close in saying and saying how does this play out? everyone's eyes are on the supreme court case and my organization has filed three amicus briefs about the individual mandates in the economics of it about the medicaid expansion and the proper burden placed on the state and on the severability of the individual mandates wherefrom an economic point of view can imagine they sever and leave the rest. there would be no more broken insurance system than the affordable care act with the individual mandate. that would be a national disaster so i don't know what will happen there, but we are going to do health care reform. we are, and i think there is only one thing to look at and how this evolves. the central objective would we achieve with medicare and medicaid on a budget. are fundamental problem with these programs as we say to the beneficiaries you may have all the finest medical science that americans can produce at low or no cost, 75% subsidized and that turns out to be expensive. i have kids. you should see my daughter's closet. so that you say that is expensive and you to stop. we reduce the reimbursement of that violates the question of the beneficiary is they don't get all they want. the only way we solve that is to be put these programs on the budget. we say the provider community and the beneficiaries this is set for this individual for this year. do something sensible with it and develop the kinds of efficiencies that characterize the american economy, develop a coordination of care, take advantage of information technology and build a business model to get this done right. what i'm looking for in the evolution of this is a real effort to develop private-sector to pursue those times of strategy and then we will have made the big change we need and we will be successful. in the process we will shed an enormous amount of affordable care act. we will shed many of the programs. we will shed much of the regulation that is counterproductive. we will shed many of the bureaucracies which in one of the best reports written by a government agency who said we are unaccountable. i love that. we will not see this at. it cannot survive as written. there are some elements that i actually think are pretty beneficial and one is exchanges by whatever name. the insurance marketplace will allow americans to generally shop for the best option to make good choices. if they were designed well they could actually lower the cost of insurance for many of these individuals. they could be afforded with many more choices. that should be the goal to develop a better insurance market for americans, the product they value delivered in short supply. we need to fix it by setting rules in an acceptable fashion. that is enough for many cbo director on any single morning. thank you for your patience and if there are any questions i would be happy to answer them. thank you. [applause] so i want a picture of this, my first and only standing ovation ever. [laughter] >> thank you doctor. we have time for one question. do you have time? the question is when the pp apa, what do you estimate the overall cost to study implement and run the exchanges will cost? >> study and implement the changes. you are looking at $100 billion. i'm not sure we can do it. i am quite sure that they cannot be done as written by 2014. there is i think a legitimate case to be made that they may not be doable as written and here is why. what we are asking is for hhs and the irs to each month in advance identify out of the 300 million americans those who are eligible for an insurance subsidy. deliver that subsidy to their current state of residence to the insurance company of their choice on the exchange and there is no way we can do that right now. that is just not doable. it's a legislative fantasy and we have an error rate with a much simpler program. the fanciful -- took three years. we didn't come close to getting it right so i don't actually think that can happen right now. we can throw a lot of money added and at it in some i get it right. the intrusiveness necessary to get it right may not be acceptable to the american people. we are going to have situations where suddenly and employers going to find out that one of his workers has exchanged. we didn't have this problem. they are going to have to say well my wife lost her job. it's a very intrusive employees/employer relationship. we know that individuals who get subsidies and are properly, they won't have to pay it all back. i've yet to figure out what happens if i get money in virginia and that i just decide to go to massachusetts and filed there, how they will reconcile across states. i am not advertising fraud here but i'm wondering, just wondering. so i just think, think the budget cost is the tip of the iceberg. i think that kind of money they have is not close to what is necessary to get this right. thank you. [applause] >> i do believe that all of the historical shortcomings, they have to be admitted. all of the shortcomings, the west still today represents the most acceptable and workable political culture. >> in 1991 the united states was the only global superpower. today how to restore its status in the world from former national security advisers zbigniew brezinski saturday at 10 eastern on "after words." >> now a hearing on the national highway traffic safety administration's response to battery fires during test of the chevy volt. investigators concluded that the volt and other electric vehicles do not pose a greater fire risk than gasoline-powered vehicles. house members first heard from the head of the administration, david strickland for an hour and a half. >> the committee will come to order. we will start with their opening statements and then get right to our first panel. we appreciate you being here today. to delay public notification of serious safety risks of the chevy volt raises significant concerns regarding the relationship between the obama administration and general motors. the abundantintervened and forced a company to participate in a politically orchestrated process. the result was the u.s. government still owns 26% of the company. in addition to significant ownership stake in the company president obama has used this unusual blurring of public and private sector boundaries the result of this partnership as a top accomplishment of his administration. creating a dynamic where the present is reliant on general motors. most recently this was relating the state of the union address. providing 7500-dollar tax credits for the purchase of the sub tree and other electric eagles. as well as billions of dollars for domestic production of batteries. federal total state and local government of the bold to the tune of estimates between 50 and $250,000 per vehicle sold. the question before the committee as to what extent this conflict of interest has influenced the way in which this demonstration has the roach informing consumers about the apparent risk that gm and chevy volt. what remains to be seen whether they receive special treatment during the investigation of the volt fire is clear that the administration is tremendous incentives to protect the plug on desmond is made in the company in vehicle. in the face of that political dependency it is troubling that the public notification of the safety concerns related to the volt were inextricably delayed for six months. a time that coincides with the negotiation over the new fuel economy standards. it's also troubling during a subcommittee hearing this very subcommittee in october 2011 where mr. strickland was directly asked to respond to members concerns about the safety of the vehicle technology he did not inform the committee of the volt battery fire. this was germane to the questions as to mr. shirk them would have ended up been of interest to kenny members. but for a resourceful bloomberg report who report on the fire november 2011, it is unclear whether it would have made news. it appears that it was the story that prompted him to acknowledge the fires occurrence and later to open the safety defects investigation. in addition, the subcommittee is also concerned about the preparedness of regulated electric vehicles. present obama's at the goal of 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. despite the government strong encouragement of technology there is a fundamental lack of knowledge with nits on how to handle an electric vehicle as has been involved in a crash. the engineers admits it failed to drain the charge the battery creating a hazardous situation which ultimately led to the explosion. it appears this lack of knowledge was caused by a lack of separation. according to documents obtained by the committee nhtsa inquired about the procedures in september of 2114 months after the volt fire. the seven strongly suggest the agency is not paid close attention to the unique safety concerns, excuse me, safety risks associated with it and ion battery before they separate fire occur. this lack of god and how to respond to electrical vehicle fires are endeavoring and for -- prompt questions. to understand other is associated with these vehicle should be addressed. i look for to hang the testimony of mr. strickland administrator of nits and i hope mr. shirk its mark for coming today than when he last appeared before us. i also look at the -- look for to the testimony of -- mr. chairman thank you very much for holding this hearing, and i always appreciate the opportunity to work with you. today we again welcome david strickland administrator of the national highway safety administration before our subcommittee. at two other recent hearings a subcommittee heard testimony from the department of transportation officials. first-time regulations proposed by the department related to standards for vehicle fuel efficiency and then truck drivers can work between mandatory rest periods. at those hearings the majority criticized the department of transportation for considering stricter regulations claiming they were harmful to business and the economy. today by contrast the question is whether the department of transportation was strict enough in his regulatory oversight of one product the chevy volt electric vehicle by general motors. the title of today's hearing is what did nhtsa know about the volt vehicle fire and when did they know it? a very detailed 135 page final report by the national highway traffic safety administration, nhtsa, on its investigation into the volt battery fire incident which is made public on friday provides detailed answers to the question this hearing seems to ask. gm has also provided extensive documentation of meetings and information that provided nhtsa pursuant to its investigation into the causes of the volt battery fires that occurred after crash testing. based on what we know so far, nhtsa's new-car assistant program appeared to do just what it is intended to do, catch potential safety concerns with new cars before they become a risk to consumers. and general motors appear to do exactly what we hoped it would do. even before nhtsa determined whether or not there was a real safety issue, it designed improvements to the volt to make its battery better protected from risk of intrusion or fires. so far, we have seen no evidence to support implication that nhtsa has allowed politics to guide its decision-making and i understand the chairman raising that question because there are safety issues here address. considering that in the last few months, there have been efforts by the majority 2-d fund programs that support the development of technologies for electric and alternative fuel vehicles and other proposals to take away tax incentives for purchasing electric cars i am concerned that the effect of this hearing could be to undermine technology that is critical to protect the environment and ensuring the success of the u.s. auto manufacturing industry as well as to generally have an adverse affect on the u.s. economic competitiveness. it would be very bad a thing for our economy to do anything that would try to demolish the potential for electric vehicles. as we established at the hearing the subcommittee held on a proposed fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards clean vehicle technologies protect public health by cutting air pollutants, smog, climate change pollution. additionally, developing clean vehicle technologies for battery come electric and hybrid cars has grown jobs on the assembly line in support of the recovery of the domestic automotive industry. we don't want to be buying lithium-ion batteries from china in five years when we can develop the infrastructure and skills to make them here in the united states. and we want to build tires in the united states that are attractive to consumers in other countries. the president talked about that yesterday in his state of the union address. this is where electric and other clean vehicle technologies have art established market share. now let me be clear. i am well-known as a consumer advocate. i support early public disclosure of safety risks. and i hope and expect that nhtsa consistently works as quickly as possible to make intelligent assessments of any safety risks and to disclose them to consumers as soon as possible. and mr. chairman in a meeting that i had yesterday with general motors ceo and chairman, i told the gentleman of the same concerns for early disclosure and transparency of the kind that we know we didn't have with toyota. we have an obligation to ask this question and we also have a mouth occasion to rely on facts as they are. and as the majority wanted to work with me to craft stricker -- stricter laws, and i joined them. hope this committee's activity in this issue and i just want to to -- excuses for that interruption. i want to be very clear on this. i would want this committee's activity on this issue to discourage companies like gm from continuing to innovate and advanced technologies that will ensure u.s. competitive this and while it appears that we have different opinions with respect to whether the chevy volt is a fiery failure or an innovative success, at least it appears we have an agreement that there is a proper role for government to play in regulating business and ensuring public safety. thank you very much mr. chairman and let us proceed. >> i thank the gentleman for his great work on the committee. we will now hear from the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. strickland thank you for being here today. my concern is nothing to do with general motors. i go back to the days when former president bush made a statement and set up wicked -- if general motors started building cars that were relevant they wouldn't have robinson at the time with where the leading manufacture of vehicles on the planet. sometimes there's a disconnect to and what we say what we do. my concern is not so much with general motors because my association goes back to 1953 when i became a dealer and had the opportunity to move forward with not only his life but our families and establishing a dealership and being somewhat of that success in the combined efforts of a lot of people over those years. i problem today has to do with your agency. certainly it comes down to a question of trust. one of the things i see all the time whether in washington d.c. are back home in my district or whether i'm in my dealership, can i trust you? can i trust you to do what you said you were going to do? can i trust you to do the best thing for me in my best interest all the time? it's about trust and we know that you can spend your whole life hoping trust. one misjudgment, one false step you can destroy an entire legacy. certainly with the passing of joe paterno last week we saw gentleman who spent his whole life establishing a legacy and lost it in the last two months of that life. now, with your agency, the formation of it was to protect the public and to work in their best interest. if i look at the definition of trust, the short reliance on on the character abilities drink than truth of someone or something one in which confidence is placed. firm reliance on the integrity the ability or character of a person or a thing deals with custody and care. something committed into the care of another and that is where the disconnect comes. i have no problem with general motors because general motors acted very quickly once your agency let them know what happened. and if we were to look at some of the slide, fully could slide 11 and slide 12, if they are available. now, this happened when -- and when you look at the timeline point you to let general motors because general motors has not been on the highway with these cars. we only had them for testing but again it comes down to that trust. whose best interests were you acting and? certainly it wasn't the american public. it wasn't the manufacturer who has a 100 some year history of building the best products in the world when it comes comes to transportation. why not get on the phone and asked them? now my association with general motors is very strong. by m.a. volt dealer. i have some other things that i will bring forward later on but i've got to tell you i am really disturbed but the fact that this happened so early on and yet the full disclosure of that happened by chance. from a reporter, not from the agency out there to protect the public. so we asked then why is this erosion of trust there? why do people no longer trust congress? why do they no longer trust their government? why do they no longer trust things that have taken years to build? it comes down to incidence that can cause them to question what it does that happen. i'm hoping today because we talk to you early on, what did and nhtsa know when did they know it and when did they let general motors know if? they have always acted very quickly in the best interest of the public and those people that they serve. i understand that. but i don't get, why so long? a question comes down very frankly. is the commitment to the american public, or commitment to an administration whose agenda is we are going to get to green technology will one ward or the other and i don't have refused the department of defense to get there. i don't care who we have to use to get this alternative energy and i'm all for it by the way. but when the market is ready for science it won't have to be subsidized. it will go on its own. so i'm hoping today we can talk about this and talk about it in an open forms of the american public can again have the trusted needs to have to the people they send to represent them and the agencies that were formed since the beginning to protect those folks that rely on us and not to protect an agenda or portion agenda forward that's quite frankly think that someday we will use electric cars. the problem with electric cars always was where do you store the energy source and how economic was it and how do you drive that? that is what i'm here, to hear what you have to say and as we look what happened in this case, it didn't happen -- there was no loss of life or limb and nobody was injured. i just wish it would have called gm the same day you found that out because i guarantee you within 48 hours they would have the same fix they ended up with. thank you mr. chairman i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for his insightful opening remarks. mr. strickland the rules of the committee requires to swear in our witnesses. view plea standard razor and. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth hello then nothing but the truth? that the record reflect that the -- you have done this before. you get five minutes give or take a few seconds and we are pretty lenient with that so fire away. [inaudible] i have done this before but of course i forget to hit the button. i am pleased to share that we have recently closed our investigation without finding evidence of unreasonable risk or safety. before i discuss the events that led to this termination, i would like to establish a context. one way we reduce traffic deaths and injuries is by setting and enforcing standards for motor vehicles. we test many of the vehicles on the road to ensure that they comply with the standards. however, the fact that a vehicle complies with all of the standards does not necessarily indicate the absence of an unreasonable risk to safety. the agency's ability to investigate an chairman whether such a risk exists is key to getting defective vehicles recalled. it is within this that the agency undertook the fact-finding task which led to the formal investigation of the volt. to be clear, the first priority in the core mission of the national highway traffic safety administration is safety. i had the honor of leading the more than 600 professionals who collectively have one goal in lined, to help the american public get to their destination safely every single trip. when we learned that the fire at the test facility in june we had no relevant real word data to help us assess the safety risk and no clear understanding of how the fire began. the agency took numerous unprecedented steps to ascertain the real risk to volt owners and passengers and to isolate the root causes to determine that the defect existed that pose a reasonable risk to save. technical team at nhtsa working in collaboration with the department of energy and defense used every second over the past six months over by the data needed for the agency decision and they delivered an innovative and expert fashion. if at any time during this period i had any notion that an eminent safety risk existed to the american public i would have ensured the public knew of that risk immediately. we have had to rely on data to drive our decisions. as i noted in my written statement, we undertook several volt crash test and at attempt to replicate the june incident. the agency reviewed all of the -- we found no reports of post crash fire's. we looked at a variety of data sources including all relevant early warning reporting data and vehicle owner questionnaires. the agency found no indication of a post-fire crash risk to the volt or were we able to re-create the june incident at the vehicle level. despite the initial negative results and the lack of real-world events, we decided to continue investigating at the component level and shared our initial thoughts with the public on this in november. the engineers analyze the volt to understand what caused the penetration to the batter compartment and we created testing procedures and designed in constructed test mechanisms to replicate the intrusion that occurred during the may crash test. in mid-november, nhtsa tested three volt battery packs by damaging that batter compartment and rupturing the system. on november 241 of the battery packs that was tested week earlier caught fire at that facility burning -- the next day nhtsa opened a formal investigation of post crash fire risk in volt. is important to know the agency rarely opens these investigations without data from from real world and since. by taking this on comments at nhtsa thought to ensure the safety of the public. response to the investigation gm proposed to mitigate intrusion by adding reinforcement caller around the battery compartment. technical team reviewed and tested the remedy and confirm that there was no intrusion into the battery compartment, no leakage of coolant and no post-impact fire. as a result, we concluded the agency's investigation had found no discernible defect trend. it continues to believe that electric vehicle show great promise as a fuel-efficient off shin parr and drivers. based on the available at data nhtsa does not believe the volt or other vehicles pose a greater risk of fire than gasoline-powered vehicles. in fact all vehicles that have some risk of fire an event and in event of a serious crash however specific attributes should be made clear to consumers law enforcement emergency response communities and tow truck operators. nitze has been working with department of energy with assistance from the national fire protection association and others to develop guidance to help identify vehicles powered by lithium-ion batteries and taking the steps in. we been working with the manufacturers to develop appropriate post crash protocols dealing with lithium-ion battery powered vehicles. mr. chairman thank you for this opportunity and i'm now happy to answer questions from the committee. >> thank you administrative. let me start with the timeline. give me the date you first learned that nhtsa, the fire concerns in the explosion that took place in the test. >> i was notified on june 6. .. >> frankly, so the manufacturers are using internal combustion engines to achieve the standards >> the proposed rules specifically talk about the alleged vehicles. it is certainly true that these were included in getting to that standard. >> for the regulations it is illegal for us to consider electric vehicles as part of our technology makes. therefore, if we let the technology pipelines are available to the manufacturer they can be met. >> certainly the epa is counting on this. >> there are several technology pipelines that good used. >> got it. isn't it true the administration is heavily touted as an alternative vehicles that could help meet or surpass the fuel efficiency standards? >> believe in american innovation, and anything that health american manufacturing and innovation is a key -- >> ready status is pillsbury's strongly about helping to get to the stand is? >> electric vehicle technology shows great promise. >> when did you -- when did you testify before congress on the standards? >> i believe i was before you and october of last year. >> october of last year. okay. you were aware of the safety concerns when you were developing in negotiating the standards. >> there was no safety concerns on the part of the agency at the time regarding the several label because we are still in the process of figuring out the root cause and whether this posed an unreasonable risk. >> when you came in front of congress and you came in front of this committee that picture mr. kelly had shown had taken place, correct. >> is correct. >> you were aware of the safety concerns with the president announced on july 29 to last summer the negotiated agreement? >> there was no conclusion about whether there was an unreasonable search and safety. >> i get all that. i'm just asking, you knew about it. >> i knew. >> wait. you knew. he knew about it and the president talked about the agreement. >> we knew of the incident on june the sixth, yes. >> okay. of this question. one other point, if you recall during that hearing mr. kelly and ms. burke will ask specific questions about the chevy volt and about safety concerns and about reaching the standards in the did not feel it was appropriate to let us know that there was an explosion with pictures like that. >> there was no agency decision as to whether there was an unreasonable risk of safety. my understanding is mr. kelly was telling me about mass production. >> but here is the thing about it. we're talking about safety, cafe standards. you know that there has been a safety concern with the battery in the vault leading to an explosion, and you don't think it's appropriate to tell congress. >> mr. chairman -- >> let me ask you this question. would he ever told us? >> of course. >> really? >> absolutely. >> she waited that long? you testified once before congress and did not tell us, but when's the reporter breaks the story then he let everyone know it. >> when the agency was prepared to make a decision as to what steps were in the particles and whether we would make a decision as to the risk with a clearly disposes. i want to make one point. i wake up every morning with one purpose and one purpose only, to make sure that i keep as many people safe and healthy as possible. that is my only goal. my only goal. >> why did you -- >> but me ask you this. why do you wait six months. >> because -- >> before you start an informal investigation, why wait six months. >> to take every second of the time for our technical team and the engineers to figure out. >> if this is total -- here is the inconsistency. he started the formal investigation six months after that picture in a dozen other tests in the interim. when did you officialese a it was okay and mist cleared? >> we will refer you to the timeline. >> was and did just last week. >> we conclude the investigation last week once we finish all the work. >> so you waited. six months. >> we opened a formal investigation. >> the formal investigation on november 25th. the officially cleared the gm just last week, last friday. but on dec. sixth the secretary said this of revolt, no pulse. >> if you did start, you waited six months and so you started a formal investigation. the secretary of transportation says it's fine. >> this server label was safe to drive. >> as i said, our responsibilities figure out whether they're is a reasonable risk the safety and an imminent risk. that did not exist. we did try to replicate the post. >> but you see how members of congress and members of public could see some inconsistencies. you don't start of formal investigation six months from when the explosion occurred. you don't officially cleared and sold two months later when he cleared. >> mr. chairman, and our investigatory -- >> in the interim you develop the standards but can sure that standards with congress, let alone the public. what is going on? >> opening remarks like he did. what is going on. >> very happy to explain in great detail exactly every moment that we worked on this investigation. every investigation there is preliminary work. every time we open a formal investigation there is preliminary fact-finding. it was six months of preliminary fact-finding trusted to the point where we felt that we should open an informal investigation. we don't simply take these matters. we have over 40,000 people of the complaints every single year. >> some overtime. were you concerned the fact here is the bottom line, i think. we're you concerned about if you told us that summer tortola's in october about what was going on that you would impact sales and/or negotiation? that is what we want to know. were you concerned, is that why you were a square? >> i whisper with you. everyday i talked to victims of traffic crashes, every single day. my first priority is to make sure that we reduce injuries and fatalities. >> i just want to be clear. just want to be clear. and just want to be clear. so the -- your decision not to share information with congress when you were in front of congress in new the informational and we were talking about the subject, your decision not to share the reformation has nothing to do with your concern about the sales of the volt and the administration's involvement in the promoting the sales and nothing to do with the negotiation of the standards. >> absolutely not. it would be irresponsible of me to disclose anything unless we made an agency decision. >> i will yield to the gentleman. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. administrator, i am going to have a series of questions. i would ask that your answers be brief and, of course, true. >> yes, wrecking member. >> now, the fire currency and sixth. as my colleague points out it wasn't until november that the follow-up testing confirmed that this was not an isolated incident. it does seem like a long time. will we need to know is whether there was a valid reason for so much time to pass will weather the majority has included in a politically motivated manner. leader of the required such a long internal investigation. >> thank you for the question. >> we were notified. we have absolutely no notion of what the source of the fire was. there with three other people around it predicted an arson and murder of the other vehicles. fire investigators and folks like that. and then began the work to actually figure out what happened. that also included crash testing other to make see if we could replicate. >> there were actually several. >> that second crash tests produce an impact into the better your fire? >> to develop a mechanism to damage directly in order to test for fire risk? >> we were not satisfied with the fact that we can recreate the incident. we take the next debt to the component level testing in had to create a whole new system and mechanism in order to recreate that. >> you created the circumstances under which the fire could occur this was not created independently through the vehicle, an entire vehicle without you having to ready to go on to fires. >> intentionally damaged the battered apartment in russia the cooling system to try to reproduce the fire. >> that is correct. >> was this fire difficult? >> actually, it was. >> there were several issues in terms of getting through the substructure of the vehicle in order to get a certain percentage of intrusion in the battery. but not only was it interesting, we had to replicate the exact angle, the exact death, the exact force of the impact in order to do that. it wanted to take this important -- component level test and make this as close as the real world circumstance as we could. >> so you went to the extensive efforts to try to replicate. >> absolutely. >> is that normal procedure. >> absolutely not. the reason why is because we feel that advanced technology vehicles and especially with a novel circumstances, that's what happened in june, we need to know all answers in order to make the decision to protect the american public. >> to gm ever request that the keep the information from your internal testing and your efforts to replicate a fire? to gm ever ask you not to disclose that or make a public? >> absolutely not. >> did anyone in the administration who is your superior ever ask you to fail to disclose information relating to the revocation of the fire. >> absolutely not. it is my expectation, the executive president's expectation that i do my job. >> so would you do if someone did talk to you and say, hey, you know what, these issues out here with the technology. we have the shoes out here with standards. would you do? >> i have a high moral obligation to the american public. i would probably disclose any risk if it was proved to be and are reasonable risk to safety. >> this day always keep the initial internal investigations confidential prior to opening a formal safety defect investigation. >> like all agencies we have free decision were to be done. >> why. >> because we handle confidential business information, a proprietary information and discuss serve the american public trust to make and not deliberate and careful decision about something that poses six risk. >> so what are your staff to try obligations with respect to a loading the public? >> if we find that a defect, we believe poses an unreasonable risk the safety we would initiate a recall process with the manufacturer and ask them to undertake a recall. >> solana minute. so in your view before an unreasonable risk to save the is identified there is no legal obligation. >> we have no obligation. clearly before we even make the decision if we feel that there is an imminent risk we will always inform the public through consumer advisories and other methodologies. >> let's move from the testing laboratory to the real world. there is -- it is my understanding from the chairman and ceo of gm met with yesterday, there are approximately 8,000 vehicles on the road. are you familiar. >> that's correct. >> have you ever received any reports or accounts of any real world crashes that would seem to parallel safety testing that you did internally? >> no. >> has anyone that you know ever been hurt in a chevy volt vehicle and those reports came back to you specifically related to a fire risk? >> it is my understanding there has been no injuries or fatalities due to post car crashes and bolts. >> we have an entire office of investigation. that is their responsibility to track all vehicle reports can also relieve morning reporting data as well to the particular recall of this. there is an entire team, and they do fantastic job. >> the crashes, the accidents, incidents, lawsuits. >> products. >> we have lots of information that comes into helpless makes decisions. >> would you drive a chevy volt? >> that only would like to my would drop my mother, my wife, and my baby sister with me along in the ride. >> and no concerns about the safety of the vehicle? >> none. >> and will you continue to maintain a steady of the volt with respect to your internal circumstances that produce the fire? >> we treat all vehicle investigations and all vehicles on the road the same way. well we do a thorough investigations is our obligation to always watch. so while this of the station may be closed, we will always be looking and not only this several labels, but any other vehicle in terms a possible risk , safety risk to the public. >> one final question, mr. chairman. you went to great lengths to describe your circumstances under which you created the fire could you tell the subcommittee how likely it is in the real world that those circumstances could actually be replicated as a practical matter. >> i will have to get back to you on the record for the specific technical difficulties in recreating the crash, but is my understanding that it is very, very, very rare. >> have you assessed did mathematically? >> and not sure if my staff has or has not. >> mr. chairman, i want to thank you. it has been a very useful and to change. >> thank you. >> again, the quick point that certainly it is very rare and we understand him about the fact is it happened, and it happened in a time when you were negotiating standards, at a time when you were coming before congress and he did not tell us about it. let me just ask this question, when did you first of the public know that there might be a concern that there was, in fact, an explosion that caused the fire with the battery in the volt, when did you first but the public know that there might be a concern? >> my understanding is the first inform the public in november. >> what day. >> said after take a look of my time i specifically. >> before or after the news report from bloomberg news came out and talked about this issue? >> i believe it was concurrently. our agency assisted the reporters in getting that story factually correct, so we absolutely worked with them to make sure that there were proper details and context of the work of was on going and what happens >> so you first release the information to the public after you knew there was going to be a news report about it. >> we were in a precision of posture. >> that is report to place on november 11th. when did you officially say something about this? >> responded on the 11th but were in the precision of posture. >> but for the story windy going to tell us. >> fairly soon. >> release in. >> yes. but not until -- >> mr. chairman, it's my responsibility, i do not disclose to the public anything that we find out that we don't have proof that as of a reasonable risk. >> the me ask you one more question before yielding. is it customary for the secretary of transportation to comment on the safety of the vehicle while they're is a formal investigation going on? >> the secretary of transportation was fully aware of what was going on, and they made the statement because it was based on the facts provided to him by this agency. >> said saleh asked. i said, the scene normally do that? that any comment, but a thumbs-up comment. is that a normal procedure? >> the secretary was asked for a direct question and gave a direct answer. >> has it happened before. >> mr. chairman, you know the secretary very well. and somebody asked a question, he answers. that is what he does. >> did mr. lahood know at the time the ask the question and give the incident there was a formal and destination going on. >> was aware of all the work. >> are secretary of transportation knew you were best eating this vehicle was asked and said it was fine. and yet that was given six weeks before you formally said it was fine. >> the secretary knew of all the facts and the details as to whether they opposed an eminent -- >> don't you think that is a little unusual. >> no. the secretary is ask questions like that all the time. >> he did it for a toyota. >> a picture of a car exploding. he waits six months to start an investigation, two weeks and the secretary is asked a question about the safety of the vehicle and he says it's grape even though you're not concluded the investigation and you think that's normal. >> the secretary was aware of all of our prefect finding work and enough to make a conclusion on his own supported by the work of the agency that there was no imminent risk to drivers. the secretary and -- answered directly. >> what the witness has done with respect to his own experience is to communicate the manner in which the testing occurred and that in his considered judgment there was no risk to the consumers and that the secretary of transportation was his understanding that was communicated through his own questioning determined to the what you said was consistent with what he believed to be the facts. now, the action we always have, and i would suggest it would be very interesting for the subcommittee would be to invite secretary lahood if we have any doubts about his position, which i do not. i would appreciate the ranking members responding. i know the ranking member is committed to safety. an amazing track record. >> we share that. >> an amazing track record in his years of public service. i would ask you, mr. kucinich, that you think it's a little strange that when is a formal investigation going out of the secretary of transportation, says the vehicle is safe and find. >> i would say, first of all, you and i share the concern about safety, but it may be that the secretary, and i don't know unless we invite him so that we can speculate. maybe it he was concluding based on information that he received from nhtsa and it was an off-the-cuff assessment that was just driven by hope as opposed to material facts. >> yield five minutes to the gentleman. >> thank you. i do not question why you get up in the morning of what is in your heart. i give up every morning with the same purpose you do, to serve the american people. i was a lot more comfortable back in pennsylvania then i am here today, and i'm sure you are a lot more comfortable sitting or use it every day. but when it comes down to a perception is reality, and we constantly fight these perceptions, whether they are real or not really has nothing to do with it because of the end of the day it is out as the public perceive that. so when we come down to these things, have to tell you, i have some slides. i have a problem with this. i have been involved a lot of the colossus. / 14, usually most public wants is i have been too there are people that show up, and if you look in the upper left-hand corner there is a secretary lahood. in the middle is president obama. in the right side is the energy. down the left-hand corner is liver secretary. and then the other side, liver secretary. so this is an unusual launch. the reason i bring that up is because the disconnect between what your agency does, your mission statement back in 1970 when the agency came into existence was to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduced traffic related health care and other economic costs. the stakeholders are all in this launch. this is a look are not so much for general motors, but for this demonstration. this has nothing to do with the chevy volt with a niece on leave for anything else. from the comes down to taxpayer dollars being used to subsidize a product. this administration has decided to go forward. believe me. if general motors thought this was a good investment it would have wanted themselves many years ago. they are real committed to the shareholders and the stakeholders in the company. right now the government has a big hand in that, do they not? so i think we can agree that there is a mutual benefit for not only the administration, but when you looked at the numbers of cars we build and sell every year this is not going to have a dramatic impact on the carbon footprint or the sales of general motors products. i go back to selling a lot of chevy cruises. do you know how many were attacked -- texas air dollars were subsidized? beloved. it is affordable. economical. say. is everything the american public wants. we have always been able to do that. it came down to these things, no question what is in your heart. i would never question your integrity, but when you look give these time lines, you go back and forth, once in awhile there may be something. that was kind of a coincidence. but when it's time after time after time after time after time, and what did you know and when did you know it and when all these people are weighing in , certainly this show up for the launch and i'm sure they stayed for lunch, but you'd got to understand the american public is demanding integrity. say what you mean demi moore you say. protecting our lives and our best interest. philippe de and all the costs involved, both health care and economic, the why so long? and i think that is with the chairman steve replan sink. we all do. we'll do. so it's hard for me to sit back and lick it this and think that, my gosh, there was a rush to judgment with toyota. i have friends that sell toyotas. i have watched this congress bring members of the former gm board in and explore nhtsa them for bad business practice. keep in mind, this is an outfit that is running $15 trillion in the red. they're telling general motors the you don't know how to run your business. thanks. i'll hire somebody. we bring toyota end, embarrass them in front of the world tomorrow this out early. when did we go the toyota and sikkim listen, we run these tests. the six months of the public know. we didn't do that, did we? there was a real time line problem here. when you compare the two and not talking about general motors and toyota but electric vehicles, and several label will then be solely for anything else out there. these cars are so great and marketable wide we have to subsidize them so heavily? in addition to $7,500 tax credit pennsylvania throws another $3,500. that's $11,000. that's -- salaam of cars in my lifetime. the only time you put a sticker on the cars when the boat -- it won't move. why we using taxpayer dollars? certainly if the corporate average fuel economy does not have anything to do with this i don't know how old you are, but i would go back to the dead they launch this. you're going to have to get the deal would be involved. you know what, you build a car it gets better gas. people that pay for these cars and buy them will probably go to a vehicle that in the long run is cheaper to run. we have done it since day one. and a half to tell you, i really am concerned. i mean this sincerely. your agency dropped the ball on this. when i looked at the dialogue back-and-forth about when this stuff came to light there is a timeline that needs to be addressed. goodbye to your own mission statements, reduce traffic related health care and other economic plots, think there is also another investment. that is the one that took precedence over what your initial mission statement is, so i don't know that you can answer any of those questions. i don't know it so much a question as a statement. both members of the same organization, trying to do the best thing. >> with my friend yield. >> yes, sir. .. >> every investigation has different terms. mr. kelly, i appreciate the question, and i appreciate your statement that you're absolutely right -- the american people sends folks like me there faith to be sure that the decisions that this agency makes are the right ones, and our process is one that we have to prove an unreasonable risk to safety before we take any formal action against an auto maker for them to remedy that particular problem. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> just to be clear, your testimony is that you -- each investigation is different and unique; correct? >> yes. >> with the volt, you took a different approach than with the toyota vehicle? >> technically. every investigation at the technical level -- >> let's be clear. >> i was trying to clarify. >> when you testified, you said each investigation is unique, so it's truthful -- it's factual you did a different approach with general motors than toyota. >> we take different approaches because there's different problems. >> the fact is -- >> gm and toyota was the same. -- >> they got a different approach than the non-taxpayer funded auto manufacturer. that's what you said. >> no, mr. jordan, i said at the technical level every invs. gages is different, different technology, different problems, different issues, different levels of how much we know, but we treat, and i want to underscore this -- we treat every manufacturer the same. we hold them accountable to enact -- >> there's no way that statement can vive with what you said to two minutes ago. did you wait six months before you told the public on concerns with other manufacturers 1234 i don't think so. that's the concern the american taxpayer has. you've just stated it here in the last two minutes. that's the concern. >> the american taxpayer expects us to do the right job every single time in finding safety defects, and they want to ensure when we make a decision that we act proactively. did opportunity serve the american people with the number of complaints we get every single year -- mr. jordan, what you outlined in the situation means that this agency would have to outline 40 # ,000 -- >> i'm not outlining anything. >> every single year -- >> i'm not outlining anything. you answered i question by saying every situation is unique and different, and i'm saying so gm was treated different than toyota did? >> mr. jordan -- >> i'm not -- i yield. >> we treat them the same. at the technical level we take every investigation with the same set of facts, and there's different issues, and we treat them uniquely because different cars have different problems. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i want to follow-up on what the chairman said. did you pull punches with gm because they are taxpayer subsidized or go into the science to try to see if there was any way to replicate a fire in >> we pull no punches. we treat this investigation like every invest gage. >> gm doesn't get a pass? >> no, absolutely not. we, the core of what we do everyday is driven by data, science, and engineers. >> it was different because you were studying acceleration opposed to the volt, trying to replicate to see whether or not there was a fire created under laboratory circumstances. >> that's correct. >> thank you, appreciate it. >> i point out, too, when the investigation of toyota took place, we were not negotiating the cafe standards. we were not -- we didn't have administration officials going out to toyota plants taking pictures in the cars, talking about the need to do certain things and have certain vehicles sold. we didn't have a huge investment in green technology. there's all -- so, again, i come back to what the administrator said. that's the point here. he's under oath and testifies. he said they are different and unique investigations each time, and i just asked the simple question, was gm treated different than toyota, and based on what this administrator said, that was the case. >> my friend spoke to the relevant underlying technical facts of what they had to look at. there's different problems. that's how i took it. >> is that what you meant? >> that's what i meant, ranking member. >> mr. kelly, you have some time -- >> mr. strictland, let me say something to you. >> absolutely. >> you were appointed, and i was elected. >> that's true. >> you're getting a flavor of what we have in town hall meetings, what it's like. as much as it seems like it's an easy thing, we can walk and chew gum and people ask questions that are really trying to get to the heart of the problem, and i want to, again, this doesn't attack you personally. this is about performance. this is a standard we have to be held to, both you and i for the american public. i just hope we're understanding this and i'm going to show you something so you know because most cars are 12 volt, this is a 300 volt, but there's a 12 volt. i have techs trained in this. the concern was about safety. you know what our guys do? you know the essential tools? i brought gloves today, okay? first thing to put on is the clothe glove when you disconnect or unhook the battery, okay? next thing this is the moisture, you don't want your hands wet around electricity, and you put on the rubber glove, and then on top of that, you put on the leather glove. this is a three-prong process. this is all designed to protect the technicians working on this car. i don't know that you know this. i don't know that you saw the procedure before. there was one other essential tool debated early on. do you know what it was? >> no, sir. >> it was an insulated shepherd's hook. that's the same hook that the lord refers to about the good shepherd pulling one of his flock out of a problem it was in. if you're a technician working on a volt and you hit a live wire, 300 volts that does affect your ability to sustain life, you grab the insulated hook, and you pull your comrade off the car. i want to make sure we understand where we are going with this. your responsibility that you have to the american public and the responsibility that we all have to the american public for the same thing, to protect them from health care costs or economic costs from an injury, so i'm going to take off the gloves, and i don't dislike you. i want you to travel with me sometime back into the district and meet the folks i represent. >> i would love to. >> moving forward, there's no doubt in my mind we'll continue to look at this, but as mr. jordan said, perception is reality. we have created, now, a question of trust, not just here in this body, but the agency. the american people start to wonder, so why did they do it, when did they let general motors know about it, and was it in the best interest -- >> would you yield? >> i will. >> fortunate to have you because your expertise is auto motive is wonderful to have you here, but i submit the question is not whether gm dealt with the gleefs you're talking about -- gloves you're talking about but whether they were treated with kids' gloves. >> it's a matter of protecting people from harm, and in this case, i think we're protecting the administration more than we are the american public. >> we agree on the safety issues. >> okay. we both like each other. i know that's hard to understand. >> the ranking member of the full committee has been extremely patient, and i want to give him as much time as the gentleman -- ten minutes? >> i won't need that much, but thank you very much. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you very much. first of all, mr. strictland, thank you very much for your testimony this morning. when i listen to your testimony, and i listen to yesterday, comments from the gm head mr. akerson and i combine what i heard this morning with what he had to say, i have simple words for you, and it is that i believe you. >> thank you, sir. >> a lot of times when we look at circumstances from this advantage point, we make judgment calls, but we're not in your shoes, and as a trial lawyer for many years, i often saw facts that appear to say one thing but when the story was told, and the circumstances were explained, they said a whole other thing. i think part of the problem here this morning is that as i've listened very carefully, the timeline and getting out information at certain points seems a bit shaky, and as i listen to your explanation in response to the questions, i'm convinced that apparently you did things in a way that should have been done, but the problem is this -- somebody over there just said trust is so important, and there is a book i recommend to all my proteges called "the speed of trust," and it talks about how important it is that when in any relationship that you trust the person because it allows the relationship to move faster, in other words, to get things done. there's two kinds of trust. there's trust with regard to integrity, and then there's trust with regard to competence. in other words, i would not want my barber cutting my hair, so i think, you know, and i don't want us to get confused here. you've been sworn here today, but what has happened here and whether or not you know it is your integrity has been questioned. your hoppestty has been questioned. the question becomes what is that all about. now, i don't believe this hearing is about safety. i wish i did. i think that gm has come up with a brilliant idea to come out with a great product. it's had some problems. there is this allegation out there that some kind of way that president obama, somebody from the obama administration said don't put out certain information because we want gm to be successful or they have conflated the cafe standards with all of this, which is ridiculous. i want to ask you a few questions that i want you to clear up some things because you see, what happens here is that mr. strictland, our lives are short, and damage can be done to somebody sitting in that chair, and they don't even know it's been done or your wife looks at you on television tonight saying, you know, they really made you look bad. i just want you to know, calm down. you don't look bad. >> thank you, sir. >> i got to ask you this -- you know, there's been some discussion with regard to, you know, when you were here before, and there was discussion that you had at the october fuel economy standards hearing regarding safety focusing on the impact of the way of mass reduction. remember that? >> yes, sir. >> and i want to ask you this -- do electric vehicle technologies have impact on weight and mass reduction of vehicles? >> no. >> so the discussion on safety at the october hearing was not directly relevant to the battery fires that occurred three weeks after a series of extreme tests; is that right? >> that is right, sir. >> the majority is attempting to conflate two separate issues. mr. strictland, how does the safety of electric vehicles compare to the conventional fuel based vehicles? >> there is no differential in risk between the two systems. they have different attributes to be taken into account, but no different risk in election trick powered vehicles and gas poured vehicles. >> does it justify the characterization as a firey failure? >> absolutely not. it was a result we were not expecting and gm was not expecting either, and we took a lot of time to figure out the root cause which we did, and we proposed they'll deal with the issues going forward. >> and so, we have a situation, and i want you to understand how it works. i've been here awhile, 167 -- 16 year, there's employees who will watch this at gm tonight if they are not watching it right now, and they care about this vehicle. they are people who, if it were not for the good leadership of the help they got from the government, would be out of a job. they take pride in this vehicle, and so we're having this discussion today, and i don't want the word going out. you can have collateral damage in these hearings, and the collateral damage could be they go out and say, i'm not going to buy a volt. they catch a little bit of information, and i'm not going to buy a volt. therefore, a car that is safe now, and it is safe; right? >> absolutely. >> you released the report friday? >> last week, that's correct. >> so i want it to be clear that they can buy a volt, and as you said, you'd be comfortable with your wife, your children, and everybody riding in it; is that right? >> absolutely. >> because, see, you know, we run around here, and we campaign about -- complain about job, and here we complain about what we're failing to do, but here we use some of the best minds to create the best vehicles, and gm now leading the world, and this could cause damage to all of that. believe me, i want to make sure that the vehicle is safe. that's why i wanted you to be clear that safety should be all of our number one concern, and i know it's yours, but i also want the word to go out -- i don't want this collateral damage because that collateral damage is going to cost somebody, a supplier in my district perhaps, a supplier in mr. jordan's district to close their doors. more importantly, it sends a message to hard working americans who are producing a great product and a product that will allow gm to perhaps continue to lead the world with regard to sales of vehicles, and so, i just, you know, i want you to go back for a second. i got one minute left, and give us -- i don't want -- see, i don't -- see what they're going to do -- i've been around here a long time -- they're going to keep hammering at you. that's what they are going to do. i can go to lunch and come lack and they'll still be beating up on you because they want to make a point, and you know what? sometimes the point ain't even there. it's not there. i want to make a point. i want you to use your next if 23* seconds that are left to assure us that although it may have appeared, the time line appeared not to be all that we would want it to be that it was -- explain that to us again. >> mr. cummings, thank you so much for the opportunity. our work was independent. we have protect the american public and our obligation is to ensure the american public gets home safely every time. it took us six months in order to figure out not only if the volt was involved, what caused the fire, and whether there was risk, and then if there was a defect to be addressed. it took six months of a lot of engineers in my agency and other agencies across government to do that. at no time was any part of government coming to me or the staff saying we should do nothing other than our job, and that's what we did. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, we're not trying to make a point. the point is the point. the time line is the time line. the facts are the facts. the problem is the problem. that's why we have the hearing. >> the problem is the problem. >> yeah, we're here because a vehicle exploded in a timeline that this gentleman did not give information to the committee when he could have back in october. >> that's right, but would the gentleman yield? >> the facts are the facts. you say we're swatting at things. we got our last questioner right now. >> yeah, well, i mean, >> that's not what this hearing's about. >> come on, mr. chairman, come on. i've been around a long time. this hearing is not about safety. this is -- this is about an attack. >> no it's not. it's about getting to the facts. >> all right, fifteen. -- fine. >> i, unlike the ranking member, i'm new here in washington, and mr. strickland, thank you very much for being here. >> thank you. >> nice to see you. we had other conversations about other issues, but today i'd like to talk about, and the ranking member brought it up, trust based on integrity or based on exe tennis. i'm concerned with your role with regards to competence and making sure that the folks who work there know what the issues are and what to do. in this instance, it's the issue of the battery. i mean, that really is how one handles that and treats that that really is kind of the essence of what we're talking about here nor safety, and, you know, i think we should all take this opportunity. we learn from mistakes. we learn from shortcomings. we look at situations we didn't like the way they worked out, and we figure out what we did wrong and move on. that's what a hearing like this is about. how do we prevent this from happening again? the question to you is were the automobile safety engineers aware of the dangers posed by the damage of the lit yum battery? >> at what point? >> after the crash occurred on may 12, then the car sat after the crash. >> okay. i understandment thank you, vice chairman for collar -- clarifying that. the car was put in an impact test. when we were finished with the particular tests and get the results, the car, the hull, is then sold for salvage. that car was stored in the normal process in the yard thinking that there was going to be no issues, and it was not observed at all until those three weeks later on june 6 when the staff came back and noticed that the burnt holes that were discovered. no one had an expectation that the particular fire incident had happened and june 6 would be from the may 12 test. >> i guess that gets to the essence of my question. these batteries, when it was traumatized, when you had the crash test, it then began to leak and there was evidence there was a leaking orange fluid, and my concern is that the safety add min straiters didn't -- administrators didn't have the knowledge that this leaking battery would cause a problem given that battery and the energy behind it, and the dangers, and so my question to you is why was that car stored with other cars, why wasn't the battery drainedded? why wasn't it handled as if someone understood the dangers with regard to the battery? >> our engineers and the testing facility engineers actually know of the dangers and issues regarding the battery and how much energy they store. in all of the crash tests up until that particular point, the ones taken by the national highway traffic administration and my understanding of those undertaken by gm. there's never been an issue where post crash there was actually a fire issue, so therefore, there was no protocol either by national highway traffic safety administration or gm externally at that particular time to deal with batteries post crash. because this is a new technology and we're always learning, this is something sha, frankly, that we addressed, looked at, and took the proper processes once we realized this cob an issue. >> that, sir, with all due respect is my concern. the fact is if it was a regular engine, you would have drained the gasoline out of the tank to avoid any, and in this instance, the fact that the fire did occur because the fluid was not drained, there were no protocols, therefore, there were no protocols given to gm, and that's the problem because in this instansz without the protocols, how do you inform them of what happened and, i mean, that's the purpose of what you do, and obviously, this could happen -- if it happened on the road and then you have a similar situation, so that's the concern. there were no protocols. gm was not informed, and it appears, and we talk about appearance being reality, that the administrators didn't have the knowledge of this danger this leaking fluid could cause and caused this fire. >> i'd like to respond to that. >> quickly. >> i'll be very brief. am i satisfied what we in post post -- there was an issue with the protocols because of the processes we went through and learn over the years about these systems. battery intrusion we've always known is a situation that we want to avoid, and in this particular situation the battery was intrude upon and we discovered a list of events to address the batteries post crash which is what we did with the national fire protection association and the department of energy. we want to make sure we protect those people, not in post crash. the second responders, storage facilities, and all of those other things. i'll be clear. we have been working on ion high voltage battery systems for several years beginning work in a research plant in 2000 specifically well before the issues came here to fore because we reck nice there's learning -- recognize there's learning going forward. it's a priority, and we take our job very seriously. >> thank you. chairman of the full committee, and promise, this is the last five minutes because we want to do this before we have a vote. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and perhaps going last gives me one advantage. administrator strickland, this is about safety and government's role, this committee under republican and democratic leaders has taken on auto companies, the safety administration overall. we did it under toyota in a very, very bipartisan fashion so understand you're here today because my first hybrid electric car came with me to washington. the factory that blew up leaving the world without enough batteries when i was still a ceo in the electronics energy and how dare you say you're developing protocols when the president is in an electric car. it's not the first electric car on the road. you're behind the power curve. this vehicle's picture was not released until today. i've got to tell you, if you were against the electric cars and not trying to promote them, perhaps ahead of some of the expertise you have for safety, this picture would have been splashed 20 minutes after it burned. the fact is your administration is not up to speed to maintain safety in the electric age. now, i grew up like many people on both sides of the day seeing trucks and cars, and i won't name the brands, exploding on television. it's not new that you can have catastrophic events in the case of an accident. that's one of the reasons for test protocol. i'm deeply concerned today about one major part of this, the most important part. you didn't know what you were doing. an anomaly happened. it happened with less than 400,000 volts out there, didn't it? didn't it? >> i don't know the charge. >> well, i do. by july, less than 4,000. we'll have the ceo here in a moment. today, there's twice as many out there. you didn't even inform and deal with the problem either to the public or to general motors or to this committee when people were here in front of in committee during the intervening period until bloomberg media outed you. now, how do you answer the question of transparency, accountability, and trust today? you said you'd put your mother, grandmother, all these people in a car you don't own. you put the president of the united states in the car. you put the secretary of transportation in the car. how dare you not have both the public and this committee know what you knew in a timely fashion. how do you answer that accusation which is the safety charge that you guys screwed up on by keeping a secret? >> mr. chairman, i'll point to the time line which is very detailed to the work undertaken by the agency along with the department of energy and the department of defense. >> the car blew up three weeks after it was hit unexplained; right? part of the timeline. >> that's correct. >> three minutes after that three week event, why did the executives at general motors were not flying in, why is it that one of the hallmark projects of this administration that higher ups including secretary lahood and a briefing sent to someone to try to get it to the president. why was that not as important? >> gm was notified as soon as we were on june 6, and it is our speedometer to figure out what is wrong with the vehicle, even the vehicle it caused. to the point, mr. chairman, we didn't know what was at fault, so we had to build from the ground up which vehicle was responsible or it could have been an arsonist as far as we knew, and that took every moment up until we were able to close the investigation to do the engineering work for us to come to the decision on whether or not the volt posed an unreasonable risk to safety, and until we have that agency decision made, it is irresponsible, frankly, illegal, for us to go forward and tell the american public there's something wrong with the car when we don't know what it is. it took us time to figure it out. there was no notion of us not being transparent. we were doing our jobs. >> well, i hear you. i don't believe you. the fact is today coming to the hearing, why were the pictures not released? oh, i'm sorry, that's an embarrassment, but what part of transparency gives you an obligation to be forward looking? it's great everyone's promoting the volt. i go to every show and i see all kinds of special cup holder battery chargers in the volt, all nice things. the fact is the american public was not interested in buying the car in large quantity even with incentives, and now there's a safety question, and it's not a question about the volt. it's about trust of your agency. can we trust you in this and every other area to not be selective and basically overly cautious? this was a new automobile, something happened, and you're telling me it took months to get to where you had a confidence level that, quote, "you had a problem?" sounds to me you to to be sure to explain it as an anomaly to save the reputation and p started off saying we have to prove this is safe, and we're not going to stop until we proved it and documented it. you had concerned. i'm going to share one thing in closing. look, i was an automobile parts manufacturer. i had a recall. i've been down the road of anomaly along with circuit city, one of the major customers at the time. you can always say that because they're no longer around to complain one way or the other. the fact is we were under the scrutiny at the national level from the moment the agency was informed. ultimately, we did a recall on something where there was no problem in the vehicle, but we explained in depth how somebody could make a mistake in installation on a limited number of cars. i'm very familiar how fast you can act even if you don't know all the facts, but you know something bad happened. now, with the chairman's indulgence, please, you got the last word. >> mr. foreman mr. -- mr. chairman, the highway traffic safety administration is not in the reputation business, but the safety business. i'm not concerned about the reputation of any manufacturer if they put a product out there that poses unreasonable risk to safety. we work independently to prove that every single day. now, i appreciate your comparison with your experience with circuit city and your company, but we have a statutory obligation that we have to fulfill before we move forward in pressing a manufacturer for mandatory recall. it would be improper for us to do anything different than that process, so it is a very careful and deliberate process. i wish it could be instantaneous, but it takes technical work, engineering work, and a lot of science to figure that out to a point of certainty, and those six months took every second and my engineers to be able to come to that conclusion giving us the information for an agency decision and recommendation to the secretary of transportation, so we are as transparent as an agency we find in government. we have a data base filled with tens of thousands of complaints every single year of vehicle defects. we work very hard. we've reduced fatalities in america by 25% since 2006. we take every single crash that injuries or kills someone with the highest level of sincerity and severity, and mr. chairman, i appreciate the opportunity to explain that. >> thank you. mr. chairman, working with your subcommittee, i'd ask we continue the process of verifying what has been said. essentially, how often it takes six months when there's a known catastrophic event. thank you, mr. chairman. >> administrator, thank you for your time. we want to get to the next witness as quick as we can. >> yes, sir. >> if the staff would prepare for panel two, we want to get started. we'll have votes in the next half hour, and we want the testimony in time for questioning of our second witness. thank you, administrator. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> pleased to have mr. dan akerson with us, and you know the reteen here. swearing in and then the five minutes and we go from there. raise your right hand. solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. let the record show the witness answered in the affirmative. you were here for the first panel, get five minutes, lenient with that time as you saw, and then we'll go to questioning and hopefully get this done before we have to go to vote. >> i did the same thing, turn on the microphone there if you would, and then just pull it close. should have a red light there. >> got it. >> there go. >> good morning. i welcome the opportunity to testify today and stand bind a car that all of us at general motors are proud of. allow me to start with some volt history. gm unvailed the volt con cement at the january 2007 detroit auto show. in june of 2008, the old gm's board of directors approved the volt product for production well before the bankruptcy and the infusion of government funds. the battery story goes back much further in the early 1990s with gm's work on the ev1. drawing on that experience, we engineered the volt to be a winner on the road and in customer's hearts and proud to say the volt is performing exactly as we engineered it. in the first year, it garnered the triple crown of industry awards, motor trend car of the year, automobile magazine automobile of the year, and north american car of the year. volt is among the safest cars on the road earning five stars for occupant safety and a top safety pick with the insurance institute for highway safety. in 93% of volt owners report the highest customer satisfaction with the car, more than any other vehicle and highest ever recorded in the industry. beyond the accolades, the volt's importance to gm and country's long term prospects is far reaching. we germinged the volt to be the only ev that you can drive across town or across the country without fear of being stranded when the battery is dead. you can go 35 miles, and in some cases much more, on a single charge, which is for 80% of american drivers is their total driving range. after that, a small gas engine extends your range to 375 miles, roughly, before you have to recharge or refill. if the volt message boards are indications there's some real one upsmanship going on a there. customers reported going months and thousands of miles without stopping once at the gas pump. no other ev can do this or generate that much passion for its drivers. we engineered the volt to give drivers a choice to use energy produced in the united states rather than from oil from places that may not put america's best interests first. we engineered the volt to show the world what great vehicles we make at general motors. unfortunately, there's one thing we did not engineer. although we loaded the volt with state of the art safety features, we did not create the volt to be a political punching bag, and sadly, that's what it's become. for all of the loose talk about fires, we're here today bout tests resulted in a fire under lab conditions that no driver would experience in real world. in fact, customers drove over 2500 miles without a single similar incident. in one test, the fire took occurred seven days after a simulated crash. in another, it took three weeks after the test. not three minutes. not three hours. not three days. three weeks. based on those test results, did we think there was an imminent safety risk? no. as one customer put it, if they couldn't cut him out of a vehicle in two or three weeks, he had a bigger problem to worry about. however, begin those test results, gm had a choice in how it would react. it was an easy call. we put our customers first. we moved fast with great transparency to engineer a solution. we contacted every volt owner and offered them a loaner car until the issue was settled. if that was not enough, we offered to buy the car back. we assembled a team of engineers who worked nonstop to develop a modest enhancement to the battery system to address the issue. we'll begin adding that enhancement on the production line and in customer cars in a few weeks. in doing so, we took a five-star rated vehicle and made it even safer. nonetheless, these events have cast an undeserved, damaging light on a promising new technology that we're exporting around the world right from detroit. as the "wall street journal" wrote in its volt review, "we should suspend our ranker and savor a little american pride. a bunch of mid western engineers, bad haircuts, and cheap wristwatches just out engineered every other car company on the planet." the volt is safe. it's a marvelous machine representing so much about what's right about general motors and frankly, about american ingenuity and manufacturing. i look forward to taking your questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. akerson, we appreciate you being here with us today and the fact you talked about you contacted every volt owner over the response you took when this was brought to the public's attention. in your opinion, mr. akerson, should they have known to drain the battery -- when they conducted the test, subjected it to a crash, took it to a lot and let it set there, shouldn't they have known that they needed to drain the battery? >> i can only speak for general motors and the protocols within the industry. the protocol on whether it's a combustion engine or an electric assist as the volt is, is the disconnect the battery, the 12-volt battery in a combustion engine car and drain the gas. our protocol at the time with the understanding and the background that this is a new and evolving technology was the battery, the 12-volt battery's disconnected and the large 16-kilowatt hour battery was disconnected, not depowered. lesson learned. that's part of the protocols going forward. >> let me be clear. is it fairly common knowledge that when there's a crash, you drain the battery, drain the gas tank, and that just -- is that comps? >> no, you disconnect the 12-volt battery, disconnect it from the circuitry, and you drain the gas tank. >> okay, but should have we expected them to know to drain the battery or unfair? >> again, i can't speak for the administration. >> any testing you had done before any testing other that you know of other manufacturers with similar type electric vehicles? do they know they're -- i mean, did they drain their batteries in those tests? i mean, it seems to me this is something they should have known to do other than just park it on a lot with a bunch of other cars. >> let me speak to what general motors knew. we had $285,000 testing on this battery, equivalent to 25 car lives if you will, and everything we found was this was a safe -- >> any of that testing involve draining the battery after subjecting to a crash or after the battery was punctured? >> no. >> okay. when did you give them the protocols that included draining the battery? >> in the case in question where the car had a fire three weeks after the crash, it was left, as you saw, on the side of the road, and i don't know that the battery was even disconnected. i believe it was. i'm talking about the 12-volt battery. i believe it was, and i believe the larger battery was disconnected from the circuitry, but not drained. >> okay. okay. and when did you plan on, if at all, informing the owners of the volt and the public about potential concerns? did you plan on doing that, or is that something you worked in conjunction with, or what was your plans at general motors for informing the public? >> well, after listening to the administrator's testimony, as the summer progressed, we had to disassemble the battery itself and look for the root cause, and as he said, there were concerns about arson or one of the other, three or four cars involved. it was not clear to anyone exactly what happened. it happened over a weekend. there was no observation. there was no witness to what happened. in september of last year, we tested again, and we could not replicate a fire. >> okay. >> we did the same exact test, we, general motors, they did the same test, we could not replicate, and so there were further tests. as he said, the battery itself was extracted from the vehicle. it was pierced with a steel rod which is highly unlikely in the real world, and then it was rotated simulating a rollover, not in a second that you would expect on the road, but by an hour, and it was drenched, if you will, in fluid, coolant. it took seven days for a fire to occur. i'd like to underscore there was no explosion. a fire. that -- at that point after that extreme -- what i would call not real world situation, seven days, that's when they said they wanted to open a formal investigation. we notified our customers immediately after that. >> okay. thank you. yield now to the gentleman. >> thank you, mr. akerson, for being here. is the volt safe? >> it is safe. >> have you had communication with anyone in the obama administration to ask them to provide some kind of consideration to gm with respect to the testing that you became aware of, not to disclose it or to defer disclosure of it? >> absolutely not. >> and you're sure that in terms of your line staff it didn't happen? >> i'm quite sure. i can't justify to that 100%. i don't think -- >> as a policy, you, gm, did not try to get the obama administration to fail to disclose any tests that were made in a laboratory setting? >> no, no one. >> you're not aware of any accident or any injury that occurred to anyone driving a volt? >> absolutely none. >> they're safe in the vehicle; is that right? >> i own one, yes. >> you drive it and your family members drive it as well? >> i just bought it. >> let me ask you something -- if there was a material defect in a car that was out in circulation right now, would that affect, let's say, your insurance that gm would be buying from, you know, your insurance carrier, wouldn't they increase your cost of insurance if you had a claim for a product liability? is that a problem for you? >> yes. >> has that occurredded and your insurance company called you say say, wait, there's questions here, and it's going to cost you more to to have insurance, has that happened in >> i insured the car, but that was low because it's a five star rated car by the insurance institute. >> so the very people charged with determining risk as a question of the market now, they have not increased the cost of insurance, but to the contrary and gave it a high rating? >> i assume, yes. >> can you discus what effect designing has had? are they more competitive? >> this is an evolving area of automotive engineering and technology. it's a halo car in the sense that we get a cashay of being innovative, and all companies innovate. for a background, we sold more volts in the first year than toyota sold priuses in the first year they rolled out the preeout. new technologies take awhile to take hold and gain traction, and i think that the engineers around this has been viewedded as -- described as a moon shot from a technological point of view, and, indeed, i think it was, and that's benefited other cars. we're rolling out -- >> so it's your experience then that the manufacturing of the volt puts america, essentially on the map with respect to the electric vehicles; is that right? >> the derivatives are going into many of the cars, and, for example, the buick lacrosse, with e-assist, jumps to 30 miles a gallon. we have impacts of exploring technologies and deploying them in the real world ring yes. >> and so the manufacturing of the volt, then, moves america towards clean and first efficiet technologies, not just used in the volt, but other cars to help them become more fuel efficient; correct? >> yes, sir. >> and that, in turn, i might add, has a lot to do with saving jobs in this economy. how many jobs has gm added to the automanufacturing sector to build the parts for the scroll -- volt? >> one plant outside detroit is dedicated just to the volt production. they put out about 400 every couple days, and they are a couple thousand employees there. i would also say since we've emerged from bankruptcy, we've invested over $5 billion in foreclosure in the country hiring just short of 16,000 additional -- >> $5 billion for the services of? >> all the capital programs here in the united states. >> final question. so it's your intention as the ceo of general motors to have the volt lead the way towards let's say electric and hybrid electric vehicles, revitalizing the manufacturing sector by providing products that consumers find attractive because it saves them money; correct? >> yes, sir. we're developing great combustion engine cars as well that are fuel efficient. >> i understand that from my own district. thank you very much, sir. thank you. >> thank you. pleased to have with us a member of the full committee from the great state of michigan with unanimous concept from the committee, like for him to join us. before going quickly to mr. kelly, i just want to be clear on a question asked. with the exception, general motors -- you, mr. akerson, had no conversation with folks at the white house concerning this incident? correct. >> no conversation with people you or anyone in general motors had conversation with people at t.a.r.p., and who handled the now defunct task force? no conversation at treasury regarding the issue? >> i had a conversation with mr. massad earlier this week on another general matter and observed to him i was going to testify today, but other than that, no conversation. >> anyone else at general motors that you know of talk to someone in the administration? talk to mr. lahood about this issue? >> no, sir. >> okay. now yield to the chairman of full committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome. >> thank you. >> i'll be brief. the question here is not whether or not gm is making good cars and whether or not it's coming back. i think it is, and we take great pride this that, and i think the president did last night. is this, in your history, recognition and as far as you know a typical response to a typical catastrophic event? is this less aggressive or more aggressive in their response to a brand new automobile? >> as we speak, there's about 8,000. >> there were about 4,000 when this occurred. you may be making 400 a day, but you're selling far less than that. 4,000 or less in june or july, 8,000 or so now. the question is when this occurred -- >> yes. >> the director said, administrator said that it takes six months to do it, but in your experience, would you consider this to be an aggressive response, an average response, or a little slower than average when it comes to when it lights up your phone and they come running in and have emergency meetings and the it's all you can focus on even though you are bored and everybody else had something else in mind for you that day, and when it happens to all great automobile companies, was this more aggressive i typical, or quite frankly, a little less speedy >> thank you for the colorful description of my routine. [laughter] >> been there done that on a smaller scale. >> i understand. i describe it as proportional. we tried to replicate and find what we suspected to be the root cause, try to replicate it in the field, crashed and tried to stimulate the same outcome we had in the may/june time frame. we could not do that. when they drewed battery out of the car and then impaled it with a steel rod and spun it, it took awhile to get it, and then it was seven days after being impaled in order to replicate a similar situation. the fact that we couldn't replicate it in the field, it's proportional. >> i appreciate your candor. last question. lithium ion, new technology to you, but not new to the world. the aviation industry regulated volume of it and all other things. do you think you're behind the power curve and have to play catch up? you described not knowing how to replicate that. is that one of the problems going forward on a mass basis with large vol yules of a new, basically other sealed battery that you used? >> well, arguably, we're teamed with the probably one of the leaders, not the leader in battery technology in the world, and that's lg kim out of korea, and they built a plant in holland, michigan to supply not only our cells, but the other competitors in the same market. i'd say we're a leader in this. we understand the battery technology well, we have a battery lab specifically to study the technology and the evolution and improvement we expect over the years. >> i was not trying to ask what you were doing because i know you're doing that, but in fairness, it's catch up. the american automobile companies, including your previous leased automobile, you're playing catch up on all electric cars and even hybrid, and i applaud
AlabamaUnited-statesTexasIranAfghanistanChinaVirginiaRussiaMichiganWashingtonDistrict-of-columbiaJordan many people migrated over here. there were an estimated 60 to 100 tents here earlier this month. there was a lot of infighting as well amongst the campers. police say there was also a growing sanitation concern, arrests for battery, theft, even assault with a deadly weapon. back here live in berkeley, you're looking at berkeley high school which is right across the street from this "occupy" encampment. it's kind of one of the unique things about its location. it is also just across the street from city hall and kitty corner from the police station. that's made it more of a community area where people have been able to check outweighs going on. but when you have school aged children that was causing some of the concern for the city. we don't know what the city's next move will be. we'll follow it. >> thank you. if protestors want to close the port of oakland there is not much the city can do to stop them. oakland mayor jean quan tells the "chronicle" that just a handful of protestors could stop work at the port. she says it would take at least 500 police officers to try to keep the port open and the port would have to pay for the officers. the bill, $1.5 million. some of the occupy l.a. protestors arrested during recent demonstrations are being offered a class in fro speech. this is an alternative to prosecution. a deputy city attorney says the city will not press charges against the protestors who complete the education program but they will have to pay about $350 each for the class. a civil rights attorney calls the idea "patronizing." thousands of nurses are set to go on strike just about an hour from now at eight bay area hospitals. gil diaz joins us live from oakland at one of the sutter hospitals affected by this one day walk you. >> reporter: we are standing outside alta bates summit in oakland. about 4,000 nurses are expected to participate in the strike beginning around 7:00. it could last for 24 hours. so 2,000 in the bay area, 2,000 in southern california in long beach. to tell us why they're doing it, leslie, a nurse for over 20 years. >> good morning. >> reporter: one of the first questions is it's the holidays. you're having a strike on the holidays. was that a tough call to make for your nurses association? >> it's a tough call. i have been a nurse for 21 years and it's all of us a tough call. it's a tough call during the summer. it's never easy for us to go on strike and to leave our patients and our communities that we're so committed to serving. >> reporter: i know why strikes occur because contract negotiations went downhill. what is one gripe about the negotiations or about the hospital's proposal that you want to change or you don't like? >> i just actually them to just keep our contract the way it is and no takeaways. one of the biggest things is the healthcare takeaway. we're healthcare providers and the fact that they want us to work and pay out outrageous co- pays to have healthcare and also eliminate healthcare benefits for employees that work less than 30 hours, and they will be working without any medical coverage. >> reporter: spokesmen are trying to form a partnership with the nurses but the nurses keep wanting more and more and that's unrealistic. is that a fair statement? >> no. it's a lie. it's a lie. it's a lie. sutter lies all the time to the community and i'm sorry that they insist on telling these lies. they do not want to form partnerships with us. we have come to the bargaining table and we are asking them to just take away their outrageous takeaways and give us the contract that we have. >> reporter: all right. good luck, leslie. >> thank you so much. >> reporter: we'll be seeing more of you this morning. the protest scheduled to start in about an hour. 2,000 here in the bay area. so keep it right here, grace. we'll see how many more nurses show up this morning. back to you. >> we'll check back in with you, thank you, gil. there are multiple bombings that ripped through baghdad and it has claimed the lives of at least 60 people today. no one has claimed responsibility but the coordinated nature of the attacks suggests planning by "al qaeda in iraq." the bombings are probably not a direct response to the confrontation that has been going on all week between sunni and shiite political leaders. but they will likely increase tensions which is already bad just days after the final americans left. 6:05. elizabeth in for lawrence today to tell us about our forecast. >> i'm kind of fascinated by this picture that we put up. isn't that neat? this is a waning crescent moon. the skies so clear that you can see see the moon's shadow and even see this is venus below the moon so yeah, pretty picture this morning if you are just waking up with us. fog is really not an issue this morning. now, it is clear and cool all across the bay area. it's a little warmer this morning than yesterday. but the temperatures are yet still chilly. 40s and 50s. 40 now in oakland. 54 the warm spot in santa rosa. so it's pretty breezy, as well. that's keeping us more mild. breezy conditions in the north bay valleys and hills. but we are expecting sunshine. high pressure moves in for later on this afternoon. so coming up, a full check of your seven-day forecast. el camino real, westbound near mare island vehicle spun out second lane. not seeing any yellow no major snag a little yellow eastbound of 37 as you work your way towards 80 so heads up there. we'll keep you posted on that. the rest of the eastshore freeway problem-free approach the bay bridge toll plaza. looks like traffic is starting to stack up in the cash lanes. metering lights are on. no delays as you work your way in the fastrak lanes into san francisco. grace? >> thank you. it is anything but the holidays on capitol hill. the last-minute stretch to hammer out a tax cut deal. >> plus, the high-speed rail project is supposed to create one million jobs. why that estimate appears too good to be true. [ screaming ] >> a navy tradition with a modern-day twist. that and more coming up. ,, ♪ secondhand smoke affects everyone's health. it's not just irritating. it can cause heart disease and even death. speak up about secondhand smoke. your health and the health of your family depend on it. hundreds more in your wallet year after year. feed me! saving you money -- now, that's progressive. call or click today. but he remains in washington hoping to push through an extension of payroll tax cus president obama's family is in hawaii on vacation but he is in washington hoping to push through a tax cut today. the finger-pointing on capitol hill continues as congress remains gridlocked. >> reporter: it's feeling less like the holidays and more like a game of chicken on capitol hill. >> people in america are wondering what washington is doing. >> reporter: congress has until deals 31 to reach an agreement on a payroll tax cut extension. if not, the typical american will lose an average of $40 a paycheck. most lawmakers have gone home for the holidays. before they left, senators passed a two-month extension with overwhelming support from both parties. house republicans refused to allow a vote on that measure. >> would like to ask for unanimous consent that we bring up the bill to extend the tax cut for 160 million americans as you walk off the floor, mr. speaker, you're walking out on -- you're walking away... >> reporter: instead, they want to restart negotiations on a year-long extension. >> we're here, we are ready to work. we're looking for our counterparts to do so we can do what everyone wants to extend the payroll tax cut for one year. >> reporter: the stalemate has thrown a wrench in president obama's holiday plans. instead of going to hawaii, he has been working the phones at the white house to get congress to compromise. only first dog bo was by his side yesterday as he shopped at a pet store. later, he got gifts for his daughters. >> are you going to deliver it to them personally in hawaii, sir? >> merry christmas to you. >> reporter: the white house hasn't said if the president will leave washington without a deal in place. i'm nanette sosa reporting. if an extension of unemployment benefits is not approved by the end of the year, an estimated 1.1 million californians would be affected. about 100,000 unemployed people would see their benefits stop immediately. and the rest would no longer be able to file for extensions. so some painful cuts if they don't make a deal. it is a first in five years. the massive economic boost at san jose international airport. and down to the wire. why officers at a bay area toy drive are calling for backup. well, if you were hoping to do a little skiing for the holiday season, here are your current conditions. the resorts are open. 20 lifts at heavenly but unfortunately no new snow. so conditions aren't ideal. at squaw, man made stuff nine lifts open under partly cloudy skies. sugar bowl this weekend. no new snow. partly cloudy, five lifts open. coming up a full look at your seven-day forecast. berkeley police moved in 6:15 on this thursday. let's look at your top stories. berkeley police moved in overnight to close the "occupy" encampment at civic center park one of the last holdouts in the bay area. some removed the tents voluntarily but others are fighting to stay. less than an hour from now about 4,000 bay area nurses are set to stage a one-day strike. replacement workers are planned for the eight hospitals operated by sutter health. and at least 63 people have died in a wave of bombings that ripped through baghdad today. most of the neighborhoods that were targeted are shiite. that and the coordinated nature of the attacks points to involvement by "al qaeda in iraq." good morning. we are kind of in a holding pattern here in the bay area. cold clear start then warming up to mild temperatures by later on in the afternoon so if you are going out, we have some gusty winds reported especially in the north bay hills and valleys. but it's bringing us some relatively okay conditions to start us off with. it was chilly yesterday morning. in fact, temperatures were hovering at or below freezing in some spots so we're a little warmer today than yesterday. and if you liked yesterday's highs by the afternoon, all that sunshine, well, you will enjoy today, as well. sunny and mild across the coast, bay and inland and we're warming up towards the mid-60s in some spots. so high pressure remains. you will notice this low here, it could bring a few clouds by later on tomorrow. but no rain at least in our immediate forecast. we are staying nice and dry. so taking a look at your forecast for later on today, northern california if you are doing a little bit of holiday travel heading out maybe some relatives for christmas, you will notice the temperatures are not too bad. we're seeing a lot of sunshine out there. so sunny skies, 58 in redding, 53 your high in eureka. so a little closer to home, across the bay area, we're mostly going to be in the upper 50s to mid-60s in some spots. it looks like right now santa rosa and mountain view are kind of competing right now for the top spot for later on this afternoon. these temperatures by the way are at or even slightly above average. in santa rosa the highs today are nearly 9 degrees. what is typical for this time of year. so checking in over the next several days, sunshine -- just a few clouds rolling in by friday but again, we're remaining dry and mild through the christmas holiday. by wednesday, late tuesday night into wednesday could be a different story. there is a chance of rain expected by midweek. so coming up, we'll take another look at your christmas forecast. in the meantime, gianna has traffic. >> we like it when the roads are dry. easy along 580. pleasanton towards the dublin interchange no snags. over to the altamont pass. east of there we are seeing some slight delays, as well. and that travel time inching up a bit, 17 minutes now west 580 altamont pass to 680. delays start around 205. antioch starting to see slow conditions. 16 miles per hour hillcrest to loveridge where we're seeing most of the delays. once you hit pittsburg things are moving nicely there and then the rest of highway 4 towards 80 looking good. eastbound 4 later on don't forget roadwork until 1:00, possibly 2:00 this afternoon. so you might see delays between bailey to railroad, various lanes blocked until then. westbound 80 near tennessee, accident cleared. you can see eastshore freeway moving along nicely. lower eastshore preparing also clears towards the bay bridge toll plaza. we are waiting to hear whether the metering lights will be turned on been traffic still light at the bay bridge. live look at conditions. most of those slight delays in the cash lanes. but no major snags for fastrak users, clear across the upper deck into san francisco. slight delays just as you come into the city. heading into oakland, traffic looking good in both directions. remember kcbs once you do hit the roads. they're our radio partners. and you can find them at 740-am and 106.9-fm. that's a look at your drive. grace? >> thank you. it is the biggest settlement ever over residential fair lending practices. bank of america will have to pay out $335 million to resolve justice department claims against countrywide. it was accused of discriminating against more than 200,000 black and hispanic borrows. the justice department says they were charged higher fees and interest rates. it appears that a high- speed rail line in california would not create as many jobs as advertised. the "contra costa times" says the railroad would create 60,000 jobs at the most and only a few thousan permanently, a lot less than the million jobs touted by supporters. the newspaper says they are inflating the numbers by counting each year of work as a separate job. flight passengers from san jose to tokyo can start in april. a single international route can mean hundreds of thousands of dollars for the local economy. san jose has not had any international overseas service since 2006. the flight with nippon airlines would take about 10 hours. 6:20. a military first. the kiss that's making history. and who could forget frosty the dog tossed out of a car abandoned, now he has been adopted. his new home and name coming up. good morning. it's "holiday light" on the freeways right now. if you are headed to catch a flight at sfo, you're in luck, 101 clear in both directions. here's a live look at conditions near bayshore. we'll check conditions headed towards san jose airport in just a few minutes. the east palo alto police department wants the public to know that it really needs hundreds of more toys for its annual giveaway. as of last night, they only had about 200 but the department is looking to serve at least 1500 kids. in the program's 13 years no child has ever walked away empty-handed. the plymouth is open from early- morning in the -- the police department is open from early morning to the late evening. two california women are making him. it's navy tradition for sailors returning to sea to kiss loved ones. for the first time, though, the sailor and the loved one are both women navy petty officers separated by a tour of duty. they won the right to that ceremonial first kiss through a lottery before the ship docked. >> it's nice to be able to be myself. it's been a long time coming. >> i think it's great. we can be open about our relationship since we both are in the military. >> it may reminds you of this photo of a times square kiss at the and of world war ii. the two women met as roommates at naval training school and had to hide their relationship in "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed earlier this year. an early christmas gift for the little while dog thrown from a car in monterey county. frosty now has a new home. the 1-year-old pooch was roaming the streets of monterey for weeks. the spca believes someone tossed him out of the window of a moving car. a neighbor actually found him last week dirty. he was okay. the san jose woman adopted him on sunday and her family gave him a new name for his new life. >> we celebrated his homecoming with a bottle of sapi spew monte so we called his asti. they had requests to adopt him from as far as chicago. a san jose woman called every day until she got word that he was found. she was allowed to adopt the dog. coming up, saving libraries in san jose. one councilman's idea to help solve the budget crisis. >> and tackling the 49ers off the field. the push to keep the team out of santa clara. and a few skirmishes between police an "occupy" protestors overnight here in berkeley. but they are digging in. several tents and dozens of catchers remain. we'll tell you where things stand coming up. several bay area hospitals may be in limbo this morning as thousands of nurses plan to strike for the next 24 hours. we'll tell you what nurses are fighting for coming up. and look up to the sky. pretty cool view this morning of a waning crescent moon and it's actually mercury just below it. so the reason we can see this is it is so clear outside. clear and cool to start off with this morning. we're warming up by this afternoon. how warm? we'll tell you after the break. can now be enjoyed in your coffee only international delight puts the real flavours from your favourite treats inside frank is off. your realtime captioner is linda marie macdonald. good thursday morning. it's december 22, a few days left to get your shopping all finished. i'm grace lee. frank is off today. let's start off with elizabeth filling in with lawrence for a cold start to this thursday. >> warmer in some areas. we just checked. if you are waking up in santa rosa or napa, temperatures right now are more than 20 degrees warmer right now than yesterday morning. so here's a look at the temperatures across the bay area. 44 in mountain view. 52 in san francisco. so clear and cold start to your morning. but we are warming up. temperatures slightly above average by later on this afternoon. we'll have more on that plus a check of your seven-day forecast. in the meantime, let's check your traffic with gianna. >> once those heaters get going in your card, not too bad because the freeways are looking very good. metering lights are off. it's already 6:30. so "holiday light." details coming up. grace? >> thank you. >> reporter: anne makovec is in berkeley at the occupy site where police were trying to close the camp in the early hours of the morning. >> reporter: the camp remains this morning and much of it after police sent out this ee vex notice yesterday telling everybody to be out of here by 10 p.m. but several dozen people remain in the plaza and several tents, as well. police for the most part this morning have been leaving this camp alone. we have not seen much of a presence. here's some video "occupiers" streamed on the internet overnight. there were several pop-up confrontations between them and police. this is one of them just after 1 a.m. police did take a few swats with their batons and then backed off. here's how one protestor described it. >> i don't think it's a victory necessarily. i think they are pulling guerrilla tactics on us and trying to scare us and terrorize us. >> reporter: what's your plan? >> we're going to stay and occupy and hold the point. we have our gas here. we are still going to be doing the ga tomorrow as usual. we're going to keep at it with our usual routine. >> reporter: this camp has been here since october and it's steadily grown since raids at the "occupy oakland" and "occupy sf" camps many people migrating over here. were 60 to 100 tents earlier this month and there was a lot of infighting also amongst the campers. police say there were growing sanitation concerns, arrests for battery, theft and assault with a deadly weapon. >> these occupations become back here live now in berkeley, you're taking a look at berkeley high school which is across the street from the encampment. that's one of the problems with the location and one of the unique things about it. right by city hall, right by a high school, as you can see. and the police department is just across the street, as well. so that caused some of the problems, as well. the city has been watching it for weeks and patience is growing thin. grace sh. >> any idea if police may be moving in at some point and clearing out the tents like we have seen in san francisco as well as oakland? >> reporter: i would expect that is going to happen eventually and i spoke with the mayor a few weeks ago about all this. and he said they were being very patient. they were going to move slowly and they were going to try with all of their might to avoid any sort of drama like we saw in oakland when they were raiding the "occupy" camp. >> let's hope so. thank you, anne. in international news there were more than a dozen bombings that ripped across baghdad today. it killed at least 63 people. no one has claimed responsibility but the coordinated nature of this attack suggests that it was planned by "al qaeda in iraq." the bombings are probably not a direct response to a confrontation that has been going on all week between sunni and shiite political leaders. but these bombings are not going to help. likely to increase tensions between them. this is just days after the final americans left. extra police patrols are planned today in south san francisco on the first anniversary of an unsolved gang killing. three men were killed in a shootings a year ago. so far, there haven't been any arrests. the police chief says his department is concerned about possible violence tonight especially at ace and lyndon lanes. eight bay area hospitals are half hour away from a nurse's strike. gil diaz joined us live from oakland at one of the sutter hospitals affected by this one day walk you. nurses already getting ready for this. >> reporter: some nurses have arrived here at alta bates summit in oakland. thousands here in long beach, as well. i have noticed beefed up security behind me. there's probably five guardsmen here at the main entrance but the last strike didn't happen too long ago. it happened exactly three months ago. 23,000 nurses because they were from the sutter health and kaiser facilities. that lasted for one day but sutter health lost out its nurses for four more days. contract negotiations have been going on for months. the nurses contract ended in may. now, some of the things that the hospital was proposing, cutting back on the number of paid sick days for the nurses and asking nurses to make co- payments on their healthcare coverage. here's more from a union rep. >> he is very determined to reduce the quality of care to reduce the ability of nurses to advocate safely for patients. they are trying to force nurses to work when they're sick, which exposes already very ill patients to further infection. that's a very reckless and dangerous proposal for a hospital to be making. nurses must stand up. they cannot be silent about threats to their patients. and they need to have safe care every day of the year. >> reporter: a spokesman for sutter health says that the hospital will be hiring replacement nurses for today and tomorrow. but because of the last-minute notice, those replacement nurses will be paid for five days of work even though they are only working for two days. i talked to the union rep and he tells me that the last time that when they last negotiated it didn't go well or else they wouldn't be striking. liz, i keep talking about how cold it is. you're saying the temperatures aren't that cold? so i don't know what's going on. >> it's cold, 40s and 50s. but we're actually warmer today than yesterday at this time this morning. now, yeah, some temperatures are actually 20 degrees warmer than we saw in areas like napa and santa rosa. so if you're waking up to not too bad temperatures outside, later on this afternoon, hymes you see that big h there on your screen, it is keeping us nice and mild this afternoon. there are still gusty winds in the north bay hills and valleys this morning but by this afternoon, check it out. these temperatures -- the spread is interesting especially in santa rosa. temperatures almost 10 degrees above average for this time of year. so slightly above average though in san francisco, concord, livermore, san jose. not too bad. coming up a check of your seven- day forecast where there are changes expected rain in our forecast for later on next week. so we'll tell you more with that coming up. in the meantime, let's check with gianna for your traffic. >> thank you, elizabeth. let's go straight to milpitas. accident-free but here's a live look at conditions as you work your way towards 237 and 880. no major snags there cruising along in both directions. 880 looking good near coleman if you are heading to san jose airport. also northbound 280. we're seeing a few extra cars on the road but still some nice speeds as you work your way through downtown san jose. 101 also checking in with no major trouble spots right now. 880 good in both directions in oakland. so if you are heading to the oakland airport this morning to catch an early flight, looks like traffic won't be a problem through that portion of the freeway. that's a look at your drive. here's grace. thank you. it is 6:37. a group against the new 49ers football stadium in santa clara wants city residentsvote again on this project. santa clara plays fair says voters who approved the stadium in 2010 were not told the full financial impact. the "chronicle" reports that the group wants to collect signatures to put the billion- dollar facility up for another vote. president obama has delayed his holiday plans in hawaii and staying in town making phones phone calls pushing for an extension of a payroll tax cut meeting with americans whose taxes will rise if congress doesn't reach a deal before december 31. house republicans are refusing to vote on a short-term measure that's already passed the senate with a bipartisan majority. conservatives in the house are demanding an extension that would last for a year. a best-selling book makes its debut at the box office. will the girl with the dragon tattoo make its marks with fans? plus visions of the sugarplum fairy. liam's list coming up. let's check the markets. opened 8 minutes ago. we are in the green. dow up 26 points. nasdaq up nearly 10. s&p up about 3. we'll check in though with kcbs moneywatch reporter jason brooks when we come back. costs...by replacing retirig library workers with vol a san jose city councilman has a new plan to help the city cut costs. he is suggesting that they replace retiring library workers with volunteers. matt bigler joins us now from the king library downtown with more on this proposal. good morning, matt. >> reporter: good morning. that's the idea. when a librarian retires from the city system, instead of filling that position with a new city employee, simply replace that person with a volunteer. someone who wants to work in the library, wants to volunteer their time, they can help out in places like this, the main branch library in san jose. this is coming from city council member pierluigi oliverio. we talked to him this morning. he said this would save the city money and hopefully extend the library hours. right now, san jose's libraries are only open 4 days a week due to budget cuts with the exception being the branch library right here. we talked to oliverio this morning and he said that the nation's firefighters, 71% of the nation's firefighters, operate on a volunteer basis. and he wants to apply that same system to libraries where people are more than eager to help out. >> i hear again and again from residents who enjoy their libraries and ask for the opportunity to volunteer. union rules get in the way of that. so i would like us to have that discussion. >> reporter: all is this will come up for a discussion next month january 4 at a city committee. now, as you can understand, unions want to protect jobs. they also say there's more to being a librarian than simply knowing the dewey decimal system and putting books on a shelf. we know some city council members opposed to the idea of replacing librarians with volunteers. >> the dewey decimal system? you brought me back. thank you, matt bigler. elizabeth, do you remember the system in. >> no. elementary school or junior high? dewey decimal system? >> i'm thinking elementary. >> fraction. >> i still have to remember geometry. we do weather now. [ laughter ] i got the weather click they are morning. filling in for lawrence on the weather front. taking a live look outside it's clear out there. you can see beautiful pictures from our traffic cameras and our weathercam was this morning. so yeah, clear and cold start. in fact, if you look really closely, i realize it's hard to tell you about maybe it's where's waldo but there's a flag waving in the distance there over by the ferry building so some pretty gusty winds especially in our north bay hills and valleys this morning. but it's actually keeping our temperatures mild this morning. so mostly in the 40s and 50s. warmer this morning than yesterday. we're cranking the temperatures up by later on this afternoon. we are expecting to see sunshine. a lot of folks in san francisco were talking about the nice weather so these temperatures are actually slightly above average especially inland where we're reaching the mid-60s in some parts. so this is the reason why. high pressure remains. you will notice that low, now it's going to bring us a few high clouds tomorrow by this time maybe tomorrow afternoon. but no rain is in our immediate forecast. so taking a look at your pinpoint forecast, if you got some travel plans getting out of town for the holidays, or maybe you're going to grandma or grandma is coming to you, here's a look at your highs mostly sunny, 53 in eureka, 58 in redding. 34 is your high if you want to do some skiing out in lake tahoe. a little closer to home across the bay area, we're mostly in the upper 50s. mid-60s in some parts. you notice santa rosa 56 your high there. 61 in livermore. 63 your high in oakland. once again over the next several days remaining dry, mild and slightly at or above average three monday. but then watch out for this. changes coming by the middle of next week. we do have a chance of rain late tuesday into wednesday. so we'll have more weather coming up. let's check in on the traffic front. i know it's been quiet out there. here's gianna. >> it's been incredibly quiet this morning but that's good. it's nice on the freeways right now. only slow spots are pretty typical antioch westbound highway 4, 17 miles per hour as you work your way between hillcrest and loveridge. once you get it pittsburg no major snags in the area. all the way towards the eastshore freeway though highway 4 looking good past there. now, we do have some roadwork on the flip side under way. that will be there until 2:00 this afternoon, eastbound 4 between bailey road and railroad. now, you might see some slight delays again into the afternoon. various lanes blocked will be closed but you will be able to get by and hopefully it will stay "holiday light" through there. the benicia bridge, we just lost our camera. we'll check that in a minute. i did get word of ski equipment on the span there so be careful there. it could be blocking lanes. that's a rough start for the holiday. altamont pass to 680, 580 no delays. it's actually looking better. maybe some slight delays here through livermore but overall 15 minutes as you work your way towards 680. also coming off the eastshore freeway towards the bay bridge toll plaza, very light a few cars on the roads. no metering lights. they still haven't turned them on and probably won't for most of the morning. you're looking good into san francisco as you work your way across the upper deck. later on roadwork is scheduled on the lower deck from 7:45 to 1:00. grace? >> someone is going to get to tahoe and be disappointed without their ski equipment. another drop in new jobless claims is good but we had weaker-than-expected economic growth but still driving the markets somewhat this morning. jason brooks with kcbs and cbsmoneywatch.com joins us. >> reporter: good news on the job market. we'll take that as a holiday gift from the labor department. that is critical because we're seeing this trend develop over 11 of the past 13 weeks. the four-week average has dropped down to 380,000. that's just above an area that would suggest decent job growth. first time unemployment claims down 4,000 to 364,000. and jobs are the driver behind the economy. more jobs come online, that would be better news for the housing market and the overall economy. economy, however, did slip a bit in the 3rd quarter compared to prior estimates. the commerce department out with its third and final estimate and it continued to get lower with each estimate coming in at 1.8% in the 3rd quarter. that was down from 2% from the prior estimate. the big drop came from about a .5% drop of personal consumption less money spent on healthcare, also corporate profits did not quite grow as much as expected. we're looking for growth of about 3% in the 4th quarter. yahoo under focus today. number of reports saying the company's board will consider at a meeting today selling its stakes of two asian companies. ally baba out of china and yahoo japan. the complex deal could be worth $17 billion for yahoo less than $3 billion than the company's overall value paving the way to the company finding a new ceo. but yahoo's been all over the place with different strategic options. but their shares up are right now by about, let's see, 1.5% on that. market is gaining right now. the dow is up by 40 points, nasdaq up by 17. the s&p is up by 6 points. we'll see if we can continue the rally for another day. >> we'll see. all right, thank you, jason. 6:48 now. and movies theater and ballet is a holiday weekend. liam mayclem joins us today. good morning. >> reporter: grace, a jolly good morning to you. warning for starters. this first film is not a holiday movie. i'm talking about girl with a dragon tattoo. it's the three picture adaptation of author steve larson's best selling book, 55 million copies sold worldwide. and let me tell you, the lead actress is superb as elizabeth, a tortured tatooed pierced hacker who helps in the search for a missing girl. daniel craig there he is, he is everything but james bond. as the truth seeking journalist trying to find the missing girl. veteran actor christopher plummer is first class as the patriarch of this troubled family. alongside runi marra he steals the show. both got golden globe nominations for their performances. it's a dark uncomfortable two- hour movie directed by david fincher. it really does get right under your skin and if you are looking to escape holiday cheer this weekend, well, let me tell you this film is the film to see. the girl with the dragon tattoo. >> great cast. >> beautifully directed but, you know, it's not christmas. this isn't christmas, either. or is it? the other guy who loves to escape the holidays is the grinch who stole christmas. the golden gate theater in san francisco is the venue for this dr. seuss classic. max the dog says the grinch decides to steal christmas away from holiday-loving whos. the sets and costumes inspired boot original illustrations. >> who doesn't love whoville? >> while the music and book breathe new life into the story, it really is about the true meaning of christmas. a whole load of fun. >> i never realized the grinch was so fuzzy. meantime, the michael jackson immortal tour is coming to the bay area. the cirque du soleil-produced jackson spectacular combines acrobatics, video, dance, and pyrotechnics to the sonic brilliance the late pop icon. he who! [ laughter ] >> can't help myself. >> the show comes to hp pavilion in san jose and to oakland in january. here's the deal, though. tickets for this go from $70 -- does that say 7? >> i think you're right. $70 up to $1,000. >> it is over the top. it is amazing. friends who have been said if you're a jackson fan or not you will be blown away by that because it's a michael jackson events. next up, he who! the nutcracker. if you love your men in tights, i know you do, grace. >> oh, yes. >> more than that this is just a holiday classic. the nutcracker, it's done all over the country all over the bay area. but i have to give some props to the oakland ballet. they are doing this performance over the holiday season just for tonight, tomorrow night and christmas eve. it's the nutcracker and it's at the paramount. recap, girl with a dragon tattoo. the grinch who stole christmas at the theater. michael jackson the tour coming soon. and there is your nutcracker in oakland. a few things to do this holiday weekend. get out there and enjoy, grace. >> the michael jackson -- that looks spectacular. >> you know, i'm a jackson fan. it's going to be over the top. it's going all over the world this tour. his music, i mean, so powerful so strong. you forget how many hits he has had and with cirque du soleil combined it's going to be brilliant. >> is the price worth it? >> i'll be back tomorrow with more great things for the holiday. >> thank you for joining us. >> thank you. it is 6:53. and home for the holidays. a christmas present one 9-year- old girl will never forget. we'll tell you about it. at progressive, you can bundle your home and auto policies and save. don't worry, tiny people. flo is a gentle giant. bundle home and auto at progressive.com. moving against occupy campes early this morning. se 6:56. berkeley police are keeping their distance after moving in against "occupy" campers earlier this morning. several tents and dozens of protestors remain at civic center park as you can with this live look. police warn protestors last night that their camp would have to go because of sanitation and crime issues that have increased. nurses are just minutes away from going on strike at 8 bay area hospitals. gil diaz joins us live from oakland at one of the sutter hospitals that will be hit by this. good morning, gil. >> reporter: hi, grace, good morning. that's right. it's about to start at 7:00 and once it starts at 7:00 it will continue for 24 hours. a total of 4,000 nurses throughout california, particularly in the sutter health network, participating, half of them in the bay area, the other half in long beach. but the biggest turnout expected here at alta bates summit in oakland. negotiations on the contract have been going on for six months already. but the last strike happened just recently exactly three months ago. the last mediation happened just this week which obviously didn't go well. now, some of the hospitals' proposals which nurses don't like, they don't want to lose up to 12 days of paid sick time. they don't want to make co- payments on their healthcare coverage. sutter is hiring replacement nurses for today and tomorrow. the last time sutter health hired replacement nurses in september, a cancer patient died because of a medical mistake from one of those replacement nurses. back to you. >> i remember the story well. thank you, gil. 6:57 now. it's just the girls in the studio today. >> boys a bunch of wimps taking time off. >> who needs vacation. >> that's right. i'm filling in for lawrence today. checking the temperatures outside, clear and cold not as cold as yesterday. we have some gusty winds especially in our north bay hills and valleys. the next seven days we are staying dry and our temperatures are really mild, slightly above average in some spots in our afternoons so looks good through the christmas weekend. now you'll notice by middle of next week, we have a possibility of rain late tuesday night into wednesday. checking the christmas day forecast, mostly clear, so if you have any travel plans, heading to a family member, friend's house for the christmas holiday, temperatures in the upper 50s to low sixes across the bay area. let's check in with traffic now and gianna, looks like we have some mass transit issues. >> reporter: yeah, reports of vta problems. possible delays there. not saying just yet but at sunol street the crossing arms are stuck so trains are still traveling through there for vta. but they will be stopping lights will be flashing so use caution there. word of a new accident 880 northbound at dakota just came in. no word if lanes are blocked. south bay northbound two 80 clear through downtown san jose no troubles there and the golden gate bridge continues to be a nice ride this morning all the way into san francisco. >> easy for you today. >> not complaining! i like this that way. >> all right. break pout the tissues, ladies, because the -- break out the tissues ladies because the best birthday surprise for a girl in ohio came from her dad in the military. he was in afghanistan until now. [ screaming ] >> they even wrapped him up! kids screaming for the young girl who got to hug her dad for the first time in a year. she saw that she had won some type of raffle for her birthday but she won her dad. she got a very happy reunion as you can see. what a great holiday present. >> she kind of paused for a second. who is that man?! >> it's been a year. >> yeah. >> i love thos
Altamont-passCaliforniaUnited-statesJapanHillcrestOaklandAfghanistanMountain-viewChinaDublinIrelandSouth-san-francisco