alcohol when they drove into a fence at the whitehouse. john roth reports on the finding. this runs an hour and 40 minutes. >> committee on oversight and government reform comes to order. the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. we are meeting to talk about the united secret service and the countability for the march 14th 2015 incident. on march 14th two secret service agent, deputy in charge of the presidential detail mr. connelly, and the other was assistant to the special agent in charge. the allegation and the concern was that they drove through a criminal scene investigation of a potential bomb at the whitehouse. following the incident there was allegations that the two agents were intoxicated after being at a bar downtown for a retirement party. there were no sobriety test given and no repremand given. everyone involved was told to go home and pretend like nothing happened. to get a better sense on what happened we talked directory to clancy but he could not answer questions. so we scheduled a hearing and he could not answer there. he defered to the office of the inspector general who investigated the matter. that investigation is complete and we are pleased to have mr. roth here to talk about the conclusion. now the facts are in it is time for accountable. the inspector general determined both agents judgment was impaired by alcohol. since there was no sobriety test given the inspector general came to the conclusion based on the facts. both of the men spent five hours in a bar running a bar tab that included 14 drinks after two hours of an open bar. and the objective behavior of the two experienced secret service agents who should have known better. this resulted in them driving into a crime scene and inches from what the rest of the secret service was treating as a potential explosive device and which under different circumstances could have been -- let me read that quote again. the agents impaired judgment led them to drive into a crime scene inches from what the rest of the secret service was treating as a potential explosive device and which under different circumstances could have endangered their own lives and those in the uniforms responding. if that had been a real bomb these agents would have been lucky to be alive. they were endangering the lives of too many people. the story made its way up the way of command and reached mr. connelly himself. required to report what happened, mr. connelly chose not to. mr. connelly even met with his boss, special agent in charge on march 6th to talk about the incident but made no mention of being involved with the incident himself. the other agent had a duty to self report as well and chose not to. the failure to report reflects poor judgment or trying to hide their activities. senior uniform division leaders also violated their duty to report by failing to inform mr. connelly's boss. the head of the protection division. perhaps the situation might have been dealt with earlier if the agents were given a breathalizer test that night. they decided not to administer to them because he was worried to do so would be a quote career killer end quote. he was probably right. the watch commander's decision was likely influenced by the secret service reputation for punishing those or ignoring those who filled violations such as drunk driving. that is why the problems of this incident expand beyond this incident. we are concerned the problems within the secret service are continuing. we have thousands that serve correctly but they are not above the law. the secret service has to abide by the law. we have heard senior personal are treated differently from the rank and file and the uniform district is treated differently from the agents. these agents believed they could act in a way of getting away with it. the culture of special treatment for senior agents must stop. it as a highly embarrassing and the security incidents need to end. the secret service mission is too importantment i want to commend mr. roth and his team on their quick action in his report. it has produced a worthwhile result and that is why we are here. we look forward to hearing from the director on the incident and learning rather the agency plans to take disciplinary actions against the individuals involved. i have a concern retiring or stepping aside doesn't fix the problem. this is too important not to reprimand those with poor judgment that could put the president and his family at risk. in homeland security there different tables of penalties within the department itself. there is a standard for the department of homeland there seems to be a different standard within the soak secret services and other agencies. we formed the homeland security department making sure they had the best practice and have this uniform. the inspector general funneledound the most senior people don't even understand the alcohol process. we appreciate the good work of mr. roth and look forward to a good vibrant discussion about his findings from his team. i am recognize mr. cummings for five minutes. >> thank you. i want to thank you you general roth and your team for all of your hard work on this investigation. you worked with us and met with us and we took your guidance and we really appreciate all of that you all have done. you started immediately after receiving the allegations. a week after the incident and finished them in less than eight weeks and that says a lot. it was found the two agents were drinking and driving. the report bunks other allegations concluding there is and i quote no evidence that the video of the incident was intentionally deleted or destroyed end of quote. this was a model of how an investigation should be conducted. and it demonstrated why congress and this committee in particular rely rely on. at a previous meeting, i expressed grave concern with the secret service culture that seemed to punish those who raise concern, a culture which employees are afraid to report incidents from the higher chain of command. we were discussing an incident in 2011 when multiply shots were fired at the whitehouse. one officer on the scene believed bullets that hit the whitehouse but feared the consequences of disputing her superiors. as a result it wasn't discovered until four days later that the whitehouse had been struck four times. this cultural problem is widespread. the report highlights and i quote the secret services' repetition of punishing those who report such violations. according to the inspector general's report some officers relayed that the watch commander at the seen on the night of the incident raised concern. according to one officers the commander told the colleagues that the agents who drove in the barricade were and i quote hammered unquote. according to that officer, the watch commander said ordering a sobriety test would have been and i quote a career killer. therefore no sobriety test was done and both agents drove their vehicles home after a night of drinking. the inspector general reports concludes and i quote the watch commander's action must be considered in light of a vast disparity between the watch commander and connelly who was in the watch commander's chain of command end of quote. i am also extremely concerned because just two days ago, our committee conducted a key interview that further cooberates this view. we interviewed alfonso and he admitted to the staff he had two telephone calls with mr. connelly on the night of the incident. one while mr. connelly was in the middle of the suspicious package scene and another as he was driving home later that night. in those calls, mr. dyson warned mr. connelly that the watch commander and i quote was going to make it a problem end of quote. mr. dyson admitted he told mr. connelly the watch commander might cause trouble for him. mr. dyson stated and a quote it was going to stir the pot, he was going to spread the rumors he was going to get the guys riled up that is what i believe and relayed to to dsic and connelly. this is unacceptable based on the report the watch commander should have done more that night not less. and it is appalling that senior secret service officials would disparage junior officers from doing the right thing. the agents and the officers will never have the full trust of their colleagues while the fear of retaliation continues. let me conclude by thanking the director for his cooperation and quick action. as the inspector general reports, the director acted appropriately after receiving information about misconduct. the inspector general said he received outstanding cooperation from the director during the entire investigation. we hoped the director would be available but this is police week and he is attending several events to honor officers who are active and the families of those who have fallen in the line of duty. he called personal the chairman to express his concern and regrets he could not be with us at this hearing and i know that chairman understood that and i understood that and i want it thank him for all he has done. he offered to reschedule for another day and i look forward to hearing from him. with that i yield back. >> i think the ranking member. it is true i really do believe through experience that the director has been more than responsive and his availability is very much appreciated. we may disagree on some points obviously, but his accessibility has been one of the best that we have seen. i also want to highlight just at this moment the secret service is evidently involved and engaged in apprehending someone trying to fly a drone and basing this on media reports but every day these men and women are dealing with very exceptionally difficult situations with something going wrong at any given time. they do more than we hear and see and we appreciate that. they need to know we love and care for them and they have a no fail mission. that is why when something goes wrong we have to learn from it and make sure that we fix the problems because some of this behavior is unacceptable. the secretary award for valor was given to a secret service agent from the home town of scranton, pennsylvania and stationed in washington, d.c. let me read the photograph. while in route to work on november 22nd 2014 the u.s. sargeant came upon a motor vehicle accident at the baltimore washington parkway and was the first to respond. when he noticed flames from underneath the vehicle he removed the occupant who was later determine to have a broken pelvic and unable to move. i cannot thank the men and women who do this work enough. we expect a lot. we expect people will make mistakes but not ones that put people in danger and certainly never put the president in danger. he is our president. i don't care republican or democrat he is our president and he has to stay safe. that is why it is so pivotal we continue to investigate that. i will hold the record open for five days for any members who want to submit a witness statement. it is with pleasure we welcome inspector general john roth. he assumed his position on march 10th, 2014 after serving as the director of the drug administration. he had a long career with the department of justice and welcome to committee rules all witnesses are here to be sworn. rise and raise your right hand. do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? let the record reflect the playoff answered in the affirmti affirmtive. >> thank you for having me here. we have made the report public as you know. our objective was to conduct a factual inquiry and assess the reasonableness of the actions of those involved. we conducted the investigation from march 12 until april 30. this inquiry was centered around the activities of mark connolly. his duties include all aspects of white house security. george ovi is the -- george ogilvie is the assistant to the officer in charge. he has previously worked in the presidential protection division. the report that we wrote is a summary of the investigation. it is attached to my written testimony. the materials of our investigation that we produced are reports of interviews, the physical evidence, and the documents we found, have been turned over to the secret service in accordance with our regular procedures. the inspector general's office does not make recommendations as to whether or what personnel action should be taken, but leave that to the secret service. our duties are purely investigative. report makes conclusions based on the evidence that we found. for example, it is more likely than not that their judgment was impaired by alcohol. the two agents displayed poor judgment and a lack of situational awareness driving into the scene. during their interviews, each denied drinking to excess. we must assess those denials in light of uniform position officers' observations, the fact that they spent the previous five areas -- hours in the bar, and that they drove into a crime scene inches from where the rest of the secret service was treating a potential explosive device, which, under different circumstances, could have endangered their own lives and those uniform division officers. both agents work required to report their conduct up the chain of command but failed to do so. each told us that they did not believe that what they had done amounted to a reportable incident. their failure to report reflects either poor judgment on their part for an affirmative desire to hide their conduct. with regard to the actions of the uniformed division, we found that they reacted to the suspicious package generally in accordance with operational procedures. however, the establishment of a perimeter should have been better executed. while there is often confusion inherent in a fast-moving and fluid situation, a number of vehicles and pedestrians came within close proximity to the object after the uniform division had established the safety perimeter. the uniform division officers made reasonable attempts while they were securing the scene to canvass the area for the suspect. an early partial description of the vehicle foiled the ability to apprehend the suspect. the secret service investigative agents reacted quickly to identify the suspect and determine the nature of the threat. it was the watch commander's decision to allow connolly and ogilvie to pass without further inquiry into their sobriety. he made this assessment based on his observations. while it would have been preferable if he ordered a field sobriety test or made other inquiries to establish both agents fitness to drive, it his actions must be considered in light of the vast disparity in rank between the watch commander and connolly. the secret service reputation for punishing or ignoring those who would further investigate reports -- and report such violations. the watch commander reported the facts to his superior officer. the watch commander and his subordinates should have been able to rely on their superior officers to appropriately report the situation. both uniform division deputy chief dyson and simpson were notified that night that the agents had driven into an evacuated area and that alcohol was involved. each could have reported the incident but did not. i would like to publish late -- to publicly acknowledge the agent who conducted this investigation. they displayed the professionalism that does me proud and i am grateful for their efforts. i would like to express my appreciation for the outstanding cooperation we are seeing from the secret service office of professional responsibility and from director clancy himself. that concludes my testimony. i happy to answer any questions you may have. >> rep. chaffetz: thank you. i recognize myself for live minutes. there was an e-mail about the incident on march 4. can you tell me more about that? >> mr. roth: certainly. what we found was that -- let me get to the page of the report that has that. >> rep. chaffetz: the version i have is page 15. mr. roth: thank you, sir. correct. there was an e-mail that was sent up the chain of command all the way to the presidential protection division that described, in very vague terms, that occurred at the entrance. >> rep. chaffetz: why do you think the e-mail was forwarded by deputy chief dyson to mr. connolly himself? >> mr.roth: i think it was to let mr. connolly no -- know that he was getting out of the incident and he had the necessity to self-report. >> rep chaffetz: how did mr. connolly respond? >> mr. roth: during the night, when he was driving home, he called deputy chief dyson, who expressed concerns at the fact that this was getting out? >> rep. chaffetz: if deputy chief dyson denied he was aware of this, would you find that denial credible question -- >> mr. roth: not knowing the other facts, it would raise some additional questions i would have to ask deputy chief dyson. the president -- the evidence we have indicates that they had a conversation as connolly was driving home expressing concerns about that e-mail itself. >> rep. chaffetz: for him to suggest that he had no idea that connolly was in the car, that could not possibly be true, could it? >> mr. roth: our interview with deputy chief dyson, he indicated that it sounded like connolly was in the car as they were having that discussion. >> rep. chaffetz: did your investigators asked questions about the video cameras being directed away from the area where they were questioning connolly and ogilvie? that is something that our whistleblowers had concerns about, that the video cameras were moved away so they would not see that interaction. >> mr. roth: i was not aware of any of that. what we did find with regard to the video preservation was, as you know, there is only a 72-hour preservation of the video. what we found in the course of our investigation was the actual what i would call a barrel incident. ogilvie striking the barrel and moving the barrel out of the way was burned at the request of the uniform division folks who were on the scene. they wanted to figure out how it was that the barrel was moved. we had no other video. it was nothing else to review other than that snippet that had been burned. >> rep. chaffetz: that is one of our deep concerns long-term. why the policy? you retire -- you require an airport to retain video for 30 days. they retain this for hours. there were a couple potential crimes going on. there were people trying to detain this person from driving away. that is not all caps it from start to finish. the bumbling of how we would apprehend this person who left a potential bomb. were there any officers who outranked braun? >> mr. roth: there was an assistant to the sack in the presidential protection division who was there. in other words, an investigative agent, gs-14 level. i am assuming that that outranks braun, but i am not sure. >> rep. chaffetz: one of the concerns is that when director clancy new -- knew. this thing was spreading like wildfire. there were people asking for videotape to be preserved because they were upset. you had former agents, retired agents, a newspaper reporter, members of congress all heard about this before director clancy. is that feasible? mr. roth: apparently, that is what the facts show. >> rep. chaffetz: so who is responsible? where did it stop? where did it not continue up the >> mr. roth: i think there were several points of failure. one is with connolly and ogilvie, who had a duty to report their own misconduct up the chain. the presidential protection envision -- division should have been informed by connolly and the washington field office should have been informed by ogilvie but were not. that is one point of failure. the other is with the supervisors, the leadership in the uniform division. both the chief and the deputy chief could have and should have reported it up. each of them said that the reason they did not do it is because connolly said that he would self-report, so they did not want to do it. they would rather have connolly do it. >> rep. chaffetz: technically, both should have happened, right? they knew that this conduct had happened. >> mr. roth: correct. >> rep. chaffetz: so why didn't they do it? >> mr. roth: i think it was a failure on those individuals' parts. >> rep. chaffetz: anybody else who should have reported? >> mr. roth: those are the four individuals who i believe had primary responsibility. there were others, including the 18 special agents supervisor who was there that evening probably should have reported it up. there are the uniform division individuals themselves who could have reported as well. >> rep. chaffetz: my concern is that they did not preserve all the video that was germane to both the leaving of the package, the fleeing of the person, and the incident is. with that, i yield back. >> rep. cummings: picking up exactly where the chairman left off, i noticed that in the beginning of your report, you mentioned that you were deferring specific conclusions about systemic issues facing the secret service until you have completed your investigation into at least five or six other incidents. is that correct? >> mr. roth: that is correct? >> rep. cummings: what form is that going to take? it seems like we have a culture of complacency, a culture of fear of retaliation. how do you -- what do you see -- where are you going with that? >> mr. roth: yes, i do. where we add value is having the independent fact-finding ability, to be able to go in and gather documents, interview individuals who are compelled under the dhs rules to talk to us. what we intend to do is very similar to what we did with the bush president's alarm report that was issued a few weeks ago. we are going to find a lot of facts and see what we find. we will publish reports, report them both to the secretary, to the director of the secret service. we think that, at the end of those fact findings, some of the conclusions or some of the themes will become apparent. for example, we are in the process of doing an investigation into the 24th incident at the cdc, where the president was in close proximity to an armed security guard unknown to the secret service. we will write a factual report about exactly what happened, where there were failures within that, and publish that to this committee as well as the other committees, the secretary, and the director. >> rep. cummings: when the doj comes into the police department and looks at patterns of practice, is that similar? >> mr. roth: i think that is a good analogy. the only difference is we are going to do this early. we are not going to wait until the end. we think it is important to get the information out as quickly as possible. >> rep. cummings: i want to ask you about agency policies regarding alcohol. first, let me walk through some details. according to your report, it started about 5:30 and lasted until about 7:30, an open bar. afterwards, mr. connelly and mr. ogilvie stayed at the bar. according to your report, mr. ogilvie opened a new bar tab at 7:44 p.m. and closed it three hours later. as part of your investigation, you obtained the actual bar tab. i would like to put it up on the screen. your report says they purchased "eight glasses of scott, two vodka drinks, one glass of wine, and three glasses of beer. they were on a roll. looking at this tab -- [laughter] the first three items are beers, then a glass of wine, then eight johnny walker reds, then two vodka drinks. investigators said that some were given away to others, but he could not remember to whom. ask at a minimum, mr. ogilvie admitted to drinking two scotches and one beer. mr. connelly admitted to drinking two beers. they also admitted that they drove the government vehicle that same evening on their way home. is that right? >> mr. roth: that is correct. >> rep. cummings: they had a policy that prohibits operating government vehicles while under the influence. your report says that this policy applies only to uniform division officers, not to agents right mr. connelly or mr. ogilvie. this seems a bit ridiculous to me. do you know why? >> mr. roth: we do not. what we found with a lot of these policies is that they were put in in kind of a piecemeal fashion. we do not have a good explanation as to why it only applied to the uniform division but not the special agents. >> rep. cummings: the secret service is also part of the homeland security -- department of homeland security, which has its own policy which prevents all employees from drinking alcohol within eight hours of operating a government vehicle. even if we take the statements at their word in terms of how much they drank that night, it seems they violated these listings dhs policy. your report says you found "no evidence that anyone in the secret service was aware of this policy. that is a problem. i do not see how we can have the elite of the elite and they do not even know what their own rules are. after the incident, secret ciphers -- secret service issued a new rule. this new rule is even more strict than the dhs offering. is that correct? >> mr. roth: that is correct. rep. cummings: do you know if the secret service is taking steps to educate their employees and conducting training in that regard? >> mr. roth: we did not look at that in this investigation, but it is something we are certainly interested in. >> rep. cummings: there are significant problems relating to alcohol at the agency. we have seen that in past incidents as well. but also, the vague policies just make worse the problem. i hope today's hearing is part of a broader effort to reform the agency's policies and make absolutely clear to employees what is expected of them and to revitalize the agency so it can perform its vertical mission and once again become the elite of the elite. with that, i yield back. >> mr. connelly is not related to me, nor do i like scotch. thank you. rep. chaffetz: duly noted. we will now recognize the gentleman from florida. >> thank you. in your report, you said that the findings should be considered in light of the secret service reputation for punishing or ignoring those who would further investigate or report such dilation. that interests me the cousin before your tenure, the dhs released a 2013 report which did not find evidence that the secret service had this conduct for the leadership had fostered an environment that fostered inappropriate conduct. given your tenure giving this report, what are your thoughts about the 2013 dhs report? is that an accurate reflection of what is going on in the culture of the secret service right now >> mr. roth: right now, it is not. one of the things that you reference, there are fascinating findings within it. for example, they did a survey, and electronic survey -- an electronic survey where 86% indicated that they did not report such behavior. the report also indicated that, of the 2500-some electronic survey respondents, 44% felt they could not report misconduct without fear of retaliation if they reported that. within that report itself, there are some very disturbing trends. i think, given the nature of what it is we have seen since then, i believe that there is a serious problem within the secret service. >> rep. desantis: the report also found that 36% of respondents did not believe that senior managers are held accountable within the agency. do you think that that is still the case today? >> mr. roth: we have not done any work on that, but it would not surprise me if it is still the case. >> rep. desantis: is there any indication that the process for discipline has improved since the 2013 report? mr. roth: it certainly has improved. the secret service has taken steps -- that is the one that imposes discipline. our 2013 inspection, we made a number of different recommendations, including policies which they now have adopted. i think the secret service is moving in the right direction in this area. >> rep. desantis: it is safe to say, though, that the conclusions reached in the 2013 report -- there is a conflict between the conclusions reached in your report. >> mr. roth: i would agree with that. >> rep. desantis: the question is how to correct the cultural problems that your report identifies. i think underlying the 2013 report, you saw evidence of that from the people who responded to the survey. as people are given oversight, what do we need to be doing in your judgment? >> mr. roth: candidly, i think director can think -- clancy is moving in the right direction. they put together a table of penalties. they have an office of integrity. i think they are increasing training on this. i think they have treated violations of this very seriously. for example, the auto accident in florida involving some of the uniform division that was alcohol-related. the discipline that was imposed their was -- there was appropriate. i will not expect that a problem that took years to create will be fixed overnight, but i do think they are moving in the right direction. >> rep. desantis: your experience with the other components of the dhs, do they all have similar issues with alcohol or is secret service unique in that regard? >> mr. roth: we have not taken a specific look at other law enforcement agencies to the degree that we have had with the secret service. >> rep. desantis: you have not had a lot of alcohol-related incidences brought to your attention that you have had to investigate. is that fair? >> mr. roth: that is fair. >> rep. desantis: do other organizations have the reputation were someone trying to do the right thing would be punished or marginalized? >> mr. roth: we have not looked at that, so it is difficult for me to comment on that. >> rep. desantis: but you could say that not a lot has been brought to your attention during your tenure. >> mr. roth: that is correct. >> rep. desantis: thank you for your report. i think it was timely and had a lot of good information. some of the other incidents, we are looking forward to those results as well. >> rep. chaffetz: i will recognize ms. orton from the district of columbia. >> we appreciate your report. i suppose this committee is paid to be impatient. particularly in light of the repetitive incidents. i will try to put this in perspective, because iran an agency that was a whole lot more troubled, at the time, then the secret service. someone said to me, within a couple of months, yet it in order -- get it in order -- i am trying to keep in mind what mr. clancy has found and what he has done. i asked when he was appointed exactly and he is actually a longtime employee of the secret service. he was acting from october -- the march 4 incident occurred -- i consider his acting time. he was official as of february 19. as of the march 4 incident, director clancy apparently had not issued the order that was issued after that incident involving the two agents. my concern is whether or not this indicates -- in light of his having been with the agency during the time when there was no reporting of the bullets that penetrated the white house, i was concerned that the first thing he did was not to say, look, let me know before the press knows and anybody knows. it bothered me that, as short a time as that may seem, that he certainly was aware. my question goes to whether or not, in light of this order, after the march 4 incident, you believe there is sufficient clarity as to what is required. for example, i don't know and do agents know about drinking off duty? does there need to be greater clarification beyond reporting up the chain of command? these agents have been under huge duress, according to the special panel. "years of service has taken on additional missions in both protective and investigative roles, but has not matched its request for additional resources of those expended." they reported that they had been on 12-hour days with fewer days off. you can step back and look at it. they had been subject to the sequester and the rest of that. the panel said that they needed, at best, 200 officers and 85 agents. and said that they were down 500. essentially, you had overworked, overburdened agents. you can imagine that if those people were overworked, they might go out and drink too much. was there any clarification of if you were an officer of the secret service and you are off duty, bearing in mind that everybody is entitled to a private life, is there enough clarification about what is required on and off duty so that we can be assured that there will not be another incident like this? >> mr. roth: i think you raise a good point and a good concern. it is certainly one that we wrestled with with regard to what does it mean to be on duty? most of these agents are subject to recall at any time. does that mean that they can never consume alcohol? it would seem to be an irrational policy if that is the case. i agree that there is room for clarification regarding that. >> rep. norton: thank you very much. i would ask that -- because i think this is a very murky area. i would ask that we ask director clancy to bring some clarification. for example, the number of hours before being required to report for duty. some clarification might be fair. >> rep. chaffetz: i wholeheartedly agree. what you see at homeland security issued by secretary johnson is different than what the individual agencies within his department have in front of them. there should be a uniform standard across the board and there is not. that is one of the things we need to work with. >> rep. norton: maybe even a higher standard for secret service agents. >> rep. chaffetz: amen. let's recognize the gentleman from north carolina for a few moments. >> let me pick up what we were discussing when it comes to off duty and on duty and it comes to government vehicles. did you determine whether any other entities drove government vehicles after consuming the alcohol? >> mr. roth: we did not. we interviewed some of the individuals at the farewell party. some of them had alcohol and then went back to the office to continue to work. my point with regard to that is that the dhs policy, really unknown to the secret service. no one within the secret service understood it. we did not see any attempts by the department to promote this policy. the policy was in the manual for maintenance of government cars. it is not a place in which one would nationally -- naturally look to see a policy like that. it is difficult for us to blame somebody for violating a policy that they did not know about and no one made an effort to tell them about. >> rep. walker: i understand there are certain aspects and ethics, but let me ask this. were any of the party attendees of the secret service part of the executive staff westmark if if so, should not they be held liable to understand what the rules are? >> mr. roth: i agree with that. subsequent to this, it has been noted that the secret service put a new policy in place, a very bright line policy that says you cannot step into or operate a government vehicle if, in the last 10 hours, you have had any alcohol whatsoever. certainly, the behavior that took place at the party is now prohibited. >> rep. walker: there is no ambiguity. you proved the fact that they did know at least that part of it. if you have been drinking, probably not a good idea to get back into your vehicle. >> mr. roth: we found there was a lot of uncertainty as to what the policy was. the question of when you are impaired -- in other words, is it ok to have a drink and drive? at a previous hearing, director clancy talked about that. if you are not able to control your actions, you may not be intoxicated by a legal limit, but some could say you do not have the proper abilities. some sort of imperative. that is such a vague standard that it is functionally unenforceable. >> rep. walker: you mentioned that some employees returned to work after consuming the alcoholic beverages. is that correct? >> mr. roth: correct. >> rep. walker: what has been done or said or recommended? >> mr. roth: our policy is that we find the facts, conduct the investigation, and then we give everything that we have to the secret service. we are not in the discipline business. >> rep. walker: i understand. are you aware of anything who has been done to those employees who were drinking and have come back to work? >> mr. roth: no. we transmitted our information last week, so we have not heard anything back. typically, we will not. >> rep. walker: we talk about the culture of the secret service and i appreciate some words that you talked about. there has been an expectation that has raised the bar a little bit. this kind of contradicts that mindset that they are still a frat party mentality, what applies to everyone else does not apply to us. i do not want to speculate, but is that a fair statement? the wrist to work that needs to be done to get the bar raised? >> mr. roth: i show your concern with exactly that. it certainly seems like there are some issues here. >> rep. walker: on a personal note, mr. roth, i've seen you here as well as my other committee on homeland security, you always do exemplary work. i think the americans appreciate your thoroughness. with that, i yield back. >> rep chaffetz: i now recognize mr. clay. i want to ask about an e-mail exchange that you obtained between the two who have been during thing in the bar. first, let me walk through some facts. the incident happened on the night of march force. your report found mr. connolly and mr. ogilvie should have reported this incident but neither did so. is that right? >> mr. roth: that's right. >> rep. clay: it seems like they were hoping this whole thing would just blow over. two days later on march 6, mr. connolly had his chance to come clean. he had a meeting with his superior, the special agent in charge. according to her report, he never mentioned anything involving this incident. your report says this, and i quote, connolly met with his supervisor on march 6 and discussed the handling of the confrontation with the suspect and the suspicious package incident. connolly did not mention the incident involving him and ogilvie. with this meeting on march 6, mr. connolly decided he would just keep his mouth shut and not tell his supervisor what happened. is that correct? >> mr. roth: that's correct. >> rep. clay: he also would have learned at that meeting that no one else had reported the incident dealer. here's what i want to rescue about. the very next day on march seventh, mr. ogilvie and mr. connolly had an e-mail exchange. i would like to put it up on the screen. there we go. mr. ogilvie, this is an e-mail exchange. "all good." "muy bueno." then at 8:50 p.m. from mr. ogilvie, "u are an angel." i don't know what was in their heads, but one interpretation of this exchange is that mr. ogilvie was asking, are we going to get in trouble for this? or are we all good? then mr. connolly who just met with his boss the day before determined that no one else had reported the incident assured him that everything would be fine. mr. ross, your investigators interviewed mr. ogilvie. according to the interview notes, mr. ogilvie admitted the context of this e-mail was to check in with mr. connolly about the march 4 incident. is that correct? >> mr. roth: yes, sir. >> rep. clay: in contrast, mr. connolly said the e-mail had nothing to do with the march 4 incident. he claims that he had no idea what this e-mail was about, but no clue. he told investigators and i quote, he did not know with the intent was behind it. it was open-ended. he did not know if it was in reference to march 4 or the busy day that he was year -- he was having. mr. roth, i have one last question for you. do you buy that? >> mr. roth: no, i don't. i believe this was communication between the two to make sure or see whether or not the word had leaked out with regard to the incident that had happened roth two days prior. >> rep. clay: what usually happens when a witness like that is being so dishonest? are there any follow-ups to a person's dishonesty? i guess this was a deposition or just a question? >> mr. roth: it was an interview as part of the investigation. there are penalties as a result of not telling the truth. >> rep. clay: thank you so much for your responses. i yield back. >> rep chaffetz: i now recognize mr. heights from georgia. >> you have already stated that it was a failure on the part of the ice and and simpson not to report the incident. their excuse was they felt it was being self-reported. you believe allowing individuals to self-report is acceptable? mr. roth: no, i do not. the supervisory chain, they had an independent duty to report this either to me or the secret service office of professional responsibility or up the chain. i would note that the uniformed division chief said he did not think it was his job to report misconduct. >> rep. hice: is this a policy problem or a communication problem? what does the policy say? mr. roth: individuals have responsibility to report suspicions of violations of law or regulation either to the inspector general or, for example, to the office of professional responsibility. ... ee if your found to have done something you ought not to be able to walk away with the benefits you had associated with being a good public servant. there needs to be some consequences. you ought not to just be allowed to walk away and say i retire, because you can. thank you very much. thank you mr. chairman. >> are. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for your tireless investigations in trying to make our department of homeland security petitioner. it is appreciated. there's a lot of discussion back and forth on this incident about vague secret service service poly about alcohol and drinking and driving mitchell take is a little more simple. would driving through a marked potential crime scene be acceptable performance offduty either sober inebriated? >> neither sir. >> would entering the white house complex buzzed or inebriated be considered acceptable off-duty behavior? >> no. >> the second in command who was involved with this incident, what kind of public confidence goss -- does it instill when that occurs that we can protect the president of the united states? >> well, i share your concern particularly given the fact that he was responsible for all the operations within the white house complex. >> what kind of example do you think that sets to the agents and also the seriousness of the duties that ought to be performed, whether on duty or off, knowing that any of them at any moment could be called upon to protect the leader of the free world. >> that's something we wrestled with with regard to the fact that special agents are in fact subject to re-call at a moment's notice. that's a reason they have government cars they can drive home at night is because at any moment they could be called out. to give you a good example is the two philadelphia agent whose at 2:00 in the morning had to respond to the home of the woman who had dropped the package. they didn't know that evening that they were going to get that and all have to drive in the pouring rain too this woman's house. so it's very, very troubling. >> given that sense of duty, and also the arduous selection process to elevate on agent to this level of duty, this is the highest performance level that secret service agents can perform. what discipline has agent conly or eight ogilvey received, if not what charges are penning? >> the way the process works is there's an investigation that is done which is now completed. as of last week we transmitted all of our materials to the secret service so their office of professional responsibility and their office of integrity which then manages that program. and what happens is i understand it is that there would be the deputy within the office of integrity, who would then assess the materials and basically write a charging document, if that's the right worth -- right word proposing discipline. >> when is as a hander in the military we would very recommendations of courses eye action woo what you recommend? >> there is a table of penalties -- >> have read this. >> i think the fact that is it has caused the -- me to expend these resources, caused the director of the secret service to distract himself from his important business to have to testify before here, appropriately so. i think it is very, very detrimental to the effective functioning of the secret service, i think all of america would agree and should the american public, in light of this have more confidence or less in our government's ability to protect our president? >> well, i'm hoping this process will create a situation which people will have more confidence that we're able to acknowledge our problems and fix our problems. if it doesn't get resolved, then i would say there would be less confidence. >> so we had a similar answer after colombia, after drones, after barricadeses, after after. we're talk can about the president of the united states. at what point do you see and what is your estimation -- you 've been handling investigation as long time -- are they taking their cease your and will they make the necessary changes the american public demands. >> i've had a number of conversations with director clancy about this itch income the is committed to doing it. i will have to save they didn't get into this situation overnight and they're not going to get out overnight. but do i think he is making the right moves? i do. >> i hope so. some i think that the director can exhibit that leadership and even reach down into organizations that are going awry and my hope is that the director would do that and also we would see a shapeup rather quickly, because should we have the president harmed, all of america would not be able to forgive itself. thank you sir for your testimony today. thank you mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i'll recognize myself for five more minutes. you mentioned there were others that had been drinking that evening that went back to -- where did they go? to the white house or go to the operations center. >> i think they would have gone back to secret service headquarters but i'm not sure who that would have been but die recall in some interviews the fact that what happeneds they'd have a beer and a sandwich, say goodbye, and then go back to work. >> but this incident of the night we're talking about. some of the people in addition to ogilvie and connally, went back to work correct. >> that's my understanding. >> how many? >> i don't have nat information. >> that's the concern. this isn't just one person making a rookie mistake. you have two people here, mr. connellly, with 27 yours of experience mr. ogilvie with 19 years of experience, 46 years of experience. are you telling me they didn't know that it's wrong to drink -- >> it's not right to drink alcohol and work the french fry machine at mcdonald's and certainly not right to drink and go into the white house with white house compound or drive a vehicle when you're there to protect the president and the first family. these people have guns. they have trust. they have people that they have to -- they can blow past and say, look, i'm your supervisor, you're letting me threw and that's what is happening here. and then when you tide have that poor officer texas you have officers trying to do the right thing, and it is your testimony that these very senior people, with badges, guns, and alcohol on their breath, told them, oh, i just came from from headquarters. they depression mention they had come from the bar. >> no. >> was that a lie? >> it would ben a at the about they. >> so it is a lie. >> yes. >> that's the problem. they've lying to themselves because they took a government vehicle. the should know after 46 years of experience the reason they're doing it on taxpayer dollars is that they're to respond at a moment's notice. we never know when something is going to happen. and this is the senior-most -- the senior-most people in charge of protecting the white house. they're always supposed to be ready to good at a moment's notice. that is why they took government vehicles. they were taking advantage of the situation and making taxpayers pay for their little ride to the bar. that bar is so low -- the only thing that is raising on the bar is the bar tab and its has to change. i appreciate your good work in ferreting this out. how long has homeland and the secret service get your report? when did the gate the first draft. >> they received this draft may 6th. we supplied the underlying materials either in the middle or late last week. >> yet there's been no consequence yet. we get reports maybe one person is going retire work who knows when that will be. what discretion does secretary clancy have in revoking security clearance? >> i don't have that information. >> but he could revoke their security clearance immediately. correct. >> i'm not sure what the process is for revocation of security clearances. there's a process involved but i don't know what it is. >> it could be put on nonpaid leave. correct? >> that's my understanding. >> do you think this is an aggravated situation? >> my understanding is that nonpaid leave -- unfortunately congressman, you're gifting into areas of employment law that are civil my beyond my competence and i apologize. >> i think that's a fair situation. mr. russell just pointed out even if they weren't drunk and interrupted a potential bomb scene, that's totally unacceptable. if they lied to somebody who also works for the secret service, that is unacceptable behavior. and if you look at what happened in the e-mail chain trying to protect themselves and make can sure that the word didn't get -- there is plenty of evidence. this is a pivotal moment for the seeks seeks the time we found it if secretary clancy has the guts to do what needs to be done. in my opinion these people should be fired today. they should lose and have their security clearances revoked. that should have happened a long time ago. some those that didn't report this? i've got a list here of people who, at some degree or another have at least according to your report violated policy that could lead to their potential removal. that's mark connally, george ogilvie, kevin simpson al fortunate sew dyson and perhaps and probably michael braun. at the very least those people need to be taken to the wood shed and should lose their security clearances, lose their job and if i that we president i would never want to see them again. we got thousands of people, like the gentleman who is recognized for a his valor that should be protecting the president of the united states. but if you're going to go consume alcohol and then show up at the white house disturb a crime scene get out of here go home. go find another job. because you know what? you wouldn't be final work at my mcdonald's. you wouldn't be able to run the french fry machine because you're notes going to drink and show up to work and you're not going to do that if you work are in the secret service. that what happened. they can continue to investigate -- your report is very conclusive. independent in its nature and it's time for this director and this secretary to take some definitive conclusive action, and fix the problem and send a message to the rest of the work force, we are not going to put up with anybody who is showing up to work drunk inebriatessed lying, trying to cover up, not reporting. how many things went wrong here today? but that's my opinion itch yield to the ranking member. >> i want to thank you. for anybody who just tune in, i didn't want them to think that he was talking to you. you've done a great job really. we really do appreciate your staff, and i know you had too pull together a lot of people in a little bit of time, but we do appreciate it. i agree with the chairman. somebody asked me just a few minutes ago how are we going to straighten this out? i said we're going to have to keep the pressure up but we cannot keep the pressure up without the kind of information you have provided us, and i'm hopeful that when mr. clan si comes before us he'll have a report letting us know what disciplinary actions he has taken. but again want to thank you weapon really do appreciate everything you have done. we also appreciate you working with us. from the very beginning you have just been great and your staff so thank you. >> totally concur. my frustration is not with you mr. roth or the inspector general's office. without that information we would be left in the dark. what you have done, interest hard work, good investigative work and we're appreciative on both sides of the aisle. it's our responsibility to hole the as meteorologist conditionable and make -- the administration conditionable and fix the problem so we can stop having hearings like this. thank you for the work and look forward to the other reports you're still working on. committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> "wall street journal" reporter talks be in obama administration to allow drill for oil and gas off the alaska coast and we'll take your calls and you can join the conversation at facebook and twitter. washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. >> here some of our features programs this weekend on the c-span2 networks. saturday morning starting at 10 eastern on c-span2 we're at the internet and television expo in chicago, for what consumers can expect for the future in innovation speakers include comcast chairman and ceo brian roberts, technology columnist and author cara swisher and fcc chairman tom wheeler and sunday morning at 10:30, president obama is at georgetown university discussing ideas on how to alleviate poverty in the united states. on c-span2s saturday morning on book tv. we're live from the gaithersburg book festival. former u.s. representatives and former obama adviser david axelrod and sunday evening at 9:00 president of the american constitutions society, caroline frederickson on the impact of labor and employment laws on working women and their families and on american history tv on c-span3 sad afternoon -- saturday afternoon at 2 remembering the liberation of nazi concentration camps. and the 1945 death march she barely survived. and sunday night at 6:30 on the presidency, u.s. naval war college professor john mauer on the relationships winston churchill developed with american presidents during his political career. get our complete schedule at c-span2.org. >> 2016 presidential hopefuls are hitting the campaign trail in early caucus and primary states such as new hampshire. wmur tv in manchester sat down with some of the hopefuls for a series called "conversation with the candidate." we begin with former hewlett packer ceo carly fiorina. she announce herd presidential campaign on 4th. >> good evening everyone and welcome to our conversation with the candidates series. our guest this evening is former hewlett packers ceo republican carli carly fiorina. i'll ask the candidate questions and then we'll bring the studio audience to ask questions. but let get a quick look at the candidate osbyography. >> carly fiorina was borne in austin texas in 1954. she grad ited from stars in 19:76 got her mbn in marketing from the university of maryland and a master of science degree in management from m.i.t. fiorina worked for at&t at an entry level sales position. 15 years later she led at&t spin out of technologies and in 1999 she was recruited to hewlett park erred. -- packard. ... >> what i bring to the table is not a lifetime in politics but an understanding of how the economy works and how the world works and the leaders on the world stage today because i no many of them understanding the bureaucracies how you change them the technology command why it can be a transformational tool and understanding how to make executive decisions which are tough calls in tough times and high-stakes for which you are prepared to be held accountable. >> and you mentioned knowing world leaders. >> they might say it is a shortcoming, but you say quite the contrary. >> well, i probably no more war leaders on the states today than anyone with the exception of hillary clinton i have traveled and then business around the world for 25 years and have flown hundreds of thousands of miles, like hillary miles like hillary clinton, but it is an activity, not an accomplishment. my dealings with world leaders have not been photo ops but doing deals charity business deals i have met the russian president served as the chairman of the advisory board of the central intelligence a jury -- sigil intelligence agency and so i understand i think, quite well why the world is a more dangerous and tragic place when america is not leading and we are not leading. >> you bring up hillary clinton. most people see her as far and away the democratic front runner. you take away the gender card do you believe they will need a woman on it to defeat hillary clinton? >> i want you to think about me facing hillary clinton on a general election debate stage. she cannot talk about being the 1st woman president, the republican war on women, she cannot play the gender card at all. the seniority system disadvantages women the most. what she will have to talk about is a record accomplishments or lack thereof, transparency of candor and candor as a leader or lack thereof and her policies. and on that ground i think i can beat hillary clinton. >> a couple minutes to go before we take a break. hillary clinton is known worldwide. you are known. getting the name id is a big part of the component. what are your plans to try to break through some of the other names in the republican field? >> i am not a professional politician and have not been in the political class all of my life. life. there are people who care deeply about politics you do not no i am which is one of the reasons why a place like new hampshire is so important because this is a state where people want to get to know the candidate, who they are what they believe, how they conduct themselves. i think a state like new hampshire is important and i think the debates are important because it gives people an opportunity to see the candidates, hear them and based upon my experience and perspective and voice i am clearly different and think that i will stand out. >> quickly, how do you describe yourself as a republican because there are a lot of different definitions under the republican umbrella right now. >> i have to say, i think part of the problem of politics is it has become all about labels and soundbites and real people don't talk that way. i am a conservative. i think that everyone has god-given gifts. no one of us is any better than any other. our founders based this nation upon a belief that the right to fulfill their potential, to use your god-given gifts of which we are all endowed that is right that comes from god and should not be taken away by man or government. what i see going on in this nation today is government taking that right away. a man in new hampshire at a rotary club luncheon where i was speaking who came up to me and said you know i do not think we think of ourselves as -- think of ourselves as a nation of limitless possibility anymore. we're losing the core of who we are. for ourselves families, future nation, losing that is a possibility. we have everything we need to solve our problems. what we need is leadership and citizenship. >> i bet you will get a lot of questions on that from our audience in a couple of moments after the break. stay with us. ♪ >> now a conversation with the candidate continues. >> welcome back to our conversation with the candidate, republican carly theory in a. i we will jump in but let's let's get right to it with the 1st question from jim adams. >> your 1st hundred days, how would you work on medicare social security defense. >> nice to see you. the only way we can get deficits under control -- and we need to get the deficit under control is to actually reduce the size of government. we have in talking about this for years, but in truth all we ever really talk about is changing the rate of increase in last year's budget. we have to start by knowing actually how much money we're spending and where we are spending it. that is why we need to go to zero-based budgeting. we have no idea how idea -- literally no idea how our money is being spent. let's talk about all of it. secondly, this is an example of how the political class has failed citizens. government has been getting bigger and bigger and bigger for about 50 years under republicans and democrats and we never talk about it. every year another report comes out. senator tom coburn releases a report every year that details in excruciating and, frankly, embarrassing detail hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of ways to nothing happens. no one wants to go or anyone's arts in the system except the american peoples. we need to deal with that. there are many candidates talking about social security or entitlement reform and eventually we must get there but why don't we clean up government 1st stop taking money away from the american people and use the money the american people spend to washington every year and use it wisely and well. i would start by saying that government must gets smaller, less powerful less costly, less corrupt and more competent. speaking of military, the speaking of military, the most obvious example to me of incompetence is how we serve our veterans. the veterans administration has been an embarrassment for a long time. when the arizona scandal hit the political process felt a lot of pressure. a pressure. a bill was passed that allowed the va to fire the top four hundred senior executives, not that that is not a bad a bad idea, but why not do that everywhere command it has not gotten much better. i can deliver alone to a poor woman in new delhi india over cell phone and yet if you are a veteran you have to spend months filling out paperwork, many more months while some bureaucrat checks your paperwork, many more whether some bureaucrat tells you whether you get an appointment or not. this is not just inefficient but a failure to serve. we have to serve our veterans well. before we take money away from the american people let's spend it wisely and well and reduce the size of government to get deficit under control. >> thank you. next from the audience. take it away. >> how are you. my question is what do you propose to do to unite the conservative women of the republican party? >> you know i ran in california for the senate in 2010 as a proud pro-life a proud pro-life conservative. you do not do that in california unless you really mean it. despite the fact that california is a conservative place and despite the fact that i lost that general election i one more republican votes more democratic votes and more independent votes than virtually anyone running anywhere in the country that year. it also demonstrates to me that we have a lot of common ground on a a lot of issues. issues. i am a conservative because i believe no one of us is any better than any other. everyone has god-given gifts everyone has potential command i think that when government gets so powerful so so costly, so complicated so corrupt, so complex the date is clear. family-owned businesses the economic growth engine of the nation. on the conservative because i think principles work. one of the ways to unite people is to talk not in soundbites, not in the vitriolic judgmental tone but to talk like normal people talk and have a reasonable conversation and say that we do not have to agree 100%, but we need to agree upon core principles. nowhere is this more true than the emotional issue of abortion on life. this is a highly charged political issue. i i am upfront about the fact that i am pro-life. when people come to me and say i am afraid your position is extreme, what extreme what i say is have you ever read the democratic party platform. here is what it says. any abortion a time at any.in the woman's pregnancy for any reason at all right up to the last minute to be paid for by taxpayers and now they would like to add to be performed by a dr. that policy is succinctly summarized as not a license to the hospital. these people don't agree just like most people say it does not make sense of 13-year-old girl needs her mother's permission to go to a tanning salon but not to get an abortion. even on that issue it is possible to find common ground and we have to engage in persuasive conversations, stick to our convictions convictions but find common ground and never should we be judgmental or dismissive of anyone. we should be empathetic and respectful because no one of us is any better than any other. >> thank you very much for your questions. next question brenda it is all yours. >> thank you so much. nice to meet you. what is the role of the federal government versus the state government in regard to education specifically common core command how does that relate to special needs students? >> thank you for that question. i we will be i will be up front and tell you that i think common core is a terrible idea for a whole set of reasons, but mostly because federal government bureaucracies do not know any other way to be heavy-handed. that is the nature of bureaucracy. when we think about our own childhood the most important thing when we get an education parents who are involved and a good teacher. i do not think common core features any of that. being rolled out in conjunction with private sector groups that want to sell textbooks, sell testing, this is called connie capitalism in the meantime students are b