Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20150422

Okay, thank you. My time has expired mr. Chairman, i just would like to pursue which at some point fiscal issue of trading because i think it has great bearing on what is allowed to happen. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Now recognize that children from north carolina, mr. Meadows, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ms. Leonhart, youve been with dea for how many years . Thirtyfive. Thirtyfive years and as i understand it about five years in your current position . Since 2010. So you take this very seriously being part of Law Enforcement. I enjoy great relationship with Law Enforcement back home. And in the standards of which they take the standards that are violated by some within our ranks really paint a very bad picture for the rest to serve diligently, would you agree with that . Yes. These are, you know a few compared to the 4600 agents that work for dea. We are very proud of our agency ended its is hard. And it should hit you hard it sounds like you know you keep saying youre appalled and you just cant leave this kind of behavior but my concern is, in 1994 there was a gao report that outlined, you were there at that particular time that outlined Sexual Misconduct within the agency your then again in 2004 it was an oig study that talk about the same kind of inappropriate behavior. And yet here we are today with a new oig report that over 100 pages in length but we are addressing a decade old ultra problem arent we . This is not new to you is that correct . This is new to me in this position, but in Law Enforcement obviously every every company, every organization has the people that are not going to follow the rules, and to see what happened back in 20002003 in colombia, to see what happened in 2009 with the incident with the agent in bogota and fantasy cartagena this is our opportunity to make sure that colter, if there was one that existed, that theres no doubt that employees know that this is unacceptable and see what will happen to them. That is why firing the three employees, agents after cartagena sets the tone for what happens from here on. Well, it might if that wasnt reinforced in other ways. And let me tell you you keep coming back to cartagena because really may be the only time that there have been people that have actually been disciplined for Improper Conduct wouldnt you agree with that . So you keep running back to this as a good example, but yet your directives didnt come out until two years after that event. You are bragging about your directives that you sent out. Didnt that go out in 2014 . Yes, it went out so why if you were concerned about the culture wouldnt it have gone out immediately after the event . Or is it just that the press started to report this as a problem and now its a problem for you . No. Actually we had discussion, the executive staff, on what thinks we should put in place. And we started putting things in place in 2012 after the discovery what happened in cartagena. So is it your testimony that it took a two years to to get what you put any directive . Is that your testimony here today . No. Actually we drafted them that back after working group got together to decide what steps do we immediately put in place. We drafted that and on the heels of the cartagena case will be able to show heres what happens if you partake in this behavior. We had a disciplinary case finalized. We went out with a series of things. That memo, we had already put additional training, every basic agent training, every intel analyst training okay, im running out of time to let me do this one followup because i have reason to believe that some of the people that today you are saying should have been fired but you didnt give a directive but i have reason to believe that some of them have actually gotten promotions, have got bonuses and got an assignment. Would you agree with that . I know that some of them . I know a number of them were promoted between the activity in 2000 when it came to light in 2010. I can tell you that since the allegations were raised and investigated and there have been no promotions. Promotions. How about bonuses . Because i have reason to believe that the were bonuses that were given. Im sure he just looked into all of this so were their bonuses given to some of those folks . I know there were bonuses given to the regional director. I dont know about bonuses i dont know about so some bonuses were given to people who were directly involved in this particular thing that most americans find offensive . Yes or no . No. The regional director you just said you did know so how would you the regional director that got bonuses was not directly involved in this. I dont know as to the other employees. So is it possible they got bonuses . Its very possible. Its very possible, because our intel would say that it is. I appreciate the patience of the chair. If you give without names because obviously that is critical, would you agree today to give the names and the number of people involved in this to the oig so he can report back to this committee on how many of those people got bonuses . Would you agree to do that . Because i find that thats reinforcing the bad behavior if they are getting bonuses. Would you do that . Would you agree to the . I will work with the department was going to be giving you Additional Information here shortly to see about adding that in. So we can get bonus information to see if these people that were involved in this got bonuses. You can retract the names. I just want to know the number of them. So i will discuss it with the department and so is that a no . You are the administrator. You can make the decision. Are you going to give it to us or not . If im able to give it to you will get it. Mr. Chairman, i would the gentleman yield . Yes. We are asking you to provide being information to Inspector General. Will you or will you not do that . It was up to me to give it to you you are the administrator. You are the administrator. Who do you have to ask . Who do you report to . The documents that are going to your committee we are asking you to give them to Inspector General. At the Inspector General ones that come we will give him yet. Does the Inspector General ones that . I would be happy to take that information and look into the issue. Will the Inspector General report back to this committee about these particular individuals . As suggested, the more senior person wasnt directly involved, was involved, was he not . He was not involved in the activity of get a properly report up the chain of command . He didnt report it to the right place. Okay. So he was involved. He may not have been naked having sex in his apartment like everyone else was but he was involved correct . He failed to report to obr. That person should be included in the information that you give regarding bonuses and promotions. Can also add title changes cracks bonuses, title changes promotions. Is that there . Looking for a yes from the administrator. We will work to get you that information. Is that a yes or no . Yes, we will keep you that information. Thank you. Does the job and have it any other eyed thank the chair for his patients. I yield back. Did you want to add something to the store with . Now recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin who is now recognized for five minutes. One of the things thats a little bit frustrating about this hearing and i apologize come i feel a little sorry for your is that you express concerns about some of the Civil Service protections. So people back home understand, Civil Service protections are very important because if we didnt have Civil Service protection you would wind up with an agency like the irs or something, firing anybody was on the right side politically. Nevertheless you have expressed frustration at a deeply some of the people who are expressing the greatest anger at you or the ones who expressed anger at you may be the first to fight any change in those Civil Service laws. But could you give us some suggestions that you may have to make it easier to remove an employee who is i was the one thing that frustrates me today. We the situation with people. Just behaving in outrageous conduct. If a latenight talk show host made it up you wouldnt believe but it really happened apparently. So things that are obviously wrong. It makes you wonder whats wrong if there is job comports more subjective. But could you make suggestions pertaining changes to the Civil Service while . If you look at giving us the same extension as the fbi exemption then we would be able to make sure that the penalties were appropriate. And what would you think that appropriate penalty is for this behavior . I think this is outrageous behavior and that facts of the case as i do without having to be concerned with the appeal rights and being able to sustain it in a merit systems protection board, i believe that some of the behavior was raised to the level of removal. Evening they should be fired . Just like cartagena, yes. Okay. Just because you kind of dance around, could you describe to the public today why do you kill this behavior was wrong . So i get a sense. Why is this bad behavior . Can you explain in your own mind . Partaking its wrong on a number of levels. Start with prostitution itself. You know, Human Trafficking is like the second highest illegal market besides drug trafficking. Look at all the efforts the government has been put into especially in recent years to go after the Human Trafficking threat. Thats number one. Number two it is so far away from the type of conduct and ethical behavior that is required of someone to carry a badge as a federal agent that those are the reasons. And the security clearance issues, the security, putting people and our information at risk are all reasons that i, this is appalling. It is appalling. When i read his stuff come is a right some of the stuff was brought to your attention or were you aware of by colombian authorities . They were unaware of it . Actually by colombian authorities come by the time this was discovered on the corruption of the two Police Officers, the Colombian National police did a great job in helping us convict them, and also they removed a number of Colombian National Police Officers who were involved in this same activity . Activity. Okay. Ill ask the same question to mr. Horowitz. Could you comment on a geeky we should change still keeping protections for people, but change things a little bit not just outrageous conduct even competent conduct out of the dea . Well, within the current structure that needs to be prompt reporting, prompt investigated come prompt disciplinary action and follow through. And thats within the current structure, that can be done. You mention the Colombian National example. Those events that were learned about from the Colombian National officers who were cropped and disclose the information, related to do that 2001 the 2004 events all of the dea officials involved in those events down in colombia said nothing about it. It was learned eight years, six seven, eight years later when corrupt colombia National Officers disclosed it. Thats a problem a serious problem that no one thought that was reportable to headquarters and a third need to be follow through, whether its the Current System frankly whether its under an fbi regime. That was a fundamental flaw. No one thought it was important enough or serious enough to raise to headquarters. Well, its good that the colombian people have little Higher Standards welcome these were the corrupt officers. Right, that they felt it was wrong and once they of course got arrested, they were more than happy to come in and report out on what had occurred. Thank you. Thank the gentleman. Now recognize the gentleman from alabama, esther palma, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ms. Leonhart, is there any policy can turn it over weapons or comedic asian devices to foreign agents or any nonpda or nonu. S. Official . If a gigabyte youre asking about prohibition on turning over the vice . Not having immediate supervision of the weapons and devices that belong to an agent. Well, number one, securing a weapon thats required. Im not asking you about that. Im asking you is there any policy at the dea that would result in any kind of reprimand or punishment for not having immediate supervision of your weapons and communication devices . Thats a yes or no. It could fall under no. Thats a yes or no. You either have a penalty for not securing our weapon and your communication devices because there are things on those communication devices that could be used against other agents, against this country. I could fall under poor judgment. Theres a number of areas theres policies on poor judgment has already been pointed out. Poor judgment is not one of those official criteria. And what happened here, you talked about these corrupt Police Officers. Is it true that the same officers who help facilitate these parties may have helped pay for the prostitutes supervised, had control of the agents weapons and communication devices, possibly their security, their badges, is that also the case . Part of the report is that while some of the agents were involved in that activity no. Its a yes or a no. Yes. Okay. As egregious as the activities that the agents were involved in, which in many respects are crimes against humanity because of the ages of these girls could you not find a reason to reprimand or fire agents were turned over their weapons and their communication devices to Foreign Nationals . I mean for crying out loud china is investing in south america, latin america. They will spend another 250 billion over the next 10 years down there. Did it not occur to anyone that this might also be a National Security breach or a problem along that line . So much of a security adjudication could look at that and find that those are reasons why a security clearance should be suspended and revoked. Were they for any of these people . For the bogota case their clearances were never look at. Okay. Let me ask you this end mr. Chairman you brought this up. Who is your immediate supervisor . Who do you report to . Who has the authority to hold you accountable for the oversight of the dea . The Deputy Attorney general. Have you discussed this with the Deputy Attorney general and how to proceed with this . I briefed the Deputy Attorney general on these cases recently. Did he make recommendations about how to proceed . Yes. The security glances are currently being reviewed by i want to ask you something more specific. Did the Deputy Attorney general expressing reservations about how the dea has handled this . Agenda discussions, were there any discussions about how to respond to the request from Inspector Generals Office Office of Inspector General . Ive had multiple conversation with her office on documents, turning over documents to the oig and they have given us good guidance on that. So they gave a good guidance so that means they approved not turning over the documents that Inspector General requested . No. Actually we didnt know we worry about the victim, victims names and how to handle that. Mr. Horowitz, you have said that thereve been numerous instances where the fbi has been speculated about the dea when you were here in january, you spoke of agencies, particularly fbi and others dealing production of material. I asked you then did this rise to obstruction. You said it had a Significant Impact on reviews but failed to go you failed to go as far as calling obstruction. I want to ask the vatican. Are you willing to call it obstruction of . What occurred back in 2013 when we were given redacted documents impeded and obstructed our ability to move forward with this investigation in a timely manner and it took months and it required me to elevate it to the leadership of both agencies, and it was when i elevate it to the got the reaction but i didnt have to do that with atf and the Marshals Service to a the Marshals Service to a that i should have to do that and im still having to do that. Im not trying to put you on the spot but it appears to me you have been obstructed. I think in this instance we were obstructed. Is personal information you would like to get from the dea . I think at this point we made a decision to simply move forward and issued the report even though we at concerns about both the fbi and the deas production because of this is so important to put forward and frankly, at this point we get other reports to do and get to but we saw the same issues on. Is there Additional Information you would like to have . On this issue, no. On others yes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. That the gentleman. Now recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. Lynch. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman im not sure if the memo from attorney general has been admitted into evidence, but in case it hasnt will you without objection, so ordered. All right, greg. Ms. Leonhart and mr. Horowitz if the attorney generals memo, are all Department Personnel dated april 10, 2015, subject prohibition on solicitation for prostitution. It says that the solicitation of prostitutes creates a greater demand for Human Trafficking victims and a consequent increase in the number of miners at adult persons trafficked into commercial sex slavery. Do you agree with that . Do you agree with that assessment . I sort of think it raises the risks. Do you agree with that . I certainly do. Okay. I also under the department of Homeland Security regs and a couple of the statutes we have what were talking about here is solicitation of prostitutes for 15 to 20 parties is good within the definition of Human Trafficking. And yet and yet the dea is actually charged, i know that mr. Farenthold and mr. Kosar myself and mr. Issa were down in Central America recently, thats a big part of the deas mission is really to combat Human Trafficking. And we actually give grants to the department to the dea and to the fbi and the state department as part of the trafficking victims protection act and the violence against women act. We give grants to your agency to prevent Human Trafficking prevent prostitution and yet the very people, the very department of dedicating this money in this case are engaging in Human Trafficking. It just brings me, you know back to the unbelievability of what has happened here. It is really unbelievable. Under the douglas a factor that we use in determining discipline, one of the factors is the seriousness of the offense, and whether the offense is in direct violation of the agency policy. And the notoriety of the offense. And whether that offense prohibits that individual from doing their job. So in this case we have dea agents that are still on the job, that are receiving federal grants to stop trafficking who have already engaged in and admitted to trafficking. And i dont see the end of this. I dont see the end of this if we leave this situation the way it does. And so ms. Leonhart, you know, i wouldnt believe this would be necessary but we may need to amend title v. We may have to put in a provision that says that, that holds you accountable. Because right now you could pass it off to somebody below didnt you dont have to accept responsibility, and you havent. And thats clear. But if we adopted an amendment to title v that said outrageous and or criminal conduct in direct violation of Agency Mission would you be building to fire somebody, that would solve this i think in part. And also the failure to report. Because thats where this started, where the managers at the lower level did not report, did not take this up the chain of command. And so we need to hold them accountable, to come into should be proficient that says refusal or failure to report an offense like this will give the agency and the government the ability to call back pensions, clawback salary that was accepted by those individuals who were violating the law. Its a shame that we have to get to this but, you know i actually think that may be where we are at right now. I will yield back the balance of my time. Thank the gentleman. Im going to recognize myself. I do have a series of questions as we wrap up. Administrator leonhart you became, you try to paint a picture of this a decade ago i heard you say multiple times 10 years ago. When did you become the deputy administrator . I was confirmed in march 2004. How many deputies are there deputy administrator are there . There is one. So you are the sole deputy administrator and then you became the acting administrator. When was that . 2007. And then you were confirmed in 2010. Its pretty safe to say youve had your finger on the pulse of this department or this agency for more than a decade correct . Youve been there 35 years, correct . It is, either the deputy or the acting administered or administrator, yes since 2004. One of the things that you said that is troubling, and a long list, was brought up by mr. Lynch, is the idea that he was in response to some of the gentleman over here who asked the question about those who were directly involved. I want you too seriously consider, i want all these departments and agencies too seriously consider, in my mind that are directly involved if they fail to report. Humane had been the person who was directly, fully engaged in the inappropriate behavior but once you know about it you have a responsibility to deal with it under a Department Policy correct . Thats correct spent so when you suggest they were not directly involved, that offers a great concern. Do you understand that . I do understand that. I was i was just making the point that he wasnt involved in the behavior. He failed to report, and thats what his shortcomings were. Part of the aborted behavior is covering it up. Abhorrent. Thats essentially what it is. Its covered it up by not reporting it up the chain because as mitchell borowitz pointed out the only, the only alternative based on the Law Enforcement component offense tables in the appendix three of such misconduct and Sexual Harassment is removal, the only one. There so its hands our butts no ambiguity. I noticed things were going to look at what title v and whatnot but removal is the only option. So let me ask you administrator, do you believe that soliciting prostitution is Sexual Harassment . No. I believe that prostitution is Sexual Misconduct. Explained the difference between such misconduct and Sexual Harassment. Sexual harassment is a workplace behavior. Its what you Sexual Harassment is something that affects the employees in the workplace or an employee. Sexual misconduct is outside of the workforce, outside of the workplace, like prostitution. Theres a difference. Does it affect the employee getting a raise . Does it affect an employee getting a transfer, getting a particular job . Is it a hostile Work Environment . Those are Sexual Harassment. Sexual misconduct is a different come you could have Sexual Misconduct thats also Sexual Harassment, but there is a difference. Prostitution would be Sexual Misconduct. So explain to me then exactly what you would believe fully more explain to me what you think Sexual Harassment is. What would be some examples of whats Sexual Harassment . Unwelcome remarks catching an employee, a supervisor touching an employee. A supervisor making threats about your not going to get that promotion unless you do abc and the. Those kinds of activities. Mr. Horowitz, do you want to wade into the difference between Sexual Harassment and such misconduct . I think its based on what you have before you which is what is written down as the definitions and look at the actions. Some of these, for example, one of the incidents that we site talks about the assistant regional director making inappropriate sexual comments, forcing others to watch the graphic movies, yelling at employees, other kinds of actions are clearly within the definition of so do you believe those are Sexual Harassment . That is Sexual Harassment. So if you are a dea agent, in this case and you are having sex, commercial sex paid for you dont believe that that is Sexual Harassment . No. That Sexual Misconduct. Is procuring and prosecute Sexual Harassment . It would be Sexual Misconduct. It didnt happen no harassment . Its not the workplace spirit it happened in government housing. Its not come its not be against a fellow, another employee. So in your mind in your world, a different planet than i live, its not Sexual Harassment if you do something to somebody whos not a federal employee . What if they were here in the washington d. C. Area, or you were in charge of the los angeles field office, is it a Sexual Harassment if they go up to somebody in los angeles and start saying, you know, some ridiculous comment and try to solicit somebody . Thats just harassment . Or its not in your world . As its defined for government, as it is defined by the eeo, in eeo terms come its all workplace related. So in the course of the workplace can somebody they are investigating, if they accept the federal employee accepts commercial sex, is that Sexual Harassment . Thats Sexual Misconduct. We will have to further explore this because i think this is, we are getting to the heart of one of the biggest problems here, which is in the world, which i dont think is the real world the charge for the person in bogota was Improper Association. Does that sound like the appropriate charge . For which person in bogota . A dea agent in bogota in july 2000 when they engaged this is the case with a prostitute. They had a payment dispute. He does a class at the woman. A Security Guard sees this happening. Theres no doubt about the facts, according to your previous testimony. So that was not Sexual Harassment . Sexual misconduct. Wow. And under such misconduct do you think that Improper Association is one of the proper charges . Did you think this person was properly, i guess the word is charged . Based on that case and everything that you know this person was suspended without pay for 14 days for conduct unbecoming and Improper Association. Do you believe that that was the proper charge for that person . I believe those are two proper charges. The deciding official had a number of other charges that they could have looked at as well. Im asking what you personally believe. What do you do they shouldve been charged with . Court do you believe that was the proper conclusion . I believe it was conduct unbecoming. It is Improper Association. I would have concerns about false statements. I have a number of concerns with those cases. Any other in your professional opinion your experience. You worked for the opr. Youve been at the agency for 30 plus years. Youve been the acting or the deputy or the administrator for my the for more than a decade. Deeply that the first in bogota was properly charged, or do you believe that they fell short . What else if it did fall short what else do you think they should have been charged with . I do believe it fell short. So what else do you think he should be charged with . Its not so much the charge its stability. The other charges that could have been the charge determines the penalty, and when you say that this person engaging with a prostitute throwing a class at her, how many things could list out that are wrong along every step . And Improper Association is the one they go with . The penalty for Improper Association and conduct unbecoming can be removal. And it was only 14 days. We even have an eyewitness Security Guard who works for the federal government. Do you think in the of these cases that we have brought before you should be there should be additional charges . Again, not knowing all the facts that you said you knew all the facts the you just issued a memo on march 26 same effect fully investigated this speed back if i cant it does quote these allegations were fully investigated by dea office of professional responsibility you sent this out at 5 33 p. M. On march 26 2015. Not know and all the circumstances that is citing officials, who are the only ones who can decide punishment in dea, not knowing everything they took into consideration, they, they could have by charging conduct unbecoming and Improper Association, the penalties are up to removal. Mr. Horowitz, do you have a comment on this . Well, i think the concern we found as we site in our report is that they were charged with offenses such as conduct unbecoming poor judgment, which by the way is that a category come and others that were inconsistent. At the concern is that we deal with this on her own agency would america look at individuals who may have engaged in misconduct, you want to charge what the number of charges should be in part because theres precedent. You look at what prior individuals got for similar situated conduct under similar charges. And so thats what is concerned we have as we lay out your as to the importance the insistence of charge and charging the appropriate offense. To the administrator are you, dea, a part of the Intelligence Community . A sliver of dea is part of the Intelligence Community. Isnt governed by the Intelligence Community directive number 700 for . That sliver of the agency is, yes. Defined that sliver please. Under 60 positions in dea within the intelligence division. Those who are serving overseas, would they be subject to this . It depends on the position. There are in some countries some intelligence analysts it would be under that. The special agents would not. Again, we are getting close to wrap up. I promise. We are not at halftime. We are well past that. Walked me through security clearance. Who makes the determination who gets the security tolerance, who makes the decision as to whether or not it gets revoked and when . The same office that determines that a new employee gets executed clarence that same office makes a determination what office is that . Offers a secure to programs. They do all adjudicating of security clearances for new employees, for contract employees comp for anybody thats going to be in the workforce within dea. This same office also handles review, periodic reinvestigations and handles reviews of people who already have security clearances. So for instance, in the cartagena case, opr referred, referred the case over to security programs when they had completed their investigation, and the 60 programs get a complete review of the security clearances achieved a adjudicated it, made the decision that there was enough to move to suspend the clearance, and then the agency mood for, because the person no longer has a security clearance removal from service because they cant be, they cant be fda employee without having security clearance. So what are the standards by which you can have and not have security clearance . Where is that standard . Theres a number of things they look at. The main thing is securing securing information National Security interest information your does this person with contact with a Foreign National allowed or not allowed . Unreported, i should say spirit not about if its unreported income and theres rules for reporting. Is there a document that determines, that governs what you will and will not give for security clearance is . Theres a document that every employee is to fill out. But its just a couple of dudes down in the bowels of the dea badges make a random decision or how is this decision made . No. They are trained on the adjudication. They review come if theres anything that is red flagged for them, like past Sexual Misconduct a red flag . Sexual misconduct if a person was disciplined, received any discipline, they come on their form jacket office of security programs does a review of that. Has the office of security, how they ever revoked somebodys security clearance for people engaged in prostitution . I dont know about prostitution. I know that they have revoked security clearance is. So other than the three from cartagena, im not sure. You are just the administrator. Mr. Horowitz, have you looked into the security clearance possibility . We didnt look into what could have happened had they been referred to the office of security programs, primarily because the concern we saw was that they were not a been referred to the office of security programs. So we were not in a position to review what actions they took with regard to these matters because weve learned that opr when it did finally get these allegations can never turn around and send them to the what do you say about that as lynn our . Thats one of the changes we put in place. When . November. November of last year. We have never had an issue dea, we have never had a formal mechanism for the security clearances to review upon an opr investigation. You would be administered deputy administrator are acting minister for almost 10 years and at that point and you never had a policy in that place . We never had a formal policy. It would be up to the office of professional responsibility to flag an internal investigation that had security issues, and then to refer that over to security programs. So we set up a mechanism for that to happen automatically. So with those recommendations made before or after the draft report from the Inspector General . The recommendation flag security violations and give them security programs was happening long before that. What we did is in cartagena made sure that the security clearances were reviewed. And then more recently in november set up a mechanism so the security programs and opr have a mechanism to pass on a regular basis security clearances over spin this is just unbelievable to me. You know theres some things you just think im you just think this has to be happening. On the one hand youve got this problem. I mean we have listed out the host, this is not one incidence. We are going to some people do something stupid somewhere. People are going to make mistakes. People are going to get themselves into trouble. I get this but this was happening with such frequency. Do not have that moved up the chain, for you earlier not say they were directly involved. Youve got told everybody accountable to get that all the way to the finish like that i just dont understand how you personally dont take a hand in the. Mr. Horowitz has referenced these madeup categories of offenses. Why did you make those of . Thats how employees for the last four years have been charged at dea come so nevermind the guidelines . Just keep doing it like they did 40 years ago . Part of charging by the board of conduct and by the deciding officials is to look at agency precedent in government precedent and so the problem though competitive weve exhausted this, we are getting to the end is that this is a problem. You say you get called before this committee and say, oh, its terrible, its awful. But you, you personally have been responsible for this for more than a decade. You didnt do anything about it. You may cry in the mirror, but im telling you you are in a position to do is educate them. And cartagena that shouldve been a wakeup call. And it took you two years to get out a memo two years, as mr. Meadows brought up. I, i we have a lot more that we need to go through. Mr. Horowitz, are there any other outstanding issues that you need help with from the department, the Drug Enforcement agency . With the Drug Enforcement agency, no. With the fbi . We have come not has to this review but as to at least four other ongoing reviews we still do not have all the records that we need because of the fbis continuing process of reviewing records, determining what it is allowed under its legal judgment to provide to us go through the process, go to the attorney general, Deputy Attorney general, get their approval and then get it to us. Celesta shovel ongoing reviews we still do not have all the materials that are responsive to a request spent mr. Perkins, why does the fbi think it is a special and doesnt have to do to the law and dont do with the other agencies are doing within the department of justice . Mr. Chairman, we are adhering to the law. I take exception to the Inspector Generals comments along those lines. Let me tell you sir his latest letter dated yesterday there were five investigations noted. The records that they wish to receive are being delayed involved email. We have turned over 35,000 emails to them a to r. 200 emails in question out of 35,000 that we are working with them to go through. We believe in the rule of law. We have a legal dispute with Inspector General. Mr. Horowitz . They are not working with us to get us the 200 emails. They havent given us the 200 emails. Kurdistan is it because they believe they have a legal review to conduct. Thats why what our understanding is asked why were not getting them. For several of these matters, these are multimonths weve been waiting for them. There is no reason why we should not be getting the materials immediately. None whatsoever. I understand they have a legal position. It is different frankly easiest way to resolve this and in this we are in complete agreement is if he office of Legal Council would simply issued its opinion i think we would both say we would be very satisfied spirit and how long has that been pending . In may will be the one year anniversary. I dashed i could do with Inspector General. We will follow the olc opinion to the letter. Why are you different than the other departments and agencies within the department of justice . I cant speak to the other agencies, mr. Chairman. What i can speak to is matters involving rule six, matters involving the financial privacy act and other matters that we believe, we strongly believe we have a legal responsibility to review and provide them to the Inspector General. What are you not willing to share with the Inspector General . A number of series of items as i mentioned for instance rule 6e of explained that. 6e is rules of criminal procedure, involving grand jury information. That you have given the to the privacy spent once matters had been reviewed come once matters itd been a longstanding to provide Inspector General this material, correct . I cant speak to that spent you cant speak to the history of the fbi document production . Thats why you are here. We provide the information once within a legal review that says legally we are on solid ground to provide that is a change, correct . What was it before, mr. Horowitz mr. Horowitz . Pre2010 to was no such objection from the fbi as to wiretap information from fair credit reporting act information, grand jury information. We got that material. In fact, in the 1998 and 1999 proceedings against the court in oklahoma, the department itself to the position that we are entitled to grand jury material and two federal judges agreed. This is all changed since 2010 with no change in the law. The only thing frankly that the card was several hardhitting oag reviews about how the fbi was handling some of its National Security authorities to other than that nothing changed in 2010. Mr. Perkins thats the concern from this committee. We have hundreds of people working for the Inspector Generals office there in the department of justice intended to be the fair arbiters who can get in and look under the hood and see, and ferret out these problems. Quite frankly the reason that the dea and the fbi are here today is that the problem children. We have cited several times that atf and marshalls and others this is not a problem, not an issue. They have problems within the agency, dont get me wrong. Theyve got things that got to clean up and we are going to work with him on that but the reason youre sitting here today in hearing come at a note we were very focus on the dea but the two agencies, the fbi as well as the dea are impeding the ability of understand and on earth what the problems are. Mr. Chairman, let me clarify. Is an apples and oranges issue. With regards to this particular report, the our process issues within the fbi that the Deputy Director has made changes, that Inspector General is aware of and those changes in our business process will eliminate these types of holdups spent all of the . For these types of records. Not having to do with the other issues he brings up in section 218. We are waiting as the Inspector General said, if olc would render their opinion we will march forward and abide by it 100 . And i would just add on that comp i think we would both take anything at this point, good or bad, because this is ongoing. We completely disagree on the legal issue, and certainly weve questioned why all of a sudden in 2010 we are wrapping up. Ive got hours of questions on this but were going to wrap up here pretty quick. This, the Inspector General act authorizes quote to have access to all records, reports, audits reviews, documents papers, recommendations, or other material available to the applicable establishment relating to the programs and operations with respect to which that Inspector General has responsibilities under this act. Doesnt sound ambiguous. Doesnt sound like him and there was no change in the law. Its just in 2010 acting Inspector General was unearthing a lot of very difficult things for the agency, they just decided we are going to change the rules. We are going to change the rules but im not suggesting from mr. Perkins, that you personally did not but the consequence is the consequence is with hundreds of people at Inspector Generals office who cant do their jobs. And you, the fbi, are standing at the way. And the dea is standing in their way. We are going to keep yanking you up here time after time after time if we have to. I am fortunate enough to become the chairman of this committee. It very first thing we had is on this. And i can promise, i can promise you we will continue to yank you out there as long as this continues to be a problem. The act is clear. Inspector general is to have unfettered access to all records, not just the ones you want to choose from. I dont, this idea that an olc opinion is just in the end is its going on for close to a year is just intolerable. And is not a prevailing attitude within the fbi or the dea that believes that Inspector General work is a value to those departments and agencies otherwise they would want him to come and help clear their good name or ferret out problems. And this nation we are different. We are selfcritical. I cant have this type of hearing in another nation. I probably couldnt go to colombia and do this type of hearing. But you can into United States but it requires good people to allow somebody to come in and check and look under the hood which is what the Inspector General is supposed to do. Weve had a long hearing. I appreciate your patience. We need your help and cooperation moving forward. Again, to the thousands of men and women who serve in these departments and agencies, i cannot thank them enough for putting their lives on the line. My grandfather was career fbi agent. I care about the agency. Thank you, sir. I care about Law Enforcement in this nation but were going to do with the right way. Were going to do it the right way. At allowing sexualharassment or misconduct to get a little slap on the wrist with two to 14 days paid leave is not acceptable. It wasnt in come it isnt now and it should be moving forward. We are going to look toward other things we can do within the law to give future administrators and directors more latitude. Into the Inspector General, i think before you report the we would not have known about without your good work. And so we thank you and this hearing stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] coming up today on cspan2, first former president bill clinton discusses the importance of public service. Five at 9 30 a. M. Eastern the Senate Returns for work on the Human Trafficking bill. Today the Senate Finance committee holds a meeting to mark up the trade policy bill. The legislation would impact congressional trade it for you can see it live starting at 10 45 a. M. Eastern on cspan3. The annual white house Correspondents Dinner this saturday. We will have remarks from the president. Our live coverage starts at 6 30 p. M. Eastern five on cspan. Spent in 2003 New York Times reporter Judith Miller wrote several stories on the lead up to the invasion of iraq and weapons of mass destruction in an effort to reveal her source Vice President cheney chief of staff scooter chief of staff Scooter Libby purchased out into the court and imprisoned at a federal jail for 85 days to sunday on q a she talks about her time in jail as well as her new book, the story, reporters journey