business information, pro pry takery information and indoes the serve the american public to make a uncarol decision about something that poses safety risk. >> so what are the statutory obligations with respect to alerting the public to safety risks? >> if we find that a defect, we believe poses unreasonable risk to safety, we would initiate a recall process with the manufacturer. we would ask them to undertake a recall. >> hold on a minute n your view, before an unreasonable risk to safety is identified, ntsa does not have a legal obl gagts to inform the public of isolated hazardous incidents that may occur until it's determined to be an unreasonable risk to safety. >> we have no obligation but clearly with -- before we even make that 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's -- it's my understanding from the chairman and ceo of gm who i met with yesterday, there's approximately 8,000 of these vehicles on the road. are you familiar with those numbers? >> that's correct. i think it's about -- i think there are around 6,000, i think, volts on the road right now if i'm not mistaken. plus or minus. >> okay. >> and have you ever received any reports or accounts of any real world crashes that would seem to parallel the safety testing that did you internally? >> none. >> has anyone that you know ever been hurt in a -- 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 prior

crashes on voements. >> who on your staff tracks that. >> >> we have the office of defect investigation. that is their responsibility to track all vehicle reports, also early warning reporting data as well through that particular recall office that is an entire team that does it. they do a fantastic job. they review over 40,000 claim every year. >> you follow the crashes, you follow the accidents, incidents, you follow lawsuits? >> we have lots of information that comes in to help us make defect investigations decisions. we do look at all of those. >> you would drive a chevy volt? >> not only would i drive it, i would drive my mother, my wife and my baby sister with me along the ride. >> and you would have no concerns about the safety of the vehicle? >> none. >> and will you continue to maintain a study of the volt with respect to your internal circumstances that produced the fire?

>> we treat all vehicle investigations and all vehicles on the road the same way. while we -- to thorough investigations, it is our obligation always to watch the fleet. so while this investigation may be closed, we'll always be looking at not only the chevrolet volt but any other vehicle in terms of possible risk to the safety risk of the public. >> one final question, mr. chairman. you know, you went through great length to describe the circumstances under which you created the fire. you could tell this subcommittee how likely is it in the real world that those circumstances could actually be replicated as a practical matter? >> i'll have to get back to you on the record for the specific technical difficulties, it is my understanding that it is very, very, very rare. >> have you assessed it mathematically? >> i'm not sure if my staff has or has not done that. >> okay. i want to -- mr. chairman, thank you. i think it's been a very useful

interchange. >> thank you. >> again, i'll make the quick point though. certainly it's very rare. we understand that. but the fact is it happened. and it happened at a time when you were negotiating cafe standards. it happened at a time when you were coming before congress and you didn't tell us about it. so let me ask this question. whether did you first let the public know that there might be a concern that there was in fact an explosion that caused a fire with the battery in the volt? what wh is the first date that ntsa let the public know there is a concern? >> we first informed the public in november. >> what date? >> i have to take a look at my time line specifically. >> was it before or after the news report from bloomberg news came out and talked about this issue? >> i believe it was concurrently. but bottom line being, our agency actually assisted the reporters in getting that story actually factually correct. so we fully absolutely work with those folks to make sure there was proper details and context of the work on going and what happened back in february. >> so you first released the information to the public after you knew there was going to be a

news report about it? >> we were in a predecisional posture -- >> the news report took place on november 11th. when did ntsa say something about this? >> we responded on the 11th. we were close to making those -- >> but for the story, when were you going to tell us? >> fairly soon. we were in the process of doing. that. >> fairly soon? >> yes. >> but not until, i mean the way it worked out -- >> mr. chairman, it's my responsibility. i do not disclose to the public anything that we find -- we don't have proof that it is unreasonable risk to safety. >> let me ask you one more question before yielding. is it customary for the secretary of transportation to comment on the safety of a vehicle while there's a formal investigation going on? >> the secretary of transportation was fully aware -- >> wait a minute. >> and he made -- they made the statement based on the facts provided to him by this agency. >> but that's not what i asked.

does he normally do that? in other investigations, does the secretary of transportation, while you have a formal investigation going on, does the secretary of transportation make a kplent about the safety of the vehicle, not any comment, but a thumbs up comment? is that a normal procedure for the secretary of transportation? >> the secretary, my understanding, was asked a direct question and he gave a direct answer based on facts. >> as it happened before? >> mr. chairman, you know the secretary very well. when somebody asks the secretary of transportation a question, he answers. that's what he does. >> did mr. lahood know at the time he was asked the question that he gave answer that there was a formal investigation going on? >> he was very aware of all the work that was undertaking in the agency. >> so our secretary of transportation knew you were investigating this vehicle, was asked a question about the safety of the vehicle, comments and says it's fine. >> the secretary knew -- >> and that was given, that answer 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 pose an imminent danger. >> don't you that i is unusual? at least a little unusual?

>> no, it wasn't unusual. the secretary is asked questions like that all the time. he gave an answer. he did it for toyota. >> we have a picture of a car explosion that took place. you wait six months to start an investigation. two weeks into the investigation, the secretary of transportation is asked a question about the safety of th you haven't conclude the the investigation and you think that's normal? >> the secretary was aware of all of the prefact 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 and the secretary answered directly. he does it all the time. >> okay. mr. chairman? >> yes, you know, i would suggest that 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 with his understanding that was communicated through his own questioning determine that what what he believed to be the facts. >> absolutely. >> now, the option we always have, and i would suggest that it would be very interesting for the subcommittee, would be to have any doubts about his position which, you know, i do not. but the chair is privy to that. >> i appreciate the ranking member's response. and i would just say that i know the ranking member's commitment to safety. i mean it's amazing track record. >> we share that. >> amazing track record in his years of public service. but i would ask you, mr. kucinich, don't you think it's a little strange that when there is a formal investigation going on that the secretary of transportation comments and says that the vehicle is safe? it's fine. you can drive it?

>> i would say, first of all -- >> no, you don't you think it's a little strange. >> we share the concern about safety. but it may be that the secretary -- i don't know unless we invite him so we can only speculate -- maybe he was concluding based on information that he received from ntsa and it wasn't an off the cuff assessment that was just driven by hope as opposed to material fact. >> okay. >> yield five minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. strickland, to be perfectly clear, i do not question why you get up in the morning and what's in your heart. i get up every morning with the same purpose you do. to serve the american people. believe me, i was a lot more comfortable in my showroom in butler, pennsylvania, than i was sitting here today. i'm sure you're a lot more comfortable sitting where you do every day. the question does become, when it comes down to it, perception is reality. and we constantly fight these perception that's are out there. whether they're real or not, that has nothing to do with it.

at the end of the day, it's how did the public perceive that? so when we come down to these things, i have some slides here. and i have a problem with this. i've been involved in a lot of vehicle launches. and slide 14 that we have. if we can pull that up. usually most product launches that i've been to, there are people that show up. and in this one, if you look in the upper left hand corner, there secretary lahood with epa administrator lisa jackson. in the mid sl president obama himself. on the right side is secretary chu of the energy. down in the left hand corner is labor secretary and hen yny sto. so this is an unusual launch. the reason bring that up is because the disconnect between what's your agency does because you're mission statement in 1970 when the agency came into existence was to save lives, prevent injuries and reduce fic other economic costs. so i look at this.

i say you know what? the stake holders are all in this launch. this is a hail yoe car, not so much for general motors, but for this administration. this has nothing to do with the chevy volt or the nissan leaf or anything elimination. for me, it comes down to taxpayer dollars being used to subsidize a product. that this administration has decided should go forward. believe me, if general motors thought this was a good investment, they would have launched it many years ago and say we can make money with this. their real commit sment to the shareholders and stake holders in the company. right now the government has a big hand in that, do they not? so i think we can agree had a there is a mutual benefit here for not only -- not only the administration but general motors but on a very, very small scale. when you look at the numbers of cars we built every year and we sell every year, this is not going to have a dramatic impact on a carbon footprint or the sales of general motors products. and i go back to -- i sell a lot

of chevy crews. you know why don't subsidize the tax dollars? why? the market loves it. they love it. it's affordable. it's economical. it's safe. it's everything that the american public wants. that's why we lead the industry. we've always been able to do that. i come down to these things, again, i don't question what's in your heart. i would never question your integrity. but when you look at the time leans and you go back and forth, every once in a while there may be something that says that was a coincidence. but when it's time after time after time after time and what did you know and when did you know it? when did you share it with general motors? when did you share it with the public? and when all the people are weighing in and certainly they show up for the launch, i'm sure they stayed for the lunch, but you got do understand that american public is demanding integrity from us today. say what you mean. mean what you say.

if you're protecting our lives and best interests if, you're looking at all the costs involved, both health care and economic, then why so long? why so long? i think that's what the chairman keeps referencing. i think mr. kucinich feels the same wayment we all do. we all do. so it's hard for me to sit back and look at this and think that, my gosh, it was a rush to judgment with toyota. i got friends that sell toyotas. and i've watched this congress bring members of the former gm board in and question them for bad business practices. now keep in mind, this is an outfit that is run on a $15 trillion in the red and they're telling general motors you don't know how to run your business. thanks, i think i'm going to hire somebody. i probably won't go you to guys. but we bring toyota in, we embarrass them from front of the world. we roll this out very early. when did we go to toyota and say we run the tests.

it took us six months to let the public know there is an acceleration problem. we didn't do that, did we? there was a real time line problem here when you compare the two and i'm not talking about general motors and toyota. i'm talking about electric vehicles, one is the chevrolet volt or nissan leaf or anything else out there. if the cars are so great and marketable, why do we have to subsidize them so heavily? in my state of pennsylvania, pennsylvania throws another $3,500 at this car. that's $11,000. i sold a lot of cars in my lifetime. the only time you sput a spiff on a car is when it went move on its own. why are we using taxpayer dollars to do this? and certainly if the corporate average fuel economy doesn't have anything to do with this, i go back. i don't know how old you r i go back to the days they launched this. it was the dependence on foreign oil. it didn't have to get the dod involved in this to come up with the idea if you build a car that

gets better gas mileage, the people that buy the cars and put fuel in them will go to a vehicle in the long run is cleepcleep cheaper to run. we've done it since day one. but i got to tell you, when you look at this, i really am concerned. i mean this sincerely. your agency dropped the ball on this, sir. and when i look at the dialogue back and forth about when this stuff came to light, there is a time line that needed to be addressed. go back to your own mission statement, save lives, prevent injuries and reduce traffic health care and other economic costs, there is another investment here and 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 that this is so much a question as a statement. we're both members of the same organization. we're trying to do the best thing for people we represent. >> would my friend yield? >> yes, sir. >> you may have been out of the room when i made this statement. i just want to make sure that the record is clear. i did make the observation and

seemed luke a long time but what i tried to do in the course of the questioning is to give mr. strickland the opportunity to testify whether there was a valid reason for so much time to pass. and i think that in my view, he d did, you know, effectively make a case why it took so long. but i just want to make sure. >> and would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> were the same standards used when we had the acceleration problems with toyota? >> i think it will be good to ask mr. strickland that question. >> every investigation is different. every investigation has different facts. every investigation has different needs in terms of our prefact finding work at the technical level. mr. kelly, i appreciate the question. and i appreciate your statement that you're absolutely right. the american people sends folks like me their faith to make sure that the decisions that this agency makes are the right ones.

and our process is one that we have to prove an reasonable risk to safety before we can take any formal action against an automaker for them to remedy that particular problem. >> the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> i just want to be clear. your testimony is you each investigation is different and unique? is that correct? >> yes. >> so you're saying that with the volt, the general motor vehicle, you took a different tact, different approach than you did with the toyota vehicle? >> i meant that technically. every vehicle at the technical level -- >> let's be clear. >> when you testified xwust a few seconds ago, you said each investigation is unique. so it's truthful. it's factual that you did a different type of approach with the volt and general motors than did you with toyota? >> we take different technical approaches because they're

different problems. we take -- the process for toyota and gm is the same. >> the taxpayer subsidized auto manufacturer got a different approach than the nontaxpayer funded auto manufacturer? that's what you said. >> no, mr. jordan. i said, at the technical level every investigation is different. different technologies, different problems, different issues, different levels of how much we know about a particular technology pipeline. but we treat, and i want to underscore this, we treat every manufacturer the same. we hold them accountable for the safety act every single day. >> there is no way that statement can jive with what you just said two minutes ago. you said each investigation is unique and different. and now you're saying we treat each manufacturer the same. did you wait six months? before you told the public on concerns with other manufacturers? i don't think so. so that's the concern the american taxpayer has. you just stated it right here in the last two minutes.

that's the concern the american taxpayer has. >> the american taxpayer, mr. jordan, expects us to do the trigt job every time in finding safety defects. they want to make sure that when we make a decision that a unreasonable risk to safety exist that's we act rapidly. it does not serve the american people with the number of complaints that we get every single year. mr. jordan, what you basically outlined in this situation with me that this agency would have to outlined 40,000 investigations every single year. >> i'm not outlining anything. you answered mr. kelly's and mr. kucinich's questioning by saying each investigation is unique and different. and all i'm doing is saying, so gm got treated different than toyota did. >> mr. jordan, i'm not -- i am not mincing words with you. in terms of process, we treat every manufacturer the same. at the technical level, we have to take every investigation with the same set of facts and there's different technical issues. we treed those uniquely because different cars have different

problems. >> i just want to make sure i follow up on what the chairman said. did you pull any what the chair said. did you pull any punches with gm taxpayer subsidized or did you go into the science to try to see if there was any way you could replicate a fire. >> we pulled for punches, treat this investigation the way we treat every investigation. >> gm is not going to get a pass? >> no, absolutely not of the core of what we do every day is driven by data, science, engineering. >> the data and science is different because you're study at toyota something different in terms of acceleration as opposed with the volt trying to replicate to see whether a fire could be replicated under laboratory circumstances. >> that is correct. >> thank you. >> i would point out, too, when the investigation of toyota took place we weren't negotiating the cafe standards. we weren't -- 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 this huge investment in green technology. again, i come back to what the administrator said. that's the point here. he's under oath. he's testifying. he said they are different and unique investigations each time. i just asked a simple question, was gm treated different than toyota. based on what this administrator said, that, in fact, was the case. >> my friend, he 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 is what i meant ranking member. >> i'm sorry, i took mr. kelly's time. you have a few minutes left. mr. strickland. >> mr. strickland, let me say something to you. >> absolutely. >> there's a difference between the two of us, you were appointed, i was elected, mr. ackerson is going to be here soon. you're going to get a flavor of when i go home and have town

hall meetings what it's like. as much as it seems like an easy thing, people ask questions trying to get temperature heart of the problem. i do want, again, this is not done to attack you personality. this is not about anybody's personality. this is about performance. this is a standard we have to be held to, both you and i, to the american public. as we go forward, i hope we're understand thanksgiving. most cars are 12 volt, 300 volt, 12 volt. i have trained in this because the concern was always about safety. you know what our guys do, some of the essential tools, i brought some gloves today. okay? first thing you've goton is this cloth gruff when you're going to disconnect or unhook the battery. okay? next thing you've got to do, this keeps moisture around, don't want to be around

electricity, especially 300 volts. then you put on the rubber glove. then on top of that you've got to put on a leather glove. so this is a three-pronged process. this is all designed to protect the technicians that are working on this car. i don't know that you know this. i don't know that you've seen this procedure before. there was one other essential tool that was debated early on. do you know what it was? >> no, sir. >> it was an insulated shepherd's hook. that's the same hook the lord refers to about the good shepherd pulling one of his flock back out of a problem he was in. if you're a technician and work ongoing a volt and you hit a live wire, 300 volts which does have an ability to sustain life. you grab the insulated shepherd's hook and pull your comrade off the car. so i want to make sure we understand where we're going with this, the responsibility you have to the american public and the responsibility we all have temperature american public for the same thing, to protect

them from health care costs or economic costs from an injury. so we're going to take off the gloves. i don't dislike you. i admire you for what you're doing. i want you to travel back with me sometime and meet folks from the district. >> i would love to. >> as we go forward there's no doubt in my mind we're going to look at this. as mr. jordan said, perception is reality. we have created now a question of trust. not only here in this body but also with your agency because now the american people have to start to wonder. why did they do it? when did it happen? when did they let general motors know about it? in the best interest of the public, the best interest of the administration. >> i will say we're fortunate to have you on the committee, your expertise is welcome here.

i would say it isn't whether gm was dealing the kind of gloves you're talking about but whether or not nhtsa treated them with kid gloves. >> it's about a matter, mr. kucinich of protecting the public there harm. >> we agree on the safety measures. >> we like each other and don't fight here all the time. >> ranking member of the full committee has been extremely patient. i wan to give him as much time as the gentleman -- >> i won't need that much. >> recognized. >> thank you very much. first of all, mr. strickland, administrator strickland, 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.

ackerson and i combine what i heard this morning with what he had to say, i have some simple words for you and that is that i believe you. >> thank you, sir. >> a lot of times when we look at circumstances from this vantage point, we make judgment calls but we're not in your shoes. as a trial lawyer for many years, i often saw facts that and 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 is this morning, i've listened very carefully. the time line, and get out

information at certain points, seems a bit shaky. and as i listen to your explanation in response to one of mr. kucinich's questions, i am convinced that apparently you did things in a way that it should have been done. but the problem is this. somebody over there just said trust is so important. and there is a book that i recommend to all my proteges called the speed of trust. it talks about how important it is that when in any relationship that you trust a person because it allows the relationship to move faster, in other words, get things done. but there are 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 - i don't want us to get confused here. you've been sworn here today. but what has happened here and whether you know it or not is your integrity has been questioned. your honesty has been questioned. and then 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, come up with a great product.

it's had some problems. but there is this allegation out there that some kind of way president obama, or somebody from the obama administration came to nhtsa and said don't put out certain information. because we want gm to be successful. or they have inflated the cafe standards with all of this, which is ridiculous. so i'm going to ask you a few questions, want to you clear up a few things. what happens here, mr. strickland, 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 will be looking at you on television tonight and saying, you know, they really made you look bad. i just want you to know, calm down, you don't look bad.