during your watch as chief of staff to the director, is it true that in fact as reported agents falsely assumed that they were not gunshots, when there were gunshots, there was standown orders to people who pulled shotguns out. and bullets were not reported to have hit the white house within 24 hours by the secret service. >> you are referring to the ortega shooting that occurred in 2011. >> yes. >> at that time it is my understanding that there are reports of shots being higher inned -- >> ma'am, stop, please. i want to be considerate to you. you have a hard job, but you head an agency who's morale has gone down, it is lower than other comparable federal

agencies. it has had a series of embarrassments. we have had two cases in which the reporting is evolving. only last night did the public learn that in fact it was far worse or at least somewhat worse on september 19th. only recently has it been revealed and you said you wanted to correct the record. the "washington post" makes it clear from what i read that in fact, on november 11th of 2011, shots were fired, the assailant left, while in fact the secret service supervisor shut down the response of people who believed rightfully there had been shots fired and the follow-up did not discover the damage to the white house and actual shots in real time. additional mr. ortega -- ortega

hernandez is how i have it written, would not have been apprehended except he had a car incident. and the system at the white house did not detect the actual shots fired and begin the pursuit of somebody who had provided lethal force against the facility of the white house. is that correct? you were chief of staff at the time. is that roughly correct, and if it isn't, i would allow you whatever time you need to properly explain what really happened on november 11th, 2011, so the american people can understand that september 19th is not the first time there has been considerable lapse, as i see it, and in fact during a long period of time, during your chief of staff time, now during your director time, we have had the kinds of things that we should be concerned about for protecting the president.

so please tell us in whatever time you need about november 11th, 2011, where the "washington post" is right or wrong. this is your chance. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as you are aware my assignment as chief of staff -- >> could you get the microphone a little closer. >> certainly. mr. chairman thank you very much. in 2008 my assignment was chief of staff. my primary responsibilities at that time were business transformation and it transformation. to my knowledge and based of the briefings i have received of this three year old investigation that occurred in november of 2011 that appeared in the "washington post" on sunday, i had also been aware that a representative has asked for a data inquiry, and we responded back to the committee on september 12th and provided

detailed information of the secret service activities on that weekend. shots were reported in the area of constitution avenue. there were witness accounts of a black vehicle that had fired shots. there was confusion at the time by the part of the witnesses as to what they had witnessed and saw. several of those witnesses put out twitter accounts of what they witnessed. they were subsequently located, and interviewed and recanted those statements. the actual shots that were fired in proximity to constitution avenue and 16th, the vehicle sped away and went westbound on constitution, erratically driving and struck a light post in the area of 23rd and constitution. mr. ortega then fled the vehicle. officers responded to the scene where the vehicle was left with

the ak 47 in the front seat. park police has jurisdiction over the traffic accident and assumes initial responsibility for the investigation -- >> ma'am, i'm going to give you all the time you need. but the question is where are the inconsistencies with the "washington post." you said they were mischaracterizing it. so far you are ju just -- corroborating the failures to protect the white house are in fact correct. so please tell us where they are not correct, please. >> throughout the course -- there was a command post established down at constitution avenue and 23rd street. the police and secret service were there attempting to resolve what had happened. back at the white house, individuals had heard what they

believed to be shots. the secret service according to the records that i have been able to locate on this three year old investigation did respond properly. the response teams and other officers did a protective sweep of the area to make sure we did not have intruders and obvious signs of anything that had been damaged. further investigation with the park police, they were unable to resolve at that time whether these were shots being fired at other vehicles or shots at the white house. that took some time to understand. it wasn't until the usher's office was preparing for the return of the president and first lady that theying identified damage on the truman balcony. that lead to further investigation. >> thank you. mr. cummings i want to thank you for your understanding and just relate something you and i

discussed yesterday if i may. in washington, d.c. and around the country there are a number of systems that we all know, and baltimore, i believe has it too, that -- they are basically microphones that hear gunshots, can identify the direction, can quickly without human intervention figure out whether or not a real shot has been fired, confirm it and often give a very accurate direction. that type of technology isn't so odd that we don't see it in our industries, and i think that's the reason i went on so long with this question. ms. norton i knows this, the district has a sophisticated system, and i think the committee is going to want to make sure not only does the white house have a heightened awareness of this system, but that the district's system be enhanced if necessary to make sure nothing like this happens again. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman.

director pierson, i had thought about all of this long and hard, and i think my major concern goes to the culture. it is very disturbing to know that secret service agents in the most elite protective agency in the world feel more comfortable apparently from what i'm hearing, coming to members of this committee and telling things, than coming to you and members in the agency. that -- that, i'm telling you, when i boil all of this down, that to me is dangerous. it goes -- it has to go against morale.

i don't even see how good decisions can be made if your people don't feel a level of comfort that -- or they feel fear that they are going to be able to talk about the things that concern them. and that's -- i just want to go through some questions, and i want .you to -- i want to give you a chance to address that, because to me -- when all of the dust settles, that's a problem. so going back to this november 11th, 2011, incident -- and i know you were not the director, i understand that. a lot of people talk about the culture problem with the secret service, and the press reports -- of all of the press reports the one that concerned me is that back down in 2011, and it said, i quote one of the officers, officers who were on

the scene, who thought gunfire had probably hit the house that night were largely ignored, and some were afraid to dispute their boss's conclusions. did you see that report and are you aware of this issue? >> rank member cummings, i too read that newspaper article and was troubled by those accounts. i have asked my office of professionals responsibility to retrieve the file and those records. what we know and when we knew it, if this young officer had made such a statement. i did find a statement where this young officer aledges that they were reluctant to report it to their supervisor to be ci be -- cite -- criticized. that troubles me as well. that officer remains on the job

today. and i am going to investigate what were some of the problems that night that she felt like she could not say that. >> it said that she heard shots -- and i quote, she heard shots and what she thought was debris falling overhead. she drew her handgun and took cover. and then heard a radio call reporting possible shots fired near the south grounds. she then called the secret servicing joint operations center to report that she was breaking into the gun box near her post, pulling out her shotgun. according to this article, and i quote, she replaced the buck shot inside with a more powerful slug in case she needed to engage an attacker. but then the call came over the radio to stand down. the next day, the officer, and i

quote, listened during roll call before her shift saturday afternoon as -- as supervisors explained that the gunshots were from people in two cars, shooting at each other. the report said that she, and i quote, had told several senior officers friday night that she thought the house had been hit. but on saturday, she did not challenge her supervisors, for fear of being criticized. she later told investigators. now director pierson as a former field agent, and as the head of the agency, that has to concern you tremendous i will; is that right? >> yes, sir, it does. it's unacceptable. >> does it trouble you that some of your own agents apparently do not feel comfortable raiding

security concerns? and this is just one person. and there are others who, again, would rather be whistleblowers, and again, i have no problem with whistleblowers. matter of fact we do everything in our power to protect them. but this agency if they would rather be a whistleblower than to -- to bring their concerns to you? see you -- you started off by saying you are going to make sure this never happens again. let me tell you what the problem is here. if -- if you are heading an agency, where the folks get -- are not providing you with the information to do the right thing, to make the changes, how do you even know what the problems are? you follow me? help me with this.

>> yes, sir, if i may. any time any organization, you start to make significant changes, some people will have resistance, some will push back. however, i will continue to lead and transform the secret service to ensure that we're prepared for our mission, and ensure that we can restore our reputation to the american public. what i will tell you over the last 18 months that i have been serving as director, and over the last six months i have met personally with over 1500 of our supervisors and employees. i have had a number of engagement sessions and spent over an hour with each of them advising them of what my expectations are, what their performance requirements are, what personal accountability is, how to manage this work force, how to ensure that we are performing at the highest levels in everything that we do; that we're operationally ready; that

we're training; that we're evaluating each other, and that we're constantly looking at our mission to make sure we'll being effective in everything we do. i can't speak for what has happened in the past, but i can tell you as we're moving forward in the future, and while i am director, i will not tolerate personnel missteps where people either fail to act or do not support the work force or do not work in unison, but i would say i suspect there are many people that are still pushing back and i'm going to continue to lead forward. >> the problem is that officer, she was right, and that was the morning after the shooting, yet it took four days for the housekeepers to discover the bullet has obstructed the building; is that right? in other words the officer was right. >> yes, ultimately the officer was right. >> the "washington post" story

says this agent subsequently reported her concerns to investigators. was there an after accident report about the 2011 shooting? did it include recommendations to agents reporting their concerns without fear of being criticized? do you know? >> i don't know, but i would say that the officer's statement to our interviews that occurred with secret service employees are different than the officer's statement to the fbi and the investigators conducting the investigation, and that is why i have asked my office to go back and have a robust conversation with that employees to ensure that she feels supported, knows we want her to come forward with any information, and that we understand what some of the impediments may be with the management team to ensure that we can make improvements to ensure that that never happens

again. >> let me say this, and then i'll close. former director sullivan invited me a few years ago -- you may have been there, to speak before your top agents when -- after the columbia situation with the prostitutes, and one of the things that i said to them back then, i expressed my tremendous respect and appreciation, but i also told them, that i don't want anyone to imagine, imagine, imagining, that they can pierce the protective vail of the secret service period. because i firmly believe that the reputation is so very, very very, very important, and, you know, i just -- i just -- again, that culture thing is an issue. i'm sure others will question

you about that, but i -- i -- i just -- i thank you for your testimony. i yield back. >> thank you, and i'll recognize myself. following up on ranking member cummings, i sent you a letter, director, specifically asking for details on the situation on 2011. i would ask unanimous consent to enter it into the record to all members can see it. hearing no objections so ordered. director, why is it -- why is it that when i look at this report, there isn't even a mention of officer carey johnson, and yet the "washington post" details about her calling into the secret service headquarters. why isn't her name even mentioned in the spot report? >> the spot report reflects the active investigation. i don't know what information that you have relative to officer's johnson's reporting.

>> well, you gave us this report. i asked you for all of the details and information. this is minute by minute, 2052 hours, 2053, it's minute by minute. are you telling me the "washington post" is wrong that she didn't call into the headquarters? did she not do that? >> i'm confused about your statement about call in to the headquarters. >> according to the "washington post" she called in, reported she heard shots fired. that she was getting out her shotgun, all of those details. >> that's the confusion i have with the "washington post" article. typically when alerts are made much like the shots being fired on november 11th, i would expect officers to react according to their security protocols. >> it says that she called into the headquarters there's no mention of that.

other officers are mentioned in there, but she is not mentioned. we'll follow up on that. it's unacceptable that the "washington post" can get that, and you couldn't provide it. let's go back to the fence jumper. state police detained a person, had a map in the car, all of the weapons, suspicious behavior, my understanding is actually three officers spotted him that day and not reported it. and i want to know if that's true as we go along. the fence failed. officers chased him, didn't catch him. dogs were out there, weren't released. counter surveillances, i'm understanding is understaffed. nobody shot anything. there was nobody that was intercepted. the doors were unlocked. an officer was overwhelmed. the crash box was silenced. and the secret service said they offered, quote, tremendous

resaint and discipline, end quote. my question to you is, do those officers have your authority to use lethal force to prevent somebody from entering the white house? >> those officers do have the authority to use independent judgment to leverage lethal force when appropriate. >> is that true when somebody is trying to get at the president? >> that is always true. they are law enforcement officers. >> so it's always true when somebody is trying to penetrate the white house that they are can use lethal force. >> as appropriate within the compounds of the law. >> explain the details of that. if somebody is approaching the white house, has penetrated the security, and making a run for the white house, no apparently weapon, can they take that person down? >> the law requires that law enforcement officers ensure that

they are in eminent danger or others are in eminent danger before they can use lethal force. >> so if someone is running at the white house they can or cannot use lethal force. >> those will be independent decisions made by the officer based on the totality of the circumstances. >> how do they know that they aren't a terrorist? shouldn't they assume that this person has ill intention? >> law enforcement officers are trained in onning servation skills, and i would assess they are constantly looking at people for ill intentions. >> i think this is confusing. this is part of what they have to deal with. i want it to be crystal clear, you make a run and a dash at the white house, we're going to take you down. i want overwhelming force.

would you disagree with me? >> i do want our officers to use appropriate force for anyone attempting to breach the white house. >> the secret service put out a statement according to the -- or talked to the associated press, i should say, they reported on september 20th at 1:24 am eastern time, donovan, the spokesperson, ed donovan, donovan said the man appeared to be unarmed to officers, and a search of the subject turned up no weapon. why would he say that there is no weapon? >> i will have to have -- i will have to ask mr. donovan that question. >> you haven't done that since the incident happened? >> i know when mr. gonzales was placed into custody, he was found to have a folded knife in his right front pants pocket. >> do you consider that a weapon? >> that is a weapon.

>> why would the secret service put out a statement to the associated press -- did you ever correct the associated press? did you call them back and say you got that wrong? >> i have no knowledge of that. >> so you just let it linger out there that there was no weapon, and that was inaccurate, correct? >> i do know that there has been a lot of information in this case, and that's why we are doing a robust review. i can't speak for conversations that i was not a part of, or the press's interest in this -- >> did you read the press release before it went out? >> i had read the press release before it went out. >> do you agree that officers showed tremendous restraint and discipline? you agreed with that comment? >> i do think based on the totally of the circumstances, and from mr. gonzales's arrest, that these officers did use restraint in making a very difficult decision as to whether

deploy lethal force or subdue and arrest him. >> do you think they responded appropriately? >> i do not think the security plan was properly executed, and that's why i'm conducting a robust investigation, to ensure that we have a comprehensive review, and i have all of the facts so i can make an assessment of what the decisions were on that night. >> thank you. i have gone well past my time. i'll now recognize the gentle women from the district of columbia. pardon me. we're going to recognize mr. [ inaudible ] first. go ahead. we'll go to ms. norton. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. and i want to thank director pierson for her 30 years of service in the secret service for rising through the ranks to become the first woman director, and i am aware of what she has

inherited, and of her many accomplishments. director pierson, i want to ask you about the rumors that have been out there about what the secret service may do. when pennsylvania avenue was closed down after oklahoma city, there was a kind of example of how public access can remain. i was -- i was heart broken. both sides of the white house were closed down. i worked with the clinton administration to open e street, the backside of the white house, not only for his vista, but because it's a major thoroughfare, and that has affected the entire region. in that is primarily closed down, but as mr. balsham testified in front of the white house, though cars can no longer go there, people can go there,

and essentially it was made a park, a walkway, and no one says it should be reopened, because that would mean cars not people. so my concern is whether or not people will continue to have access around the white house. i walked to the white house yesterday. i was pleased to find, not only tourists, but protesters as usual there. i ask you -- i notice that on -- i followed your testimony, and you testified 16 jumpers inning only five years. so there's been an increase in fence jumpers. and so i want to know whether you have considered before today simply asking that a higher

fence be built. one that for example, could curve -- still be historic, but with the curve going outward so maybe you damage one of your body parts if you try to get over it, or even -- and these are off the top of my head, multi-layered glass behind the fence that could resist blasts from guns or bombs. since there have been 16 in five years, at least, i think, many more over the years, have you considered such common sense devices as that, so that the public would still have access, but the president of the united states and its family would be protected? have you ever recommended that?

>> representative norton, we do want to work in partnership to ensure that the people have access and proximity to the white house and the historic nature and the national significance of the park and pennsylvania avenue and the white house, so i do look forward in continuing to work with you and the administration and the department to look at what additional security features can be put in place not only for white house fence jumpers, but for the other challenges that face us in securing public areas. >> i recognize that -- >> you are listening to al jazeera america's continuing coverage of the house oversight and government committee hearings on the secret service. the concerns being expressed are simple. there are concerns among the committee that the next attempt to take the white house could be a planned attack. there is no automatic locking

te -- mechanism on the white house door, and the person was picked up by police in virginia back in july and they found a small arsenal in his car. take a listen. >> i hate to even imagine what could have happened if gonzales had been carrying a gun instead of a knife when he burst inside the white house. that possibility is extremely unsettling. >> lisa stark you are a veteran of all things washington. one of the things that came out of the hearing today was that the front door on the white house during this assault was not locked. >> exactly. the head of the secret service julia pierson testified there is a glass-type storm door and then the historic wood door. she said