deliberately been exceeded by one of the largest car m manufacturers. and so i turn to the europeanan, commission.y poll ..is it true that the emissions were 40 times greater than the limit allowed? we need to know the truth. we ask you to keep us abreast of the outcome of your investigation. we thank you for coming immediately to the committee, as soon as the scandal erupted, but we would like to know if it is true, as has been declared by

many car manufacturers apart from volkswagen, that these tests for emissions were not manipulated. that these were not legislated. we would like there to be some form of independent, because what is at stake here is really important. it's our european citizens. this is a sad story for many reasons. i would like to refer, how is it a possible that authorities did not discover these illegal devices for such a long period of time? how how are these tests carried out? what instruments, an american university discovered it. but we were in charge of control, who is responsible, ho is it possible that these tests

passed approval test. what is io the position of the commission here and what does that commissioner think about being a authority which would be able to check what has been carried out today. also thank the local authority who are not able to reach the ta air quality requirement.y ow the european commission has saie stickiave violated the provisions but now they knowng what is going on. what people were not sticking t, the rules, they perhaps have been erroneously continue to ber responsible for the situation. so we have discovered that carbon monoxide and admissions - can be different on the road compared to what is calculated

in, that is white new tests are being tests are carried out. to test real driving conditionse i would like to know whether 2017 will the commission use these tests or will simply use a random system? it's important to know exactly what is happening in this area.c we need to know whether this is an isolated case or if there are several companies doing the same thing. i would like to know why the european always have to have a scandal erupted before action is happening. it happened in the food sector, and the traceability for meat, it was also, well unfortunately

people had to die in the mediterranean before we came up with the migration policy. now we are faced with a scandal, do we really need the scandal to realize the system needed to change and be brought up in a different way. thank you. >> ford has the floor for fivea minutes.st >> for the vast majority of consumers buying a car is the single biggest purchase they make in their lives after theynt had bought a home.ndards this vw scandal is not just about money, it is about health as well. in treating the standards brings the massive fundamental rake ship.a trus for the market to work we must trust a service or good is its what the supplier saying it is. trust that complies with relevant laws and regulation, trust that your acting honestly and trust the official body is doing their jobs properly.

this principle has to apply allt across the single market, all across all 28 member i states. each of the standards must beof applied, and every country, because once we lose the trust of consumers it cannot easily bt restored. currently consumers do not knowa if their cars going to be recalled, upgraded or what willt happen.her used the dev consumers are looking to buy a car from another company areto o very uncertain, they want want to know if it ww as just they wagen or if there are other companies involved. they they want to know why officials did not act sooner. they want to know why it wasagrh discovered in the u.s. before the eu. consumers want answers to all those questions. i agree with

them. we need drivers to usen ee diesel cars and to have confidence that when they purchase one, they have made the correct choice. we cannot let the action of onea company turn us an entire sector. a system where people can trust the entire market. i know it is not possible to regulate the way forward but proper oversight can minimize it. a national regulator are required by law to enforce legislation, if our member states agreed they must implement them. strength of any approval across the eu including this type of approval is only as strong aswie the weakest link. every single national national regulator must work to save standard otherwisea there is a race to the regulatory and turning a blind eye in one member state could be sent across all 28.

our member states must work together in an coordinated fashion. knowing of we know the emission test are already being updated.t we have known for manyen years e emission test it did not themiss represent real world. that is why the commission is already due to announce new tested processes by the end of the year and indeed early last month, before this broke out, commission officials came into my committee to discuss what they are doing. but without any details. tke the commission needs to make these announcements soon because manufacturers need to know whatt they have to deliver. they have to deliver these new st as by any new cars that are approved after the end of next year. the commission must also keep the parliament involved. h rol the parliament has a role and scrutinized act, 500 million

people expect us to do our job properly. i get a bit fed up with secondary legislation being written in the commission and then arriving in the parliament as very much last minute, with t some comment about don't worry, it's just details.detail people expect us to do our job,. to scrutinize both the primary and the secondary legislation. we must get the details right.ad we have to have time to understand it, we have to have time to listen to both consumera and manufacturers. parliament, we talk a lot about lawmaking. the commission is, i believe trying to deliver the lawmaking and i believe we have to make that happen to and we cannot let this happen again. thank you very much. >> thank you very much indeed.nr

>> thank you, i agree with my colleague on both comments. i sent written question to the commission but let me ask, the general implication of the carmaker i want to say that whan happened is completely unacceptable. we expect full investigation of full accountability of those who are responsible. we are have a very sensitive issue with our relations with the usa. but the case shows that we should not be afraid, america

shares our thoughts and more advanced in scrutinizing them. already two years ago testing must be improved, together we serve misleading information appear conception of performance which is very important.e open the issue is not yet been sold. the commission and member states must investigate the cases, concerns, and the manufacture of manufacturer of weather will be facing a broader problem. if that is the case it woulda e necessary to look at the reasons we like to talk about ambitious standards, but what else if they are not realistic, cannot be implemented, costs prohibitive,. thank you very much.

>> madam president, ladies and gentlemen the transport committee two is affected by the scandal because we know that without a change in mobility will not be able to stop climate change. 24%, that's what it counts for, since 1990 in industry we have seen a degree, 2%. but we're talking about an increase to the tune of 20%, another words transport is taking up s everything we are spending elsewhere in other sectors. once once again without a change inor mobility will not be ableen toie stop climate change. we have to

stop climate change for the sake of our children andsp grandchildren if they want to live on this planet. that is why in the paper of 2011 with 2011 with a broad majority in the t parliament wehe took a decision between now and 2030, when it comes to urban transport 15% of conventional, fuel would be reduced and by 2050, we wouldie have no conventional fuel at all used in our city. we all used in our city. we decided that would be our target, we would achieve this ,arget by greater efficiency new engines, new fuels, also new combustion levels. that is what we decided.this w of course you can't do that through chasing, through criminal activity. that. that is something we must be strong and to you. this was not a shortcoming, this was a financial deficit, that's why volkswagen took this, they decided to cheat rather than be on us. if t whey're honest. if they're honest the car would've been more expensive. in unfortunately they were not used in this case. here in the eu we have targets

in the field of transport, up until 2015, ambitious target set by the commission and we too have supported those ambitious targets in the parliament. the transport committee, didn't go far enough. l we talked about the first step, second step, the third step, and that's why we decided to look ad 2020. we looked at levels from 1990,is co2 emissions we want to cut by 20% between then and 2020. a broad majority supported that decision. now majority supported that decision. now we have a new white papers and it is documented, the whole thing is document and we have once again supported his position very broadly. thee testing cycle needs to be revisited. they need to be in tune with reality. there's no point in having the best in aody laboratory environment in a laboratory environment if it has nothing what happens on the

roads. we have course have to gaugeneed things with how they get come out on the road. t the question to the commission, the question needs commission is to analyze this. why in 2008auto nobody noticed this before. we need to analyze that and thebi mistakes that may have been made by the commission itself. whatof kind of mistakes would've been made by another state. what mistakes by other states? all of mistakes by other states? all of these need to befr investigated. we want to make sure we have a full and open investigation inue the automobile industry enough swear to. and needs to be open criminal aarent. we cannot have a repetition of this. that's why we want proposals and we ectxpet proposals from the commission.ss once have time to propose all this i would like to know what the proposal for the future is. the we can make sure this is not repeated again in the future.ise this really was a way of to co2 cheating customers as well. in terms of fuel being consumed, you thought you were consuming this much and you are you're consuming much more. it is about taxpayers. way

and many times taxes that is in relation to co2 emissions. but what if it's wrong you can't turn it around. of coursey because of the environment which is been hard hit by this.hat again, criminal activity, we have now taken consequences and we feared it may be happening in too. sectors we don't want that to be loop hole, loophole should be close they should not be able to use them anymore. they are so-called legalwe loopholes that we use to bring down a mission, we need tonk investigate all of that, we neeh indeethorough and we need to make sure it is not happening i. the future. thank you. >> thank you very much indeed. >> madam president, members thank you very much.isnt i am grateful for having the too opportunity to have this point of agenda and to explain to the actions of the european commission for the last ten days.a

because we face it difficult case, very frankly of one company. it is the public trust of the cars, this credibility of our legal system and for protecting consumers and the environment. these are the backbones ofable european union's actions and regulations. i believe, will be able to overcome it. i think the european parliament for giving us this opportunitynn to share information and those at the very beginning i want tol say that i am ready to continue providing you with every piece of information in the future tom ensure this will not happen again. the commission and member states have agreed at this council last week, on thursday, on one october, the first of october, esisct quickly and act collectively.

this means two points. one investigating the facts and enforcing the existing tools. then, the second point,frork accelerating the regulatory framework commission. third, changing the approval ans surveillance system so thisin. cannot happen again. i will speak about each of these.issi i want you to know that the commission will play a full rol. in figuring this out. let me touch up on the first point, investigating, establishing the establishing the fact and enforcing the existing rules. is something fromusart by which we have to start, we must start by establishing the facts. you asked me how the commission stll investigate and any potential wrongdoing? at the commission does not have the ofe

power to carry our own investigation in the publicth sector. we rely on the authorities of the member state area these institutions are professional, let us not what we have built together so far.co neutral suspicion is not have ad helping. in fact, investigations have already been launched in several member states and the commission and i sent a letter to all the member states and others have done the same.e betw every member state and every manufacture.d the commission is providing a platform for the exchange of information between member states, in a sense we havewe has already convinced several meetings of the government and authority, we have discussed this matter as we have mentioned at the competitiveness council on the first of october.wihe c the national authority together extending information about the

state. the commission also organizing a meeting with the national approval of the authorities. we need to have clarified as soon as possible on the extent of the fraud. vicle for instance, how many vehicles? in total, in which condition have vehicles been banned? once we have facts, as stressed we have zero tolerance forwe fraud. we must send a very clear message today under the enforcement of the existing rules. those rules must be strictlyau respected. here again, national national authorities have a very crucial role to play. need to be clear about what, ank

when we will do. what action will be taken to remedy the situation and when will they umrry it it out. we need to do it as quickly as possible for restore consumer im confidence because this is the real damage. tize if it's implied sanctions, we all this to the europeanhi citizens.itens. i have asked member states to work together on this.ct i think encore named national actions will make things even worse, will will only succeed if we act together. the second point on the q accelerated change in theue regulatory emission, theot the question was whether we noticed it that something was wrong? we notice the system of testingn the mission and laboratories is not the right one. the commission proposed emission testing two years ago. roe first was voted in may but

really i think we have to accelerate. the new legislation legislation will improve the test process to directly omissions applied to vehicles and the route under real driving conditions. the new testing will eliminate the possibility to use these devices.co it will ensure the regulatory emissions limits are actuallykae met. the second package is the exact timing and level of the so-called confirmatory sectorss to be voted on this year. i we will do it. the third point, improving approval and surveillance system so this cannot happen again. where should we act at all levels. let me list areas where action is needed urgently. where the full support, your full support of the european parliament is really essential. the existing approval system for motor vehicles in the eu in the

premarket testing. this is a system used in almost the entire world., is evaluated for several years. so far, i want to stress, so far the conclusion of our studiesndn have and that this system has been efficient to ensure safeo and environmental friendly cars rketur roads. it was also ensured that the internal market is fully harmonized and that every time a member state authority has proof of a vehicle type it can be bought in 28 member states. this also has an advantage to the citizens. our status conclusion alsond mat indicated, of we need to improve the system in regards to governments and surveillance. oe we have been working on new commission proposal for the last

year on the type of approval system for motor vehicles. however, there is a problem and we will analyze our proposali ho again and we'll suggest further changes that will prevent similar events from happening.ma i hope to prevent it as soon asd possible.il the proposal will then be council, to you in therk we expect that our work, our common work will be quick. we expect the resulting work will contribute to more effective market surveillance, implementing robust checks, and improve measures.usbe let me said again, your being customers must be assured that not confirm products are not on the market.

finally, a message to us all. we need to ask ourselves, what lesson would you have for this and this behavior? we have to remind companies thei should respect the letter andhe spirit of the law. e socially and environmentally responsible companies have beene one of europe's biggest assets. i hope we can work together for this to continue to be the truth. thank you very much.to sers >> thank you very much indeed. . we will now on behalf of the group party for two minutes. commissioner the regulation of the council by the american authority really would like a vote from the blue. there are so many issues to be rude solved but we can learn from this and darticularly speak the truth.

it is unacceptable and needs to be sanctioned, they don't wantbl to cheat people, that's that's what we have to become aware. c shtrayal of the consumers as well. the health environment that is at stake to work with public authorities and all those people, like me stand up and defend responsible innovative european industry which create jobs. i thinked they could caught a shadow across the entire world.ry and at like will affect the credibility of european industry throughout the world. across the atlantic as well. that said, we have to prevent this fraud scandal from spreading with these diesel engines. it would would not be a good idea to predict the end of diesel engines.ers their snd ease, we know that we

have technological advance in europe with the clean diesel. it would be a mistake, right here and now, to condemn diesel and the industry that uses diesel. w and commissioner, you made certain and we are awaiting the test to be passed as quickly as possible under real driving conditions. i am also wondering about how realistic our environmental legislation is. o major are we not sometimes to ambition? yes early when we're talking about air quality in health, we need to be ambitious but we but wean also need to be pragmatic. let me conclude, our major has to play the game of transparency and respect the rules. if people are going to continue to trust them. thank you. thank you very much indeed. >> criminal behavior for any

company at all no matter the site is absolutely employable in european union. not only it breaks the public trust, it also undermines the quality of our ar european product and on top ofea that especially, in this, inr this case it damages the health of our people. as we all know air pollution is already today forcing more than 400 premature deaths in one year. commissioner the new fact that the epa in the u.s., and not ous national approval and the eu had to discover this. it is really embarrassing. i do not share on national authority. i think the europeang system as it works today, a if n national organization and i think those who want their model to be tested is not working

today. we would like to ask youh to establish an independent eu type of approval, there is alson an inconvenient truth.that pass even the cars that passed the testing and reviewed in a proper way are polluting much more than they should.ou we advocate for real rising admission test and we urge youy to come up by september 2017 at the latest and without loopholes to your colleagues. so if. the component tip sectora of one and not more, let me conclude by saying that never waste a series crisis as this. it is not being against or in favor of the dsl but it is bringing clean diesel into the

area and we need to support that. we need to to make sure that we have a european unit that support and that carmakers can bring solutions instead of b problems. >> thank you.>> l on behalf of. >> ladies and gentlemen, regarding volkswagen, a a lot of crack things are being saidsoeen today but things that are not ad quite correct. admissions were mainly played by volkswagen that is true, but is also been alleged several times, that thit has something to do with the normal difference between test and a normal environment and test on the road. that is not entirelyay right.ca we can also say this is theworle biggest industrial scandal since the second world war here in europe. to to say this islk is a spec the german industry that would be incorrect. volkswagen is a special case. >> .. majority on the board and if that majority also decides to

appoint autocrats is the head of the business and if you have involved orgetting interfering with the day-to-day running, then unfortunately, you have a culture where you simply turn a blind eye to things and at the end of the day you have this kind of problem arising. trade union leaders and corporate managers and went on trips with lots of villages, unfortunately some of them were bored with visits to brussels. even without this scandal i'm afraid the volkswagen has terms -- problems in terms of free structuring. now we are talking about a company that needs to be overhauled. my final comment, i would defer you to europe which needs to be abolished in my view. >> on behalf of them, two minutes. 11 million buyers of volkswagen diesel cars have been

cheated, of which 8 million are in europe. exposed toave been severe air pollution due to the initial emissions of one million tons of nox. we do not know if this is the tip of the iceberg but all signs point to that direction. obviously the companies involved are the first to blame. they deliberately manipulative the tests and they should not be rewarded for these illegal actions by again watering down the european standards or allowing further delay in their enforcement. i expect the commission to stop stalling the process and to have a real driving emissions test up and running within six months. i also expect the commission to change the surveillance system. the current national approach is apparently not working, therefore a european independent oversight body must be

established with the means to test cars themselves. there is another important political question that has to be answered. were the commission and certain member state authorities aware of achieving? -- of cheating. of existence has been known for more than a decade. several reports, including one from the commission's research body reported about unexplainable differences between real emissions on the road and laboratory test results . why did the commission never initiate any investigations into the matter? i ask the commission here today -- was the commission aware of the practices by the car industry. is the commission willing to disclose internal documents on this matter including correspondence with certain member states. jrc and the international

council of clean transportation. thank you. >> on behalf i will now passive toward to -- >> thank you mrs. chair. volkswagenis act of totally shameful and unacceptable and a serious breach against consumers but also against european environmental legislation. and 11 million car owners. in the fraud. the european people will be largely affected as citizens because of this very harmful health effect. and the excessive air pollution and also as consumers. they falsified results in these tests have been reported to up for the times.

as the legal maximum. volkswagen is by far the biggest car manufacturer in the eu market. with a market share of around wi-fi percent but not the only one. is this the only company which has the same problem or are there other ones? and what is the commission doing with these? are we only checking out for volkswagen. offeran standards protection of european citizens and consumers. wasver this massive fraud released in u.s. markets. about the think government in paris and how it affects and how will the commission advance the emissions test requirements to improve the markets in europe.

>> madam has agreed to it three minutes. >> colleagues, environmental and consumer policy, things we have been discussing for the past 10 years and we have been striving for better and cleaner air, environmental protection and we have been discussing this and we got used to the fact that the auto industry representatives usually see our rules as an attack on their corporate strategy. despite all of the negative experiences i have had with lobbyists from all of the car industries, what i did not company thatat a is as strong and powerful as volkswagen -- when it cannot itp an ambitious cycle,

takes criminal steps and systematically for years all over the authorities eyes. something i still cannot grasp. this old thinking that environmental policy is seen as something not acceptable. i got used to this, but this readiness to commit fraud and crime is something i cannot understand. what gave rise to this? i would like to turn critically to the commission, but also my own federal government in germany. i don't know any further sector of regulation in which the federal government has tried so play thecally to interests of the major companies and protect them against regulations being imposed from

brussels. time and time again, we don't only have a climate chancellor, we have a car chancellor in germany as well. up the reason it is picking for lower thresholds of these questions of the test cycles and i think that this type of aggressive protection -- it pushes the companies into a situation where they can act in as criminal a way as we have seen. shouldmission, i think, accept that things were not as much as a bolt from the blue as people say they are. the german government and the commission always aimed at not having this test cycle working. it doesn't only apply to the diesel standard, it also applies to fuel efficiency proficiency.

stop being naive. look at the facts. check them through. what you said to us today is very far removed from what needs to be done. our weak positions are threatening jobs in europe. it is not environmental rules that threaten industry but industrye way that the is working at this level. >> do you accept a blue card? >> yes, of course. >> mr. edward. he seconds. >> i listened with interest to many of the things in your speech. i was wondering, in your opinion is the volkswagen scandal a one off or, from your critical remarks about the german government, that they were the

commission may have some way conspired with other companies to break their own rules? what are your views on this? do you think this is more widespread than you know? >> the type of criminal action shown by volkswagen -- i don't know. i have not seen it happening for other of the large concerns. vehiclen't know any concern which does not have a problem with these test cycles. i am not aware of any of them which does not need to be checked. that is why it is so important that we should be talking about a european inspection. we need european instruments to arm ourselves with them so that we can really do our jobs --perly in this type >> one minute.

colleagues,ner and we wish to highlight the fact that the consequences of this case which is detrimental to the environment and citizens, that these consequences will cease to magically spread across the entire european standard and test system and this will undermine the credibility of any type of sophistic -- certificate. who can trust the certificates? there are two solutions. one is to do nothing and recognize that it is just a joke. legislative or future legislative effort pointless. the second would be to react, to adopt exemplary punishment for those responsible and the brand ,oncerned, not just high fines

it is quite clear to me and citizens that the time for the test to circumvent is over. we need to review directives, to identify the legislators shortcomings and the loopholes. could i remind you that the commission center had already identified the diesel problems for volkswagen in a document which dates back to 2013. recently in france there have been reports of violation of legislation of samsung part -- product. the british and the swedish warned the commission about this about the samsung television sets that there were problems with regard to consumption tests. bells --, only alarm will the commission do something and act? >> for the europe of nations and freedom. >> thank you, madam president.

as far as the volkswagen case is concerned, we need to be blunt. there has been manipulation, cheating, software manipulation. all of that is known. we are talking about a large corporation. there is a great responsibility as well. all of the damages will be sustained by many and first of all it will be the consumers who will suffer damages, also the environment, and the company itself. and the staff working for this company. employees will be suffering as well. for consumers, we have to make sure there is some compensation. not just an apology, but genuine compensation. compensation for the damages sustained. as is very often and life there is a flipside to this coin and once again i don't want to embellish things or gloss over anything, but we need to look at

the issue of fuel conception by cars and vehicles. the data given by manufacturers are not ever real when it comes to fuel consumption. the values we are given are given in a laboratory experiment . it has an impact on the environment and the consumer as well, the wallets of our consumers. as a second aspect, united states of america. we are talking about a u.s. case because they have a regular missions and they always bring down the levels every time. look at trucks we are talking about emissions which are three times higher than for cars. so who stands to benefit from all of this? far, we have had no deaths as a consequence. thank you.

minute. the evidence is clear. the eu and the german government were aware of volkswagen's dirty policy and in affected other corporations as well. revelations of the scandal did not come about through transparency, but through competitive u.s. monopolies seeking to increase market shares. so what does that mean in terms of our trade agreement? --have seen that all of the there are separate aspects of the european policy that have one single objective. --t is to make profits to profits. we have a role to act as a

type ofor here and this scandal is a way of operating. it shows the character of the european union. the capitalist system it serves and monopolies. it is basically a rotten situation on the economic front and throughout our lives. that is what people can expect from europe. >> we now have individual statements to please -- statements. please, stick to the time allotted for you. there will be 45 speakers. much.nk you, very the fact that it was the americans rather than ourselves covering the fact that the eu companies are not complying with the regulation is shameful.

member states are not and forcing the eu law and the european commission does not have enough control insurance at hand. yet again we are talking but something that our internal market and consumer protection committee has been looking at on a number of occasions. my colleague was injured in report from several years ago. need a lot of commitment from the european commission but also from the eu member states to rectify this. with a veryt noxious nitrogen oxide coming from vehicles. a relevant situation, more power should be given to that european commission. but back then many colleagues were against it. listening to you today, dear colleagues, i hope that you have changed your mind now.

negotiations are only just beginning. let us not panic, however. i agree that we need to thoroughly look into the eu market and to see how regulations are complied with. we need to rebuild consumer confidence among the business people. to make sure they are not cheating us. and information in vehicle specifications may be needed to restore the confidence to the eu and nationally to see that they truly oversee the eu law. the commission needs to be able to measure the actual use of carbon. testsot a secret that car failed to meet that test requirements. >> one minute.

>> i must say that i am a little surprised. you seem very relaxed regarding this council. your approach is a very relaxed one. you seem to have a lot of trust in terms of the types of approval authorities in member states. this is not how i see competition. lowestho have the standards are given private place -- that is not right. what do i european type of institution, surely that would be a logical conclusion. i hope we will be able to talk about this in connection with revolution before this chamber. we aim to put this on paper. we know this from the field of medicine, approval of medicines, you have european authorities cooperating and the u.s. authorities working together with us on this.

when and why. when were you informed of the scandal, at what point in time, how, etc.. our colleague made a very valid point in that respect. environmentalhe agency that should have been looking at this. the national authorities and the german authorities, zero tests were implemented in the right way. what about israel and joint research center. what about the possibility of testing vehicles? i am asking if? any tests were carried out and what happened? >> president and commissioner. let me remind you that the information we have shows that suchan appealing --

manipulation using cheating devices at the time of the test concerns nearly 11 million vehicles by vw, but it could be much wider than that and i would concernsrprised if it other companies as well. the question remains, whether it is not a result of our ambition to reduce emissions in transport. to reduce the carbon emissions in all of the sectors of european industry. the largest and richest companies manipulated and cheated during tests and that is harmful to the health of our citizens and the environment. that is unacceptable because the costs are borne by consumers. the average citizens pay out of their own pocket for the

ambitious environmental standard, but also for our ambition to gain as much as possible. users and citizens should know the truth and find out what really happened with volkswagen. we need proper investigation but we also need to draw conclusions to avoid such situations in the future. >> two minutes. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> is everything ok? can we hear the english interpreting? >> commissioner, it is in judgment. -- ladies and gentlemen, obviously what has happened is not justifiable, but it is not place a verdict on the european car industry or eliminate the sector, what we have to do is to renew consumer trust. are in all of those who the eu or who would like to buy a car have totally accurate information about it. in order to do this, not only in the european car industry but

also across the institutions and we also have to try to rationally calm down those provoked by this problem and to put down very clear and practical solutions. your ideas to put together a stricter and more accurate rules for initial testing which at the same time take into account also the interests of car industry and also our consumers. why i call for the commission to place as soon as possible finalized proposal regarding procedures for real driving emissions and to propose results that include requirements and elements for these tests. legislation for the syria should not leave -- for this area should not leave any room for interpretation. important to pay attention

if we are unable to consistently require that our laws are strictly respected, they will find it very difficult to explain to our citizens that we are capable of defending their rights and our interests. iq. -- thank you. gentlemen, i would like to say that this need not have happened. , we haveech republic had intervention in place for a number of years that eliminates 70% of motor vehicle emissions. it can be applied to any vehicle type regardless of age. even old vehicles will then comply with the relevant emission norms. --the european commission the european commission has not

seen this. i have tried to propose it for several years to no avail. then, there are double standards. , they had to replace 11 million gearboxes throughout the world and nothing happened? how come there was the airbag --ndal which killed people how come -- >> indiscriminate volkswagen has deliberately broken the law.

is clear that volkswagen has deliberately misled both regulators and consumers. must understand the regulatory environment in which this scandal has emerged. byislators were consumed climate hysteria and carb o-phobia, so we pushed to diesel. emissions are only marginally below control, and co2 is not a pollutant. as we are now realizing, diesels other pollutants, are highly toxic and our dashboard diesel has done more harm than good. tofound that it was unable

meet emissions targets so we decided to cheat. it was wrong to do so but so were we combat legislators, wrong to impose conflicting demands on the industry. i see a parallel with our ill judged rush to promote biofuels before we understood the impact of indirect land-use change. biofuels and10% then rolling back later, we said confused to singles -- said confused signals to industry. this is not a time for shade and hadenfreude.r sc with the prospect of multimillion dollar fines in several countries, recall costs, class actions and so on, it is not think -- it is not

inconceivable that vw should fail. that is an outcome we should all seek to prevent. >> i do apologize, i missed your name. >> can i summarize your speech -- we are ontes top of it, sleep well parliament. that is how i summarize your speech. i really have problems there. the epa in the united states, when they were investigating, was there no contact at all between washington and brussels what they were doing and the staff did not know anything? it is really hard to believe. you have to be really precise on the actions you are taking now. first of all, on the investigation, can you confirm that this investigation is

broader to the areas like co2 where you see a growing gap between tests and reality. now, because of this scandal, we're going to look at it again. where exactly are you going to look again? thirdly, on the new tests, kenyon please deny -- can you please deny that at this moment they are -- the commission is putting forth a test of 1.6? cards .t in the of the eu is 80 milligrams per kilometer. in the u.s., it is 43, in california, 35. who is more ambitious now? card?ld you accept a blue

30 seconds. >> thank you very much, madam president. i would like to argue with you. why do i disagree with you? these are man-made standards so we have to be very careful. if you comply with these standards, you're a good guy, if you don't, you are a bad guy. if you're a carmaker and you burn fuel, -- should europe move toward non-petrol cars or not? >> it is very simple. we oppose the standards for our safety, for public health. if the car industry cannot comply with it, then maybe they should not going to diesel.

on the basis for the standards for our own safety -- the standards we agreed upon, for example this 80, which is not very ambitious, was done in 2007 and they already knew that tests would be coming. the car industry knows this for eight years and they have not done anything apart from cheating with the software that should be addressed -- with the software. that should be addressed. >> thank you, president. a turbodiesel, which i bought after the european standards -- the others were to pollutant. i had to go to volkswagen. volkswagen is the first and foremost car manufacturer in the world at the moment.

if mrs. merkel, who commands the whole globe, i wondered she should explain to me how this all works. could she come here and tell me what has happened? did she not know what is going on with volkswagen? did she or not? i think, in the history of europe -- >> i don't think that the t-shirt you are wearing is apt to this. apt for thisis not at all. >> dear colleagues, the is anagen scandal

environmental one but also a political one. we need to find the number of cars circulating with this software and we are also wondering whether volkswagen was the only company that installed such software and what measures are we to take to this does not happen again. despite the fact that there are connections between volkswagen and the german government. is supportingkel the car industry, but perhaps that might mean that they are also supporting companies that are deceiving the european citizens and the european institution. supporting these companies, despite numerous scandals, at the same time asking for

austerity. it is unacceptable to see germany. we have to punish volkswagen as soon as possible. thank you. you, president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. those responsible at vw wanted to save money but they were saving money at the cost of the environment. for ozone inuses the atmosphere and it leads to other health problems. some of the people there are responsible for that. there is an economic cost to that, which of course is outweighed, by far, the money they saved. it has also harms people who are innocent. there, theho work suppliers, and the consumers.

i think they need to be punished, those who are responsible. , the ceo, still makes a claim for his bull pension and in the -- his full pension, and in the volkswagen group he is still active. how come they had uncovered this fraud when there are 8 million active in the eu and only 400,000 in the u.s.. ? use a bit of energy, not just rely on the national authorities. just denigrate diesel. some people use it because they drive for long distances. in economic terms, i don't think we can just leave diesel behind.

terms, we needl to look at making it clean. it is possible. if vw kept euro 6, it would be fine. the euro 5 was the problem. the final point, we need to think of local authorities as well. please? you wind up >> thank you, president. we are dealing with a series of scandals here. the fraud perpetrated was a scandal. invest the investigated and perpetrated -- investigated and -- investigated. we have to rely on the u.s. to reveal what is happening. thater scandal is the fact

the epa did not notify the european condition -- the european commission, or indeed, it is a scandal if the european commission was notified and kept still. we would like to hear from you, our commissioner, as to what exactly happened here. as for the other issues that arise, we need to put an end to lab-based tests alone. we need real-life tests that are actually reflective of what happens on the roads. road tests will not be enough. we live in a digital world. we have so many different software devices. it is not enough to have on road testing. we need to look at the various software that can be installed. commissioner, i would be interested to know what you plan to do along these lines.

you did not mention anything about such software in your introduction. that is something we would need to consider as it comes to organizing such tests. >> thank you, madam president. this is a very complex issue but i want to talk about it very simply from the perspective of the nec vote. this will be at the next session of plenary in a couple weeks time. you might think it closes into disarray. far from it. we know all of this. bit that is a surprise is just quite how devious and criminal volkswagen has been. we know the testing doesn't work. fact, a presentation up from the commission set out quite graphically in numbers how it hadn't worked over the last three iterations of euros

standards. this is no surprise to anyone. member who the only is actually pleased this has pleased, because i am and everybody is now talking about one of the major issues, one of the major scandals that we need to deal with. highlighted our it as itaction with currently stands and we have put into our report that we expect the commission to come up with new proposals on approval that actually work in real life, immediately. it is with some disappointment because while she is not personally responsible, she would have had the opportunity here and now

during his in the spin in the army dread scott married harriet robinson. mr. scott tried to buy his family's freedom, she refused and he sued. follow the case of scott versus sanford and she spends new series landmark cases,

historic supreme court decisions. we will explore this historic supreme court ruling. and be sure to join the conversation using the hashtag landmark cases on c-span, c-span three, and c-span radio. for background order your copy of landmark cases available for 895 plus shipping. >> gen. johngeneral john campbell is commander of us operations in afghanistan.

>> the committee will come to order. the committee comes today to here testimony from general

campbell. we have a hard stop at 12:00 o'. and just to expedite things, i would say, we very much appreciate having you here. my view is, weis, we are in afghanistan today for the same reason we were in the fall of 2001 to prevent it from becoming a safe haven for terrorists for attacking us. afghanistan is always going to be an attractive place for terrorism because of its history, its ungoverned spaces, it's narcotics and financing. we have a lot at stake there.there. we also have a government that is willing to work with

us which we have not always had, but they have challenges, andchallenges, and we will talk more about those as the day goes. this is an important time in afghanistan's future an important for us to hear from you. thank you for being here command i yield. >> thank you and i ask that my full statement be submitted for the record. >> without objection. >> i agree with everything you said. itit is a difficult part of the world. i would include pakistan as well and have often said that ii wish we did not have national security interests in afghanistan pakistan. it is a difficult place to work with, but we do, and they are precisely the ones that the chairman said. many different terrorist groups would love to make a safe haven out of the ungoverned spaces and the difficulties that are there.

trying to maintain stump -- maintain some stability the challenges are enormous, as the general knows only too well and having any kind of control of the country which is fractious and difficult. the only thing i would conclude, a couple things, i would, i would like to make sure we hear from the general on his view of going forward, what our troop level should be, and what the utility of that, what do we need them for what will be critical the next year or two or three command how many troops do you think we and our nato allies must have to achieve those goals? and also, the issue for the bombing of the hospital, definitely it set us back, the kind of thing we do not want to see happen.

what wewhat we are going to do to prevent it in the future. with that, i will yield back. >> thank you. general campbell, welcome. without objection the floor is yours. >> thank you. good morning. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. i am honored to represent the servicemen and women of the united states forces in afghanistan that have been there for the last 14 years. i would like to begin by thanking the committee for your steadfast support, and due to your leadership and commitment have the best trained and equipped for submissions of report. i am profoundly grateful for your continued support. our ongoing efforts could

never have been possible without your financial commitment and trust. every day we strive to be good stewards of the american taxpayers money to ensure our efforts result in increased security. members have been staunch promoters of women in the afghan security forces command your efforts are making a difference. you deserve to be bad of the advancements that the afghan women are making in the army i wouldi would also like to pay tribute to our military families. the unsung heroes and in many ways our frequent absences from home are harder on them than us, and without their love and support we could not succeed. finally, i would like to acknowledge over 2200 servicemen and women who have been killed in afghanistan since 2,001 and over 20,000 to have been wounded. tragically, we must 14

personnel last friday, and we remember the love ones that have been left behind. every day we honor the memories of building a stable and secure country. over 14 years have passed and we have not forgotten why we 1st came to afghanistan and why we remain. the courage of our forces have ensured another terrorist attack originating from afghanistan and directed against the us homeland does not occur. seven months have passed since our last. before this committee, and much has changed since then. afghanistan, its government, security forces, the enemy, and our own coalition have undergone tremendous transitions.

these changes have ensured that this fighting season has been fundamentally different. it cannot be compared to previous years. i would like to emphasize the political, military, economic, and social transitions are affecting the operational environment in order to place our campaign in context, afghanistan is a critical juncture, and so is our campaign. before i further explained the from the challenges and opportunities before us would like to address a few topics that have been headlines lately. the hospital. providing training, advice, and assistance. on saturday morning our forces provided close air support. to be clear, the decision to provide aerial fire was a us decision made within the us chain of command. a hospital was mistakenly struck, and struck, and it would never intentionally target of protected medical facility.

i must allow the investigation to take its course and i'm not at liberty to discuss further specifics at this time, but i assure you the investigation will be thorough, objective command transparent. i would like to remind the committee and the american people that we continue to make extraordinary efforts to protect civilians, military in history has done more to avoid harming innocents. we have readily assumed greater risk to our own forces in order to protect noncombatants. in-depth training interview the operational authorities. ourour record stands in stark contrast to the actions of the taliban who have repeatedly violated laws of war by intentionally targeting civilians. the united nations attributes more than 70 percent of noncombatants killed and wounded in this war to the taliban.

second, i would like to discuss the sexual exportation of children by some members of the afghan security forces. all of us consider it reprehensible. chief executive, they all reiterated they will not tolerate and are committed to strict enforcement. we will do everything to defend and protect human rights which is aa moral obligation to you, the american people, and ourselves. i have ordered 100% training to ensure they understand our human rights policy which has been at places at least 2,011 which requires our personal report any suspected human rights violations committed by the afghan security forces to include any sexual abuse of children. whenever and wherever our personnel observe human

rights abuses they will be conveyed through a chain of command and in turn to the afghan government. perpetrators must and will be held accountable. they have accepted that this fighting season could be pivotal. there was no winter low and the fighting has been nearly continuous. casualties on both sides have arisen, and the violence has moved beyond the traditional insurgent strongholds. packet tab key for pakistan military and eastern and northern afghanistan. emergence has further complicated the landscape and potentially expanded the conflict.

more recently they increase the tempo of the operations. we are also seeing how our deployment, redeployment and transition from combat operations to advisory role has changed the battlefield dynamics. onlyonly a few years ago our coalition numbered over 140,000 military force to talk personnel. now approximately 10,000 us servicemen and women. in years past our aircraft provided responsive and precise close air support to coalition and afghan troops which is no longer the norm the exception the fluidity is not surprising.

they successfully conducted operations, andcommand the sun approaches into kabul. in april if i pass significant pressure in the north and in august and september the reversed almost all of the gains after considerable effort. they have been setbacks. still, national army, police, and special forces rally and every gain control of most of the city. just asjust as they has successfully taken the ground temporarily lost her this fighting season. the consistent performance -underscore several of the shortcomings. they must improve command and control, and utilization of the forces. they don't possessthey don't possess the necessary combat power in numbers to protect every part of the country. this makes it very difficult

for the security forces to counter the taliban's ability to temporarily mask and then glenn back into the population. ultimately the security forces and there leaders need to discern better when to fight the moment to hold, and where to assume risk. despite the shortcomings afghan government retains control. and it is apparent our advisory support and financial backing are strengthening the resolve and building there systems and processes for the future. i cannot handle the fight alone. ultimately i am convinced

improve leadership and accountability will address most of their deficiencies. it will take time to build human capitol. the afghan security forces also underscores the shortfall that will persist well beyond this year. capability gaps exist in fixed and rotary wing aviation, combined arms, intelligence, and maintenance. the greatest technical challenge has been overcoming the afghan air force extremely limited closer work capability. despite challenges, challenges, the fundamental partnership between the coalition in government remains durable. the difference is like night and day, and at every level the coalition leaders continue to work together in pursuit of shared strategic objectives. the afghan government, civil government, civil leaders, and military commanders demonstrated

growing appreciation for the coalition's efforts. psychological stability to the country as a new government solidifies. i'll offer my chain and command several options for future lay down in 2016 and beyond. it was envisioned in mid- 2014 that we would transition to a normalized embassy presents by january 2017. that remains our assumption. since that time much has changed.

il an increased presence in afghanistan due to pakistan military operations command now we have a strong part and present guy and chief executive of the left. as a result of put forth recommendations to adjust of this environment while addressing our core missions and to conduct counterterrorism operations to protect the homeland. an upsurge in the insurgent violence shows that afghanistan is at a critical moment in the history. president obama is well aware of the tenuous security situation command i appreciate he has many other global issues. i'm unable to discuss further details.

in the past when flexibility has been requested a ticket under serious consideration and made his decision. fully support and lead. embraced by the people and backstop by our military advisers, resources command enablers, the security forces future and afghanistan's prospects for eventual piece still remain promising. ..

the hard work and sacrifice of countless military personnel and civilians over the last 14 years have created a condition in which the afghans can, and are, taking responsibility for their own security and government. the afghan welcomed the opportunity to share their destiny but they still desire, need, and deserve our support. our support cannot and should not be indefinite nor on conditional. the afghans must continue to do their part. if they do, we should continue to exercise strategic sanctions and sustain our commitment to them. working together we can be successful.

proactive donnie administration, a committed afghan security force offer us a unique opportunity to further develop a strategic relationship in a ball at all, but vital part of the world. our continued efforts will benefit the entire region, in turn greater sit purity for the u.s. homeland, americans abroad and here at home. thank thank you sir, again for the opportunity. thank you for your steadfast support of our campaign. i look for to your questions and request that my written remarks be taken to the record. thank you sir. >> thank you sir. general, there are two statements you made in the early part of your testimony that jumped out at me. one was, i will read the

sentence back, since 2001, the extra effort to both our conventional and special operations forces have ensured another terrorist attack, originating from afghanistan and directed against the u.s. homeland has not occurred. i think there is a lot of frustration when you read the news from day to day about the ups and downs, i think it is really important for all of us to keep that basic fact in mind. for 1414 years, there has not been another attack from their directed against her homeland. i have to tell you, on the morning of september 11, 2001i would have never expected us to go 14 years without another attack. the reason is from what you say, extraordinary efforts, heroism, by men and women including some members of this committee who have served there. i think it is important to keep in mind the broader accomplishment. the other thing that jumped out at me was your comment about afghan casualties. when i was there a month ago i stood next to you at a ceremony

where we remembered and honored the afghans who lost their lives. all of us get frustrated when we are there to help someone who is not willing to stand up and fight for themselves. my impression is, you can correct me if i'm wrong, the afghans are willing to stand up and fight for themselves. they have lost a lot of lives in doing that. that is part of the reason our partnership is working better. if you want to make a comment on that. >> you are absolutely right. the afghan security forces, security forces, the afghan people in general, they are warriors and want to protect their homeland. the afghan people at absolutely think the afghan police and rate them as their number one institution in the country. there is no doubt in my mind they have the resilience, the will to stand and protect their homeland. >> thank you.

i just want to asked the numbers. i understand you made recommendations to the pres., you cannot talk about those. today we have about 9800 american servicemembers in afghanistan, correct? >> sir that is correct. >> about how many of them are involved in the counterterrorism efforts question mark. >> sir if i could take that for record i would get the exact number, roughly where talking about 1300 are directly day to day, it's tied into advise and assist. at least 1300 are every day what we call level i. >> i'm sorry. about 1300 of them are involved in day to day training and assisting the afghan forces. does that include the people who are helping the bureaucracy and sty cobble? >> that is inside and outside kabul. >> do you have any estimate

about how many people are in day-to-day contact, training and advising afghan outside of kabul. >> sir, that numbers probably about 500. >> 's about 500 american servicemen are really doing what i think the trainee quit. about how how many are involved in the counterterrorism question mark. >> i would rather cover that in a closed hearing. >> if we have some reduction in the 9800 that are there now, we will be able to do less, right? of something. >> it would limit our ability t advise and assist. >> thank you mr. chairman. can you talk to us about the relationship between afghanistan and pakistan and the various groups that are involved there.

related to that is a conversation about reconciliation talks through the taliban and an afghan government. first of all, what hopes to have for that? second of all, no matter what comes out of that, there will always be groups on both sides of the border that are not part of it.ho we tell us about the groups that would be involved, who might bet reconcilable, who we might still have to fight and theheis relationship between afghanistan and pakistan factors in those negotiations. >> sir, sir, thank you for the o question. it's very complicated between pakistan and afghanistan. i try t to maintain ties with tk pakistan. i talk with the general chief ol the army and pakistan once ae month. we work hard hard to measure the afghans of pakistan military discussion continue to improve upon their ability to fight the same, and enemy on that border.r. reconciliation is going to take time.yimes

it will take both afghanistan and pakistan to work together. the president president donnie said reconciliation will be afghan lead. t he and the rest of theon government continue to work ver. hard, they have had at least ono talk about reconciliation that is been out in public. that was around june. the it was facilitated by pakistan to bring taliban to the table to talk. a working toward a second talk, sa that happened the same week the announcement of omar's death,nnu that sort of stopped that talk. reconciliation talks will continue but it will continue to take time to bring the right art people to the table. taliban are currently in disarray based on who is in charge, monster is trying to tri take charge from his perngspecte but there are many other tal prospects.

other factions are trying to not follow source. it will take a no good couple months before we see them coming back to any type of peace negotiation. afghanistan a paxton both tha realize there has to be a political solution to this problem. they are not going toes kill everybody. afghanistan and president donnid especially, has spent political capital the last six or seven months to work with pakistan. he has not seen a lot in return, ao therefore, he has taken a lot o challenges within his own government but he hasn't been very courageous and how he has reached out.neral i think general would feel theis same way with his leadership there working hard. this isip years, and years of mistrust they're trying to worko through. they know they had to i't through to come to a solution. the question on who would reconcile and who wouldn't? the estimates i have heard from an afghan perspective and intel community is anywhere from 60 ia 70% is potentially reconcilable on the taliban inside. you robably would would not have a

connie who continues to be an enemy too dangerous to the coalition and afghan civilians because they attack civilians, they're the are the ones responsible for the high profile kabul.. they probably would not reconcile and probably members of a queue that would not proba reconcile. 60 or 70% is the number that is out there. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. i yelled back. >> mr. chairman thank you very much. general campbell thank you.c anl all of our men and women in uniform for their responsibility and dedication, you all are very special to all of us in america i want to, in march you are her i asked you a question, this will not be my question but it anyonup to a question. my question was, will will there ever be anyone in the diplomatic pool or military will say to the president, we have done about all we can do.ack then one of your answers back to

me as this, very littleiestment, continued investment we can make this, meaning afghanistan a shining light of central asia and that part of the world. we have spent about $686 billion since 2001, you have already mentioned in the number being you have already mentioned and the number being killed and wounded. then recently, ath we had in th. newspaper, and you acknowledge one of these titles, u.s. wasted billions of dollars rebuilding afghanistan. that was. that was in the papers back in september. in october, afghan forces ig on the run, this is in the newby york times. also in the new york times, what you have acknowledged, u.s. have acknowledged, u.s. soldiers told to ignore sexual abuse the boys by afghan military. i think a number 15 or 16, i'vem been here 20 years, a general in

the army sitting right here telling us, what you have told us. i believe it.i no question about it.toda i believe the other 15 that's an not where you are today. then i go go back to an e-mail that i got from a former confidant from-a few years ago i asked my and said general i don't have military background, howan we successful can we be in training the afghans to be soldiers andio policemen? of course we realize this was a problem with education in that country, i i understand that. let me read what he said very quickly. get real and training and army and police force. all we are doing is training new members of the taliban, trainers are doing a wonderful job but we don't have the time to make, wed mak we don't have the time to make an army. he close by saying every day slides by. my question to you, we're facedn

with a debt of $18 trillion dollars, we are going to bet debating and about a month thebl debt ceiling increase so we can borrow more money from foreign governments primarily, to to pay the bills for last year. the american taxpayer has got to know, at some point and time, there is going to be an and to this investment. money, blood, is there has to be an end to it. i heard something you're saying a while ago and this is going to question.e at some time, i've been hearing for 15 years, from generals like yourself that training the afghans to be police and security forces is going to pretty well, it's it's a little. fragile but going pretty well.in

it's been going pretty well for 15 years. that is not a criticism, i'm just making an observation. we at some we at some point in time, as a nation, members of congress have got to understand that we cannot continue to, as john says waste abuse is more today than it was. 15 years ago. that is not your responsibility, i understand that. this thing has got to have an gt end to it. ction is that when security forces can say we do not need any advisors from the coalition forces or tha american military, will you give me some idea of how this thing is going to and, the best you can question. >> sir, thank you for theor question. i acknowledge we ignore the abuses and that is not what ice said. i do not, we do not, in myte statement i said we have policies that say you do not ignore abuses, you report the abuses through your chain of command. so i would like to correct the record there. ntin again on the financial peace and the continued support to the

afghan security forces in the afghanistan people, yesterday was 14 years. it. it has been a very long time. at the chairman said, we have not been attacked. we live we live in the world we have, mayb. not the world we want but it is the world we have. it is going to cgeontinue to beo very dangerous world, people will want to continue to do harm to the men and women hear the ce united states. as i said earlier, a very modest i investment we can protect not only our homeland but continue to build.fminute >> general, i apologize for cutting you off particular after four-minute question but we have limited time and numerous members. if you ever want to extend your answer in writing, please feel free to do so. we m. will have to try to keep the time limits today. >> mr. chairman, i for onehe fo appreciate the four-minute question. thank you mr. jones. for remindingon this committeepn what is happening in afghanistan.

so, it has pretty much been a failure. general, do you know how many people we have recruited and yes trained over the years for the >> ian army and police forces? >> before me today we are askin authorized to have a 352,000,g hundred 52000, that includes the army. >> know i'm not asking what you are authorized, i'm asking how many people have we paid on the payroll to be over these 14 years, in the afghan army andtah police quest mark. >> i will have to take that for record i do not have an answer. >> i've only gotten five minutes. i so i plenty of friends in afghanistan who have gone over there, we have phantom people on

the rosters, we have 60-year-ole man, on educated signed up for these afghan forces. we have people we are pain thaty we are not even showing up foreg work. this has been going on, and on, and on. of those 360,000, how many are filled today? >> ma'am, the police are authorized 157,000, they have 156,000 that are filled today.pn the army authorized hundred 95,000, there's probably the area for hundred 73 or hundred 74000 today.to >> i think it would be important to get the number of how much we have spent training these t people.ur you said in your testimony, i remain concerned about the long-term viability of the

afghan national defense and security forces. distinctly, afghanistan dan cannot afford it security forces. you mentioned that 90% obtained for these forces are from theese coalition and the majority of the money is coming from the teon so, within your own current testimony, let alone the testimony that mr. jones brought before you from before, you basically are saying, i don'tm know that there is a long-term viability for the security forces, we are for paying the majority of that. how much money does that mean, to have a force that you don't believe has a long-term viability? >> how much. >> today $4.1 billion to build the afghan security forces. >> thank you. >> every year we decrease that.

y >> general i have heard this. i've heard it for 14 years. wert going to get better, is going tt be more efficient, were-thewe'rn reality is we are not.t. mr. jones was right. my next question for you, is operationally, what is ouriona w strategy in afghanistan?ha i heard the chairman, we haven's haven't had 14 years of attacksa coming out of afghanistan, i ree will remind the chairman, they instead they went to somalia, instead instead they went teyo, yemen, instead they went to iraq, instead they went to syria, to libya, so we can say, we have concentrated our forcese in our monies in o.ne place buta the reality is, and you you ando i both know this, they move. so what is the plan for afghanistan question. stae

>> the plan is to continue toca build the afghan security forces so they can protect the afghan people and have a stable government so they can provide for the afghan people. so the afghan people can have jobs, their kids can go to work, they can be a viable a viable country. >> thank you. so 4.1 billion this year. yout' don't believe it's a long-term viable strategy, let me ask you one last question before my time is up.re and zero and by the way, i just want to say, i just have a son who will be full-time in the u.s. infantry. we just found out.i th i love our forces, i think job.re doing a good i am talking about what we are doing as policymakers. did we ever find out how much money they stole and put inst swiss banks? t >> if you want to provide that for the record, again we we are trying to keep for themr timeh limits.

>> chairman thank you for this hearing, thank you for yoursee. service. you're educated at one of the best military academies in the world. west point. you have you have not just served, but younds have commanded for 35 years, leading men and women defending this country. you have commanded in germany, hating, iraq, afghanistan, and the united states. you get to see with a set of you get to see with a sed of eyes that few of us ever get to look through. paid it is easy for people to come in here and recount the price tag we paid in afghanistan.easy. that is pretty easy. there people across america whos asked what mr. jones ass, for what? what i'm going to ask you, today, because as i look at your testimony, you have told us what would happen while it happen if we hadn't been there. you said in 2 015 al qaeda's attempt to rebuild its capabilities, could you you paint two pictures for us today. one taking all that experience you have, give us in your best y

professional military judgment, the danger to the united states homeland and the risk of loss of life in the united states had these individuals not made the sacrifices that you talk about, and in it we as a nation i madet the sacrifice.in also, in in your bestprofession professional military judgment paint a pictureal for us the danger to the united states homeland and the risk of loss oo life in the united states if we pull out and do not continue tor make those kind of investments and sacrifices? >> sir, thank you for the question. we have been so fortunate in oun country that we have brave mene and women who continue to join an organization that is nott about them but about the greated good. all of our men and women of understand that piece. without their great sacrifice and the sacrifice of theirthe le families, the people back heret.

in the homeland, the people at e europe would be of much greatero risk of terrorist attacks. there is no doubt about that. in that. in the future, as we move forward we have a lot of t alk about isil, syria and iraq, and about dice l growing up in afghanistan. if it's not that it will be something else. terrorism knows no boundaries.ue if we think this will be clearey up in a few years we are fooling ourselves. we have to toe position ourselves and make sure that we can mitigate this impact. in a way to do that is continue to apply pressure with a great special operatingto forces, the great men and women we have in all of our services, also build the ct capability of afghanistan and other countries in the region so they can take o it on themselves. without that, the homeland would be at greater risk.n >> general, if you could do me t specificity when you talk aboute a greater risk of terrorism, that can be a general term. if we had not been in ha afghanistan and not done this how what of the strength ofey hv their hand, how would theye ha

rater opportunity to strike the united states and do harm to us here? >> sir they would have sanctuary to plan and devise ways to attack the homeland. they could attack europe.anybs there is no doubt in anybody's mind there people out there that want to do harm to people throughout the world. this terrorism will continue foe years to come, we have to continue to do everything we cao to prevent that. a way a way toe do that is to continue to keepct pressure on it.nd wome >> think you general, thank youd for your service and sacrifice of the men and women under you have made throughout the years.. thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman andand general campbell thank you for your invaluable service to ouri country.untry,ll y you mention in your testimonyyou that our support is nott unconditional. i wonder if you could tell ust f within the context of theu've relationship you belts withextrn pres. gandhi, which is quite i

extraordinary one and in somey y ways you are could sayou'r you y fortunate that you have ailling willing partner. tell us more about what we wherv could, should, where have we actually used our leverage and clearly, the fact they can't really afford their own military and we need to be there on their behalf, but could we be doing, what have you seen that has helped to direct and provide thd impotence of moving forward and governments that is really important? >> i've seen it my level through the the level of defense where everything we do is based on conditionality. they send letters of commitment

because we appropriate the money based on conditions. we asked them there are certain things d y can't doo and if the th that were going to hold thisem back. what that is is a chawenge of behavior. for many years, the, the afghans needed this we provide that to them. what we need to do now to make sure they are not dependent upon that, we have to break that andk change behavior. by putting conditionality on th. money we have a unity government that wants to work with the u.s. an entire international community, the the conditionality of getting after corruption.rs the president personally chairse a national procurement meeting every week where he looks at contracts and he has a boardwe'e that doesn't to get afterthat corruption. we have asked him to go after that. we have asked them to make tough questions, we've seen them work on governors and naming thechfsa right leadership in picking leadership based on merit notg based on patronage of who theykw osew. those are ways we can help with the governance level as well.met >> if i could add now presidents

donnie welcomes conditionality. >> has it been effective in moving some discussions as welle with the pakistanis, as we moven into the negotiations at some point with the taliban. is there anything we have seen with the conditionality that has pushed that situation long? paks >> yes ma'am. on the pakistan pakistan side of think it was noted a few months ago that bo e state department, the department of defense, work every day withd pakistan to look at how they ca do more to fight terrorism andi, how they can go after and doth things to enable their forces and their people to be safe. at the same time, not destabilize afghanistan. there are conditions that we ca use with pakistan. >> are we able to do that as nsll and talking about constitution, the ability to nom

withdraw from that human rights issue. w have we been effective with thae , what else needs to be done as we move forward to ensure those issues are going question sat. >> by so we needed to apply conditionality we would absolutely do that. when i went ut pres. connie on the abuseti b sexual children, he said he said that we have a law, our constitution covers that. i wil, reinforce that, i will make sur our security forces understand that. if he didn't do that, they'll be something i could go back and say if you don't do that will do this. i didn't see see that in this case. president donnie, and doctor beulah welcomes the conditions d that make them tougher, makes t them accountable, they understand the money in the blood, sweat, tears, the ultimate sacrifice of all the

nations that provided that is special to them. they welcomed conditions and they want to make sure that we understand they are very appreciative of that. ago without the national government, we're in a completely different place. >> you have all the authorities you need and no additional help from the congress to do that? >> ma'am, i'm comfortable with the authorities i have today. yes, ma'am. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you. mr. miller? >> thank you. in 2004 there was a decision of 9,800 troop my question is simple, is the te security situation in afghanistan better or wors today, if it is not better thanr how in the world can we entertain talking about troop levels of 5000 or 1000?ain, >> sir, again in 2014 the number

of u.s. coalition forces is e different.hink the security on them is onebecan thing.over unfortunately we have lost great i t and women over the last year.on the haveink we balance that based on the people we have there. from an afghan perspective, this s goinen a very tough fighting season, they knew it was going to be of tough season. the taliban and new that because art numbers were going to go down because we didn't have theing support, they, they would try to send a message. so i not having in the years pan to go ahead and attack in large numbers than we haven't seen before. the afghan forces have stepped up for the most part.ey that make corrections and are resilient.me there have been setbacks butbu unlike iraq, and people people try to compare iraq andres

afghanistan, it is not the samen the afghans have tried to put the right leadership in placee e and continue to fight andople protect the people. veryall the number securities tax compare from 2014 and 15 isr difficult.r, it has been a test fight sir, on both sides.rner but >> i will yield the balance of o my time. i have one comment to make and it is a plea. i know you can't discuss the ericanp incident and conduits, i would plead with you sir, please do not let the crew of thatnd tt aircraft nor those americans that were on the ground thate, guided that fire where they did, become scapegoats.oats. >> sir we have investigation anr the investigation will give me the facts. ima