would will be anything unique about it, you recall candidate was -- the republican debate had a large number of candidates. is anything special about tuesday's debate? i know democrats and i am what will be looking for the moderators to make it a true debate, not just a chance to grill hillary clinton on live tv. both democrats i talked to today said they would be very frustrated if it was focused on hillary clinton. i hear the narrative down to just two hours so that is probably the -- i hear they narrowed it down to just two hours so that probably is the biggest news. about the guests gave a poor inadequate answer to why really inadequate answer to why iowa and new hampshire should vote first. urge everye to

viewer on c-span to boycott iowa and new hampshire financially until those states cede their duopoloy over our electoral process. host: on fridays washington journal, we did have iowa repre vote first, i urge every viewer to boycott iowa and new hampshire, financially until those states see their duopoly over our electoral process. host: that color was from long island city, new york. we did have iowa representatives who was asked about the -- the, that iowa and new hampshire might have no official claim to first and second status after 2016. >> i'm going to give him a call, unless he calls me first today. he told me he is supportive of iowa being first in the nation and we had a long conversation about that. >> you saw those articles as well. >> i did not get caught up with them. his commitment to supporting iowa and the first the nation caucus, here is what happened.

we have a great big political fair and you have big top tents propped up, somewhat air conditioning wonderful food, every kind of imaginable good .ood you have out there people bring their families and they walk through and get to meet presidential candidates they get caught up in all of that and we have a straw poll and there is a measure of the for thetional ability candidates. that has gone on for multiple times. there has never been a republican that ascended to the presidency that is not first when the aims of straw poll and the iowa caucus. we want to undermine the ames straw poll and i prop that up as much as i could but the undermining took place anyway. the committee made the decision they had to and they pulled the plug sometime in mid summer. i said then that if they are

able to plow through the straw poll, the next target will be to take iowa out of first place in the first of a nation caucus. those words are clear, that is the next agenda. i predicted it six months ago and it -- this confirms what i said. we will see who talks to each and who called each one first. >> take on the response of that. >> congressman king is right, the chairman previous has been very supportive, over and over again over the years about iowa , thenmpshire being first the cycles run and we have a couple of -- some people think crazy outsiders coming in here ruffled really kind of the feathers of the establishment, so it seemed like if you vote for these people in your caucuses, and they may

be can't wait general election, you might get the rug you got from underneath you. >> what do you think? let's give you a crack at whether iowa and new hampshire should be among the first. >> our friend, thinks for the call, questions like images earlier the comes up every few years and is not stop. for more information you can go 100.org it's a resource of his entire commission but together with the history on a hash of primary. the commission is made up of republicans and democrats in new hampshire so it has five partisan preserve -- bipartisan support for that. also the candidates say it is a --d starting point as well

>> there is still time to get your calls and. .epublicans call (202) 737-0002 democrats call (202) 737-0001. independents can call (202) 628-0205. we are on facebook. you can also send us an e-mail at journal@c-span.org. from twin rocks, pennsylvania on the independent line, bruce go ahead. i my thing is that whenever look at the politicians, for example it hillary clinton, just recently, like she flips -- she flip-flopped on that keystone pipeline and on the trade deal , i think that's a look at these things and i say to myself , how could you trust somebody,

when they get a do there the president of his gun do the same thing, i'm for this now, i changed my mind. thank you. dan from the union leader, you go first. >> i think that's what normality has raise in the past couple of days. he is trying to challenge hillary clinton bernie sanders to get the narrative turned in his favor. it's up to voters and it's up to hillary clinton, it's her campaign and it's up to her to plan her decisions. i'm sure you'll hear about a lot of this on tuesday night in the debate. this comes up a lot of where you have someone like hillary clinton or bernie sanders or a governor -- congress been who is been in office for 20 plus years. positions change whether it's

1991 or 92, it's been a long time with a lot of progress done. that's why people change and sometimes it's difficult to reconcile one's a support or position on an issue in 2015 with 1990. >> caller is from england. john is on the independent line. >> good afternoon. my question is about the ordinary folks in muscatine, iowa and manchester, new england -- new hampshire. it's about isis terrorists. they've opened the doors to millions of people fleeing the in the land of iraq and syria from these terrorists from isis.

most are quite a high number of these refugees in europe are not from syria or iraq but from afghanistan or africa, which is obviously -- my point is this. among all these refugees, there must surely be infiltrators from these terrorist groups coming to europe. if they can get their papers in europe, they could easily get to the united states and create mayhem. thepoint is, what would presidential candidates of both if they were elected, to try to event -- prevent these

lunatics infiltrating the united states and killing innocent civilians in iowa, in new hampshire, and colorado, alaska, whatever. >> we will have to leave it there, but we heard your question. this will be the last one. jennifer jenkins with the des moines register, go ahead. onthat is something that is iowa caucus mines, especially on the gop side. it's probably lindsey graham from south carolina who talks most about that issue. he has not gained much traction in iowa at all. each candidate has a different plan for how they would tackle it. >> dan from the union leader in new hampshire? >> in new hampshire it's similar. we are 2000 miles away from the border for immigration and illegal immigration is a concern for voters, as is isis.

>> thank you both so much for joining us, that was jennifer andins and then to a -- and from the union leader -- and dan from the union leader. >> a road to the white house coverage of the presidential candidates continues from new hampshire monday morning at 10:00 eastern, live coverage from the no labels problem solver convention in manchester. speakers include eight republican and democratic presidential candidates talking about issues of balancing the budget, securing social security and making energy -- making secure.energy on tuesday afternoon, we are live with ohio governor john kasich as these feeds at a town hall meeting in new hampshire. on wednesday, live at 7:00 p.m. eastern, jeb bush will speak at a town hall meeting in concord. c-span's campaign 2016 coverage,

taking you on the road to the white house on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. tuesday, washington journal resigned from the -- from maryland. they will look inside the correctional system and efforts to prepare inmates for their reentry into the community. here is former inmate carlos n it was at the correctional facility for almost three years after a second degree assault and battery charge and violation of parole, talking about the skills he gained at the facility. how to did when my charges, how to play my situation, how to write a letter of explanation. learning how to get a job and speak to an employer and explain my charges before the judge me. explaining the job, how to --ss, how to talk, how to do

they kind of help me out to bringing the employer here and the employer -- we talked and he are you about me so i felt more comfortable to explaining -- in explaining to him what i'm here for a walk -- and what my goals are. you renew some stuff about me, so now i'm just working. i got the job and as soon as i got out, about three or four days later, i started working. now i have experience in one job and i can take that experience to the next one. i know that i can still go back and connect with a workforce -- e-work source and ask them to help and they will give me suggestions, a case in the future i want to change jobs or to some indifferent like go to school -- something different like go to school. these are areas that they can help you with other problems i may have.

>> on tuesday, corrections department director robert greene talks about what's working and what's not in the corrections system. we are told about rehabilitation and job training and a thin tomorrow talks about substance abuse treatment. that's tuesday on washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. michael horn, president and ceo of volkswagen group of america testified before the subcommittee thursday on the ongoing omissions investigation. the company is accused of evading emissions tests for some of its diesel powered vehicles by installing defeat devices. an estimated 11 million cars between 2009 and 2015, including but 500,000 in the u.s., have the software. this is about two hours.

>> could members of the media move out of the way?

>> my first car was a 76 volkswagen beetle. i could take that thing apart and put it back together and it would ask a continue to work. i did all the maintenance myself because the beetle has the latest -- had the legacy of a people's car, to be people friendly. lot, not so much to call it bard. rad. but i love that car. i proceeded to give me around and i trusted the volkswagen would build a reliable car. trust builds consumer loyalty. and that trust is what helped build volkswagen. because we believe the coming lookout for customers first. just three weeks ago, car owners around the world learned that

the world's largest automaker admitted it installed software in millions of diesel models that defeated emissions controls while driving. on september 18, the epa said they had sufficient evev idence of cheating. subject to testing, the diesel beatles switch into an operational mode to pass the test and switch back to a different mode during normal driving. the mode that emitted nitrogen oxide up to 40 times the federal limit. the united states alone, some 42,000 volkswagen and audi models were affected. estimated in 11 million involving volkswagen vehicles. in the wake of massive deception, the members of an a bipartisan committee.

this investigation will seek to understand the facts and circumstances surrounding the actions, the impacts of the decision, and the compliance in general. we will receive testimony from the head of volkswagen's ceo in u.s. mr. michael horn. in addition, the subcommittee intends to pursue answers to initial questions concerning the relations of volkswagen. what happened? who was involved? and most important, why? mr. born is appearing before us -- mr. horn is appearing before us voluntarily. this means providing documents to the committee as quickly as possible, including documents that have already been discussed publicly in connection with volkswagen's there is board meetings in germany. as i said before, a number of core questions we pursue today.

most critically, what happened, who was involved, why were these actions taken? and we have a number of questions concerning the impact on customers, dealerships, and the public. can expandg mr. horn upon the facts he represents in his testimony. we look to him to explain the current understanding as to what was done to the engines. was it done to deliberately deceive government regulations and regulators? and what is false wagon doing to wagone problem -- folks doing to fix the problem? they made a choice to move forward with engines that now suggest were not compliant. the illegal software was deployed in the first generation of the diesel engines, which accounts for approximately 340,000 effective vehicles. despite apparent advancement in the control systems, these

engines have software that remained in place. what tothe company -- the company understand about this software cheat? and what does it mean for fixing them? will some big is your than others? we have questions about compliance and recall programs. i hope we get answers from that agency. why did the epa standard tests and audits failed to detect? what are they doing to ensure any effect, requiring the automaker does not affect performance? therding this matter, 480,000 or so vehicles implicated in the scandal represent only .2% of the cars and trucks on the highway. so far, we have no evidence of the software used by volkswagen is used in others. our witnesses from volkswagen

and the epa can see the comments. the behavior which volkswagen admitted to represents a violation of trust. it can be seen across the united states and the world as people grapple with the application. need to develop a clear understanding of the case. and this hearing will be the first important step to the goal. i now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and the spirit of bipartisanship in the investigation, i want to you my first car was also a volkswagen. w beetle that i hertha from my grandmother. i will tell you that i still miss that car. it did not have any lines of computer code required to operate it. in this situation, fast-forward to today, we know some things.

but we do not know enough. that is why i'm glad we had this investigation. we know that in may of 2014, west virginia university published a study commissioned by the international council on clean transportation that found that on road commissions were well above standards. they also did not match the emissions under testing conditions. we know that volkswagen try to justify the discrepancy with excavations of technical issues and unexpected in-use conditions. we know that in december 2014, volkswagen initiated a voluntary recall of nearly half a million vehicles. yet, when the california air resources board tested the fixed vehicles, they found emissions were still above the legal standard.

and we know that by july of this year, the epa told bw that they would not approve the model year vehicles for sale unless the emission details to be explained. volkswagen was forced to come clean. and they ultimately confessed that they had installed a defeat device and diesel cars designed to circumvent epa emission standards for certain pollutants. we know this defeat device sets when they were undergoing testing. and inserted control systems. and we know that during normal road use, the controls were reduced. and the car for producing up to 40 times more nitrogen oxide standards.owed by we know half a million cars in the u.s. might be affected by this. mr. horn, i'm glad you came to testify here.

while we know all of the things i just talked about, there's a lot more things we do not know. and we need answers for them. for example, volkswagen has not revealed how the device affects the engine. white was installed, and how it was able to evade the tests? you have not revealed when and how the engines equipped will be fixed. whether the fix will affect fuel economy or performance of the vehicle. you have not revealed what volkswagen told regulators over the last year as epa and the california board were trying to figure out why the emissions were out of compliance. you have not revealed whether the voluntary recalls that volkswagen set in place in 2014 were millemerely a ruse. were they trying to figure out what was wrong and fix them? for did they know they had defeat devices were only trying

to buy time with regulators? you have not revealed who is responsible for this game. we have all seen the press three points, and we can speculate about what happened and why, but until volkswagen comes forward with answers and provides assurances we can trust what they say, the american people, regulators and comers are left in the dark. i hope you come prepared to answer some of these questions. i also hope vw will be prepared to work with this committee as we move forward. hundreds of thousands of owners invested money and trust in vw. carsof them bought specifically because they were seeking environmentally friendly vehicles. now they are left with cars with much higher levels of pollution, they don't have answers about when or how their car will be fixed or what kind of car they will be left with.

earlier this week i visited a volkswagen dealership in denver. i saw the control and equipment on the vehicles firsthand. these cards account from us 25% of the sales at that particular dealership, and a significant percent of sales in colorado and across the country. now because they cannot sell them, these cards are sitting on the lot. say, it isrman, you a small percentage of cars on the road in the u.s., it is a tremendous economic impact to the steelers and also to be consumers who don't know what is going to happen to their car. that is the key answer i'm looking for today. what do we do moving forward. this subcommittee has been here before. in the last 15 years, we have had ford, firestone, gm and

more. we were able to get information from all these committees help us understand what happened. most importantly, we used information to chart a path forward and help consumers affected. i hope volkswagen can similarly tell us what is happening, and i hope they will get beyond this series of terrible decisions and do something to restore the public trust. thank you. now recognize the chairman of the committee from michigan for five minutes. >> good morning. it makes a car a volkswagen. that ad campaign swept the nation in the 90's. ltishs long enjoyed a cu following. through the years, something and cheating and betrayal became part of the game plan. there is a lot we don't know about vw's actions or

motivations, and attempting to skirt emissions standards. regardless of intent they have a trade the trust of regulators, dealers and suppliers, and most important the driving public. probably the most famous congressional hearing question is what did you know and when? asked by senator howard baker in the 70's and watergate. now we learned you knew 18 months ago. we add, what did you do to fix it, and come clean versus simply going along? ultimately the saying rings true, cheaters never prosper. we have never -- many questions about how we got here. why would one of the world's largest automakers go to lengths to avoid emissions requirements? who is responsible for these decisions and why did they, for years, even as technology improved, continued that path?

if they were willing to cut corners here, what else have they done?how will you fix it and when ? will it affect the performance? unraveling these questions will take time. i don't expect we will discover it the answers today. it vw is serious about rebuilding of contrast, the leaders need to demonstrate commitment to answer these and questions haunted by the actions. this requires transparency, cooperation, and clear communication with this committee, the epa, and also with customers, suppliers and the public. vw will inevitably pay a steep price from this dirty little secret. how it responds will go a long way towards rebuilding or further eroding the public's trust. they must consider the implications for the thousands of americans it employees, -- it employs, including the facility

in michigan. they are proud of the rich tradition enterprise with the success of the automobile. michigan is one of several states that has launched their own investigations. all automakers must advance by imagination, not by gaming the system and breaking the law. we will get additional insight today but the investigation is just beginning. this hearing is an important step as we receive documents, information, and new details are certain to emerge. i look forward to getting to the bottom of this as quickly as possible. i take this very personally. act toauthor of the protect the public, congress was very clear in the work to protect consumers from abuses from automakers, including steep fines and criminal prosecution. a has betrayed the nation, nation of regulators, loyalists, and innocent customers.

it is time to clean it up or get off the road. i yield the balance of my time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. horn, thank you for being here. i think it is appropriate you come before the committee, you apologize for the actions, and that you and vw take full responsibility for what has transpired. it is disappointing. i'm aware our governor has been at the chattanooga facility. i know that the governor, state legislators, the other members of the delegation and i are quite concerned about this. you have a lot of hard-working, honest tennessee people who are at that facility. we are concerned about the actions of a few. we are going to be very precise with you and vw.

it is, as the chairman said, basically the who, what, when, where, how and why. why you did it, how you did it, when you did it, lending you -- new, did it go across the brand, was it in new regulations, was it pointed at climate regulations? this is a systemic failure. someonelso point out, could say it is a safety issue. but i say it is an issue of integrity. we appreciate you are here. we look forward to hearing from you. i want to yield the balance of my time to the vice chair of the subcommittee. >> thank you. thank you mr. chairman for

holding the meeting. the others of you have spoken --ut, there should be zero tolerance for this unethical behavior. that is why the hearing is important to us. people need to understand why it happened and how and how it can be resolved. they feel they have been deceived. they were actions taken by the attorney general to file action. i want to touch on the university. you used a fraction of the money we spend with the epa to make this discovery, and they found out, one of the cars they tested was 15 to 35 times more admissions than allowed. chairman, i want to touch on the fact that this opportunity, and research dollars at work,

this was a university able to accomplish this. i'm looking forward to getting clarity to what this is. thank you for holding this and the -- i look forward to the conversation. mr. chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. we are here today because volkswagen lied. they like to regulators, customers and they lied to the american people. we all have many important questions that deserve answers. what did volkswagen due to the cars, why, and who knew this was happening in germany and here? this whole scheme makes me question how much we should trust volkswagen, and to be honest, the committee's investigation makes me question how much we trust the oil industry in general. let me remind you of the difficult relationship with the oil industry. in 2010 the committee investigated the recall of 9 million vehicles worldwide are

unexplained cases of sudden unintended acceleration. dozens of people died in accidents linked to run away toyota vehicles. in the end it was determined to new about the problems -- toyota knew about the problems. in early 2014 we launched an investigation of general motors condition -- ignition switches that kill people. they found individuals within gm knew about the deadly defect or nearly a decade before the company initiated a recall. later in 2014 we learned of the exploding airbags in vehicles made by at least 11 auto manufacturers. the recalls began as early as 2008. they continue to investigate whether recalls are necessary and they have not determined the root cause of the defect, which has killed a number of people worldwide and injured hundreds more. aw we have volkswagen,

company that told regulators that their vehicles met emissions standards but actually installed devices to bypass controls. over the past five years, the three largest automakers have come before the committee to admit they had cheated the system and lied to american customers. this seems to be a pervasive of deception in the auto industry. it has to stop. they need to know the are safe on the road and they need to know when they decide to buy a car they are getting what they paid for. to auto industry has chosen perpetuate lies and mislead consumers. the american public is not crash test them is and cannot be treated as such. i understand you will not have all the answers today, but don't hide behind the internal investigations excuse. it is time for volkswagen to be forthcoming with customers about what you did to these cars and why. we deserve an explanation. i would like to yield my remaining time to ms.

czajkowski. >> we look here a lot from outside in today. we will hear apologies, i'm sure for the deliberate deception of the american people and federal and state public health agencies. will try to get to the bottom of this issue and fully cooperate with investigators. we will hear how the use of so-called deceit devices are incompatible with volkswagen's corporate culture. i want to tell you, i don't buy it. the american people, the epa and their counterparts around the world, have been defrauded by volkswagen. the company's word is not worth a dime. the only thing i want to hear today is exactly how will volkswagen make this right by consumers. saying it will take time to design and implement a six is

fix iscient -- af insufficient. if they want it, every volkswagen, clean diesel vehicle owner should be get -- getting their money back. all of it. the american people deserve answers. there are a lot of questions, but there are also thousands of owners of clean diesel volkswagen's out there. what they want to know is what are you going to do for them, and when. i say now. i expect those answers to be provided today, and i yield back to the ranking member of the full committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. anyone else on this side, i would yield back. >> thank you. gentleman yields back.

>> i also ask unanimous consent by the opening statements he introduced to the record. you are aware the committee is holding an investigative hearing, and when doing so has the practice of taking testimony over both. -- under oath. you have any objections? thank you. we advise you under the rules of the house and committee you are entitled to be advised by counsel. do you advise to be advised by counsel under testimony today? in that case, would you please raise your right hand? do you swear the testimony you are about to get is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> thank you. yes.itness answered you are now under oath and subject to the penalties set

forth in title 18, section 1001 of the united states code. you may now get a five-minute summary of your statement. make sure your microphone is on and close to you. press the button. thank you very much. chairman, other members of the committee. thank you for inviting me to testify before the committee. my name is michael horan and i'm president and ceo of volkswagen group of america. i volunteered to come here before the committee at the outset of the inquiries in an effort to show our commitment to cooperation. we have not had the opportunity to review all aspects of this, and the investigation is just beginning. therefore, my testimony and answers will be by necessity,

has to be considered preliminary and best on my current recollection and information. on behalf of the company, my colleagues in germany, and me personally, i would like to offer sincere apologies, sincere apology for volkswagen's use of programs that serve to defeat the emissions testing regime. in the spring of 2014 monday university study was published, that's when the universit public that he was published, i was informed the epa regulations included various tendencies for noncompliance with emissions standards, and also that the agency could conduct engineering tests on their own, which could include analysis on defeat devices or other auxiliary equipment. let me be clear about this. when i was told about the epa orcess, i was not been told

did i have any reason to suspect or believe that the vehicles included such a device. that theo informed company engineers would work with the agencies to resolve the issue. later in 2014 i was involved -- informed there was a specific plan to ring the vehicle into compliance, and that they were engage with agencies about the process. volkswagenr 3, 2015 disclosed at a meeting with the california group and the u.s. environmental protection agency from model years 2009 until 2015 contained a device in hidden software that can recognize whether a vehicle with being upgraded in a test laboratory are on the road. that made the goals amid high levels of nitrogen in the road

rather than laboratory testing. in the recent ongoing discussions with regulators, we described to the epa that the arategy also included software feature that should be disclosed to and approved by them as an auxiliary emissions control device which is also called a ecd, in connection with a certification process, to show that we acted immediately, we have withdrawn the application of certification for all of those vehicles and we are now working with the agencies to continue the certification process. these events, and i fully agree on this, are deeply troubling. i did not think something like this was possible at volkswagen. we have broken the trust of our customers, leadership, employees as well as the public and regulators. let me be clear, we take full responsibility for our actions and we are working with all the relevant authorities and

cooperated -- in a cooperative way. i'm here to offer the commitment of volkswagen's work with the committee, to understand what happened, and how we will move forward. u.s. department of justice, attorney general, as well as other authorities are fulfilling their duties to investigate this matter. we are determined to make things right. this includes accepting the consequences of our actions, providing remedies and beginning to restore the trust of customers, dealerships, employees, regulators and the american public. ofwill refer the reputation a company that more than 2 million people worldwide rely upon for their livelihoods. our goal is to develop a remedy for customers. while much work is to be done, i would like to talk about how we get from where we are now to that goal. we are conducting investigations on a worldwide scale on how this could have happened. responsible parties will be identified and held accountable.

thoroughly investigations have already begun, the any information and development is preliminary. we ask you are understanding here it it is important for the public to know as the epa said, these vehicles do not present a safety hazard, and they remain safe and legal. third, technical teams are working tirelessly to develop remedies for each of the group of vehicles. the solutions will be tested and then shared with the responsible authorities for approval. there are three groups of vehicles involved each containing one of the three generations of the two diesel engines. they will require different remedy but this can only be our first step to the customers. fourth, we will examine processes, and have measures to make certain something like this cannot happen again. fisk, we commit to regular and open communications with customers, dealers, employees and the public as we move forward.

we set up a designated service line, and website. we have a count for this communication. -- channel for this communication. this outline of a path forward towards the goal of making things right. nevertheless, volkswagen knows we will be judged not by our words but clearly by our actions over the coming weeks and months. these events are fundamentally contrary to volkswagen's core value tos of proving customers and responsibility to the communities and environment. they do not reflect the company has i know, and to which dedicated 25 years of my life. our plan in tennessee is the best factory in reducing emissions. i apologize again on behalf of

everyone. we will comply with authorities. we will find remedies for customers and we will work to ensure this will never happen again. thank you again for allowing me to testifying, and i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> i now recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. on september 3, 2015, pw hadtted -- pw admitted it model 2009evices in and 2015 vehicles. to the best of your models -- knowledge, did pw stall software for the express purpose of defeating emissions controls? understanding,r it was installed to this purpose yes >> here it a new testimony, of noted you were made aware potential emissions compliance is the spring of 2014.

you also noted discussions at the time about penalties for noncompliance in the epa's ability to test for devices. at that time, were you aware or informed that these vehicles contained defeat devices must work mr. horn: --? mr. horn: no. >> when did you first learned that they contained the device? mr. horn: around the september 3 meeting, couple of days before. >> why were you having discussions about devices in the if there was no knowledge or concern that these vehicles contained a device? mr. horn: the university of west virginia made the study. there was a jetta and thought, -- a passat, and another off-road vehicle. results were communicated. in this context i was told by our experts in the auburn hills

office, and four months into the market, that of course not complying with emissions standards is relating to fines and hefty fines, specifically in the u.s. those experts, including the german technology department, checked on the study and the results. you also mentioned it was a small team. results have been published with emissions that went overboard. that they were checked. -- they also looked at responsible departments and there were a number of departments in germany, and how to possibly fix this. there was the notion in this indication that also the epa or agencies could check on their --, which to mine degree four auxiliary devices, including defeat devices. at that point, i had no

understanding what it was, and no indication whatsoever that a defeat device could have been in our car. >> let me go back. the new chief executive has been quoted in media reports saying that only a few people were involved with deception. i don't take much comfort in that, especially knowing volkswagen has been known for superb engineers and mechanics. should they have picked up on this question mark is it true they dump on this because the cars could not meet the more stringent emissions standards for diesel engines? yes, tear last question it appears to be. the newspaper articles, i don't want to quote. the investigations are preliminary. one week the group did the and then the,

entire investigation on this matter is turned over to an whichal agency law firm is now going through the system outside advice. >> what we find amazing is that virginiarsity of west discovered this, and your army of engineers and talented mechanics did not know something was amiss. i'm sure we will have more questions. i want to ask, in terms of the status for remedying these devices, who is responsible for developing and testing a solution? mr. horn: the responsibility for developing and testing the engine and software's lies within the engine and drivetrain divisions in germany, for the two cylinder, four-cylinder engines. >> will this require a software patch or changes to the actual vehicles architecture and hardware? mr. horn: yes, thank you for the question. we have to look at it

differently for the three groups of cars. roughly 500,000 cars are affected, but out of those, around 430,000 are the generation one vehicles. those are the early vehicles started in 20 -- 2009. for those cards, we believe software only solution will not be possible. frank, if itite was possible they would have done in the first place. for those cars we are working on software and hardware solutions. ,here are different strategies a converter and a tank. this is something which, hardware engineering is complex and takes time to develop. the generation to vehicles, -- passat, 90,000he

cars here in the u.s., this would probably just be a software solution. it is tested and could involve one or the other, a sensor. disclaimed -- explained to you is being discussed. for the generation three vehicles -- >> i'm sure other collies will be asking more questions. but now i need to yield five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. horn, your company acknowledged that it installed defeat devices on a number of models dating back to 2009, correct? mr. horn: i have a problem understanding? >> mr. chairman, can you please have the quiet in the room so mr. horn can understand.

>> if everyone will please be quiet. thank you. >> i will ask that can -- again. mr. horn, your company has acknowledged it installed on a number of models in 2009. mr. horn: yes. >> do you know how they actually work at this point? mr. horn: personally, no. i'm not an engineer. >> does someone at ew no? i believe this is also within the investigations. >> can you give us the information when you find out? mr. horn: we will. you mentioned the west virginia university study conducted in may of 2014, that found the real -- there were not admissions that were exceeding epa standards by as much as 35 times. following publication, vw

represented to the california resources board and the epa that they were due to technical issues and unexpected conditions. correct? mr. horn: i'm sorry, you cough -- the time and i can hear >> i will ask again. after that study by west virginia university, isn't it true that vw told the epa and california board that the increased emissions were due to technical issues and unexpected in use conditions? mr. horn: yes. representations at the time were in fact, incorrect and false? mr. horn: yes. >> to your knowledge, did anybody at the volkswagen group of america know that those discrepancies were due to the defeat devices when they made those representations to the regulators? mr. horn: to my knowledge, no.

>> no one in the u.s.? mr. horn: no. >> ok. in december 2014, bw proposed a recall of 500,000 vehicles to resolve the technical issues. is that correct? mr. horn: yes. >> and a number of those vehicles were recalled. mr. horn: most of them. >> after they were recalled, convoy near regulators still said -- california regulators said the fixed did not work. mr. horn: correct. >> to your knowledge, did anyone at the volkswagen group of whenca know about these the company announced the recall in december 2014? mr. horn: to my best knowledge, no. >> when did you personally learn of the defeat device and under what circumstances? mr. horn: around the meeting on september 3 with the epa. >> when the chairman asked you

about these cars, i am concerned about what we are going to do about the 500,000 cars we have on the road in the u.s. the first thing is, as you just testified, about 430,000 of those cars cannot be fixed by a software-only solution. is that correct? mr. horn: yes. >> that's because of the way that the engine is designed in these vehicles, correct? mr. horn: i would say not the the aftertreatment systems. >> right. i have got to say, i have to acknowledge my wonderful dealer who is here today. he let me comment talk to his wonderful mechanics on monday. they gave me this chart. apart, but ite it was too heavy and i would have

to pay $2000. i decided to take the chart itself. this is a chart of the exhaust system on those cars. you can't do see, a minor fix to fix the problem. vw going to do for these 430,000 cars so that users can use them and they pass the emissions test? mr. horn: from this distance i -- ot see the chart, but >> it is the exhaust system. what can be done to fix it? mr. horn: there are two scenarios. >> these are for the cars that the software will not work. mr. horn: we are talking about the generation one car, the 430,000 cars. the picture you have shown, and

the treatment, the software does not work because otherwise they would have done it. >> right, so what are you going to do? mr. horn: two scenarios. either in the rear tank to put something in there, or a catalyst. >> but those cars do not have the tank right now. mr. horn: no. >> this would be a major fix. mr. horn: yes. >> what is the timeframe for this? mr. horn: we are still working on the timeframe, and it is too early to say when the fix will take place. >> when are the dealers going to be allowed to sell the cars? -- then: the dealers issue with the dealers is that 16 certified and stopped sales on our own. >> when will that be fixed? mr. horn: there are two scenarios.

the first we are now trying to get a conditional approval with the epa until we have the final software fix at the beginning of next year. what are thentime, dealers and customers supposed to do? the ones who have these cars. mr. horn: in the meantime, no customer can buy a car because it is not available. with the dealers, we have started a program to work with them to also help them financially and communicate -- >> of the 430,000 cars that are already on the road, what are those customers supposed to do? their cars cannot pass the emissions test. andhorn: the epa has said, repeated this in the statement, these cars are legal and safe to drive. there is no indication they did not pass any admissions test. we need to recognize the chairman of the full committee from michigan. >> thank you. i want to go back to the

specifics of the defeat device. i live in michigan. where i live, we don't need to test our cars for admissions on an annual basis as many states require. this defeat device actually set up? so that it was different when an individual drove it down the road versus taking it to a service station and getting the emissions sticker required? i am -- >> i have been told a couple of things, just walk me through how that can change the system. what happens question mark mr. horn: i can share my best knowledge that i am not a software engineer or engineer. let me try to explain. my understanding at this point is the software was designed that the vehicle, or software

could detect whether it was on a testing laboratory environment or on the street. the software can detect whether the steering wheel made an angle. there will be other parameters like maybe speed and change of speed. >> maybe the weight of the driver in the drivers seat? mr. horn: i don't think so, but maybe. i don't know. easier tot it be develop software that would just remove that? mr. horn: yes, the software will be ready -- >> but when that happens it will not meet the emissions test. mr. horn: regarding the model year 16 and 15, the generation device will be january off, and onwards will be taken out and they will pass. >> how many vehicles will not

pass? of the ones you have identified? -- horn: >> you will be able to do that with later versions? but not the earlier versions. they will not be able to pass by , there willdevice be a number of cars that will not meet the current standards? the current standards, yes. >> how many are there on the road? 500,000, a total of 430 thousand generation one vehicles. 95,000 generation to and around 70,000 generation one vehicles. are out of the league of compliance. as the epa is that all of these cars are legal and safe. we are not selling the cars that

the owners can legally drive. >> your dealers across the country, they have their finance where they have quite an inventory of cars that they are now unable to sell. they have paid in advance for those under the financing plan that dealers have, and they are not going to be a will to sell them for a number of months, perhaps even six months at a minimum, until the fixes can be done. what type of remedies are you offering to dealers in terms of financial incentives, knowing that they have paid for the cars and lost a lot? -- has to be ais pretty big loss. mr. horn: this is also one of the things that troubles me very much, because we brought profitability up there. but i will pay you, on friday

the 18th, the violation notice was communicated. some of the people sitting behind me, we issued our first financial relief aid. cars, and the used new cars on free flooring. we took the bonus pressure off of -- we paid maximum bonus for each car sold and took out the customer satisfaction target objectives and paid maximum customer satisfaction bonus on those cars. more than $1000 -- more than $1500 per car. coming towards october, we provided every dealer around the u.s. with a discretionary fund, which was explained to them through the district managers, which was wired to the dealers october 1.

i don't want to call out the number, but a significant amount of money. for them to have flexibility. no accountability for us, fluffy ability for the most urgent customer cases, or put the money where they think it will be for phil. when i come out of this -- where it will be fulfilled. when i come out of this hearing, we will look at the next programs and help dealers with cash flow. one thing is clear, and i am theere about this, profitability is my first objective. this is one part. also on friday, we looked intensively into customer remedies. they will be the first scenarios on the table. you, it is time to recognize the ranking member of the full committee for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. horn your statement so far do not give me

much confidence we'll ever see a fix for the vehicles that are impacted. can't be fixedu by software only, you don't have a necessary timetable when it will begin. have you been given enough information about how the device affects the engine to actually make informed judgments on whether the fix will actually work? how do we know what you are proposing to do it will work? mr. horn: whenever i tell you , comingay is agreed from the technical engineering department. alongside actions in europe, we have to have our actions in the u.s. >> understand, but is it fair to say you really don't know whether you can fix these vehicles to achieve the emissions standards? mr. horn: we know we can fix

them. but what happens with regard to other things like fuel economy, engine performance? people bought the vehicles thinking they will have -- meet admissions standards, have good good engine, performance. can you guarantee any fix does not affect fuel economy or engine performance or both? mr. horn: at this point, my understanding is if we correct the nitrogen oxide emissions to the emissions standards, the customers will get the mpg on the label. whether the full performance of , maybe on top speed, there might be one or two miles per hour missing. but this is something we will share with agencies. current understanding is the customer will keep the label miles per gallon. >> the concern i have is when

you buy one of these cars, you are relying on the emissions standards, and also the fuel economy and performance is good. you get to the image -- issue of damages. and the fixeder is not achieved good performance or fuel mileage, i will expect to be compensated in some way if that is not the case. i just remain concern that any fix will substantially change the cars. it is unfair to the consumers who relied on the cars, because they expected them to perform a certain way. you are telling me that the fix will guarantee good performance and guarantee good fuel economy? to my currentid understanding in achieving impactns standards, the may have a slight impact -- on performance. this is a discussion for the

agencies, but of course we will look into compensating customers. if there is significant differences, this will be part of the discussion. >> let me get to another issue. what about the impact on clean air? we know there is all kind of health impacts, asthma, other respiratory illnesses that can affect people and send them to the hospital or get sick because of these issues. you agree pollution can result in serious health and environmental effects? mr. horn: i have also read the epa statement that in general, not specifically to volkswagen, they have indicated there might be respiratory problems that to hospitalead visits. >> what will you do to rectify that? how are you going to mitigate the harm admitted into the air?

my understanding is admissions are up to 40 ton -- 40 times the allowable limit. what are you going to do with regard to the pollution and the impact it may have had? mr. horn: i think first of all, many different studies, i would go back to the epa yesterday of what they said. it will be part of the discussion. but i would also like to point out if you look at 100% of nitrogen oxide emissions in the u.s., the truck and -- industry has 5%. our group has 12% of the 5%, which is .2%. out of this funny percent is tdi .2% is tdi. i am not belittling this, but this will come up and needs to be addressed. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. horn, you said profitability is your top priority. mr. horn: for the dealers, yes. i would hope safety, quality, and integrity are top priorities and profitability comes along as a part of that picture. let me ask you about this. are you going to buy back the inventory the dealers has? mr. horn: no our plan is to fix the cars. on.et me move have you identified the individual or group of individuals responsible for the defeat device? mr. horn: these investigations are ongoing. >> you have known about this since spring 2014. mr. horn: we have known about this since september 3 that the violation is there. since the time, and september 18 notice of violation, the board has asked -- >> but you knew there was activity since spring 2014?

mr. horn: i did not. >> you did not know it in the spring of 2014. you just learned about it september 3. mr. horn: yes around the september 3 events. >> ok let's go to the six-point remedy plan. you have talked about point three, developing remedies. i would assume if this landed on your plate september 3, that you all have put all efforts and energy into this plan. correct? into the remedy. mr. horn: correct. >> very good. let's go to number one. volkswagen will examine its compliance processes and standards and adopt measures to make certain something like this cannot happen again. why don't you give us a little andof specificity on that,

what, if any steps are currently underway to handle these compliance issues? what did you start as of september 3, 2015 and what is your timeline? how long is it going to take you to bring this into compliance? ceo ofn: i and the volkswagen group of america, i can only report to you on what is managed i volkswagen headquarters worldwide at this point in time. they managed the investigations in terms of who did what, when, how and why, and what we need to do it to rectify this in terms of process adjustments. >> you are saying as of now, you do not have a plan? mr. horn: as of now we are still in investigations, yes. you to can we expect have a plan to handle compliance, to make the owners whole, to makes

the dealers that have trusted in you whole? also the individuals employed by your facilities, when are they going to have certainty as it relates to the job? you say you are still investigating. when do youline, expect you are going to be able to say, this is the way forward? mr. horn: you mentioned six points, we started with the first one. i don't have a timeline. are working instantaneously with dealers and developing plans by the week as we go. you can ask the folks behind me on whether this works or not. for the customer, it depends on technical remedies. this is generation three, january of next year we will start. in order to give software to the woencies, generation t

middle of the year. generation three will probably be later because of the technical difficulties. i apologize for not having fully fledged plan right now here. >> you are certain it is going to be a multi-year plan? you are certain to remedy will end up being a multi-year approach? mr. horn: yes. cars, and the repairs can take 5-10 hours. if you look at the regal history in the market, these actions take two years minimum sometimes. when the fix is available for everybody, including parts and discussions with agencies. >> my time has expired. i do have one other question

the second point in your plan. i will yield my time. thank you, mr. chairman for calling the hearing. mr. koren, according to reports, the defeat device is found in nearly 500,000 vehicles. are you confident in that number customer could it be more? mr. horn: we are very confident in this number. have you calculated the loss in value to customers? mr. horn: not yet. that is a matter of not only investigation, but cut relations are ongoing and friday we will look at the first scenarios. >> you called the investigation preliminary, but you have known about this for a year and a half, the problems for skin to light in may 2014.

inproblems came to light 2014. mr. horn: no that is not correct, the study was published in there was no reason to believe there was a device in the cars. >> you found out according to reports in 2014, that there was an issue? mr. horn: emissions if you, yes. >> what did you do at that point? mr. horn: at that point the plan tapped to, and in july 2014, they presented a plan to me, it was agreed and discussed with the product safety commission manage all the recalls and service action worldwide, including technical procurement, and legal services, they came back with a plan ing the results were correct, and a clear time on one they could get fixed which was

also mentioned and one of the opening statements. >> do you feel like you have been personally deceived? mr. horn: yes. >> explained that. mr. horn: i worked 25 years for this company. the on to my personal objective of dealer profitability, integrity, quality and not cheating was always a given for the company. i am as moved as my employees. >> another group feeling the onect of the device defrauding are the dealers, and their hard-working employees across the country in addition to consumers. recent article noted the -- dealers are facing a flood of angry calls and e-mails from volkswagen owners who feel betrayed because they have believed they bought a car that polluted less without and theing gas mileage, performance of that comes with a

diesel engine. how many dealerships are there in the u.s.? vw and 350 audi. and the steelers are the front line for unhappy customers who feel betrayed -- these dealers are the front line for unhappy customers who feel betrayed. one customer said it was the biggest fraud they had ever seen. what do you have to say in response? what do you tell business owners and employees whose livelihoods depend on this? i made a dealer video that was sent out immediately, and the dealers showed it to their children and families and employees, because they said it was the right thing on what we are approaching. -- etail how pw is in print detail how vw is informing them. mr. horn: as soon as we have the information necessary, and have

discussed this with epa about the timing, they will be informed. >> they are not getting any information right now? mr. horn: of course they are. -- whathe tells? details? we letn: first thing, them know about the financial. we increased to $2000 loyalty program -- that means we get them started and don't let them dry out in the field. >> is that a direct payment to customers or just to dealers? mr. horn: the bonus payments and floor plans are to the dealers. discretionary funds is to the dealers. the incentives are for them, that they can manage to bring loyal customers in. is forintention there

the dealers to contact customers who have purchased cars, since model year 2009? mr. horn: yes, as one of the possibilities, yes. vw is not giving any direction to dealers and employees on contacting customers? course, we are setting up questions, guiding dealers with real-time -- the same information that goes to those peopleers, are also the frontline. they need the same information. as soon as we have it, the other people get it as well. >> what have you told others about how existing models will be affected, cars that have been sold and cars that are sitting on the lot? mr. horn: we informed the dealers directly september 18 in

a call and followed up with letters and videos. >> thank you. mr. barton for five minutes. thank you mr. chairman. thank you for organizing this hearing. i am not a registered professional engineer anymore, but at one time i was. i still am an engineer by training. my daughter drives a volkswagen beetle, and my former step what -- stepdaughter drives a volkswagen jetta. i have always had the highest respect for volkswagen, i think it is a fine company engineering wise and product wise. but i must tell you, it is extremely disappointing to look at the, i don't know the right immorality of the

corporate decision to knowingly and willfully cheat on admissions standards. volkswagen is one of the premier autovariant -- namebrand manufacturers in the world. it is a reputation that has been gained over the last 50 or 60 years. to have a company of your stature knowingly and willfully making a decision at the highest levels of the company, to put a software program in your is meantthat intentionally to deceive, or cheat on u.s. emissions standards, to me is -- i would not have believed it if it wasn't factually proven. i first question to you is, am told this was a decision made in germany at the corporate level. is that correct? mr. horn:

the investigations are ongoing. to my best knowledge, the corporation in no meeting has authorized this. this was software engineers who put this in for whatever reason. i would also like to find out. >> so what you're saying is that the president of volkswagen international did not know about this when it happened? mr. horn: to my understanding, this was not a corporate decision. this was something individuals did. >> ok, that's not what i was led to believe, but i take you at your word. i'll ask a second question.

i.e.did senior management, the president of volkswagen international, the executive vice president, whoever your corporate-to-day officers are, when did they learn of this action? mr. horn: to my understanding, also around the september 3 notification of the agencies. >> but it occurred years ago. mr. horn: yes sir. >> do you really believe, as good as well-run as volkswagen as always been refuted to the, that senior-level corporate managers, administrators, had no knowledge for years and years? mr. horn: i agree, it's very hard to believe. >> that's and honest answer. i appreciate that.

i don't know what to do, but i do know that you can have an honorable disagreement about , and we'vetandards have that on this committee, but as somebody who voted for the clean air act amendments and as a conservative who believes that if it is the law, it should be and corporate, especially international corporations, should honor those laws, your company has not. i don't know what the penalty should be, but it should be more than just a slap on the wrist. i'm going to listen to the rest of the testimony and the questions and the staff recommendations, but in every other case since i've been a congressman, when we've had problems with manufacturers of automobile manufacturers, in

every case, something happened that was really a mistake, and accident, that they just didn't foresee it. that's not the case here. if there was a knowingly willful decision to deceive in one of the most important markets in the world, that sir is just wrong. mr. horn: i agree. >> thank you. i now recognize mr. kennedy for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. horn, thank you for being here today. you've said that this investigation is ongoing. i appreciate that. i do want to go back to what a number of my colleagues have gone to with regards to the timeline. my understanding from your testimony was that in the spring , may of 2014, was when volkswagen became aware that there was some issue with

regards to emissions? mr. horn: yes. >> and it was from may to december that epa launched investigations into the emissions and the company itself started an investigation as to what led to that oddity with regards to the emissions testing, right? mr. horn: i can't answer this, really. i know that the actions to remedy the findings were discussed with epa. whether they have undergone investigations between may 2014 and december 2014, i don't know. to userds, we started the new software. epaf i tell you that continued an investigation after that preliminary report from vw, then december 2, 2014,

shared test results and proposed a recalibration fix, is that accurate? mr. horn: yes. initiated avw recall to deal with that issue. 2015, testing discerned whether the fix that vw proposed fixed the underlying issue. 2015, there was laboratory and on road testing to determine the efficacy of the recall. results were shared with vw and the epa prompting a series of technical meetings. in the course of those meetings, vw disclosed that there were several issues that the 2015 model of the improved scr vehicle had a second calibration intended to run only during

confirmatory testing. there was some knowledge at least in july of this year that there was some manipulation of software code with regards to the testing, was there not? mr. horn: this meeting you're referring to, i don't know. i can tell you that the first to me and my back intention was on the 20th of july, when my people came to me and said, we don't get the diesel certified, i wrote a jacob in research and engineering and escalated this. the explanation was twofold. there were new systems. and there is still information missing. my team did not have this information. only in the weeks afterwards, it started to unfold. thef i'm understanding

broad aspects of your testimony, this essentially was not a company decision, but a decision made by a number of individuals yet to be ascertained. is that accurate? mr. horn: that's my understanding, yes. >> so as of this morning, there's four individuals that have been suspended, is that right? mr. horn: i don't know. >> to your knowledge, has anybody been suspended? mr. horn: i can't share names with you. >> has there been anybody suspended? has anybody, as of now, after volkswagen knowing of some inconsistency with test reports, has anybody been suspended or lost their job? mr. horn: to my understanding, there's been three people suspended. i cannot share the names here due to german law. >> you mentioned the figures roughly, that this would take

1-2 years, 5-10 hours per car. do you have any estimate as to what the direct losses for volkswagen would be? mr. horn: i think the losses are depending on the fines we will get, and also on how much money it takes to fix those cars, and how much money we will have to pay to compensate the customers for what we did. this is a whole lot of money, i'm quite sure. >> i think the overall question that you're sensing from myself and colleagues is that i understand this is a decision you're indicating was made by people underneath you. it does get to the corporate integrity of the company. what is going to be done to restore faith in the overall corporate structure of volkswagen? mr. horn: first, it was not done by people under me.

i'm the president and ceo of volkswagen group of america. those things have been developed in germany, which is totally out of my jurisdiction. second, with the compliance investigations, we have to learn and use this opportunity in order to get their act together. 600,000 people worldwide have to be managed in a different way. this is very clear. recognize the vice chair, mr. mckinley, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, you opted not to challenge the decision, the research that was done. you've not challenged the research that was done. you did knowingly violate it, correct? mr. horn: i don't understand

this question, i'm sorry. >> you opted not to challenge or appeal the findings from the wbu. does that mean you knowingly violated? mr. horn: no sir. >> you did challenge and appeal the findings? mr. horn: i did not challenge -- ise software actions was worldwide service and parts executive for volkswagen worldwide. i've been to the product testing committee. i know the how the system is working. i'm not a technical expert. >> let me get to my question. fines -- we just had a situation where a small poultry farm was fined $17,000 of a day.

we've seen steel mills being $3 million, $5 million, $7 million, until they clean up discharge into a river. , i think you can understand, there ought to be consequences for this violation. assume you're accruing something on your financial sheets for what could be an expected penalty for having violated the laws of the united states. can you share with us or will you share with us what you are accruing on your balance sheet for penalties? mr. horn: for the time being, there's official information that the company has accrued 6.5 billion euros in the first step in this year. maybe this is enough. maybe not. i don't know. the rest will have to be worked out with a specific expert. >> thank you.

you have to provide a certificate of conformity with epa standards. from what i understand, the defeat device was not included in that certificate of conformity. is that correct? mr. horn: that is my understanding. >> can you share with us why someone tried to deceive the american government? mr. horn: because those people who did the applications most probably did not know that it was in there. >> can you share with us who responsible? is this 1, 2 people? mr. horn: we have an office called eeo in auburn hills which is directly linked to the german

research and development department. they work together. they get all the information, the results, testing, technical specifications, and file the applications for conformity. >> thank you for testifying before us. last question, many of us have been talking about this defeat device. for the american public to understand what this is, can you defeat devicehis is and how it functions? mr. horn: to my understanding, the defeat device is not a device, but a software code in the engine and exhaust system management which detects whether a car is in the testing environment or whether the car is on the road. one example is the steering wheel angle and how many times it's been changed. once the car is on a dino,

nothing changes. on the street, the steering wheel changes. since there are so many sensors, this is one example the people ,ave me on how this device which is a software code, works. so if you don't know this, it is very difficult to detect from my limited technical understanding. >> thank you. >> i know recognize mr. kelsey for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a letter from volkswagen that was sent to one of my senior staff. she is an owner of your car. i remember when she bought the car, how excited she was about the clean diesel. the letter says your vehicle remains both safe to drive and legal to drive. you do not need to take any action at this time. all we ask is for your patience. if i were a driver of one of these vehicles contributing up to 40 times the amount of

emissions, i would want that addressed right away. i have a son and a grandchild who regularly uses an inhaler. i'm not excited about contributing to or driving a car that has that kind of emissions. how much patience is my staff supposed to have? what is the timeline here? what is the best scenario and the worst scenario in terms of timeline for fixing this? mr. horn: for the generation 3 cars, the timeline is the beginning of next year, complete fix. for the generation 2 cars, it is still under development. it won't start, from my judgment, before middle of next year. for the generation 1 cars, the biggest fleet, i cannot give you a date right now. but within the next couple of weeks, we will start discussing

those scenarios with epa and the development guys. >> so these cars unfixed could be on the road for more than a year or two years? mr. horn: more than a year, definitely. >> i wanted to follow up on a question that mr. malone asked. it sounded like you were saying the fix could manage fuel economy, engine performance, and emissions, that all that could be fixed. volkswagen do that initially? why wouldn't you make a car that would achieve those goals? mr. horn: i think it's a great question. >> i can only assume that maybe cheating was cheaper. mr. horn: to my understanding, what i've learned, some people have made the wrong decisions to get away with something which will have to be thought out. >> have you considered financial

compensation, for example allowing customers to actually return the car for what they paid for it? mr. horn: this is one of the areas we are looking into in terms of how to compensate our customers. >> providing rebates for lost value of the car? mr. horn: sure. >> and what about right now, if i had one of those cars and i wanted a loner. would you compensate the dealer to give me a loaner? we would have to discuss and consider this. right now, i would say no, because the epa has said these cars are legal and safe to drive. though you know there's up to 40 times more pollution, if i went to my say, we willght give you a loner, the company

would not do anything to make your customer happy? mr. horn: there's a general policy. this is why we gave the dealers the discretionary funds to help customers. loaner cary do a program or take them out of the car, whatever they think is best in this situation, they can do with this money. no questions asked. >> but there's no policy that sdalers can say that loaner would be available? i realize that 500,000 loaners would be a hard thing to do, but you see how that would be a desirable remedy. mr. horn: i understand your point, yes. >> as a consumer advocate all of my life, this is pretty shocking

for people, to find out that the company -- we found a number of recalls. i had a recall on one of my cars. but to find out that a company has deliberately cheated, it seems to me that asking customers for patients is just not sufficient. i heard people on the radio who were repeatedly saying, i just want you to take back my car and give me the amount of money i paid for it. i don't want that car. i don't want a fix. because it may not provide what i thought i was buying in the first place. i would hope your company would consider that as a primary remedy. i yield back. >> thank you. the chair recognizes dr. burgess for his five minutes questioning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. fromas far ideologically

insen kelsey as possible, but think -- and i am not here to provide you advice, but i think she is giving you good advice. i have been on this subcommittee for over 10 years. i've been through toyota, general motors, now we are doing this investigation. let me just suggest to you and let me suggest to your corporate structure in germany that being dismissive and minimizing the problem that is faced by consumers, dealers, suppliers, is not in your best interest. and it will hurt you. i would be aggressively compliant and aggressively trying to make it right for your customers, dealers, and suppliers. in the grand scheme of things, i actually believe that will be less costly in terms of dollars,

in terms of reputation, and just in terms of the endurance of the brand in the united states. this committee is significant. our history with your company goes back a significant way. now i've gotten that off my chest. let me ask you once again, are these vehicles safe to drive? mr. horn: yes. the epa has said these vehicles are safe to drive. >> so this is unlike some of the other recalls we've talked about in this subcommittee, problems with airbags, problems with electronic controls. these do not pose an immediate jeopardy to the light of the driver or passenger's. mr. horn: i trust the judgment of the epa, yes. >> trusting judgment is what we are doing here today.

we are talking that trust factor. stressed that you are the ceo from volkswagen of america, correct? do you travel back and forth to germany from time to time? mr. horn: right now, not much. usually once a month. evolved,s problem has have you gone to the engineers in germany and said, guys, what's up here, how did this happen? have you looked at any lines of software code where someone has identified for you that this happened? have you held in your hand a defeat device that was added to an automobile? mr. horn: i've taken out mr. , ander of conference rooms

i'm talking intensively to the engineers about how we will make this right. two other questions, how is this possible, we didn't know ourselves. >> do you understand how that defies credulity? --e is a software program this had to be a team of people who were working on this. you've got these rascals in the epa in the united states and they are hard to deal with so we want to do something to sell our cars. we will just trick them. and then somehow, you're going to integrate that into the supply chain of a multinational corporation and nobody knows a darn thing? that's what you're asking us to believe. you understand why, you've heard it a number of members, this incredulity that that could in fact happen in a large multinational corporation. mr. horn: i fully agree. >> have u.s. to that question to the people superior to you?

me,horn: the superior to but guy is not on board anymore. he resigned due to other reasons. >> i almost don't know what to say. domaintly, in the public , in the middle part of the last decade, there was some suggestion that volkswagen, in an effort to sell its diesel high mileage vehicles in this country, was in the process of leasing software to deal with this emissions problem from another company. is that correct? blue tech software, i believe is the name? mr. horn: i've read this in the newspapers. >> so it is in the newspapers. have you yourself looked at, why didn't they look at this and stop those negotiations for those leases? what changed? -- diddevelop suck tech

we develop some technology at volkswagen? these are questions that have to be answered. mr. chairman, i appreciate mr. horn being here. i think that we are doing this hearing prior to the time that your document production deadline had expired, so we recognize that you're here voluntarily and it is your sincere effort to comply with the wishes of the committee, but all of us represent dealers, consumers, suppliers, and their lives and livelihoods are extremely important to us. that is what we've got to keep first and foremost. i yield back. thehe chair recognizes gentleman from texas, mr. green. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have other committees going on. you will see members going in and out during the day. amazedfirst heard, i was that a company as great as

volkswagen could let this happen. executives maybe who didn't know. the image of the company, not only in our country but around the world, is so great. our committee wants to get some answers. i would like to understand more about volkswagen's investigations. news reports have discussed several investigations initiated by volkswagen. mr. horn, please explain. can's own investigations into this incident and how they are different from each other. mr. horn: the investigations started, i talked yesterday to our group of revisions, went on with our group revision department, audit department, until september 29, and all the documents, although preliminary

documents were turned over to the american law firm who is investigating this on behalf of our supervisory board. discussedports have several internal and external investigations. so that was the only one you had , the officers from september 22-29? are there any other investigations volkswagen is conducting? mr. horn: to my understanding, after the notice of violation on september 18, the investigations started right away. i don't know of any other investigations. actions innow if the the united states or germany or both -- mr. horn: worldwide. commit to sharing these investigations with the

committee, the results of these investigations? mr. horn: i commit to get as much money as possible -- as much information as possible to the committee. the carmaker supervisory board met to discuss preliminary findings. that is a quote. what were these preliminary findings revealed last wednesday? mr. horn: sorry, i'm still a little confused. could you repeat your question? , theere's a quote committee of the carmaker's supervisory board met to discuss preliminary findings of a probe into the scandal. what were these preliminary findings? mr. horn: our own supervisory board of volkswagen ag. i don't have access to these preliminary findings. >> can you get a copy and share it with our committee? mr. horn: i can try, sir. >> ok.

you are the ceo. mr. horn: i'm the ceo of this company, and then there's a supervisory board and a people who are quite above me in germany. the supervisory board has to make this decision. with the commitment our company has, there's a very good chance the company will provide the documents to provide more clarity to this issue. you beingi appreciate here voluntarily. it would be great if we could get that for our investigations. according to a september 30 news report, volkswagen's supervisory board said, these people who allowed this to happen or who made the decision, they are acting criminally. they must take personal responsibility. mr. corn, do you agree with that? mr. horn: yes sir. >> do i have your commitment to

addressing the roots of the deception? mr. horn: sure. >> our committee is ongoing. i appreciate you being here. i yield back my time. >> thank you. for the rest of the members that have questions, i know we've got a break in 20 minutes, but we've got seven people that want to speak. we are going to be very short on the time frame. the chair recognizes mr. griffith for a short list of questions. >> thank you. as you've heard from others who have owned the cars, i'm one of those as well. my mother was able to afford her first new car, which was able to megan. that is what i learned to drive on. i have inherited my beetle, which1972

i still have. in the 1980's, i drove a rabbit. in the 1990's, i bought a jetta. when it got close to 200,000 miles, my mother convinced me that volkswagen's couldn't go on forever. she might have been wrong. i sold that car and drove a passat until this summer and got 376,000 miles. the people who bought it for me are going to tell me when it crosses 400,000, they think there won't be any problem doing that. passatckup to my 2003 that was going and going like the energizer rabbit, i bought a 2012 volkswagen diesel. everybody else is talking about what our consumers thinking. you are looking at him. i'm your volkswagen driver who has always trusted your company and i'm very disappointed. so what are we going to do? that you'veated

notified the customers. i have checked with the previous owner. i bought the car from a friend. they have not received any notice that this 2012 diesel passat is affected. when you go to the website, it says that you received notice from the epa that some of your vehicles don't comply, and among the included vehicles is the 2012. if i didn't have, because i'm not skilled like chairman murphy , i couldn't take a car apart. i had a hard enough time figuring out i had to get the plastic lid off of the engine to try to take a look at it. when you see that and it says some of the cars are affected, then you see a volkswagen document that says discrepancies ea te to vehicles with type

189 engine and it doesn't say anything about a ea-189 engine -- the team on the committee here and my staff have figured out i'm affected. we know that. but this was done at great trouble. i received no letter. i can't tell for sure. we found that there was actually where you canu.k. actually plug in your vin number and it will tell you if your affected. i would encourage you to consider that. not everybody is capable of taking apart the engine and figuring out if they are ea-189. the other question is, and my generation 1 or 2 austi? mr. horn: if you have a 2012 passat, i would think so.

>> this is something else you websitent to put into a that says you are generation 1 or 2. it sounds like the fix to the generation 2 is more simple than the fix to the generation 1. am i correct? mr. horn: yes. whatd i would have to echo representative should kautsky and dr. burgess had to say. when you buy a vehicle, even if you bought it used, and it says under federal emissions control system defect warranty, was designed, built, and equipped so as to conform with all applicable regulations in the united states, and is free from defects, etc. -- i believe that i was sold something that was different than what it was

purported to be. offink you are much better to come up with a program that by these cars back, because i folkstand it wasn't your that made this mistake, it was the folks in germany, but you've got to restore trust. one of the ways to do that is to stand behind your vehicle. version, something was wrong with the paint. no questions asked. i took it in and they said, not a problem. it was done. never had another problem. this is a much bigger problem. volkswagen needs to say, ok, we understand. we will buy your car back at the fair market value prior to this notice coming out.

>> tonight on "q&a," terry hart on his book "the republic of conscience. " >> the founders used the language of the ancient republic, greece and rome, and warned against corruption. their definition of corruption was not bribery or quit pro-quote money under the table, it was -- quid pro quo money under the table, it was putting special interests ahead of others. "newsmakers" this week, we are joined by congressman adam schiff of california. he is the top democrat on the house intelligence committee. he also serves on the house select committee on benghazi. to help with our questions, we are joined by niall stanage, associate editor of the hill newspaper, and ryan lucas,

intelligence reporter with cq roll call. ryan lucas has the first question. ryan: congressman schiff, thank you for talking to us today. i wanted to start off with the announcement from the white house that it was essentially scrapping the train and equip program for syrian rebels. instead of training and equipping them, they are going to essentially provide information to vetted insurgent leaders and then small packages of equipment to then send back with them. so that they can kind of be force enhancers in syria. is this plan the way that the white house has outlined it -- is this something that you think would be more effective than the original program that the white house came up with?

rep. schiff: yes. it would be hard to imagine how it could be less effective given the small number of people who were successfully trained and equipped under that dod effort. so i do think it will be more successful. i think it will be far more efficient and effective to work with forces already on the ground and already demonstrating a will to fight. i think this is a change that is necessitated by the failure of the dod program but also makes a lot more sense. host: congressman, from the beginning of this debate on how to aid syrian rebels, you have expressed concern about how to vet the individuals receiving aid. so as we go from recruiting and training to what is being called equip and enable, does it make the vetting process any easier? rep. schiff: well it doesn't make it any easier. but we do have relationships with some of the commanders of these units. we can witness what they are doing on the ground and we have been witnessing what they are doing on the ground. so i think we have both a good sense of their fighting capability and the administration has been making an effort in combination with the intelligence community to identify -- are these moderate,

are they radical, are they somewhere in between? and using those factors give us some good guidance about who we should back. ryan: congressman, the white house said today that essentially they were not going to drop the requirement that rebels state that they will only fight the islamic state. that they won't go after the assad regime as well. can this program succeed if they don't drop that requirement? fight the islamic state. rep. schiff: i think ultimately that is going to cause a real problem. i think initially we can provide support to those groups that are fighting isis, that are on the front lines with isis. but this is not a static battlefield. it is very dynamic and those battlelines change. a group we are supporting today because they are fighting against isis -- if they are successful in the fight against isis and that brings them into conflict with regime forces, they are going to be up against regime forces. so i think that line is going to

be very difficult to maintain and that has been a problem all along. we also have the issue of whether the fighters understand that we will be there to support them if they come under bombardment by the regime or now by the russians. so it is a very difficult battle space and i'm not sure that distinction is going to be easy to maintain. niall: congressman, if i may shift gears. obviously you have been a critic of the benghazi committee. at the same time, capitol hill has been roiled by the debate over the speakership. majority leader mccarthy made some controversial remarks about the benghazi committee. then he dropped his bid a few days later. obviously, you're a member of the other party, but how do you think those two things were related? rep. schiff: i think that what representative mccarthy said was what everybody had long since recognized. and that is that this committee -- whatever its genesis, whatever its original purpose might have been -- and many of us were skeptical even from the beginning -- has become a committee interested in only one

thing and that is trying to inflict damage on secretary clinton. if you look at the press releases put out by the committee, they are disproportionately about secretary clinton. if you look at the obsessive focus of the committee's work and its public statements, it is essentially all about secretary clinton. we have lost sight of what was supposed to be the object and that is discovering something new about that tragic night in benghazi. i feel terrible for the families but also for the american taxpayers that have supported this effort that has produced so little over this period of time. in terms of the connection between those remarks and his dropping out of the speakership -- i'm sure those raised some questions among gop members about whether he was the best spokesperson for that conference. the speaker is among many other things the most public face of the gop in the house. and i think probably some of their members felt that if he was going to be so transparent

about their object with the benghazi select committee, maybe he might give up the goods on some of their other efforts. or at least be less politic in how he described them. so it probably was a factor, but i imagine the overriding factor was the challenge of getting that freedom party tea party caucus, to support him or anybody else on the house floor when it actually comes to a vote for speaker. niall: let me get more into your view that the committee is really politicized and you believe it should be disbanded. just in the past few days for example, the committee's work led to a revelation that -- a well-respected reporter of yahoo! news characterized it this way. "hillary clinton used her private e-mail account to pass along the identity of one of the cia's top libyan intelligence sources. raising new questions about her handling of classified

information." is that not the kind of thing that the public has a legitimate interest in finding out about? rep. schiff: first of all, i wouldn't put much trust in anything that is leaked out of our committee. because historically, when there have been leaks from the committee, they have been proved to be inaccurate. i don't want to comment on the merits of this particular allegation. but there are many things the public may have an interest in that are well beyond the scope of what this taxpayer-funded committee was established to do. the question is, does the work of the committee shed light on the events in benghazi? is it going to tell us more about how these four americans lost their lives or what steps we could take to better protect our consulate or facilities? and the answer is, for 17 months work and four and half million dollars, we are no closer to really producing anything new than when we started. and at a certain point, you have to say enough is enough. that doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate issues over whether a certain e-mail should have been classified.

many of them are now being classified after the fact, and it is hard to quarrel with the secretary when they weren't classified at the time. those are legitimate questions and the justice department is looking into the proper classification and the intel committee is looking into the same thing. in terms of attacking the secretary over this, that is the job of the rnc. that is not the job of a taxpayer-funded committee. the democratic party committee can go after jeb bush for his use of a private e-mail server as governor of florida and his use of it for official business. that is the work of the parties. i would no more advocate the democrats create a taxpayer-funded committee to look into jeb bush then i think the republicans are justified in doing the same with secretary clinton. host: congressman, i should note that we are recording this on a friday afternoon for our viewers. as of right now, house republicans are working on a concerted effort to recruit ways and means chairman paul ryan to run for the speaker spot. do you think democrats can find a way to work with paul ryan at

least better than they did with speaker boehner? rep. schiff: i certainly think we can find ways to work with paul ryan. i like paul very much. i think he is a bright guy. he is a very personable guy. i don't find him to be the kind of striking ideologue that you find that characterizes the tea party or freedom caucus. he is absolutely someone that democrats can work with. that may be the most serious indictment against him. i think speaker boehner was someone we could have worked with had he been given the latitude by his conference to do so. the challenge for the gop is that you have this rump group of tea party members but then you have a broader group of more mainstream republicans who run in fear of having a tea party primary. and when you add those two groups together, it often constitutes a majority of the republican conference. that is the tea party and those that are afraid of the tea party primary challenge. and paul ryan if he becomes

speaker is going to have exactly that same dynamic to work with. yes, he is someone we can work with. so, frankly, was speaker boehner. but they had this internal problem that they need to overcome. and i will say this also. i take no satisfaction in the turmoil going through the gop conference right now. i am certainly glad it is them and not us having the turmoil, but at the same time, they are the governing party. we need them to be able to be functional. we need them to be able to govern. we need someone we can work with. we need a speaker who can deliver his conference. or at least enough of them to get to yes. and for a long time we just haven't had that. >> i want to turn back abroad. specifically to syria. and russia's intervention there. you mentioned that the u.s. needs to continue its support for rebels on the ground. but russia's intervention has significantly altered the

dynamic on the ground of the conflict more generally. u.s. officials have said they are not going to have their campaign against the islamic state changed at all by the russian campaign. but already there are reports that planes had to alter their flight plans. and there is the broader problem of u.s. backed rebels being targeted by russian strikes. how should the u.s. respond to this? should the u.s. up their support for the rebels? should they vow to protect rebels from russian strikes? this puts u.s. officials in a bit of a tight spot. rep. schiff: it does put the administration in a difficult challenge. absolutely. i think we should push back harder against the russians than we have and i have been advocating this for some time. i think we should have pushed back harder in ukraine.

i think we should provide defensive arms to ukraine to defend against these russian vacationers, these so-called little green men. but i also think that the battle space in syria is now changing and we are going to have to change strategy along with it. some of the things that have been considered by the administration, i think are going to have to renew consideration over and that might be in the shape of some kind of a safety or no-fly or secure zone. it may also be establishing a policy where we no longer permit bashar al-assad to drop barrel bombs on his own people. that, i think, would enjoy the support of the vast sunni population in syria. it certainly would be consistent with our stand for human rights and undoubtedly there are both internal legal issues to overcome with that in terms of the dated aumf that we have as well as international law considerations. but i think that we ought to

open our eyes again to some of the other possibilities and reassess where we are right now and how things have changed given the russian military involvement. the one last thing i would say in this is i think the president is exactly right when he says that putin is making a mistake by jumping into this thing with both feet. for two reasons. first, it is going to prolong the war. it will prolong the agony for the syrian people. it will prolong the refugee crisis for the rest of the world. and for those people going through the trauma of being refugees. i also think that russia is going to find, just as we have and just as others have, that there are real limits to what you can accomplish through the air. so they are buying a big piece of that. i think they will regret that. that doesn't change the fact that it also must cause us to reassess the battlefield and what response we're going to make. ryan: you could certainly make the argument that the russians have a more effective fighting force on the ground with which to cooperate. iranian backed militias, hezbollah on the ground.

syrian military forces themselves. this has been a problem for the u.s. the kurds have emerged as somebody they can work with. a reliable partner on the ground is part of the struggle that the administration has had. specifically, should the u.s. look into providing surface-to-air missiles to rebel groups to try and push back against what the russians are doing? rep. schiff: i don't want to see us provide manpads to the opposition that could be later used to down civilian airliners. we have seen unfortunately all too often that weapons that are provided to moderate rebels or people we might support -- whether it is in iraq or syria -- can easily end up in the wrong hands and it can be an utter nightmare if they got in the wrong hands and they started to use them against civilian aircraft. that is not something i think we ought to entertain. i think there are other ways that we can raise the pressure on the regime as well as raise the pressure on russia.

that don't involve providing those kinds of lethal weapons that can be used against civilian craft. host: i want to ask, was the u.s. intelligence community caught flat-footed about the speed and force level with which russia went into syria? and if so, is that something the intelligence committee is looking into? rep. schiff: we certainly had evidence and i think could see the russian buildup. that the russians would decide to use this buildup to go after the moderate opposition, that they would embark on as aggressive and air campaign and perhaps a ground campaign, that i think is a surprise. a matter of months ago i think we would have expected the russians perhaps to increase their material support for the regime, as we saw the regime weaken. but i don't think we expected

russia to mount this kind of operation to prop up the military regime. we'll look at this. i don't think that just because something unexpected happens that it necessarily means you have had an intelligence failure. putin keeps a very small circle of decision-makers. this may have been a decision that putin himself made quite last-minute to take this change in direction. we had hoped obviously that as the regime weakened, the decision putin would take would be to work with us and other nations on figuring out what the transition ought to be and who ought to be part of the coalition that would follow. instead the russians have decided to double down on the regime in a big way. it is a provocative and dangerous move. ultimately, a counterproductive move. but i'm not sure that we can say this is something we should have predicted.

niall: congressman, circling back to the benghazi issue. your party colleague congressman grayson of florida filed an ethics complaint against representative mccarthy. the accusation being that mr. mccarthy was using taxpayer dollars to make political attacks upon hillary clinton. it seems like you share his underlying view. but do you think it was the right thing to do to file an ethics complaint? rep. schiff: i have not read the ethics complaint. certainly, if there is a deliberate effort to abuse taxpayer dollars, if there is coordination between the committee and the republican national committee, there may be a very good case to be made that this is also a violation of law and ethics. but i haven't read the ethics complaint so it is hard for me to talk about any specific allegations. i certainly think ethics violation or not it is a terrible abuse of taxpayer dollars. and at this point it is no longer serving a valid purpose

and ought to be disbanded. niall: to get back to the speakership issue, this is a somewhat hypothetical question. it seems at least plausible that we may be in a situation where no republican nominee can get the true 118 votes on the house floor that is required for a speaker. it would seem unlikely in that scenario that nancy pelosi could do so either. what happens in that situation? how do we get to a point where the substantive issues that you alluded to earlier can be addressed? rep. schiff: i think as speaker boehner has said, he is willing to stay on as long as it takes to find a successor. i have to think the speaker , although not enjoying what is going on in his conference right now, must be having some well-placed i told you so's about the difficulty in running the conference. this is not really about speaker boehner or any failings on his part so much as it is about a structural problem within the gop and the party at large. and in particular within the republican conference. i happen to think they will arrive on someone. as the days go by, as their

dysfunction is showcased before the american people, they will be increasing pressures on the republicans to get their act together. and that pressure will be most significant on that freedom caucus and those tea party members. so i think you will see a new speaker chosen that will be able to get enough votes on the floor. but not until sufficient pressure is brought to bear on that rebel faction. ryan: i want to turn briefly to cyber security. and the massive hack on the office of personnel management. do you have faith in the opm to continue to process and told security clearance information for the federal government? there is talk in congress about shifting the responsibility elsewhere. is this something you could get behind and where exactly should it be put? >> it's a good question.