Because at the moment kanye, given the potential liability that were facing, it seems to me, and you are potentially facing, that this is a very important issue to ensure that no one can interview pashtun interfere at this point spent it is African Import investigation and thats why we only have one independent person doing that investigation, and the awe i believe over 200 people who already have document litigation holds. So were doing everything that we can to make sure he has access to everything and anyone he wants. So you have actual already set aside to ensure that these documents are preserved and ate what he needs access to come hes able to have access to . I would say anyone he wants to access to he will have access to. When you use the term set aside, again, everybody in place that is remotely in connection, is on litigation old so the they cann, the doctor does exist and there i noticed that they cannot do anything with their documents. Well, it seems to me that they may not even notice if they cant do anything with their documents, but i would hope that you as ceo would be making sure that its not just youre telling that to people but you actually are ensuring that these documents cant be edited with beforehand or my question to you would be, when this investigation is conducted, appreciate the usage are willing to come back to the committee, and we thank you for that. Will you make mr. Valukas available to this committees . I think that would be mr. Valukas option, not my decision to make for him spend well, you fired him and as far as i know when you are someone to conduct an investigation, because ive done it before as attorney general of our state, one of the terms i would want to work out up front is, will you be willing to present the results of your investigation and to whom would you be willing to present them to . So youre not come to that agreement within . I would chair the results of the investigation as ive already said i wished it with this committee, with congress, with the nhtsa and with our employees and customers. Well, i guess i think that if youre going to have confidence commend you have sent multiple times in the hearing that youre confident with mr. Valukas. I dont question his credentials but he has exemplary credentials and it seems to me that we would want to hear obviously appreciate your testimony as the ceo, and survey monkey are what steps you are taking to address this issue. But i would think would be important for this committee actually can are directly from mr. Valukas on the investigation itself over the scope of his investigation. So thank you. Thank you, ms. Barra. I know, go back and review this hearing, i will say to myself, you got too excited, and you went too hard. The passion israel on this side of the table. So to the extent this is been a rough day for you, it is coming from the right place. It is coming from a deep commitment that many of us have to these families, and to automobile safety in this great country of ours. You had a great country. Youve got an enormous responsibility to get this right. We appreciate you being here. I cant promise that the next time you are here i will not get as aggressive as i have today, but i do think its important that we point out the many problems that these facts present to you and your company and to the legacy of General MotorsGoing Forward. This is an incredibly important moment in your corporate history, and you are, youre in charge, and youve got to make some very tough decisions Going Forward, and well be monitoring all those decision and we will look forward to having you back your to testify when you can go into the details of the investigation. And i would ask that you make sure your investigator look at a pattern of Legal Counsel in your corporation, how are they cooperating with litigation . Why are they requiring confidential settlements . I think that is something that we need to understand, because it is, in fact, because those coverage of some is that many of these problems do not get the light of their like they should. Im glad in this instance mr. Cooper and his engineer mr. Hood did what they did, because they performed Available Services this condition up and performed by your company and by the federal regulator think very much for being here. [inaudible conversations] i want to thank you, mr. Friedman is the acting of mr. Of the national Highway Traffic Safety Administration and mr. Calvin scovel comments better general of u. S. Department of transportation. Thank you both for being here today. We look forward to your testimony and will begin with you, mr. Friedman. Thank you, chairman. Chairman mccaskill, Ranking Member heller, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. To begin, i would like to say that on behalf of everyone at nhtsa we are deeply saddened by the lives lost of the crashes involving the General Motors switch defect. The victims, families and friends, several of whom i know at the hearing yesterday and some who maybe are today have suffered greatly. And im deeply sorry for their loss. Safety is nhtsas top priority. Our employees go to work every day trying to prevent tragedies like these are our work reducing dangerous behaviors behind the wheel, improving the safety of vehicles, and addressing safety defects has helped reduce highway fatalities to historic lows not seen since 1950. In the case of the reseller recalled General Motors vehicles, we are first focused on safety and ensuring the General Motors identifies all vehicles with defective ignition switch, fixes these vehicles quickly and is doing all it can to inform consumers about how to keep themselves safe. We are also investigating whether General Motors met its responsibility to report and address this defect as required under federal law. If you fail to do so, we will hold the General Motors accountable as we have another cases over the last five years which have led to record fines on automakers. Internally at nhtsa and the department, weve already begun a review of our actions and assumptions in this case to further our ability to address potential defects. Today i will share what ive learned so far. In this Case Community use Consumer Complaints and Early Warning data, three special press investigations on the cold welcome industry websites and Agency Expertise on airbag acknowledge a kobold. Some of the information did raise concerns about airbag nondeployment individuals. So in 2007 we convened an expert panel to review the information. Our Consumer Complaint data on injury crashes with airbag nondeployment showed neither the cobalt nor the ion stood out when compared to similar vehicles. It to crash reports we reviewed at the time were inconclusive on the cost of nondeployment. The reports noted that the airbags did not deploy and the power mode was a access remote, but these crushes involved unbelted occupants and offroad conditions that begin with relatively small collisions where, by design, airbags are less likely to deploy in order to avoid doing more harm than good. Further, power loss is not uncommon crashes work indexed deploy and did not stand out as a reason for nondeployment. In light of these factors can nhtsa did not open an investigation. We continued monitoring the data, however, and in 2010 found that the related Consumer Complaint rate for the cobalt had decreased by nearly half since the 2007 review. Based on our engineering expertise and our processes, the data is able to nhtsa at the time was not sufficient to warrant opening a formal investigation. So the question were all asking is what does this all mean . From my perspective it means that nhtsa was concerned and engaged on this issue. This was a difficult case where we used tools and expertise that over the last decade have successfully resulted in 1299 recalls, including 35 recalls on airbag nondeployment alone. Those tools and expertise have served us well and we will continue to rely on them but also to improve them. For example, weve already invested in advanced computer tools to improve our ability to spot defects and trends and are planning to expand that effort. But what we now know also means we need to challenge our assumptions and look at how we handle difficult cases like this Going Forward. So we are looking to better understand how manufactures do with Vehicle Power loss and airbags, especially when the ignition switch is turned. We are also considering ways to improve the use of crash investigations and identifying defects. But we are reviewing ways to address what appeared to be remote defect possibilities and evaluating our approach to engaging manufactures in all stages of our defects process. Between these efforts and those of the departments Inspector General i know we will continue to improve our ability to identify vehicle defects and ensure they are fixed. Now i want to close on one Important Note to our ability to find defects over a requires automakers to act in good faith and provide information on time. General motors has now provided new information defensive linking airbag nondeployment the faulty ignition switches, identifying a part change and indicating potentially critical supplier conversations on airbags. Had this information been able earlier it wouldve likely changed needs his approach to this issue. The reality, however, is both nhtsa and the audit into should as a whole must look to improve. Madam chairman, Ranking Member heller, most of the committee, greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Scovel. Chairman mccaskill, Ranking Member heller, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify to the important vehicle on Vehicle Safety. Since 2002 our office has identified opportunities for nhtsa to improve its efforts to address safety defects. Today i will focus on nhtsas action to address major weaknesses we reported in 2011. I will also discuss how our work will help lead to strong action against automakers that choose to withhold critical safety data from nhtsa. In 2011 we reported that nhtsas office of defects investigation at improvement in four key areas. First area concerns one of odis most critical functions, to determine when to investigate allegations of safety defects. Oei did not adequately track its position of Consumer Complaints or document decisions about whether to investigate, leaving its decisions open to interpretation and subject to questions after the fact. Nhtsa completed actions to address the three recommendrecommend ations we made to improve odis process for recommending investigations including modifying its central database for safety defect information to track its reviews of Consumer Complaints. We identified a similar process weaknesses in odis documentation of opened investigations. Some investigation files did not include sufficient information on meetings with manufacturers, Consumer Complaint identification numbers, or a determination of testing needs. Anyone investigation oei did not sufficiently document the basis for its decision to close the case. Consistent with a recommendation to strengthen controls, nhtsa develop a standard checklist for document the evidence investigators collect. Odette also lacked a systematic process for determining when to use Third Party Assistance to test for potential mechanical or electronic defects and to validate information manufactures provide. In response to a recommendation for nhtsa established a framework for determining when Third Party Assistance should be used. Finally, nhtsa lacked processes for ensuring adequate and well trained investigative workforce. In response to our recommendations, nhtsa develop a formal Training Program to open sure its investigators stay current on technology, advancement in the Automotive Industry and plans to complete by the end of may a workforce assessment to determine the number and most effective mix of staff needed to achieve odis objectives. We believe in nhtsas enhanced processes will put the agency in a better position to identify and investigate Vehicle Safety defects. However, the success of these process improvements will depend on how effectively odi uses and applies them when conducting its analyses and investigations. At the secretarys request we will initiate an audit building on our previous reviews of nhtsas efforts to identify and investigate Vehicle Safety defects. Despite the departments best efforts to improve its safety defect analyses and investigations, Vehicle Safety will remain a concern if automakers conceal vital information. The toyota case perfectly demonstrates the risk involved when automakers withhold critical safety data and fail to report defects to nhtsa. Our investigators participated in the mold agency criminal probe of toyota, reviewing approximately 400,000 documents and anythin interviewing more t0 individuals. Last month forfeited 1. 2 billion for intentionally concealing information on vehicle defects from nhtsa. This penalty, the largest of its kind since sends a clear message to audit manufacturers. Safety is a will remain beauties and oigs highest priority. To this end we expect the industry to be vigilant and forthcoming to keep the public safe. We will continue to assess nhtsas efforts to identify and investigate Vehicle Safety defects and stand ready to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by auto manufacturers. Finally, chairman mccaskill come with your permission i would like to offer these words to the family and friends of those who have been lost in crashes involving gms defective ignition switches. I offer you my deepest sympathy. My staff and the office of Inspector General and i are resolved to determine what nhtsa new of the safety defect, when it knew it and what actions nhtsa took to address it. We will also examine nhtsas current safety defects investigation processes and make recommendations or improvement. The secretary has asked us for this. The congress expects this of us, and you, the family and friends and victims the surface of us. I give you my word we will do our duty. This concludes my prepared statement of a happy to end to any question you or other members of the subcommittee may have spent thank you very much, mr. Scovel. I know that there was 1. 2 billion settlement in conjunction with the criminal investigation, actually technically it was i wire fraud charge, but the failure to give information to nhtsa, or the line to nhtsa, that is capped at 35 million. So if you dont have a situation that the facts lends themselves to criminal prosecution but rather if the withholding of information, which by the way, is negligent, they wouldnt have to be intentional withholding of information. Is 35 million enough . Is that really a deterrent to Companies LikeGeneral Motors or toyota or chrysler, or any of the companies that are supposed to be getting this data . Senator, when we find evidence that automakers have not acted in a timely manner, we will find them to the maximal extent allowed by law. And the last congress widget support increasing that fine of 300 million. Spent and deeply thats necessary also, mr. Scovel . Senator mccaskill, i believe that is a policy consideration for the administration and for the congress. And considering the purposes behind such penalty, whether it be those that can be similarly related to the basis for sentencing in criminal proceeding, retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, certainly deterrence is one factor that the congress and the department ought to consider in deciding whether to raise the penalty from 35 million to any figure of a victim whether its a question of, is 35 million regarded by some automakers is sadly a cost of doing business, that can certainly be a conclusion that some may draw from it. There may well be information that an Inspector General or the Government Accountability office may be able to derive through an audit process to help congress and the department make that determination. I know you mentioned the workforce assessment is ongoing. I think i was struck when i was going through materials for this hearing because i asked the question about your budget, mr. Friedman. Especially for defect investigation at your budget has been at 10 million for defect investigations for a decade. Now, this is a decade that a seen major changes in automobile manufacturing. It is seen a much more complicated engineering scenario where we have interdependence of computers, you know, it is, it is, the complexity has gone up exponentially over the last decade. And do you believe that 10 million is adequate to spend it this country for defect investigation for the entire Automobile Industry . Senator, the president has requested an increase in our budget across this in order to increase our abilities to address the wide variety of challenges we face. In 2012 alone, 33,561 lives were lost on our highways due to a variety of factors, whether it was impaired driving, not wearing seatbelts, Safety Technology that hadnt yet been brought into the fleet, as was a small portion of that associated with defects. We have been asking to increase her budget because each one of those lives lost is a tragedy. But within your budget cannot ask you for increase in the defects invest