Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20150325 :

>> now today's house oversight committee. secret service hearing with the head of the secret service joseph clancy. congressman joseph chaffetz of utah chairs the committee. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the committee on oversight and government reforma come to order. without objection. without objection the chair chairs authorized to declare recess at any time. appreciate everybody being here. reforming the united states secret service is not a partisan issue. ranking member cummings and i have presented a united front on this issue and i look forward to continuing this important work with him on both sides of the aisle. the most important mission for the secret service is protecting the president and his family however a litany of recent mishaps to raise major concerns. in 2011 nobody recognized shots were fired at the white house until bullets were discovered by maintenance staff. it has been well publicized the secret service agents engaged in misconduct and cartagena amsterdam and miami. in september last year security contractor with an arrest record wrote -- rode an elevator with the present armed with a gun completely and announced to the president's detail. a few days later a man armed with a knife jumped the white house fence made it past the secret service well into the white house now on march 4 to 2nd in command of the prison's detail drove his car through a crime scene involving a bomb threat when the president was in the white house. this has to stop. the secret service has a zero failed mission to protect our president and his family. this is especially true for the president's protective detail or what is often referred to as the ppd. we need to understand why these incidents keep happening. this committee requested the special agent in charge of the ppd robert -- attended closed-door briefing regarding the incident. director clancy said no. the committee requested the supervisors on duty before and during the incident in march to testify today but director clancy said no. we asked director clancy to turn over video footage of the incident and again the director said no. in a closed-door briefing last week director clancy was unable to adequately answer questions about the events of march 4. instead he asserted by referring the matter to the inspector general he was unable to ask any questions of his own but congress is also doing an investigation. to not do an investigation would be malpractice on our part. congress has a role. we have a duty, we have our sponsor billy to conduct their own investigation. by refusing to allow the witnesses we invited to testify with first-hand knowledge of the incident director clancy is keeping congress and the american people and i couldn't talk about the secret service has missed every deadline to verify this committee with information with no legitimate explanation as to why. it is unclear why director clancy is choosing at the start of his tenure to be so unhelpful to congress. i was hopeful director clancy would assist congress in understanding how we can restrict agency to its prior stature. this does not appear to be the case. the marsh for the incident is concerning and on three major points. number one the interference of crime scenes scenes by senior circuit -- secret service personnel. number two allegations involving decisions, communications and dispositions of senior secret service personnel and number three the agency's apparent botched response to a bomb threat while the president was in the white house. although the secret service has refused to provide video footage of the incident the metropolitan d.c. police department have. initially i had indicated i was frustrated about the lack of response by the metropolitan police department based on information given to us by the secret service. i was critical of the chief and suggested chief lanier was going to get a nasty-gram from congress which resent but i can tell you i have nothing for praise and thankfulness for her in her department and agency for swiftly and completely responding to congress's request. we appreciate her the men and women who work at the metropolitan police department and their swift response to our request. it certainly stands in great contrast to what we have seen from the secret service. now we are going to show part of a video that was provided to us by the metropolitan police police department but a few things before you see this. on march 4 at 10:24 p.m. a woman drove her vehicle to a security gate outside the white house fence line on 15th street and left a package she claimed to be a bomb. secret service agents and officers at the scene confronted the suspect but were unable to apprehend her. the package sat unattended as traffic drove by for a long period of time. it took 11 minutes for the secret service to call the metropolitan police department bomb squad. for 17 minutes traffic intended through the intersection of several pedestrians walk within feet of the potential bomb. i don't understand how that happens. when the secret service finally did call they fail to mention to the metro police department that it was an actual bomb threat rather than just a suspicious package and it's been explained to us there's a difference. there's a difference in the response time in the approach approach that they take. you can understand how around the perimeter of the white white house there are oftentimes items that are left unattended but it's a wholly different situation when somebody comes up and places at the perimeter of the white house to package that they claim to be an actual bomb. let me show this video and i will try the best i can we have put this up on our youtube channel to try to describe what's happening. it's 10 -- the roughly 10:20 plus it might 15th street. there is the car. it pulls up. you can start to see the person who is dropped off and then you will see in office come out and try to apprehend the person but he has been charged now with a variety of different crimes. the potential bomb sits next to that building right there and again we are doing time-lapse video. you can see cars have been driving by and whatnot. then we are assuming in here and you can see the agents that were in question about what they were doing, this is a full 30 minutes after the initial would-be bomb was placed there. you can see there are some big columns are big barrels that are put out. again we have to crime scenes at this point. the assault on the office and then you have within just a couple of feet you can see they're bumping into that barricade there. that is not much of a barricade in my personal opinion but driving right within a couple of feet of his would-be bomb which begs a lot of additional questions. it takes the secret service and the metropolitan police department about an hour and 20 minutes to finally come to the conclusion that this is not a bomb and the scene is then rendered safe. an officer followed the suspect in her car. we get to another part of the story which begs a lot of questions. he drives up, drops off a would-be bomb and then the secret service gets a marsh -- office behind this person that they were mistakenly called off the pursuit when the secret service identified the wrong car at the suspects. so actually right behind i can only imagine his office saying i have this person in my size but instead of pulling this person over, instead of maybe going to that extra step to check gets waved off and they pursue another car who isn't actually the suspect. 30 minutes, 30 minutes after the woman fled the scene the secret service finally issued a bolo, a be on the lookout for a vehicle to local law enforcement. metropolitan police department didn't know for 30 minutes what vehicle they were to be looking for, 30 minutes. the suspect was finally arrested three days later 90 miles away by different police agency on an unrelated charge. the day before she was arrested she was interviewed by the secret service agent at the secret service claimed they were unable to arrest her and instead canceled the lookout for the women. back at the white house on march march 42 senior secret service agents including marc connolly the president's second in command of protective details disrupted the crime scene. these agents placed themselves on their colleagues in the president and family and potential danger by driving their government vehicle through a barricade within feet of a potential bomb. under secret service policy of video footage of the incident should have been retained however most of the footage evidently according to the secret service has mysteriously gone missing. i find this highly suspicious. in a briefing last week director clancy and deputy secretary may arcus play to tapes of the incident that showed the same few seconds from two different angles just a few seconds out of an incident that lasted more than an hour and 20 minutes. there were eight members there. three committee chairman several ranking members, for democrats, four republicans. the limited the image showed the police moving the barricade aside that their car. i want to set aside for a second they concerned that the secret service is only maintaining video footage for one of the most important buildings and our country for 72 hours. that makes no sense on any level to me. because their there issues related to national security the prosecution of the actual event and the basic ability to learn from past instances as we are having to deal with now. based on the secret service policy video footage of this incident should never the less been retained. we have to crime scenes that should have immediately been highlighted. yet an agency spokesperson told "cnn" quote in the event of an operational security incident the white house complex specific video footage is maintained for investigative and protective intelligence purposes. that would seem to make sense but that is not what has happened here. yet director clancy and deputy secretary mayorkas only show to limited views of the incident. does a potential bomb at the white house not qualified as an operational security incident end quote. if the potential bomb doesn't qualify them what does? >> yes tape should've been retained in this committee intends to find out why they were not. we were shown seconds of a video for an incident that lasted for more than an hour. director clancy today we expect answers and we expect you to know them. we are nearly three weeks after the incident. to help you prepare for the hearing today my staff reached out to your congressional affairs office to let you know what subjects we would be covering today. the staff was fully briefed on what we expect you to know and i want to let you know that the i don't know strategy is not going to sit well with our committee. we look forward to your answering the questions and providing clarity on what happened march 4 and we do appreciate you being here. i can tell you that you have been personally very accessible and i greatly personally very much appreciate that. so with that let me now recognize the ranking member mr. cummings. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and i thank you for calling this hearing today. director clancy, welcome again and let me start off by saying director that there are moments in life that are and should be transformative moments. in other words there are moments in all of our lives where something happens and it may very well be negative than it usually is and then we have to pause for a moment and learn from it and correct it. if we do not corrected at that moment in my 64 years on earth i have discovered that it usually gets worse. i am here to tell you that we are at such a moment. the sad part about it is that these moments seem to keep coming. usually in life it's one moment or two that but they seem to just keep coming and coming and i'll tell you i have great concerns and i am glad this is about a partisan effort because this is bigger than us. this is bigger than the secret service. this is about the security of the most powerful person in the world. i know this will not get down to a partisan battle. it will not get down to a gotcha but this is about us trying to do our job. your job and the great men and women of the secret service's job is to guard the president's family our former president and other protectees. our job is to make sure you do your job and make sure that you and the agents are accountable. now i must tell you that i was disappointed to find out that we will not hear from the other secret service witnesses the committee invited to testify here today. director clancy i have the greatest respect for you and your service to our country. your job is crucial. your reputation is exceptional and sound and your desired to object to your agents and operatives against unwarranted intrusion is admirable but as i have said to you before if we are going to air let us err on the side of the safety and security of the president of the united states of america. so we wanted to speak with these witnesses for a very simple reason. according to your own testimony you did not know about this incident until five days after it happened. you yourself have said that is unacceptable and again as i said we have those transformative moments and that is one symptom of the problem saying that we need to do some transforming. your predecessor in my conversations with her, one of the things that she said was that quite often she did not get information she did not get complete information. she died in accurate information and in some instances got no information. something is wrong with that picture and it is wrong with that one and obviously there's something wrong here. with all due respect i have to say how disappointed i was with your initial letter on friday. simply announce that you would be the only witness today without providing any reason for other witnesses not testifying. no other committee is doing more on this issue than ours. we are trying to conduct their work in a responsible i partisan manner. we really have no room for error and if we are going to air we will err on the side of the safety of the president. we are witnessing a response that rejects a request with no explanation at all. it is difficult to review that response as respectful which i know is not your intent. i understand that. for these reasons i was heartened to receive your letter yesterday in which he outlined your specific concerns with the public testimony of agencies charged with protecting the president. i also appreciate your offer to work with this committee to examine other ways to provide us with the information we need to fulfill our constitutional oversight responsibilities. of course we all understand there is an ongoing inspector general investigation of this incident and we respect that. vig has informed us that people will be moving quickly and should be able to answer key questions in weeks, not months. we recognize the inspector general's investigation could result in recommendations for disciplinary action. the last thing we want to do is interfere with that process but keep in mind what i said. if we are going to air we must air on the side of the safety and security of the president. that is why the chairman and i have committed to consulting with aig directly before taking any significant action that could impact this work. director clancy by most significant concern has always been and remains today that you did not know about this incident and that nobody in the entire agency told you about it. there's something awfully wrong with that. five days five days, five days went by while you were in the dark. last year when the former director of the secret service appeared and sat in the same chair which you are now sitting in, i warned her that she was not getting the information she needed to do her job. officers and agents believe they were better off staying silent instead of raising their concerns up the chain. i informed her that there were agents that felt more comfortable coming to members of the congress of the united states then talking to people who were the higher-ups in the secret service. there's something wrong with the picture. an environment of secret service that would allow these deficiencies to continue yet that appears to be exactly what happened here. i believe that when the chain of command is broken when the chain of command is broken there is no command. it's like a body without a head. and when there is no command there is vulnerability. again, that vulnerability goes to the safety of the president of the united states of america. so let me make something very clear. this is not business as usual. this is not just another oversight hearing about just another agency. i admired this president greatly. i admire him for his challenges the challenges he has overcome to be president. the confidence he has achieved since then the principles he stands for and on behalf of our country and the world and the contribution he has made to our nation's history. i also admire the people of former presidents and their families. i want to make sure and all of us want to make sure they are protected so i don't want you to take this personally. this is about us doing our job. you have to be accountable to us but your job is of course to guard the president. so i do not want anything to happen to him not under my watch, not under this watch so this will not be about politics. it cannot be. it cannot be about headlines or unnecessary disputes that contribute nothing to the solution. we must come together in a nonpartisan way to take concrete steps both publicly and privately to turn his agency around. again this is a transformative moment. if we fail to do that in this moment i can only get worse. the agents and officers of the secret service risk their lives on behalf of this great nation. they are great human beings great public servants and they deserve an agency that they can be proud of. one of the things that concern me greatly is the anonymous e-mail that you got to us. would somebody put this up? this e-mail, you are familiar with it are you not? this e-mail concerns me. since last wednesday night the uniform division established a crime scene on special post 15 at the white house after package was thrown at an office or the office was told the package was a bomb so they taped off the air and made it a crime scene and at some point add sack from wfo ppd drove through the crime scene tape. duty officers on the scene said they were both extremely intoxicated. they were coming home from a retirement dinner. they apparently flipped on the lights of their government vehicles to go around the roadblocks. then they nudged the post with their government vehicles. then they were waving their white house badges around. the officers were going to arrest both of them but the watch commander said not to. apparently the whole incident was captured on video from inside the jail scene. why don't understand is this. a lot of people got this e-mail. a lot of them got it but you didn't. that is a problem. but you know what really bothers me i kept reading this e-mail this morning over and over and over and do you know what i concluded? it appears that we have an agency itself, the idea that an organization like this that somebody would create this kind of document to bring this kind of disruption when they are supposed to be guarding the president of the united states of america. we are better than not. in some kind of way we have to take advantage of this informative moment. if we don't, it can only get worse. with that i yield back. >> i now recognize mr. desantis of florida the chairman of the subcommittee on national security. mr. desantis. >> thank you mr. chairman. web site secret service lays out the vision called the tradition of greatness to protective mission. highly trained workforce that employs progressive technology and promotes professionalism. notwithstanding a statement the secret service has been falling short of that standard and i think the chairman did a good job of enumerating some of the problems we have seen in recent years. we are here to examine this most recent incident and i've got to say i join the chairman in expressing my disappointment for the lack of cooperation. we wanted to speak with witnesses. we wanted to have information sooner and i think that is not the way that this is going to be productive. this is a very important role that the agency plays not only in protecting our leaders against threats foreign and domestic but that's part of a larger mission to protect the integrity of our government to make sure that elections are honored and the people who are elected to those high positions are safe. i think to do that effectively you have got to have a system that has robust accountability. i think that is what the questions are we are looking at today where's the accountability in the agency? is just seen throughout the whole saga with different problems that there is not swift accountability. i think that's going to make a more difficult to get the agency where we all wanted to be. i do commend the chairman mr. chaffetz ranking member coming sent my colleague on the national security subcommittee mr. lynch for their diligence in ensuring those who carry out this important mission are given the tools they need to carry out their responsibilities. we want high standards and we want accountability. the american people want nothing less than i look forward to director clancy's testimony and i yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman and want to thank ranking member cummings for his work on this as well as chairman desantis' greatly appreciate the fact that we are working together on this. this hearing is to examine the continuing lapses in security involving the u.s. service and i would like to thank director clancy for being here to test that is pointed that is going to have the utmost response for mr. clancy but i have to agree with the chairman mr. chaffetz in the ranking member and mr. desantis that the fact that you were not notified of this incident for five days concerning your two agents is totally unacceptable and it shows a deep deep problem within the organization that we have to deal with. at the outset i would like to note that the purpose we are having this hearing today is not to disparage our dedicated workforce but rather this bipartisan investigation into recent security incidents at the white house and other secret service protected locations and offenses founded in our genuine concern over the safety of the president his wife and his daughters his mother-in-law and white house personnel read regrettably systemic challenges antiquated security protocols and entrenched agency culture have given rise to glaring gaps in the security in the critical protection mission of the secret service demands we make every effort to address them. on the heels of the white house fence jumping incident that occurred on september, in september of 22014 and reported gunshots near the delaware residence of vice president in january of 2015 we have now learned about to security incidents that occurred on the white house grounds on the night of march 4 that call into question the effectiveness of existing security protocols security technology, information sharing and post-incident review of the secret service. and breathing this committee on march 17 the alleged and the parents of two secret service agents with a live bomb threat investigation at the white house the secret service played us to brief and seemingly incomplete video clips of a slow-moving vehicle bumping gently into a plastic barrier. those videos were taken from almost identical angles and contained absolutely no audio. in response to a member request that he provide us with additional videos at the end incident director clancy revealed the secret service routinely over rights footage after 72 hours. director clancy informed us he did not receive notification of a legend her parents until five days later on march 9. the security footage in question was reportedly purged two full days before the director found out about the security incident. that is unacceptable and tells me we need a stem to stern review of our security technology policy at the white house. director you invited us over and the 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. as the chairman pointed out we have overlapping incidents that we have a bomb threat an act of bomb threats while the president is in the white house and his families in the white house. we have an active bomb threat and then we have an interference by these two agents during a 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 personnel from the secret service. should've been on everyone's mind and i know multiple e-mails went out to supervisory personnel. everyone knew this was a bomb threat and yet we went ahead, at least that is what i'm hearing so far we purged the tapes surrounding that -- does it excuse me surrounded up bumper to the white house within 72 hours. we destroyed the evidence and that is just mind-boggling that we might do something like that. now i have a lot of questions and i know the members of the committee do as well but as a frame of reference indicating an adequacy of the 72 hour video retention policy it would help my own state of massachusetts requires state municipal agencies to wristing -- retain their video and that is why agencies ranging from the massachusetts 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 has expressly agreed to retain and capture images for 30 days. that's at the request of a federal agency could retain it for 30 days. moreover local educational institutions such as tufts university university of massachusetts have also implemented a 30-day retention policy for the campus security cameras. in addition i have a number of kindergartens in my district that are retained because of the security interests of those children they have a 30-day policy could have to tell you and i have said this before you know my local store 24 has a better surveillance system than we have at the white house. that's a sad statement of affairs and that has been because of a number of directors going back beyond your own service. there are a lot of questions to be answered here and i'm going to let the rest of my statement go. i appreciate the chairman's indulgence and i yield back the remainder of my time. >> i thank the gentleman. we will hold the record open for five days for members who would like to submit a written statement. we welcome the honorable joseph p. clancy director of the united states secret service. before we go forward though let me say the members of this committee do not believe the president presence of mr. clancy alone is sufficient to achieve the goals of this hearing today. his committees intention to bring forward a series of people and transcribed interviews and we would prefer to have done is a different way. the secret service has refused her ability to do that. the people involved in this should know they will be invited by this committee and both sides will be present as we conduct this further. the secret service refuses to let our witnesses testified. our committee has questions or we issued these letters of invitations for these individuals to appear did they receive those invitations or was the secret service prompted and at home and security become involved? we have a lot of questions about why those individuals who asked to appear are not sitting here today. we do expect to close the loop on these witnesses in the future whether that be a follow-up hearing but it is the intention that we will most likely deuced transcribed interviews to this process. with that said mr. clancy we do appreciate you being here are a pursuant to committee rules all witnesses are to be sworn before they testify. you will please rise and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. let the record reflect the witness answered in the affirmative. mr. clancy we will recognize you for your opening statement and please know that your entire written statement will be part of the record but we are pretty lenient on the time. please share with this committee your thoughts and perspectives. mr. clancy. >> good morning chairman chaffetz's ranking member comings and distinguished members of the committee to thank you for the opportunity to be here to discuss the recent allegation of misconduct on march 4 of 2015 and agencies progress in fulfilling recommendations of independent u.s. secret service protective mission panel. as director i'm honored to lead the men and women of this import 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 phonecall from a former agent informing me of an anonymous e-mail that was circulating it on the same data to determine the allegation 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 at higher level must be referred to the oig in accordance with departmental policy. i trust the oig's investigation will be thorough. i'm have committed the full cooperation to the oig and eagerly await the findings of their investigation. the fact that i did not learn of this allegation until five days after it is set to occur in. to 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 and violate the agency standard 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. 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 i do not have the ability to simply terminate employees based solely on allegations of misconduct. this is not because i'm being lenient but because the agency's ability to take action is controlled by title v of united states code which provides federal employees with certain statutory due process rights. i must respect these rights in 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 oig report at which point we will determine the appropriate disciplinary actions consistent with our established table of delegates. once again at the oig -- misconduct those embolo be held held accountable. held accountable to that person reviewed footage from evening of march 4 with members of this committee said that initial report of a vehicle crash were inaccurate. there was not crash. the video shows a vehicle entering the white house complex is a slow speed pushing a slight -- aside plastic barrel. there was no damage to the vehicle however many people have expressed serious concerns the available footage does not provide a full picture relative to the alleged misconduct. while the primary function of the cammer 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 content from the oig the secret service has contacted the manufactures of additional storage unit capabilities and cyberforensics to make every attempt to recover additional video footage from that night. although it predates my appointment as director secret service practice has been to retain footage from cammer systems at the white house for period of 72 hours. this practice concerns me. therefore it directed the video footage storage be increased to seven days effective immediately immediately. i've also directed my staff to exploit the feasibility of expanding this timeframe while being mindful of concerns related to security and privacy. turning to fulfilling recommendations made by the independent protective mission panel that will touch briefly in each of these three areas and identify the report. first training of personnel, second technology perimeter security and operations and third leadership. regarding training and personnel i've consistently held the primary -- has been to increase critical staffing in the secret service to meet the demands of the mission and to incorporate regular and consistent training to sharpen skills and preparedness at all times. the secret service is expected to exceed its hiring goals for the this fiscal year and maintain this pace for fiscal year 2016. they have also fully completed integrated training for officers and specialty teams within the white house branch and made improvements with her spectrum of training received during fourth shifts by age and some protective details. with respect to technology and permit or security recommendations the secret service is in the midst of the multiphase 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 the potential intruders to give secret service personnel more time to react. this selection selection of the final fence optionally followed by design procurement and construction phase it is discussed in the classified briefings provided to this committee the secret services acknowledges the need for interim measures during this process process and is conducted initial testing research and development to that end. finally with respect to leadership by moving to rebuild restructure and reinvigorate the secret service including elevating and empowering those with specialized professional skills within our civilian force by ensuring your people have the necessary resources by developing budgets from the ground up and utilizing a mission-based. in closing i would like to make clear i'm proud of our workforce and would be remiss if i did not recognize 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. >> thank you. now recognize that a woman from south carolina mr. gowdy for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. director clancy duguid of ours has a constitutional right to provide oversight over the secret service? >> yes sir. svinicki believe chairman chaffetz and ranking member comings are motivated solely by a desire to see what is best for the president and agency itself? does this committee have every single bit of video footage available from that evening? >> i'm sorry sir,. >> does this committee have all available footage from that evening? >> it does not. >> we have provided that footage video that we have to this committee all of it. we have shown two clips. >> that is not my question. you just said congress has a constitutional possibility to provide oversight and you agreed me that ranking member cummings and -- chaffetz so why wouldn't you turn over all video footage to this committee? >> congressmen we will show all video anytime day or night that this committee would like to review the footage that we have. we have done that in impact the chairman was the first i believe to see this video. >> with all due respect that's not true. >> i would like to correct the record. >> i would like to yield to -- to the gentleman from utah because i was under the misapprehension that this committee was not in possession of all available video from that night. cnet that is correct, you are not in possession of the video but we did allow the chairman to view the video. >> you have shown is us less than one minute of the video. >> yes sir. >> back to my question. will you make all available video and i say available because all that was not reserved. will you make all video available to this committee? >> we will make it available to this committee for your review anytime day or night. >> will you make a copy of it available so we can retain custody as opposed to simply showing it to us? >> i will not release a copy of this video at this point. >> why not? >> the oig has an ongoing investigation. >> you think the oit supersedes congress? can't you have simultaneous ongoing investigations quickly can congress provide oversight while the ig is investigating? why do you have to pick and choose? >> again we have one initial investigation from the oig and we have given them film to look at. >> you understand the responsibility of the ig is very different from the responsibility of congress. congress determines funding among other things. the ig does not. so those two are not exclusive. why can't congress investigate what is in it jurisdiction? >> congressmen i'm sure up to the oig -- the. >> i don't want to wait until after because that makes me think you believe that congress is constitutional responsibility to provide oversight is subservient to the ig and surely you can't believe that. >> sir the ongoing investigation the secret service has as well regarding the protective intelligence case, we have an individual who committed a crime made a threat in that investigation is also going on at this time. >> how will prove providing that video footage to congress jeopardize that ongoing investigation with precision how will a? >> that video shows the actions of the individual who would be accused of a crime. >> i get that. my question is how will providing back that to mr. cummings and mr. chaffetz jeopardize an ongoing investigation with specificity? >> i'm 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. >> that is the video that is available. the video that is not available what you agree with me that there are at least two potential crime scenes that play on the evening of march 4? there is an assault on an office and there's a suspicious package. why would the video not be preserved as part of that ongoing investigation that you decided is the reason you can't get the video to congress? why wouldn't you preserve at? >> the process, by understanding of the process is the launch commander on-site relays back the incident that he is the commander for and he calls back to her joint operation center and says we do have an incident here. we have a suspicious package. preserve the video from this incident. >> director i want you to consider for just a moment the dueling narratives that you just portrayed. number one we are not going to get the video that does exist to congress because it's investigation is subservient to the ig investigation. that's narrative number one and narrative number two is you are not even going to preserve video that could be used in an investigation of two potential crimes. did i hear that right? >> we did preserve the video the footage from the incident as those in the joint operations center viewed it. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> some of my time was taken by the chairman but that is the chairman's prerogative and of course i would not ask for anymore. >> in the chairman obvious and made the right move. c i yield back. >> good decision. i will recognize the gentlewoman from the district of columbia for five minutes. c thank you mr. chairman. i think mr. clancy that you understand the anger and outrage that you hear really comes from this notion that you are as the row failure agency. we don't expect that frankly of most federal officials. i was really surprised to see and reading from your testimony on page three sent an agencywide memorandums say they have to report allegations apparently right away when for example before you came to the agency you know if the white house incident where they shot at the white house and they learned about that. the secret service learned about it and perhaps months later went on attended found these bullets. it seems like the first order you should have given was please let me know. don't put me on the hot on the hotseat of not knowing it i say that because i think the committee did the right thing. it began in the right place with leadership. we wanted new leadership. they said we want an expert panel. we have that expert panel. now i think we ought to go and i realize you have not been in place for a long time but i would like to focus on the men and women who are under you because i don't think there has been ask up for that panel. that panel really did focus on what i was amazed to hear that people were working sometimes 14 days and with a day off if they got it but it could be denied. and i tried to link this to what i knew about the secret service. it kind of serial misconduct in colombia for example, in the netherlands, all of the drunken agents. i don't think the secret service is a bunch of bombs. i have got to look at what is happening to these men and women women. i asked the staff to tell me something about these people. are these people being trained or are these people kind of letting it all out and it looks like some of that is happening. nobody is spoken of -- spoken up then if somebody does speak up i'm not sure that this misconduct is not going to continue. this also was the drunken incident. but then i learned that in terms of the training there's barely any any training going on at the secret service. they were it eight special agent basic classes in three years 08, 09 and 10 and by 2012 there were zero. by 2013 there was one. the panel said you needed staff urgently for starters. what is the problem? is the problem with the leadership? is the problem with the men and women not getting good people? why don't you speak up for these men and women if in fact they are letting off steam because you are overworking them. are they being overworked? wears this budget that you just got to relieve some of those serial days on which people don't get any days off. so would you describe that and would you tell us more about training and what training sessions are expected so some of this misbehavior will be understood to be absolutely for bowden. >> 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 will tell you that i walked by and around the perimeter of the white house. this past sunday went to the roll call midnight shift. the following morning i went to the roll call and wanted to hear what were their concerns. in terms of staff. >> but you can see what their concerns are. the days off. 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 has been happening as well? >> again you're exactly right. when i first came back you're my number one initiatives was to increase the staffing. we have but to increase staffing and to do that we have separated one of our directives which is h.r. and training. we separated them apart to give each more specific training. we have been working overtime. >> you have a new class for 2013 there was only one class. if you need more agents they will need more training. with this new -- is there going to be another class of agents trained and will be agency where they are so used to get training i understand every four weeks or so will they have have that regimented training again? >> esn impact we will exceed our goals. we have six eddie officers classes and six special agent classes that were scheduled. we will now go to nine and eight classes. we expect to hire a lot more people in fiscal year 15 and continue that into 16. that is a critical need for the service and that will also help with getting more people out of training in effect since september 19 the uniform division training has increased 110%. that's just a snapshot but we have to keep the momentum going and with each inside the house and the presence detail that training is increased 70%. again not where we want to be put as we increase that we will get more training for our people. >> i thank the gentleman. i recognize the gentleman from florida for five minutes. >> thank you. good morning mr. director. i have some questions. i guess this is sort of another gotcha hearing. we just have incident after incident. we had curt to hannah and get the fence jumper and this most recent one. you testified that you cannot take action on personnel as far as discipline because of title v but also chapter 102 of title v set some requirements. have you seen a draft that was prepared last year? can you give the director a copy of the draft collects its deliberative draft 72214 and its amendments to the hiring managing indiscipline of its workforce. this is amendments for secret service. rather than just talk about more incidents let's get down to the brass tacks of the issues you face. first is hiring. we have to hire good people. you came and you said you need more people. i submit that you need better people and you need better qualifications. when i left the white house a week ago i follow the secret service car just by accident and i said what is that on a bumper? is actually soliciting for 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 your predecessor. she came from my local town. she called me after she was there for a while and she said it's very difficult to get this place under control. i have got to have some ability to higher better qualified people. i didn't know that you didn't need a college education for some of those positions. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> she said by law we have dumbed down the qualifications so first we have to hire people. we don't hire them on an advertisement of a bumper of the vehicle. if you want qualified personnel at the highest qualifications. secondly you have got to be able to manage those personnel. she asked for these things way back in fact on july 2 there was a meeting with government reforms that. do you know where these recommendations are? i was told they went back to dhs. these adjustments for improvements. do you know where they are? does anyone know? i want to know where they are because they have been sitting around. she knew what was wrong before she was railroaded out and you will be railroaded out too if you don't make changes. the fault is in the guidelines you have to follow. she told me managing personnel you have a 20 year retirement and then you have to retire on the law enforcement side. >> that is the older plan was a 20 year retirement. >> in any event when you got to the retirement it took two years to get people trained for ses positions and that still exists, right? >> yes. .. >> >> because a when you cannot hire people all that are qualified that he cannot manager or a minister end cannot discipline or higher people are fire people that need to be held accountable. >> basically. yes, sir,. >> finally is the bullet hits the white house or a window or the building has something ben done to address that? >> yes we have procedures now with anything heads the white house we have procedures in 2011. >> number but to no more for the record behind-the-scenes about drones and how they could penetrate. >> recognize the ranking members. >> mr. clancey want to get down to something that you said that when you found about this incident. you learned of these allegations made ninth which was five days after the incident occurred. and that is a big concern. first and foremost no doubt you should have been informed about this incident. >> correct. >> the day of. >> that's correct. >> with our briefing last week is that no one in your immediate office? >> correct. >> last week you testified the secret service personnel should have reported this incident up the chain. from personnel on the ground to the deputy chief of the uniformed division to the special agent in charge of presidential protective division to assisted operations and then to you. >> correct. >> today day gives documents to the committee indicating the deputy chief of the uniformed division alfonso became aware of the allegations on the night of the incident according to our briefing and that is what you said to start the investigation with the inspector general's office? >> correct. >> okay. >> let me correct the record and you asked how is the process started? i said i think it is a phone call and it was. but i found out subsequently there is a follow-up letter which is what we provided to you with our preliminary findings the very first day. >> in the briefing sheet is says deputy chief advised he is familiar with the incident and was briefed about the incident on the evening of march 4, 2015. " end quote. so director, so if he knew about the allegations did he alert the special agent in charge of presidential protective division? >> i don't know. i n infuriated i have not been involved -- defies what i did not hear that information but i will tell you the deputy chief needed to raise that up through the chain of command and i have been battling this ever since i have been back about 30 days in we are working furiously to break down these barriers where people feel they can talk up the chain. i can tell you personally i reaching out to people we have our assistant director of investigations talking to people and our assistant director of operations talking to people and we have made all these and avenues through hot lines and web pages and ombudsmen and to get the information up the chain and why it didn't happen i don't know. if you are not comfortable going up through your chain of command you have all the other avenues anonymously you can report incidents of misconduct or with everyone to report but you have to make use of these outlets. >> how about this assistant director for protective operations when did he learn? >> i don't know. march 9th. because when i found out i found out that morning i reached out to the assistant director and he did not know what that point i asked him to go find what he could find out. >> there is an ongoing investigation but according to your own testimony it was from anyone at the secret service? >> i am concerned if there is still a problem with the chain of command right now and it sounds like it -- like there is. who was the highest ranking person who knew about the incident and failed to report it to a knowledge? >> if on march 9th is when i was given in the details then i stepped out in all candor or right or wrong i compartmentalized i didn't want to see a. the deputy chief is the last one that is how far it went. >> on more than one time you said you had a meeting with your higher ups a and you told them you will not tolerate this. did you ask them if they knew about it? >> no. i was very blunt. >> rewind. these are your top people. right? the top eight assistants? >> there would be more than that. >> you never asked? ladies and gentleman who knew about this? >> i did not. >> why not? >> at this point i did not want to interfere with the investigation i wanted no indication i could be pressuring someone were that we reached out to people for people to leave the room to save the directors asking for more information. i wanted the zero i g complete ownership of this investigation. >> one last question. director, at any time did you have a staff meeting where you would have expected? you and i have talked about the sacred trust in the secret service as jobs of honor. would you have expected did you have any meetings with your higher ups you would have expected someone who'd do about this to say it? >> absolutely. absolutely. when i heard this on march 9th i was in disbelief. but i called and honestly i could not believe especially over the time frame. >> recognize the gentleman from tennessee. >> corrector clancy all over the country there is a growing belief that the federal government and many top-level federal employees have been becoming more and more bureaucratic and elitist and arrogant for got along with this there is a growing belief we have ended up with the government that is up for the bureaucrats rather than am the people. when you refuse to allow the four witnesses to come and testify to was you are supposed to represent the people and to reduce to release most of the video that has been requested, you should realize this looks very bureaucratic and even the dimmest and eric and. and it looks as though you are not really working for the people in this country but working to protect the people of the secret service. last week in the house appropriations committee chairman rogers said in a very emphatically he felt there should be terminations and firings for this instances. and i hope that you agree with that. i assume you are close friends with mr. connolly and mr. ogilvy but i hope that you feel that you have more of a duty to the people of the country than to protect mr. connally and mr. ogilvy and others you were involved in these other incidents per college you have to say about that? >> you are correct and i have already made changes to people i know and who have served honorably i have moved them into other components of dhs i am not opposed to moving people that i know. it is all about the agency's. >> that is one of the problems. to lofted federal employees who mess up are not disciplined or cuts pay or fired or terminated they are just moved to a nice desk job someplace else. and i know they have been moved to another desk job someplace and not much has been done to them. i will yield the balance of my time. >> director, who has custody of the video that was retained and preserved? >> technical security division. >> who has to make a copy of that video to turnover? >> sir i would is in consultation with legal counsel but i don't know that for certain. >> to the extent that you have the power or the influence will you recommend that a copy of old video footage be made available? >> congressman i will certainly talk to our department with every legal counsel. >> you don't need lawyers for everything you have a bunch on this panel and i am telling you if the only excuse to not turn it over is theoretical potential investigation or prosecution? i promise i will not interfere with either one. i promise you that. we can eliminate that concern so now we'll you turn over all available video? >> it will be available but i will go back to the department and agency to revisit this. >> will was there video footage of the alleged officer misconduct? >> no. i am not aware. >> you don't know if the cameras were trained of the car that these two agents were in? to make the only video i am aware of the of what we provided as they entered the gates of the south part. >> you have a policy of retention and preservation of any videos that could be potentially part of a criminal investigation or office of misconduct? >> yes. we retain video that is related to any incidents on the compound's chemical there is video nobody would have taped over or destroyed its? >> it would not have been destroyed a somebody saw an incident. >> takeover? >> bi practice that is automatic from lenders standing you have to selectively save what you want to preserve. >> with an officer misconduct something you want to preserve? >> without knowing the facts i don't know what took place beyond the entry point. >> i yield. >> we now recognize the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you. if more than a little bit put out by the willful ignorance. just take a second secret service is an intelligence gathering organization. then you don't ask questions and you destroy evidence. i guess i am trying to have faith. i really am. i offer no disrespect whatsoever. you are an honorable man but i tell you this whole system , you said at the tail end of your testimony that you had implemented a change to go seven days retention of video. correct? >> we went 72 hours up that seven days? >> correct with the intent to look and storage capabilities to go beyond that. >> if we have to do legislatively the fact that it only requires logan airport to require tsa videotapes 30 days of i have to do legislative level to a recommendation we adopt legislation that secret service keep video 30 days of that is what we have to do. director clancy who is the individual responsible for technical security division? i want to send them a subpoena as well. with that person? gimmicky is relatively new in the position. >> that's okay. his name is joseph and he is chief of the technical division now. >> is it correct to assume he is responsible for though whole surveillance around the white house and technology and tapes and purging or scrubbing of the tapes? is that the person i want? >> yes. he could talk to those questions that you have. yes. >> and we would give him a subpoena as well to bring whatever information he has. >> that would be good. >> my local supermarket has 30 days of retained tapes. by scrubbing those tapes not asking questions and coming from the intelligence gathering organization, its leaves me almost speechless and i just can imagine a more deliberate attempt not to understand the nature of the problem. what is the penalty? it is clear from the tapes that the to operatives growth into an active bomb investigation. i don't think there is any question about that? the two agents, with an active bomb investigation and they drive right through it? i guess they were going back? they left their car at the white house side understand that but in the meantime they drive stearin active investigation. any disagreement on that? >> i don't know the facts of getting a vehicle but active drove there an active investigation. >> no questions. >> so yet we reassign them. we don't ask them questions about that but yet we just reassign them to desk jobs with no discipline at all? what is the thinking behind that? >> to put them on the administrative leave with pay and i felt we could still get some work out of them. i didn't want to do that discipline in a piecemeal fashion. >> i need to interrupt you this signal you are sending to every other secret service agent uniforms and others is that they were not penalized at all for doing what they did. you did not remove them for you did not 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 and we will hold them responsible. instead, instead, i know you were thinking they are sitting at home instead of working but i think it is a more important especially with the history we have the folks jumping over the fence and shooting at the white house it is like the keystone kops. it is a more important message you sent to the employees they screwed up and they are being held accountable rather than just putting them on a desk job. >> congressmen rest assured once we get the final report which i am told will be weeks people will be held accountable. i can understand of frustration for here on the committee and the work force but they are looking to see how or these things handled and how do you handle agents as of for it -- as opposed uniformed division? >> in closing there needs to be a rapid response we cannot put this into a bureaucratic process when i get an answer in 10 weeks. that cannot have been you need the ability to act right now on an incident like that rather than file forms to bring in somebody else and engaged with willful ignorance to let somebody else and the lead. you were in that spot because you are capable and in the future we need you to have the ability to act. >> recognize the gentleman from north carolina. >> mr. clancey thank you for your testimony now want to return to what you said earlier about meeting with your senior staff end of not asking. when did that happen? >> forgive me comment my memory is converging. wednesday the 11th. >> you met with senior staff you waited until wednesday when you were informed on the ninth? why would you wait two days? >> i had a hearing that day in between. >> i have hearings every single day that does not preclude me from asking detailed questions. >> i don't know what i was doing on tuesday. >> was it not important? >> as i expressed earlier this is usually important to give me and the agency's. >> you said earlier you did not ask the question what they knew. you are not interfering with an investigation for you to be informed of what they do that would not inform -- interfere with the investigation why would you risk? so you could pull this year to date that you know, nothing? i don't understand. >> when i pulled the of group together this hearing was not scheduled. it is hard to understand for this committee. >> it is very hard to understand how there is a lack of the inquisitive nature on why the director would not want to know. >> to be candid guy compartmentalized the incident i gave it to the oic so i could concentrate to protect classified documents the president of afghanistan all these other issues i need to focus on with future threats and in my mind. >> the president of afghanistan may be very important and he is but the president of united states is a lot more important i would not compartmentalize to put them somewhere else. voyage you? >> all project these are important but i gave this to the oic and i was content to wait to not do things piecemeal i thought that was a dangerous path to take because then information starts to leak out than people would start assuming. >> keeping these guys to working pond administrative duty do not think they have the ability to talk to further workers to spin a a narrative rather than send them home? is not dangerous they might fear with that investigation and? >> they can still converse with their residents with anyone they wanted to spend x you have not told them not to converse? >> i have not spoken to those individuals. >> they are gsa 15 and you have not spoken why? >> i did not want to interfere with the investigation. >> we have met personally before you were the official director and you were hired to clean up the mess. i told you have my was getting emails and i still get anonymous emails on all kinds of different things that are happening. details and honolulu with some of the same accusations made that have been made in other parts of the country and its details where people have had major offenses than were left within the secret service allowing to retire one year later. what are you going to do? diasters specifically about forced to transfers and threatening taking away security clearance for rank-and-file but yet nothing has been done with that mr. clancy. are you going to act on that eventually? >> five understand that was in a letter routinely we move people around the country. >> it is used as a force of manipulation with rank-and-file. so are you going to make sure they know the security clearance will not be taken away? said in a security clearance is not taken away. >> if they decide not to transfer? >> you cannot do that. for example, the president's detailed need additional personal so we have to move people from the field office to the detail if they say no doubt we are short it is the nature of our business and they are informed of the when they are hired. >> this sounds like the same old problem under the previous director mr. clancy. i yield back. >> we walked welcome the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you for your service your country. i want, first of all i think there is a lot of bipartisan agreement on this committee about the problem obviously a secret service. i think he will find this with an approach to how we resolve this. my friend and his questioning raise an interesting point and i am pretty sympathetic with his point of view but i am open to hearing a counter argument you have the zero wedgie investigation going on and they have the tapes. congress has a constitutional role in perspective of a white jeep. the fact that we have the power to compel does not always made we should use it especially with the ongoing investigation there are plenty of reasons not to do that we do not want to unduly interfere with prosecution but i would say to underscore the point 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 erupt the ongoing investigation. with out it seems we're entitled to those tapes for investigative purposes. we are the independent branch of government we have every right to exercise our oversight and hopefully be to responsibly. but i am telling you in my view we will move forward on a bipartisan issue in in this case i think that is where we're headed but i join with the ranking member with his observations of word to the wise mr. clancy that is where we are headed. >> i sense your outrage and i will go back to revisit this with the department to see if we can accommodate the request i have heard you loud and clear with what we need to do. >> i am going to try to get through five questions quickly. hopefully will cooperate. do you believe given your new responsibilities i know you have a lifetime and invested with this noble service with a storied history is there superimposed on that tradition in the creeping cultural problem that has to be addressed in your ranks? >> if think both the chairman and the ranking member catalog the history bollenbach of unfortunate headlines. >> we do. redo have an element we do have a small element that has a culture in this case of most of the recent cases of alcohol has been involved. '' however the zero way she did a report to an 8% of the incidents involved alcohol but your regards is looking back at recent history it has been used so that is clearly something i am concerned about real looking at how to redress that with the culture to not bring inflammation up through the ranks of this layering is a concern with that issue were getting anonymous calls or maybe not anonymous but that is something we have to fix. it is not a proper answer but some things take time and passed to come with building trust and communication to hammer this of give us a chance through communication. >> a five day delay to what you describe that? to believe somebody was deliberately trying to withhold that from the use of that you could not take action in? >> this is speculation but i don't think anyone was intentionally hiding it from me but at a lower level if they felt i don't know how they viewed the incident but we will find out the fax i don't want to speculate at that level senator obviously it would be very troubling if it were the latter. >> absolutely. bureaucratic inertia we can try to clean that up if they tried to deliberately stopped her ability to scrutinize the unfortunate incident it doesn't put us in a favorable light bin you have a different problem. >> a direct reflection of my of leadership. >> direct challenge i don't know if the yen reflects your leadership. and that is another element of concern for the public we had a review panel that recommended you strongly to seek an outside director he did not take that advice but chose you because he had confidence in there is an argument to be made only the insider can actually make the tough decisions and knows where the bodies are buried and doesn't put up with the nonsense on the other hand, the counter argument could be put someone in there who could not possibly be a change agent and is not what we need. i am obliged to give you that opportunity to respond. >> thank you. one of the things it is not the same old upper tier of management we have made changes primarily because we want to take better advantage of this subject matter of civilian experts. so we had a director and deputy director now we just recently made a deputy director that was named but at the same level the chief operating officer who was not from within the agency. a year she is from the private sector and underneath that officer at equal level we have fattier of financial officers information officer and several other civilian experts and we're integrating both of them. this is not the same old the secret service from one month ago. in the short 30 days i have been here we've made significant changes to the traditional culture and structure of the upper management. including myself of a bike to have time to let that progress. >> i now recognize the gentleman from florida. >> i am trying to do figure out the video policy. last week you said there were three clips of the woman with a suspicious package but only to clips of the agents so why is there one more clip of the woman they and the agents? >> the female was positioned outside of the gate area area, just outside so that is specific to that incident with the specific -- suspicious package with the confrontation between the officer and though lady so there are very short clips of that and attractions. the others although it captures the suspicious package of also captures the agents new genes that and coming through a secure zone. >> that other angle would not capture the vehicle? >> the first one, they are two different time frames. i can answer that question. >> because the question about allowing congress access you do not want to provide congress with any of its own version ensor copies that we could look for review with the staff can determine the nextel's we want to take with the investigation. is that your position? >> recently said i will revisit. >> the initial offer. >> that we would provide it. >> and i have been bouncing around. i did not hear that. i apologize. also raising the issue of the inspector general and i know you we're doing when you thank you are required to do but sitting here across the whole federal government conducting oversight the number of witnesses say the zero wedgy we cannot do with the thing we cannot give you information and i just don't believe the was never the intent of the inspector general's to cause the rest of the world to stand still we have the independent duty we're asked to fund the agency and the american people obviously need to know what is going on so we can make decisions about that. fled is the timeline of the ig investigation? >> i have been told weeks. i did have one called with the inspector general i was told it would be weeks, not months. >> is also doing is look back investigation for previous incidents? >> i saw that somewhere in french but i am not sure we talked about that. >> that is not something he hugh asked? you bet with the incident at the gate. >> specifically this incident. yes. >> with the witness is invited, before we asked to attend and they are not obviously here. what is the reason for not bringing those witnesses here today? >> there is a couple of right or wrong they are rank-and-file and did not sign up for coming in front of an open hearing with the cameras and lights and i take it is my responsibility >> correct me if i am wrong be you have not allow them to be interviewed behind the scenes? >> we have not. but the staff may be a discredit -- discussing this but we're not doing that going back to interviewing people twice every tiny interview someone you get a slight difference not intentionally but it could be perceived to differ in run-through examples in the closed-door hearing but i think with one investigation initially to do their investigation and then if there are gaps certainly others can follow up. >> i think that is problematic. we have our own duty to conduct oversight and the question and that we may ask from a congressional perspective may be different than what the ig is looking and i think we're all interested in accountability but how that would be done within the executive branch's staff prevail and we as a group who have received recommendations recommendations, knows there is funding issues with this that we would want to examine. i am not satisfied that is the way to do do it did i join the chairman. at a minimum i wish it would have been provided at least behind the scenes so we could have received answers. i yield back. >> we will revisit that estimate we recognized the gentleman from michigan. >> thank-you. director clancy, i'll look for the core values of the secret service. on the website it says they have five core values justice, judy, the courage, honesty and loyalty. these values that is worthy of trust and confidence and to reinforce the of values the leaders and employees promote and ensure personal accountability in program performance across the agency by holding each person to the highest standards of personal and professional integrity. the secret service in shares that they preserve those core values in the fulfilment of the of vision and success of the vision. i am always interested in leadership so i understand you have 27 years as a veteran of the secret service. during your career your special agent in charge of the presidential protection division. you yourself in charge of the division. and during your tenure of the 27 years you also served the secret service office of the investigation the internal affairs division. correct? >> correct. >> my concern after listening to all this testimony in my question today is i recognize you were brought into the office and given the opportunity of little more then 30 days but brought in february there scheerer? correct? looking dash your resonate i would think experience like this would put you in a position where investigative skills the knowledge of how a department should operate because you wind up through the ranks so you never actually perform the duties of the people you were now the director of. when i hear things like i don't know. i am not rage. that shed nine have happened. yes there is a culture. when you are put into the job you are expected to bring all those skills in and provide the leadership to address issues and concerns. i am really challenge right now. my question into you with all of your experience and with the continuing because when you were brought on we already had those issues that we along today, how do you make a difference? i know you say you need time. but when i hear that you did not talk to the executive level and you yourself are in charge of the agency's internal affairs i thank you would be really prepared to be able to dig right in and say here's today to have a clear vision and a clear admission under your leadership paul you will address these. and i am not hearing that. my question is as a member of congress and this committee as rare is the vision and the leadership and the fierce commitment that you took yourself personally know you are in charge to make sure that is the mission of this agency? i need you to give that to me because i am not hearing it. >> congress woman in my opening statement i said this is my life's work and i have spent 28 years protecting for presidents and have given everything i have had a great expense personally to ensure our presidents are safe. i did not come back from private industry to just enjoy the ride. this is critical for me in the country and i will give it everything i have by and immersed spending hours talking to people at all levels and we are pushing out to the new leadership that is just built with the new team bringing a professional people to bury the responsibilities of law enforcement to work together we're trying to reinvigorate the look of the secret service but unfortunately i don't have the magic want it will take a little bit of time but one of the key things is when the report is done our people held accountable? we have penalties based on what other agencies use we have already had about one year but we will definitely be holding people accountable of that is what they want to see why as morale down? quality of life is one of them but also we don't hold people accountable in a consistent manner that is what one of the members said here today is are we being consistent? and to be sure we follow up with that accountability. >> i yield back my time but results is what will measure your leadership. >> now we recognize the gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you for being here. file will ask specific questions about the incident than about the agency. fox as best i can tell a summary is a woman dropped off what she said was a bomb than 24:00 p.m. wednesday night. l looks like the be on the lookout order did not go well until thursday afternoon for 15:00 p.m. does that delay surprise to? is that unusual? >> i cannot confirm about the timeframe. >> let's just assume it is is that too long? >> it is the. >> have you looked into why? i can assure you did take that long. >> our investigative office will investigate why. >> you have talked to your folks about this? right? maybe not a formal investigation bayou have asked them why? right? >> on the incident with the lady with this suspicious package i was briefed on the incident stemmed becky still don't have no idea why it took that long? >> no. >> just coming to this issue for the first time the you found her friday morning. bill will reduce drug package at the white house then ran over a secret service agent you found her friday morning in a hotel in virginia. your agents talked to her in though body of the hotel where she was having breakfast in did not detail her. were you aware of that? america after being briefed. yes their reply didn't they detained her? >> will make an exception there was no our arrest warrant civic how long should take to get a warrant for someone who throws a ball that the white house? bin back to this point we know she has a history with the secret service and has been interviewed in the past seven she does have a history the arrest warrant did not go out and tell the following tuesday it took seven days to get the warring to which takes me to that next question she was arrested by local police in virginia they said the suspect is no longer on the secret service lookout. for you told that? >> no civic is that unusual and stranger and wrong? >> it does. i am not sure why. >> i don't want to pylon because genoa has been a rough day it has been a month you know, was a high profile event. but still a woman through a the bomb at the white house but for u.s. this point not to know these details is disappointing but i will leave that for another day. you have then there 27 years and i thank you for your service. and for what you do for this nation has always been this bad? >> no sir. >> what changed? >> and i don't know that answer. i wish i did. i know there were as great dedication of our was john darr and i know there is now. i honestly believe it is a smaller element of people that are not satisfied and it goes back to have retreats our people. they are getting crashed with the am hours because staffing is a limited as they go into the fall in will we is tremendous challenge that will create tremendous burden on our work force and i think the mission it has expanded the staffing levels have not kept up and that is affecting rile but i don't want to dismiss the leadership that is a key part in something i have got to correct but we are making headway i take that will help over time. >> was a better when you were under treasury? >> i was a young agent whenever is under treasury so i don't know the relationship i could not give a good answer on that. >> we now recognize the woman from the virgin islands civic good morning is cq chairman and ranking member thank you for your time. my question looms go along the same line with a condensed timeframe as my colleague with those allegations is suppose to fax i have a problem with people putting information out that is not substantiated by direct fax so to talk about this anonymous a real air of the allegations that are in it. rio day steerage you received this five days after the fact? spitzer correct sticky were now very familiar with this it was given to the committee yesterday. i want to walk you through those obligations to see what you have been able to ascertain as being factual as opposed to those that are not credible are you still did not have information. it says at some point in the two agents drove through the crime scene tape i will get back to that specifically but later it says the officers at the scene say there were extremely intoxicated coming home through the retirement dinner. were they in fact coming home were returning from a retirement dinner? do you know, that? >> i do know there was one that night i don't know if they were coming from there. >> you have not been able to ascertain the list or the individuals? >> i stepped away 700 whitey is looking into back? and a pair of the day flat don the oblates. >> it is a government owned vehicles in a government vehicles coming back to the white house thought did they go around the roadblock? >> it is an assumption on my part. when they arrived at the gate on 15th street there was the burial place there by our officers to secure the zone and they did move that beryl. >> it says apparently flipped on the lights. i have then an investigator that means they do not know themselves. do believe this individual was at the scene? >> i don't know that because i don't know if they were flat cohen or not. reading that it sounds like it is second-hand information. >> that is what i get out of it. and the agents nudged the barrel reheard crashed which one was it? >> it was an edge on the right side of the bumper because the barrel did not cross over it was a purposeful move it was not losing control of the vehicle but the very delicate movement. >> how fast were they ever going? >> about 10 miles per hour. >> to crash something would require a much greater speed. >> yes. at fled has been tipped over. >> i want to talk about a specific time period. >> get 1024 the suspect drives up. >> direct. >> at 1030 the joint operations center notifies the metropolitan police department. 10:32 p.m. they report the incident to the joint operating center. >> day don't have the time line in front of me but i believe so. >> 10:47 p.m. and notification message goes out. sending a notification message regarding a suspicious package. 11:12 p.m. the issue the first of two notification alerts. what is the difference between the one at 10:47 p.m. notification message and 11:12 p.m. beautification alert -- notification alert? >> they are both protective to alert staff that there is a suspicious package or the incident they are updates to the original alert. >> when did officers arrive on the scene? >> the two officers in question arrived. >> ted 58:00 p.m. so they did not know there was a scene? train wreck they should have they would have received that notification the assumption is they some of the perils and they should know. >> but was their crime scene tape for any notification that will let them know it was the scene? panera from the video i look dash i don't remember seeing any crime tape there may have been some doubt there but i did the not see it in the video. >> they give for your indulgence of just appears that the anonymous e-mail does not necessarily comport with the information that we have. >> that's why we need to see the tapes. >> i recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> mr. clancy's new air is required under the policies of the secret service report misconduct? to make anyone. >> we have a slide in that regard. so my question is cayenne anyone but who is required to do so? >> every supervisor is required to report misconduct. >> of a supervisor fails to report there are penalties? >> correct so these are accurate in terms of what is required a unit of penalty of the night of march 4th kef said was the watch commander overseeing the white house? >> initial what does that mean? >> the lawn to the supervisor. >> beyond duty supervisor in charge so food does he report to? >> to the inspector in uniform division. >> who does he report to? >> said deputy chief. >> who does he report to? bridge this special agent in charge of the president's detail. >> you have confirmed that the incident was reported. correct? . . the incident involving that followed the proper chain of command. the incident involving the misconduct did not follow. >> could it be that it did not follow the proper chain of command for mi

Related Keywords

Miami , Florida , United States , North Carolina , Afghanistan , Delaware , Boston , Massachusetts , Honolulu , Hawaii , Colombia , Virginia , Georgia , Michigan , Tennessee , Netherlands , South Carolina , Virgin Islands , France , Utah , America , French , American , John Darr , Joseph Clancy , Joseph Chaffetz , Marc Connolly , Clancy Duguid , Joseph P Clancy ,