Prepared Statement of The Honorable Cliff Stearns

H.R. 2048, The Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act of 2005

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
May 17, 2006

Good morning. Today's hearing is the third time in the last two years that my Subcommittee has addressed the issue of a consumer's "right to repair" their own vehicles. That fact is indicative of how much all of us would like to see a mutually-agreeable, and preferably, a non-legislative solution to this issue. We wanted to provide time for progress. Unfortunately, the time for a deal has come and gone, and we are now scheduled to mark up Chairman Barton's bill, HR 2048, the "Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act of 2005" next week.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), out of the approximately 250 million vehicles in the United States, about 75% are repaired by independent mechanics - from the "mom and pops" to the large franchises like Midas and Jiffy Lube. It is a market in which Americans alone spend close to $40 billion a year on repair and service of their vehicles. When car manufacturers' warranties run out -usually in five years or less- American consumers overwhelmingly chose independent shops for the car repair needs. Likewise, American consumers chose many of the aftermarket parts, many of which are supplied to independent garages, to replace worn "OEM" or original equipment components. All of this choice and competition benefits the American consumer.

The issues of information and access addressed in Chairman Barton's bill seem to appear most frequently when working on and repairing newer, more advanced vehicles - some more computerized than the space shuttle. It is clear to me after learning more about the sophistication of these systems and the technicians that service them that the old shade tree mechanic is now more akin to a rocket scientist than Mr. Good Wrench. And whether it's installing new brake pads, upgrading flash memory, or tuning our favorite pocket rocket to get that extra 50 horsepower, new vehicles require new, expensive tools and expertise - not the socket wrench, grease gun, and the dog-eared Chilton's that your father used to unleash on his clunker on the weekends. As more and more government regulation makes emissions standards more stringent, safety systems like airbags and anti-lock brakes more robust, and security systems more intimidating and vault-like, cars are becoming more like supercomputers on wheels than the old fashioned rides I fondly remember.

The bottom line is that accurate information and the ability to access that information is a necessary capability for any 21st Century mechanic who wants to ensure that the annoying little "check engine" light stops glowing - whether it's triggered by a catastrophic transmission failure or a simple loose gas cap. The legislation before us today is intended to get us closer to that goal - first, by making sure that the information needed to service or repair the vehicle - i.e. make that annoying little light go out - is available and accurate; second, by making sure that the tools needed to access the codes that route your mechanic to the source triggering that little light are divined easily from the vehicle's internal OBD system; and finally, by making sure those codes can be cross referenced accurately with information provided by the manufacturer that is specific to the make and model of that car so that a fix can be found. Sounds simple, but as we have seen, the devil is in the details - and believe me, trying to find common ground over the details has been more of a challenge than anyone ever expected.

To get to some of those details today, I would like to have each of our witnesses, including FTC Chairman Majoras, to comment during the Q and A on some of the more important and controversial elements of HR 2048, including:

. What should constitute "information" for purposes of the bill? Fault codes? Engine mapping algorithms? Training information?

. How should we interpret what is meant by "diagnostic tools and capabilities related to vehicle repair" in section 3 of the bill? Does this mean scan tools? What are the other "capabilities" referring to?

. How would the FTC enforce this legislation? What resources would be required to implement the bill as written?

. Would the bill allow states to sue manufacturers under its current language?

I would like to thank our witnesses here today, especially FTC Chairman Majoras, for coming to offer their views. I also would like to inform folks that Chairman Barton is a bit under the weather today and regrettably will not be able to attend this morning's hearing. We wish him well and a speedy recovery. Thank you.

Related Documents