tv Morning Hour CSPAN March 24, 2015 10:00am-12:01pm EDT
again, we would not see $.30 a gallon gasoline. host: i want to give you a chance to respond in our last minute or so. guest: i would have to look at that data. i want to make sure i get your comment right. there are 43 gallons per barrel. host: the house is back in session this morning. we appreciate your time. that is our show for today. it will take you live to the floor of the house. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] , but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker last week in the house armed services committee, we had a hearing on the budget for fiscal year 2016.
secretary of defense ashton carter and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey, both testified before the committee. and i have great respect for both of them. i asked them if after a decade in afghanistan keeping troops in afghanistan for nine more years would even make a difference. last year in his "politico" article and i quote the title was "down the opium rathole," roger says, and i quote, if you spent 13 years pounding money down the rathole with little to show for it you might wake up one morning and say, hey, i'll stop pounding money down this rathole. unfortunately, the united states government does not think this way. even though our combat troops are leaving afghanistan, our money will continue to flow there. billions after billions. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to submit this "politico" article for the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. jones: in recent days, the
waste of billions of dollars in afghanistan has been dominating the headlines. march 20 of this year and i quote, afghanistan cannot manage billions in aid, u.s. inspectors find. march 14, 2015 c.i.a. cash ended in coffers of al qaeda. may 4 2013, karzai says he was assured -- 2013 karzai says he was assured c.i.a. will continue to deliver bags of cash. mr. speaker, this squandering of billions of u.s. taxpayer dollars by the afghan government is one small aspect of the rampant waste, fraud and abuse in afghanistan. the house is looking to vote on the budget produced by the republican majority this week which contains billions of dollars the military deserves. but the billions of dollars going to afghanistan are a waste. the republican budget also provides billions of dollars for emergency war funding to get around sequestration.
why do we have sequestration in the first place? because congress has not passed an honest budget in years. a couple of weeks ago, the house armed services committee had a hearing on u.s. policy in afghanistan where i asked general john campbell, u.s. army commander of international security assistance, forces and united states forces in afghanistan if he will ever have a successor who will be honest with congress and the american people about the fact that we have done as much as we can do in afghanistan. he did not give me a direct answer, but his response was this -- for very little continued investment, we can make this a shining light of central asia. mr. speaker, if i had more time, i would have asked the general what his definition of very little continued investment is when we have already spent billions and billions of dollars in blood in afghanistan. there are bridges roads, educational needs, veterans'
benefits to provide here in the united states. let's focus on those needs rather than chasing something that will never happen. history has proven afghanistan will never change. it is a grave yard of empires. mr. speaker, without a debate in congress, president obama signed a bilateral security agreement with afghanistan to keep our united states troops there for nine more years. let's cut the nine years to three or four years and bring our troops home. finally, with an ever-climbing $18 trillion debt the american people are frustrated. congress needs to impose spending controls to save taxpayer money. mr. speaker may god continue to bless our men and women in uniform and may god continue to bless america. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you mr.
speaker. this week marks the latest chapter in the drama of reason control of congress. this is their -- republican control of congress. this is their first opportunity to bring into focus what they would do governing. and the results aren't pretty. we're discussing this week a budget that's been labeled by press accounts that actually give them the benefit of the doubt as being phony or a disaster. it's been condemned by many conservative commentators as a sham. the purported $5.5 trillion in budget savings over the next 10 years provides no good explanation about how it can actually be achieved. there's $1 trillion of unspecified reductions, other mandatory programs. they would abolish the affordable care act but somehow keep all of the revenues that finance it. there are a few areas of clarity which are hardly comforting. they ratchet down support for our low-income college students
through pell grants, hardly a step forward, and will be widely condemned the more people clearly understand it. we're back to the medicare voucher which may have a different name but is still toxic. a measure of their understanding of its unpopularity is their refusal to put it into effect for seniors now. instead, they would have people approaching retirement age in their mid 50's, be able to enjoy the benefits and uncertainty of a vouchered medicare program. it's silent on the transportation crisis that is already upon us. the latest transportation extension expires may 31. resources are not going to be available to get us through this fiscal year, let alone the next fiscal year that they would budget for. and if the budget that they have foreseen is somewhat
written the next fiscal year would see massive cuts for every single state across the country for transportation. it continues to chip away at the ability of the federal government to hire and maintain the skilled work force americans depend upon. one of the most bizarre examples is their continued attack on the ability of the i.r.s., the internal revenue service to perform the functions necessary to finance our government. what business cripples its accounts receivable department? and the proof of this approach is available to any american who tries to call the i.r.s. to get information. it's almost impossible to get through now, let alone with the budget cuts that are anticipated. you can ask any c.p.a. in your district about the devastating effects of crippling the i.r.s. has not just on the average
citizen but even on people who can hire the best legal and accounting services available. while the i.r.s. may be an attractive target for their assault on government the attack is not limited to internal revenue or the e.p.a. this budget will have crippling effects on the american way of life all across the country. this budgetary approach produces fewer people to deal with the exploding number of retired people seeking help from the social security administration. it shortchanges the maintenance of our national parks. it underfunds medical research that can make a huge difference for american families. there are things that could be done. i introduced legislation this week, the rein in act, which would cut $100 billion of unnecessary spending on nuclear
weapons over the next 10 years. these savings could be used to shore up the department of defense without resorting to the budget gimmicks that they are using. that is the bitter reality of their budget approach. it's not their theatrics or the creative terminology. republicans are avoiding the hard questions and reasonable solutions. it's simply an assault on providing americans with the services they want, need and deserve. the more people understand this, the sooner we're likely to get the changes we need in the political process to get us back on course. this budget may be a sham and a fraud but it contains dangerous elements that will affect every family in america. we can and should do better. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance, for five minutes. mr. lance: thank you, mr.
speaker. i rise today to recognize the distinguished public service of the honorable thomas howard caine 48th governor of new jersey, who will become 80 years old next month. governor caine is one of the most respected statesmen in the country, due to his tremendous contributions to the civic life of new jersey and of the nation. the governor was born on april 21,1935, in new york city to elizabeth howard and robert kaine. his father served 25 years in the house of representatives and become the ranking member on the ways and means committee. his grandfather was united states senator from new jersey. historians can trace his family's long and proud history of william livingston signer
of the united states constitution, and first governor of new jersey. governor kaine graduated from princeton university in 1957 and after military service returned to liffings tony, new jersey, named for his ancestor. known as a thoughtful and diligent legislator he was elected to lead the chamber in 1972 when he became the youngest speaker of the general assembly in new jersey history. governor be caine's two successful campaigns for governor of new jersey were each of historical significance. in 1971 his election marked the closest margin in state history while his re-election was the largest margin of victory ever recorded in a gubernatorial
race in our state. new jersey saw significant improvements to public education, environmental protection, access to high-quality health care and stable taxing and spending policies during the kean governorship. his most defining legacy was his record of inclusive public engagement that facilitated progress, compromise and advancement of the best interest of new jersey. following his time in trenton, governor kean served as 15 years as president of drew university in madison new jersey, where applications, the physical structure and the endowment increased dramatically. in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on september 11, 2001, president bush turned to governor kean and former indiana congressman lee hamilton to chair the
commission of terrorist attacks of the united states. they led the exhaustive review of intelligence, homeland security and governmental response before and after the acts of terror perpetrated against this country. the 9/11 commission's work and leadership drew bipartisan acclaim and resulted in major reforms to improve our nation's security preparedness. the united states is safer today thanks to the tremendous work of governor kean and his colleagues. i had the honor to serve as an assistant counsel to governor kean in trenton and i'm honored now to call him a constituent in the congressional district i serve. i have learned continually from governor kean whether through observation or instruction, and i am among the many new jerseyians who consider him a mentor. governor kean is a wonderful son and brother, husband father and grandfather,
educator leader colleague and friend. he and his wife, the former deborah buy of wilmington delaware have twin sons and daughter. his son is my successor in the new jersey state senate. on his 80th birthday, i congratulate governor thomas h. kean and wish him many years ahead of good health and happiness. the united states of america owes him a significant debt of gratitude for all that he has done in service to the nation. thank you mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from alabama, ms. sewell, for five minutes. ms. sewell: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise against the republican fiscal year 2016
budget resolution. this budget proposal would reduce critical economic investments and undermine growth in our jobs as well as its attempt to reduce the deficit on the backs of our students, our seniors, the low-income families and the american middle class. . our students after all, are our country's future. it abandons our students by making cuts to college aid, research, job training and innovation. it also abandons our most vulnerable. it would end medicare as we know it and make harmful changes to medicaid threatening our seniors across this country. . the 2016 republican proposal also threatens low-income families by reducing the food stamp program and repealing the
affordable care act. leaving 16.4 million americans who now have access to quality affordable health care coverage without a viable option. in my state of alabama alone, over 1070 alabamans have selected a plan and/or was automatically enrolled in the a.c.a. that's over 171,000 alabamans. these citizens will be abandoned by the republican budget proposal and would not have insurance for quality health care. furthermore, the republican budget proposal does nothing to help incentivize job creation or put americans back to work. we are currently on a path towards growth and prosperity. under president obama's leadership, the economy has added more than 12 million private sector jobs in the last
16 months. the republican 2016 budget proposal would reverse those valuable gains. 12 million private sector jobs in the last 60 months. mr. speaker it is unfortunate that instead of putting forth a budget that would create jobs, balance our budget, and spur economic growth throughout our country we are once again seeing divisive politics at work. instead of attempting to balance the budget on the backs of american families as this budget proposal does, we should be seeking to find a fair and balanced plan to responsibly reduce our deficit. to grow our economy. to strengthen our infrastructure. to spur innovation. and to create jobs. as we move forward it is my hope that we will pass a 2016 federal budget that works for all americans and leaves no one behind. i ask my colleagues to vote no
on the republican 2016 budget resolution. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the house republican budget proposal released last week will serve as a strong blueprint to put our country on a long-term path to fiscal responsibility and sustainability. unlike the president's proposed budget which is the same tax and spend policies that have not worked for the president or the american people, the house republican proposal aims to balance the budget within 10 years without ever raising taxes. mr. speaker, yesterday marked the fifth anniversary of the affordable care act being signed into law. let me be clear, obamacare is certainly not worth celebrating. the house majority budget proposal would repeal obamacare
in full including the tax increases, erroneous regulations and mandates, all while promoting freedom of choice, affordability, and true patient-centered health care solutions. furthermore, the budget proposal aims to further ensure a strong national security, economic competitiveness, and a atmosphere that will foster positive growth throughout pennsylvania and all across the contry. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support a clear path forward. the american people deserve as much. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia, mr. jenkins, for five minutes. mr. jenkins: thank you mr. speaker. i come to the house floor today to introduce my first bill, a resolution to protect black lung benefits.
miners work hard to keep the lights on, to power our homes and businesses, and to provide for their own families. in west virginia alone, over 18,000 men and women work in the coal mines. it's good work. it's important work. work that puts food on the table and provides a better life for their families. while great strides have been made in mine safety, some miners will still develop black lung disease. the federal government made a promise decades ago to help coal miners and their families if miners develop black lung. since 1973 miners have known that if they get black lung the federal government will be there and stand up for them. more than 100,000 miners from west virginia have filed for
black lung benefits. and today, almost 5,000 miners and their families depend on these benefits for care for their families when they are no longer able to work. congress must uphold, protect and secure these concurrent resolution -- crucial benefits for our hardworking miners and their families. as we in congress work on health care reform, we must remember the miners who toil above ground and under ground to power our nation. any reforms we must secure the black lung benefit programs, and ensure that these critical benefits will be available for our miners and their families. we made them a promise.
we must keep that promise. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold. for five minutes. mr. dold: thank you, mr. speaker. four years ago amid concerns of a hostile treatment against israel at the united nations, i launched an initiative where i wrote letters to dozens of foreign ambassadors to the united nations and explained why it was important that they stood against anti-israel actions at the u.n. i'm saddened, mr. speaker, that the united states is apparently now in need of such a letter. recent public reports indicate that president obama warned prime minister netanyahu fresh off his democratic election by the israeli people that the u.s. will reassess our options at the u.n. think about that for a second, mr. speaker.
president obama has left everyone with the impression that the united states could change its course and abandon israel at the u.n. i can't think of a worse message to send to our friends in israel and a better gift to the anti-israel factions of the international community. the delegitimatization efforts of israel are on the rise around the world and at the united nations. israel needs its friends in the united states now more than ever before. these are bipartisan concerns, mr. speaker. republicans and democrats alike want a strong u.s.-israel relationship. and the days of this administration challenging and undercutting israel's prime minister, regardless of who that prime minister may be must stop. the stakes are far too high. the challenges are amongst us.
we have to stand and speak with one united voice republicans and democrats alike, that we will stand shoulder to shoulder with our one true ally. this is not right versus left. this is right versus wrong. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. bilirakis, for five minutes. mr. bilirakis: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to celebrate the 194th anniversary of greek independence. citizens of greece have always been a proud people in body, mind, and spirit. from pericles greek statesman and general dubbed the first citizen of athens to plato who laid the groundwork in philosophy so vast that the entirety of european philosophical tradition is said to simply be a footnote to his work. to count the first head of state
of an independent greece. greeks have been exceptional. i'm almost certain that thomas jefferson cast an eye across the atlantic towards greece when he uttered these words in 1821, the flames kindled on the fourth of july 1776 have not spread over much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism. on the contrary, they will consume these engines and all who work them. it is no coincidence that the feast of announceation -- annunciation, a commemoration of the conception of jesus christ, is also celebrated on march 25, just as greek independence day is celebrated. i'm blessed to be of two cultures that have been beacons
of freedom for all of civilization. the place of my birth, the land of the free and the home of the brave, the united states of america. and the land of my ancestors, the birthplace of democratcy, the hellenic republic. many greeks fought for years holding on to their heritage culture, and faith. a bishop raised the emblem of freedom for hellens the flag wearing cross and nine blue stripes representing the nine letters meaning freedom. eight years of blood shed and battle led to the it formal declaration of a free and independent greece. greece was the world's first advanced civilization. one that provided a cultural heritage that has influenced the world. first in philosophy
mathematics politics sports, and art all stem from a free greece. liberty and justice freedom to determine the path of one's own life, these are human desires and were embodied by greece throughout their fight for independence. those unyielding hellens paid life and limb for those desires and generations of greeks for decades to come. as george washington once said, liberty when it begins to take root is a plant of rapid growth. this held true in greece in 1821 as it did in america in 1776. freedom or death was the battle cry of the revolutionaries nearly 200 years ago. it rings true today.
freedom is a powerful and beautiful notion. the greek people achieved that for themselves 194 years ago and i'm proud to celebrate in memory of those who fought bravely to shed the shackles of the ottoman empire. we celebrate greek independence to reaffirm the common democratic heritage we share. and as americans, we must continue to pursue the spirit of freedom and liberty which characterizes both of our great nations. god bless america. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will provide a translation for the record. the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas mr. weber for five minutes. mr. weber: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today i rise to speak on the recent introduction
of my bill, h.r. 1332, the deny amnesty credit act of 2015 in order to put our country and our americans first. as a response to the president's unauthorized and illegal actions granting amnesty, my bill would prevent those who are granted deferred action under deferred action for childhood rivals or docka -- daca and the parents of american flaul residents from qualifying for the earned income tax credit and child tax credit. as it stands the president's illegal executive amnesty would allow illegal aliens to obtain social security numbers and the ability to receive as much as $35,000 of hardworking taxpayer moneys on their tax returns from the united states treasury. the money that's from our hardworking taxpayers. don't they deserve to be put first? according to the congressional budget office, this would cost american taxpayers $10.2 billion
because of an illegal executive program never authorized by congress. america can no longer be the world's a.t.m. this president has trampled upon our constitution and circumvented congress to ensure his political legacy far too many times and it must stop. instead of working with congress to secure our borders and uphold the law of the land, this administration is offering executive amnesty and tax credits to illegal aliens. mr. speaker, it is time to put america first. . we must hold this administration accountable and this could cost billions of taxpayers dollars, our taxpayers. my bill, the deny amnesty credit acts of 2015, will do just that. it will put america first. it will help put us on that
path. it will help our hardworking americans to be first and foremost in the hearts of us, of our congress, the elected representatives who are quite frankly charged with putting americans first. mr. speaker, did i mention it is time to put america first? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities to the president. the gentleman yields bac
given that director clancy informed us that he did not receive notification of the alleged interference until five days later on march 9, the security footage in question was reportedly purged two full days before the director even found out about the security incident. that is simply unacceptable and it tells me we need a stern review of our technology policy at the white house. director you invited us over members of the committee, to review the command post for the surveillance of the white house. i know for a fact we have full spectrum review and surveillance over that area. we probably have five or six cameras, at least, that would have given us useful information regarding this incident. and as the chairman pointed out, we have overlapping incidents so we have a bomb threat, an active bomb threat while the president is in the white house and his family's in the white house, we have an
active bomb threat and then we have and interference by these two agents during that bomb threat during that incident and we purged the tapes. we purged the tapes. that active bomb threat against the white house was something that should have raised red flags with with personnel from the secret service. it should have been on everyone's mind. i know that multiple emails went out to supervisory personnel. everyone knew this was a bomb threat and yet we went ahead -- at least that's what i'm hearing so far -- we went ahead and purged the tapes surrounding that 72 -- excuse me -- surrounding that bomb threat to the white house within 72 hours. we destroyed the evidence and that completely is -- that is just mind-boggling that we
might do something like that. now i've got a lot of questions. i know members of the committee do as well. but as a frame of reference indicating the inadequacy of the 72-hour video retention policy i would note that my own state of massachusetts requires staint municipal that they retain their videotapes for 30 days under the state public record statute. that's why agencies ranging from the massachusetts bay transportation authority to the boston housing authority have a one-month video storage policy in place. in addition, under its current memorandum of agreement with the federal transportation security administration regarding the use of consolidated camera surveillance systems at logan international airport, the massachusetts port authority also has expressly agreed to retain captured images for 30 days. that's at the request of a federal agency. we retain that for 30 days. moreover, local educational institutions such as tusk university university of massachusetts, have also implemented 30-day retention
policies for the campus security cameras. in addition, i have a number of kindergartens in my district that retain because of the security interests of those children they have a 30-day policy. you know, i have to tell you -- and i've said this before, you know my local store 24 has a better surveillance system has we have at the white house. that's a sad -- that's a sad statement of affairs. and that's been the -- that's been because of a number of directors going back beyond your own service. so there's a lot of questions to be answered here. i'm going to let the rest of my statement go. i appreciate the chairman's indulgence and i yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman. i will hold the record open for five legislative days for any members who would like to submit a record staten. mr. chaffetz: we welcome joseph p. clancy, the director of the
secret service. before i go forward, let me say, the members of the committee, i do not believe the presence of mr. clancy alone is sufficient to achieve the goals of this hearing today. it is the committee's intention to bring forward a series of people in transcribed interviews. we would prefer to have done this a different way. the secret service has refused our ability to do that, but the people involved in these incidents should know they will be invited by this committee both sides will be present for transcribed interviews as we conduct this further. the secret service refuses to let other invited witnesses testify. the committee has questions, when we issued these letters and invitations for these individuals to appear, did they receive those invitations or was the secret service prompted did homeland security become involved? we have a lot of questions about why those individuals who were asked to appear are not sitting here today. we do expect to close the loop
of these witnesses in the future, whether that be at a follow-up hearing. i said it's the intention that we will most likely do transcribed interviews through this process. with that said mr. chancey we do appreciate you being here. pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses are to be sworn before they testify. if you will please rise and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? director clancy: i do. mr. chaffetz: thank you. let the record reflect that witness answered in the affirmative. director clancy, please know your entire written statement will be part of the record but we're pretty lenient on the time but please share with this committee your thoughts and perspectives. mr. chancey. director clancy: good morning, chairman chaffetz, ranking member cummings, and distinguished members of the committee.
thank you for the opportunity to be here to discuss the recent allegations of misconduct on march 4, 2015, and the agency's progress in fulfilling the recommendations of the panel. i'm honored to lead the men and women of this important agency through this challenging time. with respect to the recent allegations, i personally became aware of the incident on march 9 when i received a phone call from a former agent informing me of an anonymous email that was circulating. on that same date i determined that allegations should be referred to the department of homeland security's office of the inspector general. i made this decision because allegations of misconduct involving employees at the gs-15 and higher level must be referred to the o.i.g. in accordance with departmental policy. i trust the o.i.g.'s investigation will be thorough. i have committed the secret service's full cooperation to the o.i.g. and equally await --
eagerly await the findings of their investigation. the fact that i did not learn of this allegation until five days after it is said to have occurred infuriates me. this is unacceptable. i called my senior staff together the week before last. i made clear my expectation for prompt notification of allegations of misconduct that could impact our mission or that violate the agency's standards of conduct. if it is determined that any of our employees failed to report information about this alleged incident, they will be held accountable. our mission is too important for this to happen. it undermines my leadership, and i won't stand for it. i am resolved to holding people accountable for their actions but i want to make clear that i don't have the ability to simply terminate employees based on allegations of
misconduct. this is not i'm being lenient. it is controlled by title 5 of the united states code which provides federal government employees with certain statutory due process rights. i must respect these rights and the procedures congress has put in place to preserve them. as it stands, the next step in this process is to wait for the issuance of the o.i.g. report at which point we'll determine the appropriate disciplinary actions consistent with our established table of penalties. once again, if the o.i.g. investigation reveals misconduct, those involved will be held accountable. i have personally reviewed video footage from the evening of march 4 with members of this committee. the initial reports of a vehicle crash were inaccurate. there was no crash. the video shows a vehicle entering the white house complex pushing aside a plastic barrel. there is no damage to the vehicle. however, many people have
expressed serious concerns that available footage from the night does not provide a full picture relative to the alleged misconduct. while the primary function of the camera systems at the white house complex is for operational security specific video footage is routinely maintained for investigative and protective intelligence purposes. i share the concerns of this committee that more video footage from the night of march 4 was not preserved. after receiving consent from the o.i.g. the secret service has contacted the manufacturers of the digital storage unit and is leveraging our capabilities and cyberforensics to make every attempt to cover additional video footage from that night. although it predates my appointment as director, secret service practice has been to retain footage from camera systems at the white house for a period of 72 hours. this practice concerns me. therefore, i have directed that the video footage storage period be increased to seven
days effective immediately. i have also directed my staff to explore the feasibility of further expanding this time frame while being mindful of concerns related to security and privacy. turning to fulfilling the recommendations made by the independent protective mission panel. i will touch briefly on each of these three areas identified in the report. first, training and personnel second, technology perimeter security and operations and third, leadership. regarding training and personnel, i have consistently held that a primary focus of mine has been to increase the critical staffing in the secret service to meet the demands of the mission and to incorporate regular and consistent training to sharpen skills, ensure preparedness at all times. the secret service is expected to exceed its hiring goals for this fiscal year and maintain this pace for fiscal year 2016. we have also fully completed integrated training for officers and specialty teams within the white house branch. and made improvements with
respect to the amount of training received during fourth shifts by agents on protective details. with respect to technology and perimeter security recommendations, the secret service is in the midst of a multiphased project to replace the current fence around the white house. the goal of this project is to mitigate security concerns identified by the panel, including delaying potential intruders to give secret serviceperson elmore time to react. the selection of a final fence option will be followed by design procurement and construction phases. as discussed in the classified briefings provided to this committee, the secret service acknowledges the need for interim measures during this process and has conducted initial testing, research and development to that end. finally, with respect to leadership, i am moving to rebuild restructure and reinvigorate the secret service, including elevating and empowering those with specialized professional skills within our civilian force.
by ensuring our people have the necessary resources by developing budgets from the ground up and utilizing a mission-based approach. in closing, i'd like to make clear i am proud of our work force and would be remiss if i did not recognize that the vast majority of these men and women perform their duties with honor and distinction. they deserve strong leadership, clear and consistent policies and appropriate resources to support the important work they do every day. it is my life's work to ensure they get it. i thank the committee for this opportunity and welcome any questions you have at this time. mr. chaffetz: thank you. now recognize the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy, for five minutes. mr. gowdy: thank you, mr. chairman. director clancy, do you believe congress has the constitutional right to provide oversight over the secret service? director clancy: yes sir. mr. gowdy: do you believe that chairman chaffetz and ranking member cummings are motivated solely by a desire to see what
is best for the president and for the agency itself? director clancy: yes sir. mr. gowdy: with those two thoughts in mind, does this committee have every single bit of video footage available from that evening? director clancy: sorry sir. mr. gowdy: does this committee have all available video footage from that evening? director clancy: it does not, sir? mr. gowdy: why not? director clancy: sir, we have provided that footage video that we have to this committee. mr. gowdy: all of it? director clancy: we have shown two clips. we have not shown all of it. mr. gowdy: that's my question, director. you just said that congress has a constitutional oresponsibility to provide oversight. you just agreed with me that ranking member cummings and chairman chaffetz have the best interest of the president and the agency in mind. so why will you not turn over all video footage to this committee? director clancy: congressman, we will show all video at any time, day or night that this committee would like to review the footage that we have.
we will -- we have done that. in fact, the chairman was the first, i believe to see this video before we showed it -- mr. gowdy: with all due respect, that's not true. mr. chaffetz: go-ahead, mr. gowdy. director clancy: if i could correct the record i'd like to -- mr. gowdy: i'd like to yield to the gentleman from utah. i was told that this committee was not made available from all video -- director clancy: that's correct, they are not in possession of the video. we allowed the chairman to view the video. mr. chaffetz: you've shown us less than one minute of video. director clancy: yes, sir. mr. gowdy: back to my question. will you make all available video -- and i say available because we're going to get in a second that all of it was not preserved. will you make all available video available to this committee? director clancy: we will make all video available to this committee for your review at any time day or night.
mr. gowdy: will you make a copy of it available so we could retain custody as opposed to simply showing it to us? director clancy: i will not release a copy of this video at this point. mr. gowdy: why not? director clancy: the o.i.g. has an ongoing investigation. mr. gowdy: do you think their responsibility supersedes congress'? director clancy: they have an ongoing investigation. mr. gowdy: can't you have simultaneous ongoing investigations? why can't congress provide oversight while the i.g. is investigating? why do you have to pick and choose? director clancy: sir, again, i think we have one initial investigation from the o.i.g. and we've given them the film to look at. mr. gowdy: but you understand the responsibility of the i.g. is very different from the responsibility of congress. congress determines funding among other things. the i.g. does not. director clancy: yes sir. mr. gowdy: so those two are not exclusive. why can't congress investigate what's in its jurisdiction while the i.g. does what's in its jurisdiction?
director clancy: congressman i'm sure after the o.i.g.'s investigation -- mr. gowdy: i don't want to wait until after. that makes me think that you believe that congress' constitutional responsibility to provide oversight is subservient to the i.g. and surely you can't believe that. director clancy: sir, the ongoing investigation that secret service has as well regarding the protective intelligence case, we have an individual who committed a crime, made a threat and that investigation is also going on at this time within the secret service. mr. gowdy: and how will providing that video footage to congress jeopardize that ongoing investigation? director clancy: that is -- mr. gowdy: with precision, how will it? director clancy: that video shows the actions of the individual who would be accused of a criminal -- mr. gowdy: i get that. how is that providing that to mr. cummings and mr. chaffetz jeopardize an ongoing
investigation with specificity? director clancy: i am happy to show that video all day and be available at all hours of the day and night to show that video, but at this point we cannot release that video. mr. gowdy: all right. that's the video that is available. the video that is not available, will you agree with me that there are at least two potential crime scenes at play on the evening of march 4, at least two? there's an assault on an officer and there's suspicious package? director clancy: that's correct. mr. gowdy: why would the video not be preserved as part of that ongoing investigation that you just cited as the reason you can't give the video to congress? why wouldn't you preserve it? director clancy: the process -- my understanding of the process is that the watch commander on site relays back the incident that he is -- the incident commander for and he calls back to our joint operations center and says we do have an incident here. we have a suspicious package.
preserve the video from this incident. mr. gowdy: director, i'm out of time. i want you to consider for just a moment the dueling narratives that you just portrayed. number one, we're not going to give the video that does exist to congress because its investigation is subservient to the i.g. investigation, that's narrative number one. narrative number two is you're not even going to preserve video that could be used in an investigation of two potential crimes. did i hear that right? director clancy: we did preserve the video, the footage from the incident as those in the joint operation center viewed it. mr. gowdy: are you familiar with -- mr. chaffetz: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. gowdy: some of my time was taken by the chairman but that's the chairman's prerogative. i will of course not ask for any more.
mr. chaffetz: the chairman obviously made the right ruling. mr. gowdy: i yield back. mr. chaffetz: good decision. will now recognize the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, for five minutes. ms. norton: thank you, mr. chairman. i think, mr. clancy, that you understand the anger the outrage that you hear really comes from this notion that you are zero failure agency. we don't expect that frankly, of most federal officials. i was really surprised to see that you have just now -- reading from your testimony page 3, sent an agency-wide memorandum they should submit allegations apparently right away when, for example, before you came to the agency you knew of the white house incident where they actually shot into the white house and they learned about that. the secret service learned about it -- perhaps months
later when an attendant found these bullets. it seems like the very first order you have given is, let me know. don't put me on the hot seat of not knowing. i think the committee did the right thing. it began at the right thing of new leadership. we wanted new leadership. you are the new leadership. we want an expert panel. we had an expert panel. now i think we ought to go -- i realize you've not been in place for a very long time. but i'd like to focus us on the men and women who -- i don't think there's been any focus except for that panel and that panel really did focus on when i was amazed to hear that people were working sometimes 14 days and with a day off, if they got it, or it could be denied. and that -- and i tried to link this to what i knew about the
secret service. a kind of serial misconduct. in colombia, for example in the netherlands, all of the drunken agents. well see i don't think that the secret service is a bunch of bums. i've got to look at, what is happening to these men and women? i asked the staff to tell me something about -- trained or are these people kind of letting it all out? and it looks like some of that is happening. and nobody's spoken up. if somebody doesn't speak up, i'm not sure that this misconduct is not going to continue. this was -- this also was a drunken incident. then i learned that in terms of training, there's barely any training going on at the secret service. there were eight special agent classes in three years, 2008
2009, 2010 but 2012 there was zero. by 2013 there was one. the panel said that you needed staff urgently, for starters. what is the problem? is the problem with the leadership, is the problem with the men and women, you're not getting good people? why don't you speak up for these men and women if in fact they're letting off steam because you're overworking them? are they being overworked? will this budget that you've just gotten begin to relieve some of those serial days in which people don't get any days off? so would you describe that? would you tell us more about training and whether -- what training sessions are expected so that some of this misbehavior will be understood to be absolutely verbotent?
director clancy: congresswoman, thank you. i have the same concerns you have. in fact, i want to hear more and more from these agents and these officers, what their issues are. just in a nutshell, i'll tell you i walk by the perimeter of the white house frequently. this past sunday i went to the roll call midnight shift. following morning went to the roll call and wanted to hear what are their concerns. in terms of the staffing -- ms. norton: you could see what their concerns are. the days off are people -- according to the panel, the agents were consistently working 12-hour shifts under high stress often with no days off. is that going to change now that your budget has finally been released by the congress which has to take some of the responsibility for what's been happening as well? director clancy: again you're exactly right. when i first came back here, my number one initiative was to increase the staffing. we have to increase staffing. to do that we've separated one of our directates which is h.r.
and training, we separated them to give them each specific training. we have been working overtime to build up -- ms. norton: do you have a new class? for 2013 there was only one class. if you need more agents, they'll need more training. director clancy: yes. ms. norton: with this new appropriation, will there be another class of agents trained and will the agents who are there who used to get training, i understand, every four weeks or so shes will they have that region meant of training again? -- regiment of training again? director clancy: yes. we have six u.d. classes and training classes scheduled. we'll go nine and eight classes. so we expect to hire a lot more people in fiscal year 2015 and continue that into 2016. that is a critical need for the service and that will also help with getting more people out of training. in fact, since september 19, the uniformed division training has increased 110%. that's just a snapshot that we got to keep the momentum going.
with the president's side of the house that's increased 78%. again, not where we want to be. as we increase the staff we'll get more training for our people. mr. chaffetz: i thank the gentlewoman. now recognize the gentleman from florida, mr. mica, for five minutes. mr. mica: thank you, mr. chairman. good morning mr. director. i got some questions -- i guess this is sort of another got you hearing. we just have incident after incident. we've had cartagena. we had the -- this most recent one. you testified that you cannot take action on personnel of discipline because of title 5. also chapter 102 of title 5 sets some requirements. have you seen a draft that was prepared last year? can you give the director a copy of this draft?
it's a deliberative draft 72214 and it's amendments to the hiring managing and discipline of its work force. this is amendments for secret service. so rather than just talk about more incidents, let's get down to the brass tax of the issues you face right? first is hiring, right? you got to hire good people. you came and you said you need more people. i submit you need better people and you need better qualifications. but i left the white house about a week ago. i followed a secret service car just by accident and i said, what's that on the bumper? and it's actually a -- it's actually soliciting folks to work on the bumper of a police vehicle. this is the way we hire folks for the secret service. i didn't know -- i didn't know
your predecessor that well. she came from my local town. she called me after she was there for a while and she says, it's very difficult to get this place under control. i've got to have some ability to hire better qualified people. i didn't know that you didn't need a college education for some of those positions. is that correct? director clancy: that's correct. mr. mica: she said by law we've dumbed down the qualifications. first, you got to hire people. .
accountable. secret service holding protectors accountable. that's what this hearing is about. she asked for the ability to hire and fire an exempt agency under title 5. do you agree with that? director clancy: yes. mr. mica: that's one of her recommendations. we have to do that. we heard there's no command. hell you don't have the ability to command because your hands are tied by title 5. you can't hire and fire. you have to go through this layer. i chaired civil service, i know how difficult it is to get rid of folks, even discipline folks. most people are moved horizontally to some other position. isn't that the case? director clancy: correct. mr. mica: you have to have the ability to hire and fire. this proposal i submit which was last july, i read the recommendations of the group.
came up with stuff. until you address this fundamental problem. that director, whoever succeeds him. will not succeed in managing his personnel. when he can't hire people that are qualified two, he can't administer those folks and three, can't discipline and hire and fire people that need to be held accountable. is that right? director clancy: basically, yes, sir. mr. mica: ok. mr. mica: if a bullet hits the white house, a window, the building, has something been done to address that? you talk about the fence. director clancy: we have procedures anything that hits the white house we have institute a procedure since 2011. mr. mica: i'd like to know more for the record about droughns and how they can penetrate the perimeter, thank you. >> i thank jat. i recognize the rm mr. cummings.
mr. cummings: director clancy, i want to get down to something that you said. you said. was unexcelable, that is when you found out about this incident. you learned about these allegations on may 9 which was five days after the incident occurred. that is a big concern for mean and i know it is four. first and foremost there is no doubt you should have been informed about this incident immediately, is that right? director clancy: that's correct. mr. cummings: you should have been informed about it the day of. director clancy: at a meeting last week you told us no one was aware of this incident correct? director clancy: correct. mr. cummings: you testified secret service personnel should have reported this incident up the chain. if i have this right, they should have reported it as follows. mr. personnel on the ground to
deputy chief of the uniform division, to special agent in charge of presidential detective provision, to the assistant director of protective option prations, then to you, is that correct? director clancy: correct. mr. cummings: documents indicated the deputy chief of the uniform division aware of these allegations on the night of the incident. according to a briefing sheet sent to the inspector general, i quote, i guess the briefing sheet is what you sent to start the investigation in the inspector general's office is that right? director clancy: if i can correct the record because i know i met with you and other members in a closed door briefing you asked how is that process started? and i said i think it's a phone call. and it was started with a phone call. but i found out subsequently that there is a follow-up letter which is what we provided to you . that follow-up letter with our preliminary findings the very first day.
on the ninth. mr. cummings: in the briefing sheet it says, i quote deputy chief dyson advised that he was familiar with the incident involving these officers and was briefed with the incident on the evening of march 4 2015. end of quote. so direct your -- so director, if the deputy chief of the uniform division knew about the allegations, did he alert the special agent in charge of the presidential protective division? did he? director clancy: i don't know, sir. i will tell you i am infuriated i have not been advised on march 4 why i didn't hear any of that information, i don't know. will i tell you that the deputy chief needed to raise that up through the chain of command. this is something that i have been battling since i first came back in a very brief time here, i have been back about 30 days. we are working furiously to try
to break down these barriers where people feel that they can't talk up the chain. i can tell you personally i'm going out, reaching out to people, going to these roll calls, individually. we have our assistant director of visions going to the field talking to people. we have our assistant director of protective operations going out and talking to people. we have made all these avenues through budsman, through hotlines and webpages to even anonymously getting information up the chain. our work force i'm sure is listening today. if you're not comfortable going up to the chain of command. you have these other avenues you can go and report and report. mr. cummings: assistant director for protective operations when he did learn about the allegations, do you know? director clancy: march 9. march 9 because when i found out, i found out the morning of march 9, i reached out to the
assistant director of protective operations. he did not know at that point. i asked him to go find what he knew about t what he could find out about it. mr. cummings: i understand there is an ongoing i.g. investigation, according to your testimony you didn't learn about these allegations from anyone at the secret service. director clancy: that's correct. mr. cummings: i'm concerned about whether there's still a problem with the chain of command right now. it sounds like there is. based on what you know today, who is the highest ranked person who knew about this incident and failed to report it? to your knowledge. director clancy: on march 9 is when i was given all the details that we had. we turned it to the o.i.g. then i stepped out of it. in all candor, right or wrong, i compartmentalized things, i didn't see it. the deputy chief is the last one that -- that's -- mr. cummings: on more than one time here this morning you said you had a meeting with your
higher ups. you told them you're not going to tolerate this. did you ask them any of them, did you-all know about this? director clancy: i didn't. i was very blunt -- mr. cummings: rewind. these are your top people, right? would that be the top -- eight assistants? director clancy: more than that in this room. at that point there were -- mr. cummings: you never asked thefment you didn't say, ladies and gentlemen, who knew about this? director clancy: i did not. mr. cummings: why not? director clancy: at that point i didn't want to interfere with the o.i.g. investigation. i wanted no indication i might be pressuring someone. no indication we reached out to people. or people to leave that room and say the director's asking for more information. i wanted to give this o.i.g. complete ownership of this investigation. mr. cummings: one last question
mr. chairman. director, at any time did you have a staff meeting where you would have expected -- i mean, you know you and i have talked about the sacred trust in the secret service. would you have expected, any meeting, where you would have expected somebody who knew about this to say it to you? director clancy: absolutely. absolutely. when i heard this on march 9, i was in disbelief. i didn't believe it. but i called the a.d.p.o. and said run this out. i could not believe -- especially over that time frame. mr. cummings: thank you, mr. chairman. >> i recognize the jafment tennessee, mr. duncan, for five minutes. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. chairman. director clancy, all over this country there's been a growing belief for many years now that the federal government and many
top level federal employees have become -- have been becoming more and more bureaucratic, elitist, arrogant. and there's -- along with this there's been a growing belief that we have ended up with a government that's of by, and for the bureaucrats instead of one that's of, by, and for the people. when you refuse to allow these four witnesses to come here and testify to us who are supposed to represent the people, as best we can you refuse to allow these four witnesses to come and refuse to release most of the video that's been requested you should realize that this looks very bureaucratic, elitist, and arrogant. it looks as though you feel you're working -- you're not really working for the people of this country. that you're working to protect
the people of the secret service. last week, in the house appropriations committee, chairman rogers said in a very strong very emphatic way, that he felt there should be terminations and firings for all these incidents that have happened. and i hope that you agree with that. i assume that you are close friends with mr. connolly and mr. ogilvie, but i hope that you feel that you have more of a duty to the people of this country than you have a duty to protect mr. ogilvie and mr. connolly and others who have been involved in these other i.n.s. stands. what do you have to say about that? director clancy: you're absolutely correct. i have already made changes in the agency of people i know and served honorably, friends of mine, i have offered them positions in other components in
d.h.s. so i'm not opposed to moving people that i know. it's all about the agency. in terms of -- mr. duncan: that's one of the problems. too often federal employees who really mess up, they aren't disciplined. they are not cut in pay. they're not fired. they are not terminated. they are just moved to a nice desk job someplace else. i have already been told that ogilvie and connolly have been moved to some other desk job someplace. not much at all has been done to them. i yield the balance of my time to mr. gowdy. i think he has another question or two that he wishes to ask. mr. gowdy: thank you the jafmenttown tfpblet director who has custody of the video that was retained and preserved? director clancy: technical security division. mr. gowdy: who has the power to make a copy of that video and turn it over to mr. cummings and mr. chaffetz?
director clancy: i would in consultation with my legal counsel. i got to be honest with you, i don't know that for certain. i'm relatively new to the position. mr. gowdy: to the extent you have the power or have influence of those who have power, will you recommend a copy of all video footage be made available? director clancy: i'll certainly talk with our department -- mr. gowdy: you don't need lawyers for everything. you have a bunch of them on this panel. i'm telling you if the only excuse they have for not turning it over is there's some they're rhettical potential investigation or prosecution, i promise mr. cummings and mr. chaffetz, they are not going to interfere with either one. i promise that. we can eliminate that concern now will you turn over all available video to mr. cummings and mr. chaffetz? director clancy: again the video will be available at all times. i will go back to the department and within our agency and revisit this. mr. gowdy: do you know if there was, emphasis on the word was,
video footage of the alleged officer misconduct? director clancy: i'm not aware. mr. gowdy: you don't know whether any of the cameras were traint on the car that these two agents were in? director clancy: the only video i'm aware of, congressman, is what we have provided as they entered the gate at south park. mr. gowdy: do you have a policy of retention and preservation of any video that could be potentially part after criminal investigation or officer misconduct? is that part of your policy? director clancy: we retain video that is related to any incident. mr. gowdy: if there were video of that, no one would have taped over it or destroyed it? director clancy: the video would not have been destroyed. if someone saw an incident somewhere else on the complex yes. mr. gowdy: how about taped over? director clancy: by practice it's uth matic.
my understanding is you have to selectively decide what you want to preserve. otherwise -- mr. gowdy: wouldn't potential officer misconduct be one of those things you wanted to preserve? director clancy: without knowing the facts, don't know what took place beyond that entry point. mr. gowdy: i yield to the chairman. mr. chaffetz: jaguar. we now recognize the jafment massachusetts, the rm of the subcommittee on national security, mr. lynch. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm a little bit more than a little bit put out by the willful ignorance here. back up a second. the secret service is an intelligence gathering organization. and then you don't ask questions. and you destroy evidence. i'm trying to have faith.
i really am. and i offer no disrespect whatsoever. i think you're an honorable man. i tell you this whole system. you said at the tail end of your testimony that you had implemented a change to go to seven days retention of video, is that correct? director clancy: that's correct. mr. lynch: we went from 72 hours to seven days. director clancy: that's correct, with the intent to look at our storage capabilities to go beyond that. mr. lynch: all right. i'm actually going to -- if we have to do it legislatively, the fact that the department of homeland security requires logan airport to retain their videotapes, t.s.a. for 30 days, if i have to do it legislatively, i'm going to make a recommendation we adopt legislation that requires the secret service keep video for 30 days. if that's what we have to do. director clancy, who is
responsible, who is the individual responsible for technical security division? i want to send them a subpoena as well. they are not on this list of folks that we had but who's that person? director clancy: he's relatively new in the position. mr. lynch: it's ok. director clancy: joseph depitro is the chief of the technical division now. mr. lynch: so would it be direct in me assuming he's responsible for that whole surveillance around the white house and the technology, the tapes the purging or scrubbing of the tapes and all that? is that the person i want? director clancy: yes. he would be able to talk to those questions that you have. yes. mr. lynch: all right. we would give him a smeena as well to have him bring whatever information he has. that would be good. -- give him a subpoena as well
to have him bring whatever information he has. that would be good. our local pigly wigly has to keep tapes. coming from an intelligence gathering organization, it just -- it leaves me almost speechless. i just can't imagine a more deliberate attempt not to understand the nature of the problem. what's the penalty -- it's clear from the tape that the two officers drove in to a -- an active bomb investigation. i don't think there's any question about that, right? mr. ogilvie and the other gentleman, i'm blanking on his name, but the two agents. mr. connolly, ok. so you had an active bomb
investigation going on and they drive right in to the -- they drove right through it. i guess they left their car at the white house. they were going to get their car. i understand that. in the meantime they drove right through an active bomb investigation. any disagreement on that? director clancy: i don't know the facts in terms of going to get a vehicle. but i know they absolutely drove through an active investigation. mr. lynch: ok. there's no question about that. and yet we reassign them. so we know that. we don't even ask them questions about that. and yet we just reassign them to desk jobs. no discipline at all. what's the thinking behind that? director clancy: to put them on administrative leave, they would have administrative leave with pay. and i felt that we could still get some work out of them. and also i didn't want to do the discipline in a piecemeal fashion. mr. lynch: i need to interrupt you right there. the signal you're sending to
every other secret service agent, uniformed and p.p.d. is that those folks were not penalized at all for doing what they did. and -- so you didn't remove them. you didn't remove them. i think it would have been a clear signal to send to every other member of the secret service that those two guys screwed up. and they are gone. for now. we are going to hold them responsible. instead, instead -- i know, you're thinking about, ok, they'll be sitting at home. instead of working. but i think on balance i think it was more important, especially with the history we have here of folks shooting at the white house and jumping over the fence and it's like the destone -- keystone kops here. i think it would be a more important message to send to the employees that these guys screwed up and they are being held accountable. rather than just putting them on
a desk job. director clancy: rest assured, once we get the final report, which again i'm told will be weeks, people will be held accountable. and i can understand the frustration for many here in the committee. as well as within our work force. but they are looking to see how are these things handled. and how do you handle agents as opposed to uniform division. i respect your view, sir. mr. lynch: in closing. i want to say, there needs to be a rapid response to these incidents. we can't put this in to a bureaucratic process where i get an answer in eight weeks or 10 weeks. that cannot happen. we need to -- you need to have the ability to act right now on an incident like that rather than file some forms and bring in somebody else and engage in willful ignorance and let somebody else handle this stuff. you're in that spot because
you're very capable. we need you in the future, we need to you have the ability to act. i yield back. mr. chaffetz: i recognize the jafment north carolina, mr. meadows, for five minutes. mr. meadows: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. clancy, thank you for your t i want to return to what you said earlier about meeting with your senior staff and not asking what they knew. when did that happen? director clancy: it happened -- forgive me sir. my memory with everything else that's converging, wednesday. wednesday. mr. meadows: wednesday, what day? director clancy: that would have been the 11th. mr. meadows: you meet with your senior staff. you waited until wednesday to meet with your senior staff when you were informed of this on the ninth? why would you wait two days to meet with your senior staff? director clancy: hearing on the day between and --
mr. meadows: i have hearings every single day. it doesn't preclude me from asking detailed questions like that. director clancy:dy not have a hearing. i don't know what my schedule was. i was doing on tuesday. mr. meadows: why did you wait two days? was it not important to you, mr. clancy? director clancy: as i expressed earlier, this is hugely important to me and the agentcy. mr. meadows: why did you -- you said earlier you didn't ask the question what they knew. you're not interfering with an investigation for you to be informed of what they knew. that wouldn't interfere with an investigation. why wouldn't you have asked the question? is it so you could pull this sergeant shultz here today that you know nothing? i don't understand. director clancy: when i pulled that group together, this hearing was not scheduled. i did that because, again, it's probably hard to understand for this meet -- mr. meadows: it is very hard for mr. lynch and i to understand
how there would be a lack of inquisitive nature on why the director would not want to know. director clancy: i compartmentalized this incident. i gave it to the o.i.g. so that i could concentrate on -- i protect these all around the world, classified documents i have to keep up with, president of afghanistan. i have all these other issues that i need to focus today and future threats. this in my mind -- mr. meadows: the president of afghanistan may be very important. and indeed he probably is. but the president of the united states is a lot more important. i wouldn't compartmentalize and put that somewhere else, would you? director clancy: all of our protectees are important. but certainly this in my mind, i gave it to the o.i.g. i was content to wait until we get all the facts and not do things piecemeal because i thought that was a dangerous path to take to do things in a piecemeal fashion. information starts to leak out and would have started to leak out, people -- mr. meadows: keeping these guys there working on administrative
duties do you not think that they have the ability to talk to some of their fellow workers and spin a different narrative instead of sending them home as mr. lynch suggested? do you think it's not dangerous that they might interfere with the investigation? director clancy: they could still converse in my view at their residence was anyone they wanted to. keeping them -- mr. meadows: you haven't told them not to converse and tell a different story? director clancy: i haven't spoken to those individuals. mr. meadows: these are gs-15 and you haven't spoken to them why? director clancy: the two individual -- i didn't want to, again, interfere with the investigation. one is an s.e.s. and one is a -- mr. meadows: you were hired to clean up the mess. and you and i have met personally before you were actually the official director. i told you about a number of things where i was actually getting emails. and i still get emails.
anonymous emails on all kinds of different things that are happening. details in honolulu where we've had some of the same accusations made that have been made in other parts of the country. details where people have actually had major offenses and then were left within the secret service and allowed to retire a year later. what are you going to do? because i ask you specifically about forced transfers and how the threatening of taking away their security clearance for. so rank-and-file and yet nothing has been done with that, mr. clancy. are you going to act on that eventually? director clancy: in terms of threatening to take aware their clearances, i understand that was in a letter that went out to people when they were routinely we move people around the country. mr. meadows: it's used as a force of manipulation for most of the rank-and-file. that's the way they see it. so are you going to make sure that they know that their security clearance will not be
taken away? pure and simple. director clancy: security clearance is not taken away -- mr. meadows: if they decide not to transfer. director clancy: you can't do that, congressman. we need to have people -- for example now the president's detail needs additional personnel. we have to move people from the field offices to the president's detail. if they say no, i don't want to go to the president's detail, now we are short on the president's detail. we have to -- it's the nature of our business and they are informed of that when they are hired. mr. meadows: this sounds like the same old problem we had under the previous director, mr. clancy. i'm very troubled. i yield back. mr. chaffetz: i recognize the jafment virginia, mr. connolly, for five minutes. mr. connolly: thank you mr. clancy. welcome to the committee and thank you for your service to your contry. i want to -- country. i want to cite -- first of all, i think there's bipartisan -- a lot of bipartisan agreement on this committee about a problem
obviously at secret service, and i think that you're going to find there's bipartisan comity and agreement on approach to how we resolve this. my friend, mr. gowdy and his questioning raised a very interesting point and i'm pretty sympathetic with his point of view, but i'm open to hearing a counter argument. you've got an o.i.g. investigation going on so they've got the tapes. well congress has a constitutional role irrespective of what an o.i.g. is doing. the fact that we have the power to compel doesn't always mean we should use it, especially with an ongoing investigation. there are plenty of precedents for not doing that. for not dropping that hammer because we don't want to unduly interfere with prosecution or whatever it may be. but i would say that -- to underscore mr. gowdy's point, i think the burden is on you and your lawyers to make a case
before this committee representing the institution of congress for why at this time it would otherwise corrupt an ongoing investigation. absent such compelling testimony or rationale, it seems to me this committee is entitled to those tapes for its own investigative purposes. we are an independent branch of government. we have every right to exercise our oversight. hopefully we do it responsibly. but i just -- i'm telling you in my view we are going to move forward in a bipartisan basis on this issue. not always the tradition of this committee, but in this case i think that's where we are heading and i don't speak for the rm, but i join with him -- with the ranking member but i join with him in his observations. a word to the wise, mr. clancy that's where we are headed. director clancy: i sense all of your outrage, all of you. will i go back and revisit this
with our folks and with the department and see if we can accommodate the request. i heard you-all loud and clear today with what we need to do. mr. connolly: i thank you. i'm going to try to get through five questions quickly and hopefully you'll cooperate. do you believe, given your new responsibilities, and i know you've got a lifetime invested in this very noble service with a storied history. is there however, do you think parallel with that or sort of sume imposepped on that noble tradirks perhaps a creeping cultural problem that has to be addressed in your ranks? both the chairman and ranking member cataloged a history going back of unfortunate headlines. director clancy: we do. to be candid -- mr. connolly: we do what? director clancy: we do have a small element that has a culture
of in this case most of our recent cases alcohol has been involved in the most recent cases. i will say that the o.i.g. did a report and i think 8% of our incidents involved alcohol. but irregardless, in our looking back at our recent history, some alcohol has been used. that is clearly something i'm concerned about. we are looking at how to address that. in terms of the culture of not bringing information up through the ranks, there obviously is a concern with that. as all of you are getting these anonymous calls or maybe not anonymous, either way, that's something we have to fix. i know it's not a proper answer. some of these things take time and it has to come with building trust and communication and trying to hammer this home. give us a chance to communicate. mr. connolly: the five day delay. to what do you ascribe it? bureaucratic innesha?
or do you believe somebody was trying to withhold that from you so that -- to preclude your taking action? director clancy: this is speculation on my part. i don't think anyone was intentionally hiding it from me. at a lower level if they felt that -- i don't know how they viewed the incidents. we'll find out those facts. i don't want to speculate for those at that level. that rank. mr. connolly: obviously it would be very troubling if it were the latter, right? director clancy: absolutely. mr. connolly: bureaucratic inertia we can manage. but somebody deliberately timeying your ability to scrutinize an unfortunate incident that doesn't put us in a favorable light, then you have a different problem, mr. clancy. director clancy: it would be a direct reflection of my leadership. mr. connolly: a direct challenge. i don't know if it reflects your
leadership. and that's another element of concern. i think both for us and for the public. we had a review panel that recommended strongly that the president should seek an outside director for your position. he didn't take that advice. he chose you because he had confidence in you, apparently, and there is an argument the to be made that only an insider careerist like yourself, can actually make the tough decisions, nose where the bodies are buried, and doesn't put up with sort of nonsensical arguments. on the other hand, the counter argument could be, yeah, we'll put somebody in there who is co-opted who couldn't possibly be a change agent. and isn't what we need. i'd like to give you the opportunity as my final moment of questioning to respond to that. director clancy: thank you, congressman. let me just say, one of the things we have done since i have come in. it's not the same old upper tier of management.
we have made changes and primarily because we wanted to take better advantage of our subject matter civilian experts. so what we have done in the past, we have had a director and deputy director. now we have a deputy, just recently made it deputy director . at the same level, we are reefing out to a chief operating officer not within the agentcy. they will be from the private sector. underneath that chief operating officer, who is on equal level with the agent deputy director we have a tier of several chief information officer several other civilian experts in that side of the house. we are integrating both of them. this is not the same old secret service from one month ago. the short time, 30 days i have been here, we have made significant changes to the traditional culture and structure. the structure of the upper
management. we are new including myself. i'd like to have some time to try to let that progress. mr. connolly: i thank the gentleman. mr. chaffetz: i recognize the gentleman from florida, mr. desantis. mr. desantis: last week you said that there were three clips of the woman with the suspicious package, but only two clips of the agents in the vehicle. why is there one more clip of the woman than of the agents? director clancy: the female was positioned it's outside of that gate area. just outside. that is specific to that incident with the suspicious package and the confrontation between the officer and the lady. there is very very short clips of that and her actions. the other two clips are more -- although it captures the
package, suspicious package, but it also captures the agents nudging that barrel and coming through a secure zone. mr. desantis: the third angle would not have captured the vehicle, is that why? director clancy: the first one would not -- there are two different time frames. i can't answer that question. mr. desantis: mr. gowdy's questions about allowing congress -- you do not want to provide congress with any of its own versions or copies that we could then look, review with the staff, and then determine the next steps that we may want to take with the investigation, is that your position? director clancy: just recently said that i will revisit. our initial offer was to be there whenever you needed to
view t we would provide it at any time day or night. i understand that's not -- mr. desantis: i have been bouncing around. i apologize i didn't hear that. mr. gowdy also raised the issue of this inspector general. i know you're doing what you think you're required to do. but sitting here in hearings and across the whole federal government conducting oversight, the number of times witnesses say well that's the i.g., we can't do anything. we can't give you information, congress, because the i.g. i don't believe that that was ever the intent of inspector generals to cause the rest of the world to stand still. we have an independent duty to conduct oversight over all these agencies. we are asked to fund the agencies. and i think the american people, obviously, need to know what's going on so that we can make decisions about that. what is the time line of the i.g. investigation? director clancy: i'm told weeks. i haven't been conversing with the i.g. i did have one call with the inspector general, but i'm told it would be a matter of weeks not months.
mr. desantis: he's also doing a look back investigation for some of the previous incidents, is that correct? director clancy: i saw that somewhere in print but i'm not-dirnl' not sure we talked about that. mr. desantis: that was not something you asked the i.g. you went to the i.g. with the incident at the gate. director clancy: specifically this incident, yes. mr. desantis: at that point -- let me ask you this. with the witnesses that were invited, we had four witnesses that we asked to attend. they are not obviously, here, so what is the reason for not bringing those witnesses here today? director clancy: there's a couple of reasons for that, right or wrong. they are the rank-and-file. they didn't sign up for coming in front of an open hearing with this -- with the cameras and lights. i think it's my responsibility. it's my responsibility -- mr. desantis: correct me film' wrong, but you have not allowed them to be interviewed behind the scenes have you?
director clancy: we have not. i understand the staffs may still be discussing that. correct me film' wrong on this. my understanding is that -- if i'm wrong on this. my understanding is that we are interviewing people twice. you get different stories. every time you interview someone you get a slight difference. not intentionally. it could be perceived different. we went through some examples of this in the closed door hearing. i think one investigation initially to do their investigation, and then if there are gaps or whatever, certainly others can follow up. mr. desantis: i think that that's problematic. we have our own duty to conduct oversight. and the questions that we may ask from a congressional perspective may be different than what an i.g. would be looking at. i think we are all interested in accountability but how that accountability would be done within the executive branch would be different than how we
as a group that has received recommendations, that knows that there's going to be funding issues with this, some of the issues that we would want to examine. i'm not satisfied that that is the way to do it. and i join the chairman. i wish at a minimum that these witnesses would have been provided at least behind the scenes so that we could have received some answers. i yield back. mr. chaffetz: i recognize the gentlewoman from michigan, miss lauren, for five minutes. mrs. lawrence: thank you chairman. director lancey, i looked for the core values of the secret service. and on the website it says that the five agency -- agency has five core values -- justice, duty courage, honesty, and loyalty. these values in the secret
service worthy of trust and confidence. and that to reinforce these values, secret service leaders and employees promote and measure personal accountability and program performance across the agency by holding each person to the highest standards of personal and professional integrity. the secret service ensures the -- that they preserve the core values and the filament of the vision and the success of that mission. and then i -- i'm always interested in leadership. so i understand that you have 27 years as a veteran of the secret service. and during your career you were a special agent in charge of the
presidential protection division. you yourself was in charge of that division. and that during your tenure of the 27 years you also served in the secret service office of investigation, the agency's internal affairs division. is that correct? director clancy: that's correct. for a brief time. mrs. lawrence: my concern after listening to all the testimony and my question to you today is that i recognize that you were brought into this office, or given this opportunity, and you have been in the office a little more than 30 days. but you were brought in in february of this year correct? and i would -- in looking at your resume, i would -- i would think that experience like this would put you at a position where investigative skills, the
knowledge of how a department should operate -- because you went up through the ranks. so you have actually performed the duties of the people you are now the director of. but i hear things like i don't know. i'm outranged. -- outraged. that shouldn't have happened. yes, there is a culture. when you're put into the job, you are expected to bring all those skills and to provide leadership and to be able to address issues and concerns. i'm really challenged right now. my question to you, with all of your experience, and with the continuing -- when you were brought on we already had those issues that we have outlined today. how are you going to make a difference -- i know you said
you need time. but when i hear you didn't talk to those who were your executive level to investigate this, when you yourself were in charge of the agency's internal affairs, i would think that you would be really prepared to be able to dig right in to that and to sit here today and have a clear vision and a clear mission under your leadership, how you're going to address these. and i'm not hearing that. so my question to you today as a member of congress and of this committee, is where is the vision the leadership, and just the fierce commitment to these core values that you took yourself personally, that you now personally are in charge of making sure that that is the mission of this agency.
i need you to give that to me because i'm not hearing it. director clancy: congresswoman in my opening statement i said this is my life's work. i spent most of my life, 27 28 years protecting four presidents. i have given everything i have had at great expense personal expense, to ensure that our protectees, our presidents are safe. i didn't come back from private industry to just enjoy the ride. this is critical for me. it's critical for the contry. i'm going to give it everything i have. i'm immersed in t i spent hours talking to people -- immersed in it. i spent hours talking to people. the we pushed it out to this new leadership ship we built. we are bringing up the professional people to marry the responsibilities of law enforcement. get them working totchingt this is a new look. we are trying to reinvigorate
the look of the secret service. i don't have a magic wand. it's going to take ty. one of the things that will be key here once this report's done our people held accountable. we have this table we'll work with. it's based on what other agencies used. we only had it for about a year. we will definitely be holding people accountable. that's what our people want to see. why is morale down? there's several reasons. quality of life is one. the other thing is, we are not holding people accountable in a consistent manner. i think that's one of the members said here today. that's our first test. are we being consistent with the way we hold people accountable. and we follow up with that accountability. miss chaffetz: i thank the gentlewoman. mrs. lawrence: i yield back my time. results is what will measure your leadership. thank you. mr. chaffetz: we recognize the gentleman from south carolina mr. mulvaney, for five minutes. mr. mulvaney: thank you, mr.
clancy, for being here. i'm going to ask you a couple of specific questions about the incident we'll discuss here today and talk more generally about the agency. as best i can tell, a layman's summary of this is that a woman dropped off what she said was a bomb at 10:24 on a wednesday night. yet it looks like the be on the lookout order didn't go out until thursday afternoon at 4:15 does that delay surprise you? ordinary course of business? is that unusual? director clancy: i can't confirm. i'll ask my staff the actual time frame for that. mr. mulvaney: let's assume it is. would that be too long? director clancy: it would be too long. mr. mulvaney: i can assure you he it did take that long. i'm looking at the document. have you investigated why that happened? director clancy: our investigative office certainly will investigate why. they are going to look at the
whole -- mr. mulvaney: you talked to your folks about this right? you talked to your senior folks about it. you have done perhaps not a formal investigation but you have asked them why, right? director clancy: on the incident involving the lady throwing the suspicious package, i have talked to our people about that. i have been briefed on the incident. mr. mulvaney: you don't have any idea why it took that long to be on the look out order? director clancy: i don't know why it took that long, no. mr. mulvaney: i'm coming to this issue for the first time, you found her. the friday morning. the woman who threw a package at the white house and then ran over a secret service agent with an open car door she was speeding away, you found her on a friday morning at a hotel in virginia. your agents talked to her in the lobby of the hotel while she's having breakfast and they didn't detain her. were you aware of that? director clancy: i am aware of it after being briefed, yes. mr. mulvaney: why didn't they
detain her? director clancy: i'll make an asungs here. other than the fact there was no arrest warrant out. the arrest warrant came out the following day, i believe. mr. mulvaney: how long should it take you to get a warrant for somebody who throws a bomb at the white house? director clancy: the other factors here again, making an assumption, is that at this point we know there are books. we know that she has a history with the secret service. and she has been interviewed in the past. mr. mulvaney: she does have a history. you knew who she was. the arrest warrant didn't go out until the following tuesday. it took you seven days to get the warrant to arrest this lady. which takes me to the next step in the timeline. on saturday, she was arrested by local police in virginia. and the local police called your pioc and the pioc told the local police the suspect is no longer a secret service -- on the secret service look out. were you aware of that? director clancy: i was not. mr. mulvaney: does that strike you as something unusual strange, and perhaps wrong?
director clancy: it does. i'm not sure why she would not be a look out. mr. mulvaney: i don't want to pile on, mr. clancy, i know it's been a rough day for you, i would hope that this has been a month now since this happened. you knew it was a high profile event. granted a lot of the attention went to what happened with the officers that evening, but still a woman threw a bomb at the white house or something she said was a bomb when she dropped it off. it turned out it wasn't. for you at this point, sir, not to know these details is a little disappointing to me. we'll leave that for another day. my general question, you have been there 27 years. you seem like a very dedicated public servant and i thank you for your service. i think people undervalue folks like you and what you do for this nation. has it always been this bad? director clancy: no, sir. mr. mulvaney: what changed? director clancy: sir, i don't know that answer. i wish i did. i know there's great dedication when i was younger, and i know
there's great dedication now. i honestly believe it's a smaller element of people that are not satisfied. again, it goes back to how we are treating our people. they are getting crushed, some of them, with the hours because of staffing is so limited. we are up for some real challenges as we go into the fall here with the pope's visit and u.n. that is going to be a trem challenge which again will create a tremendous burden on our work force. and i think that's part of it too. i think that the demands on the work force, our mission has somewhat expanded, primarily our staffing levels haven't kept up. that's affecting our morale. i don't want to dismiss the leadership. leadership is a key part of this, too. that's something that i've got to direct and work on. but the staffing levels which we are making some headway to, i think that's going to help over time. mr. mulvaney: look at that together. let me ask you one last question out of curiousity.
was it better when you were under treasury? is that part of the problem here? you're under homeland now and not treasury? director clancy: i was a young manager under treshry. i don't know those relationships and how that worked during that time frame. i wouldn't be able to give a good answer on that. mr. mulvaney: thank you, sir. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chaffetz: i recognize the gentlewoman from the virgin islands ms. plaskett. ms. plaskett: mr. lancey, thank you so much for your time. my questions go along the same line but more condensed time frame as my colleague, mr. mulvaney. and i wanted to really talk with you about allegations that are out there as opposed to facts. i have a real problem with people putting information out that is not substaniated by direct facts. i wanted to talk about this anonymous email and some of the allegations that are in it.
we understand that you received this anonymous email five days after the fact, correct? director clancy: that's correct. ms. plaskett: you're very familiar with this and it was given to this committee yesterday and i wanted to walk you through some of the allegations that were in there to see what you have been able to ascertain as being factual as opposed to those which are not credible or you still do not have information about. in the email it says at some point an atsaic from w.f.o., george ogilvie, and a ppddsaic, mark connolly, drove through a crime scene tape. i am ' going to get back to that allegation of a crime scene tape specifically. but later on it says the officers at the scene said they were both extremely intoxicated they were coming home from ed donovan's retirement dinner. were they coming from home --
coming returning from a retirement dinner? do you know that? director clancy: i know there was a retirement dinner that night. i don't know if they were coming from the retirement dinner. ms. plaskett: you don't vn able to ascertain the lives of guests or individuals that were there? director clancy: i stepped away from it from the o.i.g. ms. plaskett: but the o.i.g. is looking into that? director clancy: they are. ms. plaskett: they flipped on their lights of the g.o.v. director clancy: government owned vehicle. ms. plaskett: they were in government vehicles coming back to the white house. director clancy: that's correct. ms. plaskett: did they go around the roadblock? what does that mean? director clancy: i don't know that. it would be an assumption on my part. i know that when they arrived at the gate on e street and 15th street there was a barrel there placed there by our officers to secure the zone. they did go through -- they moved that barrel over. ms. plaskett: it says, the email
says apparently flipped on the lights. does that mean -- i've been an investigator and prosecutor. apparently means the person doesn't know themself. what do you think? were they -- do you believe this individual who sent this email was in fact there at the scene? director clancy: i don't know that. because i don't know if the lights were flicked on or not. reading that it sounds like it's secondhand information but that would be an asuppings. ms. plaskett: that's what i get out of it. and that the agents nudged the barrel as opposed to -- we have heard nudged, we have heard crashed. which one was it? director clancy: more of a nudge. it was on the right side of the bumper. ms. plaskett: why would you call it a nudge as opposed to crash? director clancy: the barrel didn't cross over, it was more of a purposeful move. wasn't losing control of the vehicle. it was a very delicate movement of the barrel with the vehicle. ms. plaskett: how fast were they
going? director clancy: one to two miles an hour. ms. plaskett: to crash something would probably require a much greater speed? director clancy: yes, the barrel would have been tipped over. ms. plaskett: i want to talk about a specific time period. we have, you tell me film' correct with these times at 10:24, the suspect drives up, correct? director clancy: that's correct. ms. plaskett: and at 10:30, the joint operation center notifies the metropolitan police department. director clancy: that's correct. ms. plaskett: 10:32 they report the uniform division reports the incident to that joint operating center. right? director clancy: i don't have the time line, but yes. ms. plaskett: at 10:47 a notification message goes out. right? director clancy: according to your time line, yes. ms. plaskett: no. at 10:47 a p.o.c. sends a notification message regarding
the suspicious package. and then at 11:12 the p.i.c. issues the first of two notification alerts regarding the suspicious package. director clancy: yes. ms. plaskett: what is the difference between at one at 10:47, a notification message, and the 11:12 the notification alerts. director clancy: the alerts should be the same. they are both protective alerts to alert the director of staff that there is a suspicious package or there is an incident at the white house or whatever the incident is. they are updates to the original alert. ms. plaskett: when did the officers arrive on the scene? director clancy: metropolitan -- ms. plaskett: the two officers in question. director clancy: arrived at --
ms. plaskett: 10:58. so they didn't know that there was a scene there, did they? at 11:12 when the notifications went out? director clancy: they should have. they would have received a notification. typically senior staff would receive these notifications. they should know and they -- the assumption is they saw the barrels there and they should know. ms. plaskett: was there crime scene tape? any notification there to let them know there was a scene? director clancy: from the video i looked at, i don't remember seeing any crime tape or any tape. there may have been some out there, i didn't see it in the video i saw. ms. plaskett: thank you, mr. chairman. >> we do have to leave this hearing now to join the house about to gavel in. but you can continue watching it live on line at c-span.org or watch it in its entirety later in our schedule. the house about to gavel back in to start work on the 2016
republican budget plan. a vote to advance that measure expected later this afternoon. take you live now to the floor of the u.s. house right here on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered today by our guest chaplain reverend dennis fountain, moses lake baptist church, moses lake, washington. the chaplain: let's pray. dear god and heavenly father, we come before you