Suspect are on your mind. They want to make things better for our customers and in that process make gm better. They particularly wanted to know what we plan to though you do for those who suffer the most. S why i am pleased to announce we have attained kenneth feinberg. I am sure this committee knows mr. Feinberg is highly qualified and is very experienced in handling matters such as this, having led the compensation efforts involved with 9 11, the bp oil spill and the Boston Marathon bombing. He brings expertise and objectivity to this effort. As i have said, i consider this to be an extraordinary event and we are responding to it in an extraordinary way. As i see it, gm has civil responsibilities and legal responsibilities. We are thinking through what those responsibilities are and how to balance them in an appropriate manner. Ringing in mr. Feinberg is the first step. I want to acknowledge, we know the families are here today we offer sympathy to their families and we have all of you in our hearts. Reviewed many documents. Theoon as the cobalt it road, drivers began to immediately complained to General Motors that the ignition systems did not work properly. You can imagine how frightening it is to drive a car that suddenly loses its power steering and power brakes. New that it did not is it common practice for gm to except a car that does not meet gm specifications . No. But theres a difference between a part meeting or not meeting specificications and a part being defective. So under what scenario is accepting parts that dont meet gm specs allowable . An example would be when you are purchasing steel. Youll set a specificication for steel but then because of the different suppliers and availability of steel to make products you will assess the performance, the functionality, the durrability, the aspects of the part or the in this case, steel, that is necessary to live up to what the performance and the durability of the safety needs to be. Thats an example of when you would have a part or have material that doesnt meet the speck that was set out but is acceptable from a safety from a functionality perspective. Performance as well. Is that switch acceptable . The switch . Im sorry. Is the switch acceptable . At what time frame . Im sorry. Ar at the beginning. It didnt meet the specifics for gm. Is that what you would consider acceptable . As we clearly know today it is not. So in 2006 gm switched put in a new spring to increase the torque. Am i correct . I didnt hear the last part im sorry. Gm supplier put a new spring in to increase the torque. Is that correct . There was a new part. Now, in that binder next to you if you would turn to tab 25. This is an email exchange between delfi employees in 2005 discussing the changes to the ignition switch. The email notes that a gm engineering is asking for information about the ignition switch because quote cobalt is blowing up in their face in regards to turning the car off with the drivers knee. Unquote. If this was such a big problem, why didnt gm replace the ignition switch in the cars already on the road . The cars with the torque well below gm specificications insteado just the new scars . Why . What you just said does not match under tab 25. Its the bottom of the page there should be something there. Just know what i said. I apologize for that but there was a statement made that cobalt was blowing up in their face by a bump of the drivers knee. Clearly there were a lot of things that happened, there have been a lot of statements made thats why weve hired anton valukecass. We are spanding but you dont know why they didnt replace the switch . I do not know the answer to that and that is why were doing this investigation. Given the number of complaints, why wasnt this identify as a safety issue . Again, i cant answer specific questions at that point in time. Thats why were doing a full and complete investigation. In the chronology gm submitted to nhtsa gm states it didnt make the connection between the ignition switch problems and the air bag nondeployment problems until late 2013. So my question is when gm decided to switch the ignition in 2006 tid the company ever examine how could affect other Vehicle Systems like the air bags . Again, thats part of the investigation. Should they . Should we understand . Should they look at how it affects other Vehicle Systems . Yes. Let me ask another question then. So when gm concluded and you heard from my Opening Statement that the tooling costs and price pieces are too high, what does that mean . I find that statement to be very disturbing. As we do this investigation and understood it in the context of the whole time line if that was the reason the decision was made that is unacceptable. That is not the way we do business in todays gm. Well, how does gm balance cost and safety . We dont. Today, if theres a safety issue, we take action. If we know there is a defect on our vehicles we do not look at the costs associated with it. We look at the speed in which we can fix the issue. Was there a culture in gm at that time that they would have put costs over safety . Again, were doing a complete investigation but i would say in general we have moved from a cost culture after the bankruptcy to a customer culture. We have trained thousands of people on putting the customer first. We have actually gone with outside training. Its a part of our core values and it is one of the most important cultural changes were driving in General Motors today. I understand today. Were asking about then. Im out of time. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Ms. Barra, gm knew about the defect in the ignition switches as far back as 2001. 13 years before the recall. Correct . The yes or no will work. The investigation will tell us that. You dont know when gm knew about the defect . I will take a look at tab 7 in your notebook ms. Barra. This is a gm document. And what this gm document talks about is the this switch. It says, tear down evaluation on the switch revealed two causes of failure. Low Contact Force and low detent funker force. Do you recognize that document, maam . This is the first ive seen this document. Ok. Well, so you dont know how long gm knew about this . Thats right. And thats why im doing an investigation. Ok. In fact delfi, the manufacturer of the ignition switch informed gm that the switch was supposed to be 15 minimum torque specificication but in fact these switches were between 4 and 10. Didnt it . The specificication is correct that it was supposed to be 20 plus or minus 5. And these switches were between 4 and 10. Correct . Yes or no will work. We know that now. And gm was notified by delfi of this. Correct . Yes or no . I am not aware of being notified. Ok. Can i also correct i was i need a yes or no. I only have five minutes. Im sorry. So as far as back as 2004, ten years ago, gm conducted a problem rezzluge tracking system inquiry after it learned of an incident where the key move data of the run condition in a 2005 shelvet cobalt. Is this correct . Again youre relating specific incidents that happened you dont know . In our entire investigation . You dont know about that . Take a look at tab 8, please. And by the way, maam, im getting this information from the chronology that gm provided to nhtsa. Right. And so let me ask you. Again, as far back as 2004, gm conducted a problem resolution tracking system inquiry after it learned of an incident where the key moved out of the run condition. Is that correct . Yes. Thank you. Now, after the inquiry, one engineer advised against further action because there was quote no acceptable Business Case to provide a resolution and the prts was closed. Is that correct . If that is true that is a very disturbing fact. Yes, it is. That is not the way we make decisions. Ok. Again in 2005, gm received more reports of engines stopping when the keys were jerked out of the run condition. Further investigations were conducted and engineers provide proposed changes to the kees. Is that correct . Thats part of our investigation to get that complete time line. Well, taking from the time line gm has already done. Which was a summary. Ok. So as a result of the investigation, a Technical Service bulleten was issued to dealers that if car owners complained they should be warned of this risk and advised to take unessential items from the key chain. But this recommendation was not made to the public. No public statements were issued. No recalls sent. Is that correct . Thats my understanding. Yes. Thank you. In 2006, gm contracted with delfi to redesign the ignition switch to use a new detep punter and swing that would increase torque force. Is that correct . Yes. And for some reason, though, the new switch was not given a part number and instead shared a number with the original defective switch. Is that correct . Yes. Now this new switch also did not meet gms minimum torque specificications either. This one delfi said was in the range of 10 to 15 and it really should have been 15 at a minimum. Is that correct . I have not seen the test results. You dont know that. Ok. Now, despite these facts gm continued to manufacture cars with these same ignition switches with the model years 2008 to 2011. Is that correct . Yes. And between 2004 and 2014, no Public Notices were issued as a result of gms knowledge of these facts and no recalls were issued for the over 2. 5 million vehicles manufactured with these defective ignition switches. Is that correct . Yes. And finally, three recalls were made this year, 2014. Two in february and one just last friday. Is that right . Related to this ignition switch . Now, i have just a couple more questions. The first question i have ms. Barra, gm is intending to replace all the switches for those cars beginning on april 7. Is that right . We will begin shipping material or new parts are you going to put a completely redesigned switch or the old switches from 2006 into those cars . Its going to be a switch that meets the is it going to be a newly redesigned switch or is it going to be the old switch from 2006 . Its the old design that meets the performance thats required to act i have more questions mr. Chairman. Perhaps we can do another round. But an important part several members may be concerned. You say theres an Ongoing Investigation you cannot comment on these yet. Are you getting updates on a regular basis as this is going on . From mr. Velucas . From anybody. Are you getting updates . Yes. Thank you. Now go to chairman of the full committee mr. Upton for five minutes. Again ms. Barra for being here this afternoon. I want to make sure that we ask similar questions of both you and of nhtsa. We want to learn about the documents that were submitted on a timely and appropriate basis to nhtsa and in fact what did they do with that information. The documents that weve looked at produced show that gm received complaints about its cobalt ignition switches for about two years that ultimately resultd in a redesigned ignition switch from 2006. Who within gm would have known about those specific scomplabets . Specific complaints . What was the process back then . I was not a part of that organization at the time. Thats why im doing the investigation to understand that. So you dont know the folks that would have been reported to at this point. Is that right . I dont know the people who would have been handling this issue at that point. But youre getting updates. Whats supposed to happen . Looking back what should have happened when these reports came in . Anyone general when you have an issue, a product issue, a safety issue, a field incident, any type of issue that comes in, you have a team of engineers that are the most knowledgeable that work on that. If they see an issue they elevate i had to a Cross Functional Team that looks at it and then it goes to a group for decision. We know that the ignition switch was in fact redesigned because it didnt meet the specs that were there. Is that right . Yes. Now, i would guess that engineering 101 would normally require that when you assign a new part or replace a new part, or replace a part with a new part, that that newly redesigned part in fact should have a Different Number on it. Is that right . Thats correct. So that didnt happen. Right . It did not happen. Correct. Who within gm made the decision to move forward with that redesigned switch without a new part number . Do you know who that is . I do not know the name of the individual. Are you going to be able to find that out for us . Yes, i will. And will you give that name to our committee . We will provide that. Is it likely that that same person was the one that decided not to recall the defective version . Where did where in the time line is that . I dont know. But that is part of the investigation that were doing. Do you know when it was that it was discovered, what year, what where in the time lime it was discovered that in fact a new part number was not assigned . I became aware of that after we did the recall and the time line was put together. So that was just in the last month or so. Is that right . Thats when i became aware. But when did gm realize that no new part number was assigned . Thats part of our investigation. I want to know that just as much as you because that is an unacceptable practice. That is not the way we do business. So you stated publicly that something went wrong with our process. How is the process supposed to work . How is this how are you redesigning the process to ensure that in fact it should work the way that it needs to work . Well, one of the things were doing is the investigation by mr. Velucas i have some earnly findings from in fluke cass as we look across the company it appears at this time thrfings information in one part of the company and another part of the Company Department have access to that. At times they didnt share information just by course of process or they didnt recognize that the information would be valuable to another area of the company. We have fixed that. We have announced a new position. Jeff boyer the Vice President of Global Vehicle safety, all of this will report to him. He will have additional staft and will have the ability to cut across the organization and will also have the right functional leadership who understands whats going on in the different areas. So thats a fix weve already made and he is operating that way today. So when gm received complaints about the ignition switches for a number of years, ended up resulting in the redesigned ignition switch in 2006, when was it that anyone linked up the ignition switch problems to look at the cobalt air bags and not deploying . Was that at about the same time . Was that later . Whats the time line on that . That is something i very much want to understand and know. But i again this is we are doing an investigation that spabs over a decade. And its very important because designing a vehicle is a very complex process. That we get a detailed understanding of exactly what happened. But thats the only way we can know that we can fix processes and make sure it never happens again. When was it that gim informed nhtsa that in fact the redesign did in fact gm inform nhtsa that the ignition switch had been redesigned . I dont know that. I yield back. The chairman yields back. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the full committee mr. Waxman for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ms. Barra we have heard about how in 2002 gm approved the use of faulty ignition switches in cobalts ion knows and other cars. Thats what caused many of the problems that led to the recall of the cars model year 2003 to 2007. So new ignition switches were designed and approved by General Motors. These were switches that were used were used in the model years 20082010. That all sound right to you . Am i correct in what im saying . Theres a couple statements you made at the beginning that i dont know to be true. Well, in 2002, gm approved the use of what turned out to be faulty ignition switches. In several cars. They actually were parts that went into a 2003 was the earliest model. Well, the tests were done in 2002. But the cars were 2003 to 2007. So we had a recall of those cars. Right. And then there was a new switch, a new ignition switch designed and approved by gm. And these new switches were in use in the model year 20082010 cobalts and ions. To the best of my knowledge thats correct. Ok. But in a briefing last week, delfi told Committee Staff that these new switches also did not meet gm specificications. They told us the force required to turn these switches was about two thirds of what gm said it should be. And documents that were provided to the Committee Also confirmed that top gm officials were aware of the out of speck switches in 2008 and 2002 vehicles in december 2013. So theres a document if you want to look it up its tab 39 page 6 of your binder. There was a december presentation for gms high level executive field action decision committee. And that at that meeting they showed that the Performance Measurement for almost half of the 2008 you go 2008, 2010, model year vehicles. Ignition switches were below the minimum gm required specificications. My question to you is are you concerned that many 2008 to 2010 model year cars have switches that do not meet the company specificications . As we assessed the situation, my understanding that there was work going on to look at the switches again, looking at just because a switch or a part an engineered part doesnt meet specificications doesnt necessarily mean it is a defective part. As that analysis was going on at the same time we were looking across to make sure and when we recognized that spare parts might have been sold through third parties that have no tracking to know which then we made a decision all of those vehicles. Were informed that a lot of these cars those model years had switches that were just as defective as the 2003 to 2007 cars. That those cars were recalled. But you didnt recall the model year 2008 to 2011 vehicles until a month later. On march 28s. Why did the Company Delay in recalling these newer vehicles . The company was looking my understanding is the company was assessing those switches but again at the same time in parallel they were looking at the spare parts issue and the spare parts issue became very clear we needed to go and get all of those vehicles because we couldnt identify which vehicles may have had a spare part put in them. And we we recalled the entire population. But youve recalled those vehicles. You recalled them later. Yes but not when you knew the