question:You are an AI assistant. You will be given a task. You must generate a detailed and long answer. Paragraph: Though prehistoric remains from the Paleolithic, Neolithic, and Bronze Ages have been unearthed in the Manzanares Valley, prior to Madrid's sudden elevation to capital city in 1561 its history was rather undistinguished. Over a period of many centuries crucial in Spanish history, Madrid's significance was negligible. The Romans built their most advanced outpost on the Iberian peninsula, but left nothing of consequence in Madrid. Armies of North African nomads, intent on disseminating Islam, invaded the peninsula in a.d. Within 10 years, they had overrun most of Spain. If Madrid played any role in these pivotal events, no record of it remains. The first solid references to this obscure settlement on the Castilian plateau, guarded by the looming Guadarrama mountain range, appear in the 9th century. The Arabic name for "place of many springs," variously recorded as Magerit, Mayrit or Magrit, eventually evolved into Madrid. The hamlet entered historical chronicles for its military significance; it was located near the main line of resistance to the Christian reconquest. Over centuries of struggle, the defending Moorish army built a full-scale fort, or Alcázar, on the heights of Madrid commanding the Manzanares valley. After several unsuccessful skirmishes, the Christian forces of Alfonso VI captured Madrid in 1083. The Alcázar became a fort of the crown of Castile. During a counter-offensive in 1109, the town was overrun by the Moors, but the Christianized fortress held. The Moors were expelled from the town, but they remained in control of southern Spain for almost four centuries. Meanwhile, Madrid enjoyed brief prominence in 1308 when king Ferdinand IV and his Cortes, an early version of parliament, held a formal meeting in the fledgling town. From then on, the kings of Spain began to visit Madrid, where the air was invigorating and the hunting excellent. Ferdinand and Isabella, the Catholic monarchs that united all the provinces of Spain, first visited Madrid in 1477. Question: "Who overtook the Romans?" Answer: "The North African nomads intent on spreading Islam" Based on the paragraph, is this answer correct

question:You are an AI assistant. Provide a detailed answer so user don’t need to search outside to understand the answer. Please answer the following question: Read the following paragraph and extract the answer for the question: In what country did the album that debuted at number 29 on the Billboard 200 the week of 10 September 1994 get certified gold? Segundo Romance was released on 30 August 1994. Within two days, the album sold more than one million copies worldwide. In the United States, it debuted at number 29 on the Billboard 200 the week of 10 September 1994, the highest debut on the chart at the time for a Spanish-language album. That week, Segundo Romance also debuted at number seven on the Billboard Top Latin Albums chart; it reached number one a week later, replacing Selena's Amor Prohibido. It spent a total of 29 nonconsecutive weeks atop the chart, and was the second-bestselling Latin album of the year behind Mi Tierra by Gloria Estefan. The album topped the Billboard Latin Pop Albums chart for 30 weeks, and was the highest-selling Latin pop album of the year in the U.S. According to Nielsen SoundScan, the record has sold 603,000 copies in the US as of October 2017, making the 21st bestselling Latin album in the country. Segundo Romance was certified platinum for shipping one million copies, making Miguel the first Latin artist to have two certified platinum albums in the U.S. following Romance.The album was also successful in Spanish-speaking countries. It was certified quintuple platinum in Mexico, triple platinum in Paraguay and Uruguay as well as in Central America; double platinum in Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, Spain and Venezuela, and platinum in Ecuador. In Brazil, Segundo Romance was certified gold for sales of 50,000 copies. The album reached number one on the Chilean album charts, and was certified sextuple platinum for shipping 150,000 copies. In Argentina, it was certified 11× platinum and later received a diamond award for sales of 500,000 copies. By 1995, Segundo Romance had sold more than four million copies worldwide. A:

question:You are an AI assistant. You will be given a task. You must generate a detailed and long answer. News article: General Motors CEO Mary Barra said Tuesday she wants to find out if GM engineering employees executed a coverup or were merely incompetent in failing to recall a defective part linked to 13 deaths. In testimony before a House Energy and Commerce Committee panel investigating why the automaker waited years to fix the vehicles, Barra said she has asked former U.S. attorney Anton “Tony” Valukas to help figure that out. Previously Valukas investigated the collapse of the Lehman Bros. financial services firm in 2008. Barra also issued yet another apology for GM's failure to fix the problem years earlier. She conceded that company officials knew of issues with the faulty ignition switches behind the crashes and deaths for more than a decade. Barra said she found the automaker's worries about the cost to fix defective cars "disturbing." Those concerns were detailed in documents obtained by the House committee. “That is not acceptable,” Barra said. “Today, if there is safety issue ... if we know that there is a safety defect on our vehicles, we don’t look at the cost but at the speed at which we can fix the problem.” Barra’s apologies notwithstanding, GM legally shed responsibility for crashes before the automaker's 2009 bankruptcy and federal bailout. The restructuring created a new company, which bought the assets of the old GM, but allowed it to shed its debts and legal liabilities. But Barra, in more than two hours of testimony, hinted GM might compensate victims and their families in connection with recall-related accidents that took place before the bankruptcy. "We do understand we have civic responsibilities as well as legal responsibilities," she said when asked about how the company would handle pre-bankruptcy crashes. Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) asked if GM purposely withheld information about problems with the ignition switch and other safety issues when it was negotiating the terms of its bankruptcy and federal bailout in 2009. Barra said she was not aware of any effort to hide information about potential liabilities, “but I can’t speak to every single person.” Barra said the company has hired Kenneth Feinberg as a consultant to explore and evaluate options for the families of victims of accidents caused by the defective part. “Mr. Feinberg is highly qualified, and is very experienced in the handling of matters such as this,” Barra said. “He brings expertise and objectivity to this effort, and will help us evaluate the situation and recommend the best path forward.” Feinberg has previously handled compensation issues for victims of 9/11, the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the Boston Marathon bombings. “My mandate from the company is to consider the options for dealing with issues surrounding the ignition switch matter, and to do so in an independent, balanced and objective manner, based upon my prior experience,” Feinberg said. Barra also told the panel that the automaker made “mistakes” in not recalling vehicles with a deadly flaw years ago. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) an industrial engineer, asked Barra why the company used an ignition switch that did not meet company specifications. “Why in the world would a company with the stellar reputation of General Motors purchase a part that did not meet its own specifications?” he said. Barra responded: “I want to know that as much as you do.” When pressed on whether GM now would purchase parts that don’t meet specifications in the future, Barra said in some cases they do if the part meets safety, functionality and durability standards among others. Barton called that answer “gobbledygook.” “That’s not an acceptable answer for the American people,” he said. “There shouldn’t be a part used in any GM product ... that doesn’t meet the specifications.” Although it knew about the problem as far back as 2001, GM only in the last two months has recalled 2.6 million vehicles to replace the defective ignition switch, which is now linked to 13 deaths. The switch can unintentionally turn off the vehicle and disable its airbags. GM faces investigations from the NHTSA and the Justice Department into why it did not recall the vehicles sooner. Barra is to be joined before the committee by David J. Friedman, the acting administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Lawmakers are set to quiz Friedman about why the safety agency didn’t force GM to recall the vehicles earlier. Documents show that the NHTSA was aware of the problem. In his written testimony, Friedman said GM had failed to provide regulators “critical information” that could have triggered recalls years earlier. Only recently did GM provide “new evidence” that made it clear that the ignition problem could disable air bags, he said. Meanwhile, families of victims of fatal crashes of the GM compact cars in question on Tuesday sharply criticized the automaker for delays in recalling the vehicles and called for legislation to prevent a repeat of the situation. About two dozen family members gathered in front of the Capitol to make their case before Barra and Friedman testified. The families were joined by four Democratic lawmakers who want to toughen laws governing the disclosure of auto defects. [For The Record, 5:46 p.m. PDT April 1: An earlier version of this post stated that Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) asked if GM purposely withheld information about problems with an ignition switch and other safety issues when it was negotiating the terms of its bankruptcy and federal bailout in 2009. The question was asked by Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) Tweets from https://twitter.com/latimesbiz/autos ALSO: U.S. orders rear cameras for cars Toyota admits to deceiving consumers, regulators Federal bailout, bankruptcy lets GM escape liability in fatal crashes Follow me on Twitter (@LATimesJerry), Facebook and Google+. ||||| Facing an onslaught of congressional criticism, the head of General Motors on Tuesday said the company is “deeply sorry” for the failure to swiftly recall vehicles with a dangerous ignition switch flaw. ADVERTISEMENT GM CEO Mary Barra, testifying before Congress for the first time since taking the helm in January, expressed remorse to the people in the hearing room who lost family members in crashes linked to the defect."Today's GM will do the right thing. That begins with my sincere apologies to everyone who has been affected by this recall, especially the families and friends who lost their lives or were injured. I am deeply sorry," Barra said.Lawmakers pressed Barra to explain why it took so long for GM to address the problem with the vehicles, which rolled off assembly lines in the mid-2000s but were not recalled until earlier this year.“GM knew about this problem in 2001,” said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.). “They were warned again and again over the next decade, but they did nothing.”DeGette held up an ignition switch with keys hanging from it to illustrate how easily the ignition in the vehicles could be cut.“If you had a heavy key chain like my mom, or … if you were short and you bumped up against the ignition with your knee, it could cause this key to switch right off,” DeGette said, adding that the problem was caused by a spring that costs “pennies.”Thirteen deaths have been linked to the ignition switch problem. Relatives of those victims were in attendance during Tuesday’s hearing and, earlier in the day, ripped the auto company during a press conference outside the Capitol.“Our daughters, sons, sisters, brothers, mothers, fathers, wives and husbands are gone because they were a cost of doing business GM style,” said Maryland resident Laura Christian, whose daughter Amber Marie Rose was killed in a 2005 accident, while she was driving a Chevrolet Cobalt.Christian said GM executives “made a decision that ‘fighting’ the problem was cheaper and easier than ‘fixing’ the problem.”Barra took pains to distance herself from decisions that were made at the auto company before she took over as chief executive."This is an extraordinary situation. It involves vehicles we no longer make, but it came to light on my watch, so I'm responsible for resolving it,” Barra told the panel. “When we have answers, we will be fully transparent with you, with our regulators and with our customers.”Lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce oversight subcommittee were hardly in a forgiving mood. Representatives in both parties repeatedly pressed Barra to explain why the recall took so long and said complaints about the ignition switch started coming in almost as soon as many of the models hit the roadways. “As soon as the Chevy Cobalt rolled off the production line in 2004, customers began filing complaints about the ignition switch,” said Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.), the chairman of the subpanel. “According to GM's public statements, it wasn't until December 2013 the company finally put the pieces together and linked the problems with the airbags with the faulty ignition switch almost 10 years after customers first told GM the Cobalt ignition switch didn't work,” Murphy said. Murphy also questioned why regulators at the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) didn’t order the recall right away. “The red flags were there for GM and NHTSA to take action, but for some reason, it did not happen. Why didn't GM and NHTSA put the pieces together for 10 years? Why didn't anyone ask the critical, important questions? Why did GM accept parts below their own company standards and specs?” Barra was pressed about specific dates and times of GM’s actions involving the recalled cars, and appeared to get flustered, when lawmakers asked her to defend actions that occurred before her tenure as CEO. “Clearly, there were a lot of things that happened,” she said. “There's been a lot of statements made as it relates. That's why we've hired [attorney] Anton Valukas to do a complete investigation of this process. We are spanning over a decade of time.” Barra’s attempt to distance herself from her predecessors at GM was met with skepticism. “You are the company right now,” Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) said. Barra attempted to stick to her forward-looking focus and told lawmakers said was determined to fix the damage done to the company and its customers. She said GM has hired Washington attorney Ken Feinberg to be a consultant on the company’s response to the recall. Feinberg is a specialist in corporate crisis compensation payments, having overseen payments to families of victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; the 2007 Virginia Tech University mass shooting and the 2010 BP oil spill. Barr said she has told GM employees that “getting the cars repaired is only the first step” and is urging them to focus on being responsive to drivers of the recalled vehicles who are looking for repairs. “Giving customers the best service possible is how we will be judged,” Barra said. ||||| During her opening statement, General Motors chief executive Mary Barra said that she does not know why it took years for the carmaker to announce a safety defect but she that she is committed to finding out. (The Associated Press) During her opening statement, General Motors chief executive Mary Barra said that she does not know why it took years for the carmaker to announce a safety defect but she that she is committed to finding out. (The Associated Press) General Motors chief executive Mary T. Barra on Tuesday deflected a barrage of questions on Capitol Hill about the automaker’s failure to fix a deadly ignition-switch flaw, telling lawmakers that she was unaware of the decade-old problem until early this year. While she repeatedly apologized for a defect that GM has blamed for the deaths of at least 13 motorists, Barra also repeatedly ducked lawmakers’ sometimes testy queries, saying she is awaiting the results of an internal investigation. A GM lifer who became the company’s top executive in mid-January, Barra took pains to make a distinction between the cost-conscious “old GM” — which, she admitted, missed a series of red flags and may have engineered a coverup — and the post-bankruptcy “new GM,” which Barra said is focused on customer safety. “I cannot tell you why it took years for a safety defect to be announced,” Barra told a House Energy and Commerce Committee investigative panel. “I can tell you that we will find out.” In her opening statement, Barra announced that Kenneth Feinberg, the lawyer who has helped mete out payments to victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and to victims of BP’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill in 2010, had been hired by GM to “explore and evaluate options in its response to families of accident victims.” Prior to a House committee hearing with the chief executive of General Motors, lawmakers and families of victims killed in crashes involving GM cars held a news conference. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post) The move suggests that GM expects to face additional claims on behalf of people killed or injured in the recalled vehicles. Feinberg said Barra has asked him to examine options for compensating victims of the defect, which could include a broad settlement fund. “Over the next 60 days, we hope to propose some objective claims-resolution approach that meets the needs of the victims, the company and the public interest,” Feinberg said in an interview. GM has recalled 2.6 million Chevrolet Cobalts and other small vehicles because of the faulty switches. Lawmakers said GM could have fixed the defective switch for as little as 57 cents per vehicle. Still, the automaker waited more than a decade to issue a recall, despite mounting evidence of a problem, including 133 complaints to dealers and numerous legal settlements paid to families of people who perished in related accidents. Barra’s testimony seemed to do little to mollify lawmakers, many of whom appeared to have scoured the thousands of pages of documents the company submitted to congressional investigators. One after another, they grilled her about questionable company decisions, such as installing switches that did not meet GM’s technical specifications and quietly approving a new switch design in 2006 without assigning a new part number or initiating a recall. “Ms. Barra, I know this isn’t the most enjoyable situation for you. But we’re in a situation where we don’t trust the company right now,” said Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Miss.). The panel also heard from David Friedman, the acting head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which also failed for years to recognize the problem. Friedman pointed the finger at GM for not providing regulators with timely information that could have led federal regulators to order a recall. “Our ability to find defects also requires automakers to act in good faith and on time,” Friedman said. View Graphic A history of GM’s ignition problems Asked by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) whether GM had acted in good faith, Friedman said NHTSA has opened an investigation “to answer that exact question. And if we find they were not, we will hold them accountable.” But lawmakers were also interested in NHTSA’s failures, demanding to know why the agency did not take action to determine why air bags in the Cobalt failed to deploy in a series of accidents — and to demand that GM remedy the problem. Friedman defended the agency, saying it had compared the Cobalt’s track record with other vehicles and found no consistent trend. “When it came to [air bag] non-deployments, Cobalt was not an outlier,” he said. Moreover, NHTSA investigators looking into specific crashes were not convinced that the air bags failed to deploy because of a faulty ignition switch. At the time, Friedman said, the idea that the switch could be jostled, flip to the “accessory” position and disable power steering, brakes and critical electronics, including air bags, was “one theory.” “But in the crashes we looked at, investigators thought it was more likely that the air bag did not deploy because of the circumstances of the crash,” Friedman said. “I know it looks like it should have been clear,” he added. “But it’s clear now in part because we have that clear connection from GM.” The hearing took place in a room packed with observers, including the family members of people who died in the recalled vehicles. Photos of about a dozen crash victims — smiling young women, a Marine in his dress blues — were propped on a ledge at the back of the room. Barra, who held a tearful meeting Monday night in GM’s Washington offices with nearly two dozen family members of crash victims, expressed her “sincere apologies to everyone who has been affected by this recall . . . especially to the families and friends of those who lost their lives or were injured. I am deeply sorry.” She was less forthcoming about other matters. Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.), the chairman of the subcommittee conducting the hearing, noted that GM had missed evidence of the defect for more than a decade. Citing documents submitted by GM, Murphy listed nearly a dozen specific instances where he said GM — or federal regulators — should have taken action. “Why didn’t GM and NHTSA put the pieces together for 10 years? Why didn’t anyone ask the critically important questions?” Murphy said. “To borrow a phrase, what we have here is a failure to communicate — and the results are deadly.” Barra said she found “very disturbing” a statement made by a GM official who in 2005 rejected a proposed fix for the flawed switch because it was not cost- effective. “That is not how we do business at today’s GM,” she said. Throughout nearly two hours of testimony, Barra remained even-tempered and contrite. But she was also tight-lipped and, at times, evasive. Asked how often the automaker uses parts that do not match its specifications, Barra said the company always aims to use parts that are safe and reliable. Parts that do not meet technical requirements, she said, are not necessarily defective. “What you just answered is gobbledygook,” shot back Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.). Later, after Barra had left the hearing room and been replaced at the witness table by Friedman, Barton summed up lawmakers’ reaction to her performance. “I think it’s obvious,” he said, “that GM has some real questions that they’ve not done a very good job answering today.” ||||| Skip in Skip x Embed x Share Members of Congress on Tuesday pressed General Motors CEO Mary Barra on why apparently glaring signals over the years failed to prompt an earlier recall of potentially deadly cars. VPC Mary Barra, CEO of General Motors, arrives to testify before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations during a hearing investigating the GM ignition switch recall in Washington. (Photo: H. Darr Beiser, USA TODAY) WASHINGTON — In what already could be a turning point in her fledgling reign, General Motors CEO Mary Barra on Tuesday battled a congressional subcommittee that wanted far more information about GM's fatal ignition-switch foul-ups than she was able to provide. She was battered for speaking "gobbledygook," thumped for not firing an engineer who apparently concealed a change to the potentially deadly switches, and blasted because GM made an economic decision to keep the flawed component in production while knowing it didn't meet GM standards. Barra, who has been CEO for less than three months, fielded questions from the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee for two hours, avoiding any obvious gaffes and keeping her cool but also largely ducking specific answers, saying an internal investigation is underway into why it took GM so long to address ignition-switch problems first detected in 2001 this year. Representatives kept demanding "yes" or "no" answers right now, while Barra, an engineer, wanted to explain. Nor could they fathom how the CEO of a company couldn't just find things out, while Barra said she shouldn't meddle in the internal investigation already underway by former U.S. attorney Anton Valukas. She also announced that she is bringing in another outsider, a compensation expert, to help it sort out GM's response to consumers affected by the defect linked to 13 deaths: Ken Feinberg, an attorney who led victim compensation efforts in the World Trade Center attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the BP Gulf Coast oil spill and the Boston Marathon bombing. Families of those losing their lives have asked that a victims fund be established. GM has remained silent on that subject but Barra said Feinberg will help "assess the appropriate next step." Barra told the panel looking into the recall of more than 2.53 million vehicles that the company has moved away from a "cost culture" to a more customer-friendly one. "You talk about a new culture. Has anybody been held accountable?" demanded member Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La. Barra said nobody has been fired or disciplined as a result of involvement in the switch fiasco, as far as she knows, but that could change when the investigation is finished. Even then, she said, "we will share what's appropriate" and not necessarily the whole internal GM report. This irritated some committee members. Some implied that GM might have concealed information about the problem-plagued switch to avoid carrying forward responsibility for damage, injuries and deaths caused by the switch into the "new GM" formed July 2009 after the car company's bankruptcy reorganization. Barra seemed to suggest it was possible that happened: "I did not personally withhold anything. I can't speak to every single person." Asked about a report indicating that GM considered a fix in response to problems in 2004 because of the "lead time required, cost and effectiveness," Barra said she "found that statement to be very disturbing" and called it "unacceptable. That is not how we do business in today's GM." "It's not acceptable to put a cost on a safety issue," she later added under questioning. With Barra facing the glare of a congressional investigation for the first time, however — and with the company's resurgent post-bankruptcy profits and reputation on the line — there was still little she could tell members to explain why it took GM more than a decade to link ignition switch issues with air bag deployment. Over the past two months, the company has recalled millions of Chevrolet Cobalts and HHRs, Saturn Ions and Skys and Pontiac G5s and Solstices, saying the ignition switch could inadvertently be jostled out of position, potentially disabling the air bags in the event of a crash. JAIL TIME? Key questions GM faces STORY: Loved ones of crash victims speak out The acting head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, David Friedman, was called to testify as well and said his agency missed the link, too, despite hundreds of complaints. Friedman, however, said the agency could have taken a closer look at the relationship between the ignition switches and air bag deployment if GM had shared more information with it. Friedman said NHTSA considered investigating non-deployment in Chevrolet Cobalts and Saturn Ions in 2007 and in 2010 but that no discernible pattern was indicated. Neither car, he said, "stood out when compared to other vehicles." "We applied expertise, we applied understanding," Friedman said. "I wish the connection was as direct as we now know it is." U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., said Congress may need to make changes to ensure NHTSA considers a greater range of data and several legislators are talking about strengthening reporting rules for automakers in the wake of the recall. "It appears we have a flaw in NHTSA's decision-making process," Dingell said. Barra and Friedman testify again Wednesday morning on the recall before a Senate subcommittee. Rosie Cortinas, whose 23-year-old son Amador, of Caldwell, Idaho, died in a Cobalt crash five months ago, said she was frustrated with how the hearing went, believing Barra was holding back. "I have to keep walking out," she said, wiping a tear from an eye. "I feel like there is some kind of inhumanity in this room. They aren't looking at it as a human point of view. They are looking at it from a company's point of view." Committee members didn't appear to pull any punches and hammered away at Barra on information that the supplier of the switch, Michigan-based Delphi, told GM as early as 2002 that the switches did not meet the company's specifications yet it still accepted them. "Why in the world would a company (like GM) purchase a part that did not meet its own specifications?" asked Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas. "I want to know that as much as you do," Barra responded, saying that it's part of the internal investigation but that she couldn't answer the question right now. "It's not how we do business today." During another part of her testimony, however, Barra suggested that there are circumstances where even if a part or product is substandard it doesn't mean that it's defective. Barton called this answer "gobbledygook." Members also questioned why an engineer at the company, identified in documents released by the committee from Delphi as Ray DeGiorgio, signed off on a change in 2006 to the ignition switch, apparently without the knowledge of others at GM. Another document from 2005 provided to the committee showed consideration of a change to the part but noted concerns over the cost — adding about 90 cents to the price of the switch. Barra indicated that if the company had recalled all the switches in 2007, it would have cost the company less than 100 million. But there were clear indications that while a change was made to the part, "it appears there was information at one part of the company and another part of the company didn't have access to that," she said. While much of the questioning was polite, it was also dogged. Members of both parties continued to ask how GM — which knew there were issues with ignition switches as early as 2001 during preproduction of the Saturn Ion and approved the change to those switches in 2006 — could have missed so many warning signs for a recall. "Documents produced to the committee show that both NHTSA and GM received complaints and data about problems with ignition switches and air bags. The complaints go back at least 10 years," said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., who chairs the full House Energy and Commerce Committee. "A small spring inside the switch — a piece that cost pennies — failed to provide enough force, causing the switch to turn off when the car went over a bump," added Rep. Diana DeGette, of Colorado, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee. "GM knew about this problem in 2001. They were warned again and again over the next decade but did nothing." Earlier in the day, the families of people who lost loved ones in crashes involving the recalled vehicles held a news conference, asking that GM take all the cars off the road until they are fixed; GM has said they are safe to operate as long as drivers take all the weight off the keychain. The company has also agreed to provide loaners if drivers are nervous about the vehicles. To date, some 13,000 loaners have been provided, Barra said. New parts are supposed to become available this month with Delphi expected to add a third shift at a Mexican facility to produce them. But committee members said they still have concerns, especially because Delphi officials told staff investigators that even after the 2006 change, the parts did not meet specifications. Feinberg, meanwhile, could help the company determine what to do regarding potential claimants. GM is generally protected from liability claims for incidents before it went through bankruptcy in July 2009. That protection, however, could be limited if it can be shown GM officials knowingly hid the defects. Families of those losing their lives have asked that a victims fund be established. GM has remained silent on that subject but Barra said Feinberg will help "assess the appropriate next step." "We understand we have civic responsibilities as well as legal responsibilities," she said. GM expects to meet with Feinberg on Friday and expect it will take 30 to 60 days for him to report back. "We're going to work very hard to do the right thing for our customers." Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., the chairman of the subcommittee, asked pointedly whether there was "culture" at GM before the bankruptcy that "would put cost over safety." Barra — a veteran of GM — said the company "moved from a cost culture after the bankruptcy to a customer culture." GM has recalled 7 million vehicles worldwide since the beginning of the year. "I know you're taking this job at an inauspicious time," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., "You're trying to clean up the mess your predecessors left for you." Spangler reports for the Detroit Free Press. Contributing: John Bacon, USA TODAY Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1fkCrKK ||||| Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period. ||||| What is a shorter version of the above article?

question:You are an AI assistant. User will you give you a task. Your goal is to complete the task as faithfully as you can. While performing the task think step-by-step and justify your steps. Premise: Men who work construction in orange vests and yellow hats besides one man on the right in a white tee-shirt. Hypothesis: Two men dressed for work .Given the premise, can we conclude the hypothesis?