Action . Thank you. And i understand your involvement in the establishment of the act more than ten years ago, and i can understand the disappointment you feel by the shortcomings that have been evidenced by our company, and i want to explain to you what happened. The problem that we had with underreporting in the act is a systematic problem that began at the the outset. As you know, it went into effect in 2003. They did not properly Program Computers and set up systems that would at accurately let data flow and feed into treasury reports. It is difficult for me to say, sir, but that setup continued unchecked until 2011, 2012. You are right that an internal honda associate did mention a concern, as well as a discussion with nhtsa. They asked about the omission of certain incidents in our tread report. We did look into that, sir, in early 2012. We did not look at that effectively. We took action to address that one problem, but sir it did not complete our compliance requirements. Can i
Bit, you have to take a stance. And my Technical Work is in maximum analysis of the social policy, and you have to take a stance of what the right question of the analysis would be, and what the decision of the government criteria would be. And so as well as the subtleties. Let me understand that point. So there may be circumstances where the government thinks that sitit is the National Interests to respond to uncertainty by taking the action now, but there may be other circumstances where where you come to the different conclusion . Well, i have a paper that came out this this past year in the economic journal on the Infrastructure Spending. And the big uncertainty is the productivity of spending, and what implication of tax policy. And then i crank out, because i am a technical e cop mist, i crank out the solutions to the problem for the government and i see that i can support higher or lowerr Infrastructure Spending based on what the decision criteria the government is going to p be
Not normally vote in. I think there is this myth, and some of it is based in reality, the democrats vote big on president ials and not in midterms. I think that signals that this election is a big deal. How big a liability as he . To my this goes back whole thing on the national environment. Is the president particularly popular . No. The president isnt on the ballot. Are Mary Landrieu or kay hagan, you vote for a bill not because it is the president s bill. Its because you vote for what is right for your state. Something like equal pay for women. Something like raising the minimum wage. These are all important issues that have been championed by the president. He is the head of the party. Also by our members. They know it is right for their state. Republicans, its funny. Reported on it just this week. The republicans thought they were going to win this whole election by talking about the economy. The economy is getting better. Is there more to do . Absolutely. We must do more. Obamaca
The life, it creates an immense amount of insecurity among the driving public and obviously my view the burden has to be on the manufacturer and our governmental agencies to take the appropriate steps to revive and restore public confidence. Thank you. Thank you. Now, its the appropriate time to introduce the panel. Ill introduce the panel as a whole, and then well start with takata as the first speaking witness. So today our first panel representing takata, Hiroshi Shimizu. Shimizu, sorry. Yes. From honda, Rick Schostek. From bmw, chris westbrook. From toyota, abbas saadat. Appreciate all of you being here. We will go from right on my left, your right, and start with mr. Shimizu. But before i ask you to start, i want to recognize that youre appearing with a translator, because english is not mr. Shimizus first language, and while the committee will allow mr. Shimizu to confer with the translator for the purpose of clarification, he will be required to answer the committees question in
Would authorize that, nor am i aware of a policy seeking authorization to do that. If could you share more information with me . My question is about the constitutional limits on the federal governments power. Attorney general holder repeatedly declined to answer the question about whether it is constitutional for a drone to use lethal force against an american citizen on u. S. Soil if that individual doesnt pose imminent threat. Now, let me be clear, i think the answer to this is very easy. My question to you is, is it constitutional for the federal government to do so . Senator, i think with respect to the use of lethal force by any means, one would always want to look at the Law Enforcement issues involved there. And certainly if could you provide more context there i could place it in the scope of a case or an issue that i might have familiarity with. It is in the nature of a hypothetical. But you are certainly aware that the federal government is currently using drone strikes over