o try to save. >> i forgot to making you are a lawyer. maybe we could go back again for a moment to the whole question of the federal state, local divide because some would argue that what's going on here one of the reasons why congress has resist reauthorization is to in effect encourage a devolution of funding responsibility to the state level. and, in fact, that seems to be happening. i think senator wicker recently referred to the fact that the states are a laboratory for fiscal extreme edition, they are passing fuel taxes sales taxes, experimenting. so is that maybe the de facto what's going to happen? is it to some extent just a realignment of responsibility in a direction where it's okay?

>> i wish it were. i wish we are having a real conversation about what that means. because what that means in my view, is that we will do even as they maintenance of effort we have been doing. but i think devolution means we will be doing less. less of maintenance, less of new capacity building. and look you look around the globe, there are countries that are experiencing population declines. and maybe that's a deeper stretch for country, or declines in the amount of commercial goods movement. but we are expecting expansion increases in both of those areas. and so it's like what do we get about this? it is not, i promise there will be more expensive for us to doddle around for years and years and years and it would be

to just bite the bullet, develop a strategy, stick to the strategy, a now because it's going to be a lot cheaper than trying to pay later. i had a conversation with secretary duncan a lot because i think education interest petition have a lot in common. in the sense that they are both long-term. if you don't invest today you will see the outcome tomorrow. you will see it in increased costs, and i just think that for the country if we get those two issues right, the country has a very bright future. but if we keep the bottling alone, it will be a tough time. >> so now we get to my favorite topic, which is public-private partnerships. this administration has been a big supporter as one way of

encouraging capital into the transportation sector. there's been a lot of high profile. if you look around capital beltway is one. miami tunnel. there's solution pennsylvania the rapid bridge program that i think is been a pretty high profile item with you. i think some 34 states throughout the country now have piii programs and a lot of other countries, the uk canada, even a lot of countries in europe have relied very heavily on this system. so what is -- what does the administration think of this. are there things that are in the bible and to encourage further develop an of this technique is? >> -- pipeline. >> we think there is a further role to play in public-private partnerships. i'll give you a couple of

examples. first baldur increasing numbers of states that are setting up public-private partnership offices there's still a little bit of residual fear out there in the public realm around public-private partnerships. supported by we think we can do as a department is to help promote best practices to help issue model legislation at least the model legislation out there that states can then take out. to try to help create an atmosphere which public-private partnerships gain greater acceptance at the project delivery level. secondly we have a lot of permitting work that we do at the department that we work with her and agency partners on. and one thing we've learned is that when you talk about the cost of the project, oftentimes there's a lot of permitting costs associated with it.

and there is a reason why we have some of the regulatory requirements we have. we think you can actually get fast results with the doing injustice to those equities. and that means padding all the agency sitting at the table at the same time looking at a permit making their comments. the tappan zee bridge project in new york is an example of this. there were four or five years of permitting that would've happened as a normal course of things. we were able to get the project permitted in like 18 months. and we look at that as an example of something we would like to replicate. i think that's a part of giving the private sector greater confidence that the public sector can actually deliver. and then the third i think one of the roles the department i'm hopeful can play a better facilitation role in is helping the private sector to the public sector find each other. the a lot of projects out there

that are still looking for resources to a lot of public sector sponsors would like to think about a public-private partnership that may not have the tools to figure that out so we want to try to help them while we are also hoping the private sector to get out with the deals may come from. this is big because at a time of scarce resources, if we can convert even five or 10% of the transportation work into public-private partnerships that's five or 10% of we don't have to go find someplace else. and, frankly if the deal works for everybody, all the better. i think this is a space there's a lot of opportunity. >> as you know we are very supportive of that technique and we can work with the department of transportation to develop this model contracted guide for highway p3p i know you know because it is reminded in the other room.

but so what we're finding as we work on roads and transportation projects throughout the states is that there is an increasing use more federal support that comes in the form of credit assistance as opposed to grant funding in the past. and there's been two programs in particular that we see a lot subordinated loans and private activity bonds which is a form of tax exempt financing. does the grow america act increase the caps come encourage the use of the? d.c. that sort of a trend in the direction of credit assistance disposed to grant funding from the federal government? >> big expansions in both programs. and the idea is to create more for sosa we can get more projects going. again though, i want to say one

of the caveat to my great believe that public-private partnerships are going to be the way of the future, which is to say that they have to be undergirded with a public sector commitment to transportation. in other words, if you don't get a long-term highway bill and judicial lie on the public-private partnerships the problem is going to be that the private sector is not going to undertake the risk to plan the project. there still needs to be an understanding of a public sector commitment to the long-term for it all to work. >> well, i guess i should warn you all about in several minutes i will start turning it to the floor for questions but i do have one more question. have to admit i watched your recent interview with eric

schmidt and there's one question there i thought was a letter is. i've got to throw that out to you also. just shifting gears to our rail system a little bit. why is it that it takes only three hours to get from paris to versailles merced, and that's 536 miles and boston to d.c. takes seven hours for just 437 miles? >> well, this is a vision that the president and i both share, which is that we can speed up these times. you know look when the rail system in the u.s. was built, some of it predated the road systems. but at some point what folks decided was to put both of those things on the same grade. and so in some cases our speeds have got to be limited because

you don't want to have rail traffic going at such a high speed at grade that is intersecting with the nuclear traffic. having said that the cost of getting there is going to be significant but again as you point out the rest of the world has figured out that there are ways to get there. and i think that the u.s. the future for high-speed rail india's is actually pretty bright. but it's going to take some funds but it's going to take some commitment. it's going to take a lot of time. but we will get there. we always do. >> okay. to this point in the program i'd like to turn now to the audience. i would remind you that when you ask a question, please stand and give your name and your affiliation. this lady right here.

>> thank you. i'm mixing with the naval postgraduate school. i was lucky enough to work with graham was the acting secretary of the transportation, as was the acting deputy secretary of defense and the secretary of the navy. he's a really smart guy. and he told all of us about the importance of maintenance. we just became so committed to that issue. i sit here listening, why don't we understand that? i am into storytelling, and first of all i could know about this document you have put out but i want you to think about nobody has time to read 300 pages. so the question is what are the essential message is that you want all of us to understand? you want to think about writing stories for children, for middle school kids. at the middle school kids can understand, the rest of the population can. and you need to get mike

getting your stories onto pbs. but again, that's sure. so you have to figure out how to tell these in a short time. that is your information department working on that? >> actually it's a great question. and we are working on that. here's the thing about transportation that's hard. if i gave you a statistic, i'm going to make one up that the average commute time, i am totally making this up so nobody quote me on it, the average commute times have gone up 20% in the u.s. over the last 10 years. that means something on one level but it means nothing on another level. a lot of our storytelling has to be told at a very localized level. it has to be almost microtargeting in a sense. this road in your neighborhood that the state has been talking about for 10 years has not

gotten done because the money doesn't exist if the money were there, you get the road. you would have 15 minutes saved on your commute, or whatever. i think one of the challenges we have is the country is so fast and there are so many different ways in which transportation impacts people that we could figure out a way to talk about this that meets people where they are. i think there's a way to do it. i appreciate the point. thank you. >> in fact there is a 10 page shorter version of this that even a simple person like me was able to access and read very quickly. [inaudible] >> on our website dot.gov/"beyond traffic." >> but how do i get the cliff notes? >> go to "beyond traffic" on our website. it has the short version of the long version.

absolutely. >> can we go to this gentleman in the back corner? >> i'm charlie firestone the aspen institute. i'm concerned i think a lot of council members are about cyber hacking and its impact on our infrastructure. and i guess my question is how well, and the premise is that virtually every corporation has been hacked, apparently. a lot of times we don't even know. hope global is our american infrastructure to cyber hacking in what are we doing about it? >> it's a great question, and it's an area we are spending an awful lot of time on. so we have if i were looking at circles, the smallest one being our data systems within u.s. dot which extends from everything from faa which is flight

management to other parts of our work. we are shortly not perfect. we've had some high profile vulnerabilities exposed to us briefly. and we always work to ensure that we stay ahead of whoever is trying to get into our system. i think that's an effort that will continue. longer-term as we become more technologically connected, you talked about connected vehicles. we are having conversation about vehicles that talk to the infrastructure. nextgen, which takes our aviation system off of world war ii radar onto a gps system. just about every mode of transportation is going to become more automated in some way. and as we do that we've got to

be tripled focus to make sure their protections there to prevent the type of packing that you were talking about. i would say that as we are working to build through nextgen, a lot of that work is ongoing in the process of building that out. when it comes to connected vehicles, we're going to have to work with industry on that and we've encouraged them to form an alliance that allows them to share information on cybersecurity issues, with our support because it's going to take that kind of partnershpartnersh ip with an industry to be able to help get there but we are working on this issue all the time. >> mccourt school that georgetown university. where are we now with the north american transportation system? you know, when nafta was passed it also had a lot of policy

cooperation and the area of transport was one of the intermodal transport was one of the things those i was supposed to give the north american region competitiveness in terms of global trade and global industry. so i'm just choose where we are with that now and with the painting transatlantic trade agreement. i'm sure the europeans have a lot of things they want to have in place in terms of compatibility of port systems and surface transport and aviation. so anyway, that's just what i want to ask. >> you're right, there's an awful lot of opportunity in north america for cooperation. i want to talk about two areas where we are working with mexico, for instance, and then to talk more generally about how

we are looking at own national freight plan in the context of, not just the u.s. one of nafta's requirements was that we create a cross-border trucking program with the country of mexico. and just this year after many starts we finally move forward with creating that program. that work is ongoing. they are standing up but that essentially means that mexican trucking companies will be able to go from mexico to a point in the u.s. bringing or taking goods from one point to the other. that's a big development by the way in mexico alone. the other issue is that we are working with mexico to develop and aviation agreement that

opens up more access for both mexican carries as well as u.s. carriers and we are very, very encouraged by the work that's been done on that. so i agree there plenty of opportunities as we begin looking at our own national freight plan, which i talked about earlier one of the things that we have discovered is that we can't just look at u.s. borders. we have to look at canada, mexico and we've got to think about how these different connections intersect. for instance, if we build a road that is supposed to go into mexico but their main route is coming up through someplace else, that's not going to be the best way to do it. so we've got to have some level of international discussion about how to put those together. i think that's the take-home for

us and we certainly are paying attention to it. >> this gentleman right here. >> mr. secretary, you mentioned high-speed rail. i think we take the bus when i want to go to newer. it's not much slower than amtrak -- go to new york. japan has had high-speed rail since the 1960s. are we ever going to get there? >> well look our administration has taken some pretty forward leaning steps on high-speed rail. we haven't always been patted on the back for it but the efforts to get high-speed rail connection in california for all the dustup that created

that project broke ground in january of this year. we are now starting to see states like texas and of all states, florida now come with proposals to do it through public-private partnerships. and so we're trying to work with those projects as well. in other words, i think you future of high-speed rail in the u.s. for the foreseeable future is going to be connecting city payors. i don't think you'll see a wholesale system built out in one fell swoop. but i think you'll start to see different connections. after some period of time you will see more of the country connected by high-speed rail but i'm very bullish on the i think it's going to happen. by the way our bill does actually put rail passenger rail come into the trust fund. one of the challenges we've had

with passenger rail india's is it hasn't had a dedicated revenue stream and it hasn't been able to predict year-to-year what it's funding would be. we change that by creating a single trust fund for the surface system that would have rail, transit and highways in it it. >> this man in the front. >> thank you. david short with fedex. and, of course, the company has a lot of issues within the jurisdiction of the department. first if i could come your comment a moment ago prompted me to offer a shadow, congratulations on the mexico aviation agreement. and on the great work of your team but i know brandon belford is with us tonight and susan did an outstanding job. i think the mexicans should be charging income tax, she's been so much time in mexico, and brian was the chief negotiator on the team. the question i wanted to do was about nextgen. fedex is a combatant operates over 660 aircraft flying to about 300 airports in the nhl

own not to mention our global reach. and with our on-time guarantee. if we don't deliver peoples packages on time we don't get paid. operating on-time is critical to us. could ask you, mr. secretary, to share with us your thoughts on the reason it's been so difficult temperament nextgen? and what your prognosis is for the prospect for implement in that? thank you. >> thank you. well nextgen has been on the horizon looking back to be on who you talk to, it's been 20 years and it's a difficult thing to think about how you piece together our airspace on a gps basis system. in this administration i would say we have made more progress in the last few years in getting nextgen advanced man we probably

have made -- advanced than we probably would have made so many years before. not going to put a number on it. some of the problems nextgen has had is that the commitments made to fund the effort for nextgen haven't always come through. so there's been some years where the funding fell short. some of it has been that it's just complicated. i was down in houston where we just, i think we opened up like 60 plus nextgen capabilities in houston. which was huge. but when they started describing for me the equivalent of taking i-495, i-95 and completely restructuring those and having to go through all of the

processes, all the public input processes to do that on more consolidated routes to that's what they're doing with the air space. so even once you get to the technical features of it when you start we decided to airspace it starts to create a lot of push pull. some of that is just endemic to any kind of transportation projects. so what i can say to you is that this is an area of focus for me. i know that we will not get nextgen to the point of absolute completion by the time i leave this department, but one of the things that i've made it my mission to do is to make sure that we've got a clear pathway for nextgen before we leave. and that we are making as much progress every day as we possibly can in this administration. and i think, by the way we are starting to see the product of it. we have optimized profile happening around the country today. you may know what that is but

for those of you don't, this is basically the airplane idols as it lands. and this is a capability nextgen makes possible. and it saves fuel and makes the lens quite winterland and it saves the environment. but these are the types of capabilities that were nesting. we are able to move planes closer together because of our work together on that. that also saves fuel cost. that's another promise of nextgen. so we are making progress but i won't be here when the bell rings to stay nextgen is done. but you're going to see nextgen capabilities all throughout the next couple of years. >> good evening. tom clark. you made a lot of great points this evening, mr. secretary

thank you very much. to a particular vested with me. one is the link -- the length of the surface deprecation bill and the others funding highway trust fund. what you see as the optimal length of the bill, number one? and number two, is the consideration in this bill for a mileage-based user fee alternatives to be considered? not pass the source of money but to at least to some additional study on it and where do you stand on that? thank you. >> thank you. i think we've got to have at a minimum a four or five year bill. we proposed a four year bill last year we're going of a new in dash to a new and improve six-year bill this year. but you've got to have multiple years of funding otherwise you're not going to get the benefit of any single years funding. because as these projects take a while to move through the system.

aside from that i think that the country look, i think the problem we have right now actually isn't in washington. that's going to sound a little radical, but i think i think that's part of it but i think the bigger part of it is that the country is not on fire about it. and one of the things that i tried to really, "beyond traffic" without any intent on our part but it actually helps to make the case even stronger is that this is a generational issue. this is a serious generational issue. and we are literally, you know it's as if i took my kids out to a restaurant and asked them to give whatever they wanted and i ate more than what they ate. i had dessert too. i had a nice one. i even had some port after it

was all over and then i said to my kids, okay, you guys pay the bill. that's what we are doing. and it's just absolutely ridiculous. but anyway back to your point. i think a six-year bill would be great. a four year bill at a minimum. >> so we are starting see states experimenting with this. oregon has a small pilot that they're undertaking now. we don't want to stand in the way of laboratories of democracy of taking on those types of studies. they are always helpful for us to understand but at this point we are really focused on trying to just hit a six-year bill that provides the basic level of funding and to try to move forward with something like that. we are not getting fancy. ..

>> yeah, in theory n theory -- in theory, um the infrastructure would be, would be paid for the same way. so in theory if we were talking about, for instance, connected vehicle to infrastructure connections, the infrastructure that we would have paid -- the conventional infrastructure we would have paid for using trust

fund dollars in our proposal would still be used but it might be a more technologically updated form of infrastructure. sitting right here right now, i couldn't tell you whether there's going to be a higher cost factor for connected vehicle to infrastructure technology v. us conventional -- versus conventional, but what i can say is i do think technology is going to play a role here, a disruptive role, perhaps a positive disruptive role for helping us. for instance, i was talking about the airplanes and i how closely they can fly together when you're using nextgen technology. the same principle is at play when it comes to connected vehicles on the surface system. so you could imagine that our trucks could be moving at

greater proximity to each other using technology partly to connect them. and that that would actually create fuel savings, it would create efficiencies on the system because the distances between cars and trucks wouldn't have to be as great. so, you know, there are some aspects of technology that may upend what i'm saying. but what i -- i think the fundamental point though that you're making and i would also make is that the infrastructure itself is still going to be maintained, and it's still going to be invested in. and we may get more out of it using more technology, but we're still going to need the basic bones of it. >> [inaudible] >> yeah. >> mike -- [inaudible] pbs online "newshour", first of all, in response to mitzi's comment, we did more stories on

the infrastructure than all the other networks combined, even the video of trains and cars moving ever more slowly doesn't necessarily make for riveting television -- [laughter] what are you -- i'm just back from six weeks in asia. what is the department doing now or contemplating doing tapping into the knowledge of friendly countries like singapore, south korea which not only seem to know how to build things but come up with pretty creative ways of financing them perhaps more so even than the europeans who rely on a level of saxation that probably -- taxation that probably the united states would never tolerate no matter what kind of train you got 'em? >> it's a good question and to some extent it relates back to this governance discussion we were having. because in the u.s., the equivalent of the government of singapore is the government of north carolina or the government of virginia or some other state. a lot of our surface system is

state-based. and because of that unlike some of our foreign countries, competitors or friends we don't have one-stop shopping when it comes to these three ps. we actually have 52 different systems around the country when you count the territors that function more or less independently of each other. so the innovations that you're talking about right now the default is for those innovations to happen at the state level. the question that we are trying to address as an agency is can we play a role in helping to facilitate and encourage those kinds of innovations to happen at the federal level given the history we have of a state-driven surface transportation system? i think we're going to get there, you know, and i think, again, the tappan zee bridge is

an example of a big project we were able to get dope. it had a lot -- to get done. it had a lot of hair on it, it had a lot of dollars associated with it, a lot of challenges associated with it. but it was, you know, it's an example of the kind of financial creativity that may be needed to get big scale projects done. there is actually the gateway project, the rail tunnels that lead between new jersey and new york. you know, this is an area that i'm concerned about because those tunnels as they sit there, have a shelf life. and it's not all that long. and it may take some ingenuity to figure out a way to get those tunnels paid for maybe even designed in a different way than anybody's thought about before. i agree with you, i think the reason we can't tap into that as well today is because we basically have 52 different systems. and what we're trying to do is to create a clearinghouse for

best practices that help us get to answers faster and hopefully to the innovations faster. >> okay. we have a firm and fast rule of ending on time here and i've just been given the five minute warning, so we have time for a couple more questions. let's go to this gentleman way in the back. >> mr. secretary, i'm bob perry with the corporate council on africa. i want to thank you for your remarks onioned traffic. -- on beyond traffic. the question has to do with the intersection between rail and energy. and the last, thanks to fracturing we've got production in areas where we didn't have pipelines, and the rail system is moving it from the dakotas to east coast markets. that's a win. the safety accidents that have occurred along that rail system are a problem. they were designed to move coal and grain the last 50 years, and now we're dealing with another problem. so how do you see the solution in terms of consensus on new

safety standards? >> well, it's a big, big deal. four days into my job at d.o.t. the accident happened up in canada. and it was a horrible day not only for our canadian friends but really for all of us. and from that point forward i've been focused like a laser on trying to help our country get into a better safety posture when it comes to the movement of crude by rail. to the point that we've taken 24 short-term measures that were thought about as bridges to a long-term answer which is ultimately, a rule on this, let me just say this just to cut to the chase. you have to have a comprehensive approach to this issue. you know there's a lot in the news about tank cars and tank

car standards but honestly the tank car is a mitigation device. it is not a device that's designed to prevent an accident. it simply is a device that contains an dent for some period of time -- an accident for some period of time. we have to have a prevention strategy. we have to have a mitigation strategy. we have to have an emergency response strategy. and one of the things we've really pushed on as a department is having a comprehensive approach that takes into account all of those areas. and i would say that i think that there is a building consensus both outside of government and within government that a comprehensive approach is the right way to go. so we're still working through what e hope are the later stages -- what i hope are the later stages of rulemaking, but i i certainly have to respect that process. but know that this is an area of great focus for me.

>> okay. we have time for one more question unfortunately. at the front table. >> sam -- [inaudible] icf international. swinging back briefly to the question of cybersecurity -- >> yeah. >> -- there is a very complex mixed ownership structure in this country depending on the mode. the president's executive order signed out last month brought forward the idea of stronger information sharing and advisory organizations -- in advisory organizations, isaos. and i wonder what the department might be able to do to build a strong or information-sharing organization amongst all the various modes of transportation for which their responsibility, because i do think the industry is crying out for better coordination, information sharing, threat information sharing and information sharing about best practices and best results. thank you. >> yeah, thank you. and very quickly um, we are very open to trying to play a

stronger role in trying to, you know, assist these conversations across different modes of transportation. i would say that the first thing we've got to do in each of these modes is get the modes, you know within the modes having the discussion because there will be things unique to automobiles or to rail cars or to aviation that are distinct. but to your point i do think there are cross-cutting issues too, and our department intends to play an active role on the cross-cutting conversation as well. >> well on behalf of the council, mr. secretary, i'd like to thank you for a very interesting and informative session. >> yeah, thank you. >> let's all give the secretary -- [applause] >> thank you very much. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> senators are meeting for their weekly party lunches now. earlier today they voted and did not advance a measure on human trafficking. that would impose penalties for trafficking and providing more restitution and assistance for victims. the vote on the measure 55-43. 60 votes were needed to advance the bill. four democrats crossed the aisle and voted to advance the bill with republicans. senator mitch mcconnell says the senate will not begin debate of the nomination of loretta lynch for attorney general until democrats allow the human

trafficking bill to move forward. we'll bring you back here for live coverage of the senate when they return about 2:15 p.m. eastern time. on the orr side of the capitol, house republicans introduced a budget that would balance in nine years and cut $5.5 trillion over the next decade. the hill reports the budget would keep 2011 spending caps in place but would provide an additional $90 billion to fund wars about $40 billion more than the president requested. the chair of the house budget committee, tom price of georgia, says the republican budget repeals the affordable care act and proposes a premium sport system for medicare similar to one proposed previously by wisconsin's paul ryan. the budget makes no changes to social security, but it does propose a bipartisan commission to study social security's problems and submit proposals to congress. that again from "the hill." earlier today secret service joseph clancy testified before a house subcommittee. he says he was not told for several days about an alleged

drunk driving incident near the white house that involved secret service agents. we'll show as much of this harding as we can before the senate returns around 2:15. >> too loud? it's a new system. we've got to get used to it. today we welcome joe clancy the recently-appointed director of the united states secret service. in his first appearance before our subcommittee, director clancy welcome. we appreciate you being here and thank you more your willingness to serve dhs and our nation. fiscal year 2016 budget for the secret of service is $1.9 billion. an increase of $273 million above fiscal year 2015. this increase is due in large part to preparations for the upcoming presidential campaign cycle, the deployment of the former obama detail and additional funds based on

recommendations of mugs panel, of the mission panel that reported out in december on the need for significant reform in service. director we look forward to the discussioning of these increases with you learning whether you plan to address any of the relations contained -- recommendations contained in the various reviews of your service that have occurred over the past few months. before ending however, i want to address an incident that was news haas week. last week. according to reports, two senior secret service agents on the president's protective detail arrived at the white house complex checkpoint in a government car after allegedly consuming alcohol. as the agents proceeded towards the checkpoint they drove through the scene of an active investigation. the violation of standing rules of behavior was not reported to headquarters until days later.

for an agency trying to restore its reputation three years after the well pub hi sized scandal -- publicized scandal this incident brings embarrassment and renewed scrutiny to the secret service. similar i my put this conduct -- simply put this conduct should not be tolerated, and congress is disappointed to see it on display again. director, i look forward to hearing your comments on this issue. first, i would like to recognize our new distinguished ranking member for any remarks she may make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director clancy welcome to your first appearance before the subcommittee and congratulations on your appointment as director. i hope you will find us to be tough, but fair partners in your efforts to make the secret service the very best it can be. the agency has endured significant criticism over the last several months, indeed, over the last few years. and, unfortunately, much of it has been justified.

i, like chairman carter and others on the committee were disappointed to hear last week about yet another incident of potential agent misconduct. this time the incident involved senior personnel including a member of the president's protective detail who drove a government vehicle through an investigation scene near the white house. allegedly after consuming alcohol. perhaps even more disturbing if true, is an allegation that a supervisor overruled an initial decision by officers on duty to conduct sobriety tests. i applaud your quick notification of the inspector general in this case but i hope you won't wait for the conclusion of the ig investigation to start addressing what went wrong. if the allegations of misconduct are accurate, i worry that they may be indicative of a larger cultural problem at the secret service.

we will certainly be discussing that incident this morning. i don't want it to completely overshadow the good work that the vast majority of secret service officers and agents are doing every day. i saw that good work firsthand when i visited your los angeles field office last week. i was particularly impressed by the quality of a staff briefing in which usss personnel were discussing the final security plans for the president's visit to los angeles the next day. in the interest of time, i won't elaborate on everything i saw, but i do want to highlight one program that the los angeles field office is implementing in a very impressive way. the los angeles electronic crimes task force. as you know ect finishings are a strategic -- ectfs are a strategic alliance of law enforcement, academia and the private sector dedicating to deterring cyber crime. it is a round table concept

comprised of lock, state and federal -- local state and federal law enforcement partners. the ectfs collaborate investigations through the exchange of information, shared assets and common strategies. this month i am proud to say that the l.a. ectf was selected out of 80 nominations to receive the 2015 centurion award for excellence in investigations from the peace officers association of los angeles county. director clancy we stand ready to help secret service regain the respect it deserves for the good work done every day by your dedicated officers and agents on behalf of our cup. of our country. thank you for joining us this morning. i look forward to discussing your proposed budget for the coming year as well as your plans to point the secret service in the right direction. >> thank you. and now i'd like to recognize the chairman of the appropriations committee, mr. al rogers, for any comments he'd

like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here with us this morning, mr. director. this constitutes the first hearing of this subcommittee and i'm immense bly pleased that we finally managed to pass a full-year spending bill for the department to support our men and women on the front lines and bolster critical security agencies and fund vigilant anti-terrorism and law enforcement efforts on our home turf. unquestion write -- unquestionably, your organization is a vital peace of this puzzle. -- piece of this puzzle. the secret service carries out a unique but absolutely critical dual mission of protection and investigation. the investigative component of your charge is essential for the financial infrastructure of the country and, by extension the swiewr u.s. economy -- entire u.s. economy.

your mission is to protect our president, his family and other dignitaries from a host of potential threats and that requires discipline and dexterity on parallel skill and yes, professionalism. unfortunately, the service has been beleaguered by a series of embarrassing and unacceptable lapses in security and other missteps. this will not stand. just when we think we've assessed the problems associated with september's white house fence jumper and developed a plan to close existing gaps in security moving forward news broke that two agents drove around a security barricade at the home where the president lives during an active bomb investigation. drunk. now, you've personally committed to me and others that leveraging

your lifetime of service to this organization to restore the secret service to its once-storied reputation. i certainly want to take you up at your word and give you every chance to achieve that goal. but incidents like these demonstrate just how far you've got to go. and i how short of time you've got to do it. we're going to provide the adequate funding for your agency, but it's going to be on a short string. we expect results. your fiscal year budget request includes $1.9 billion which constitutes a $273 million increase over enacted levels in addition to the presidential protection service, this supports the service's network of 42 domestic field us as, 60 resident offices and a resident

agency i office and 24 offices abroad. finish notably, in this request includes an increase to accommodate your responsibilities leading up to the '016 election and prepare for president obama's detail when he transitions out of office. 87 million is also included to support security enhancements at the white house complex pursuant to the recommendations of the protective mission panel. mr. director, we all look forward to hearing how you intend to use this money to right the ship so the secret service can focus on its truly critical mission at hand. we want to thank you for taking on this chore and for being here today. we look forward to your answers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. now i'd like to recognize the distinguished ranking member of the appropriations committee ms. lowy. >> thank you very much. i'd like to thank chairman

carter ranking member roy bell allard for holding this hearing today and welcome director clancy, and thank you for joining us. the secret services has had a long and storied history of excellence and professionalism but recent incidents have diminished its reputation over the last few years and raised serious questions about its ability to protect the president. clearly, we have a lot to discuss. just last july, through the report accompanying the house funding bill this committee expressesly stated that -- expressly stated that it was, and i quote deeply disappointed with recurring allegations of misconduct within the secret service. going a step further, we withheld a substantial amount of headquarters funding in the fy-'15 appropriations bill until new guidelines for professional conduct were submitted. hard to believe here we are

again. not only were we rocked by the white house fence jumper last september, but now we are con fronted -- confronted by yet another unfortunate incident that appears to entail significant misconduct. on march 4th two possibly intoxicated secret agents drove a government car through an active suspicious package investigation. i say "possibly" because according to news reports no sobriety tests were administered. the agents were not arrested and they were allowed to leave the scene. the president's budget requests nearly 87 million for protective mission enhancements in the wake of recent secret service missteps. while i agree that more resources are necessary for security enhancements, hiring and training funding alone won't

be enough to solve of for secret service's problems. this latest episode seems to be more evidence of a cultural issue that has not been adequately addressed by changes in senior management. director clancy, you just recently assumed your position, but you've been with the agency for an impressive 30 years. we want to work with you to restore the public's confidence in the secret service. we want to support you with the resources you need but the responsibility is ultimately yours. you must provide the leadership and insist on the accountability that is necessary. i look bard to a productive -- forward to a productive discussion this morning. thank you, mr. chairman. >> all right, director clancy -- i'm sorry?

i'm going to do that yep. we're now going to recognize you for your opening statement. i'm going to ask you if you can, to try to keep it to five minutes. >> yes, mr. chairman. good morning, chairman carter ranking member roybal-allard and gushed members of this committee -- distinguished members of this committee. i am pleased to discuss the president's fiscal year 2016 budget for the secret service. as a newly-appointed director i'm honored to lead the men and women of this important issue through this challenging time. despite the allegations of misconduct involving two senior-level agents at the white house complex of mar 4, 2015 i have been impressed by the selfless dedication or the work force as a whole and our people's willingness to take on the necessary reform in the betterment of the mission. with respect to these recent allegations, secret service has turned over the investigation to the department of homeland security's office of the inspector general. to insure a thorough and independent review of this incident. i have committed our full

cooperation with this investigation and eagerly await the o to ig's findings. turning to our budget, i want to thank all members for your work on the 2015 department of homeland security appropriations act. for a second year in a row, this subcommittee worked diligently to provide the secret service with additional resources to support our staffing, our training and operational needs. in addition the 2015 bill includes $25 million to begin the necessary enhancements associated with the protective mission panel's recommendations that were included in a report to secretary johnson on december 15 of 2014. the panel's recommendations have brought focus to staffing training and leadership deficiencies in the agent and -- agency. however, since the secret service's mission extends beyond the issues addressed in the

report, i am committed to basing the agency's budget to determine the full extent of our operational requirements. the 2016 budge builds on the protective mission enhancements that are underway this fiscal year. my written statements provide a thorough overview of the budget request, but i would like to highlight a few areas in the limited time i have are. the 86.7 million requested in 2016 to address specific relations made by the panel can be broken down across four categories. first, personnel initiatives. second training center improvements. third, white house security infrastructure improvements. and, four, protective technology upgrades. my priorities are to staff the agency at a level commensurate with the demands of the mission and insure that our employees receive the training they need to do their jobs effectively. this includes critical in-service training for our agents and officers as well as ethics and leadership development. one of the biggest mission demands over the next 18 months

will be associated with the campaign protection. with less than two years remaining before president obama's term in office comes to a close the secret service is preparing for campaign protection requirements similar to those of 2008, the last time no incumbent president ran for office. during every campaign, the secret service's budget temporarily grows to accommodate the surge in protection requirements. of the $204 million requested in 2016 for campaign protection and campaign-related nsses, a total of 59 million reflected, simply reflects the anticipated time special agents in the field will work protection hours in support of the campaign. when people ask how it is the secret service can protect multiple candidates traveling between different cities and states in a matter of hours i point to the special agents who serve in the field offices around the country. without the support of highly trained special agents who have experience with investigations and protection the secret service would be unable to handle the surges in protective

operations associated with presidential campaigns, nsses and other major events. scouring the two nominating -- securing the two nominating conventions is one of the most challenging aspects of campaign protection. these high profile nsses typically last three to four days and attract more than 50,000 participants each. the secret service begins work months in advance to plan and coordinate. and to the general public attending these events. for example, to mitigate the risk of cyber attack on key infrastructure that could adversely affect security plans special agents -- i'm sorry the critical systems protection are responsible for securing have been yous that are increasingly automated and interconnected. to the accomplish its cyber protection mission, the secret service recruits from within the

agency's electronic crimes special agent program, specifically the computer forensics and network intrusion responder dismins. special -- disciplines. special agents are responsible for the successful investigations into many of the largest known data breaches in recent memory. just last month a secret service-led investigation resulted in the arrest and extradition of vladimir drinkman a russian national who will face charges that he allegedly conspired in the largest hacking database scheme ever prosecuted in the united states. superior performance by men and women on the front lines begins with superior leadership. of to that end, i have worked to open the lines of communication between the rank and file and fair supervisors. i made significant changes in top leadership positions across the secret service to inspire a renewed focus on staffing training protective operations investigations and professional responsibility. i am in the process of

restructuring the credit service's executive leadership to better leverage the experience of civilian professionals while lawing law enforcement personnel to focus on their core areas of expertise. with the support of the department and the congress over the next several years, i am confident that we can put the secret service on a path to success for many decades to come. chairman carter, ranking member roybal-allard, this concludes my testimony. i welcome any questions you have at this time. >> well, we thank you, director for that report. i want to start off with, you know, the 800-pound gorilla in the room. what happened the other night at the white house? you know, it was -- i was in the ukraine on a fact-finding mission with a subcommittee of this body when we learned of this, and i called directly from the you -yard line immediately

to my -- i ukraine immediately to my staff to find out what happened because it knocked me out of my chair considering the discussions you and i have had. >> yes, sir. >> and, first of all, i'd like you to give us the picture you think happened because i think what was reported in the foreign press at least was it sounded like they crashed through a barrier, and the first thought was an iron gate or something like that ignoring a crime scene tape in a state of intoxication. and inquiries further, it may not have been exactly that picture that we have. so i'd like you to give us a picture of what happened, and then i'd like to talk to you a little bit about the protocols that may or may not have been violated and what protocols are in place to cover the situation here. alcohol's part of the stressful world that an awful lot of people live in. outside my courtroom there was a

cartoon on the wall where the judge is addressing a young trial lawyer, and he says the most important two tenets of the laureltive to trial work; caffeine by day alcohol by night. it was meant to be a joke. it's actually tragic truth. that in stressful jobs, those two become a major part of how people get through the day. but alcohol, as with all know it messes up your judgment. and there have got to be protocols that address this, and we have to deal with it because it's part of the life we have. and we are protecting the most important position on the face of the earth that's your job. whoever sits in that white house, he is the -- he or she are the most important person on earth politically in this world. with more power than anybody else. and, therefore more enemies. so talk to me about what happened, and then let's talk a

little bit about protocols. >> yes purchase. yes, mr. chairman. on march 4 2015 our understanding is that two senior-level special agents came to the white house. the initial reports -- i did not hear of this incident until monday, so this was on wednesday night, i found out monday. once i found out monday and what i heard initially, the initial reports from anonymous report was that, as you stated, two senior-level special agents had crashed into the white house. and they were inebriated. i had not heard about that. i asked my staff if they had heard about it, they had not heard about it. i had asked them to get as much information as they could on the events, and then there was not a lot of information available but we decided, i decided to immediately send it over to the

department of homeland security office of the inspector general. i thought it was very important that we have an independent investigation, that there be no perception at all that we were involved, that we would not even start doing any interviews. we would give that case, that investigation to the oig. i also say that i brought my staff this on monday -- in on monday, and we discussed why i didn't know prior to monday of this event. and we had a good stern talk about that. and then instructed the staff to go out to their management to insure that these events, any event of misconduct or operational errors have to be relayed up the chain. i'll say that it's going to take time to change maybe some of

this culture. les no excuse for -- there's no excuse for this information not to come up the chain. that's going to take time because i'm going to have to build trust with our work force. and the best way for me to work earn trust with our work force is by my actions. now, i know there's -- i'm very eager to hear the results of this investigation. i don't know how long it will take, but i am committed to due process. what i have done is removed those two senior-level agents to non-supervisory positions outside. they're not working at the white house, they're outside of their offices, and we will await the findings of the oig. >> [inaudible] on the issue of drinking are there protocols set up to discuss the fact that, you know, every one of your people are carrying a weapon, and i this

you know, this is purely hearsay. someone told me that, a person in the fbi said the protocol for the fbi is if you know you're going to a place where alcohol is going to be consumed, and it's a retirement party where more than one drink might be consumed, that they expect their agents to report that to the superior, to leave their weapon at home and to tell their superior that they would no longer be available for call. because they would not be -- might not be in a condition to be available for call. do you have any of these types of -- i don't know if that's true or not. that's something that was told to me. but this was a retirement party for a member of your group, and it was a party, and people were expecting there would be drinking at the party. now, do you have any protocols like that in the secret service?

>> we do have a ten-hour rule mr. chairman, where you are now permitted to consume alcohol ten hours prior to your duty assignment. off hours we don't have protocols for off-hour, going to a reception or a party or what have you. there are protocols for driving in government vehicle. i will say that. you cannot, obviously be under the influence not by a legal limit, but you just cannot be exhibiting any indication that you're under the influence of alcohol driving a government vehicle. and that will all be looked into with the office of the inspector general. i will say that i did see a very short clip a very short video footage of the incident that evening, and i did see the vehicle the two with agents traveled in where they drove at a very low rate of speed onto the white house complex.

so that's manager the oig -- something that the oig will have and i'm sure will investigate that. >> going forward, are you going to look into protocols that would affect a situation like this? >> yes, mr. chairman. anytime we have an incident of this level, we certainly have to look at our protocols, look at our policies. are they sufficient in and to be candid i have been away for several years and was not as familiar with these policies as i should have been. they have to be readdressed. even the indication that you made to get into a vehicle after having one beer one glass of wine, that's something we're going to have to address. >> well, certainly the dwi laws are pretty rough. >> yes, sir. >> they're pretty rough. well, you and i talked about this, you know, it breaks my heart to think that once again

one of the, one of the agencies that has been a legend among the american people in the last six years has just gone downhill substantially. absolutely substantially. and it's a crime. our people need heroes. you are the agency that were considered heroes, that protected every president no matter what party they were in and did it in a very effective and efficient job. and this is are heartbreaking, to have this continued conduct. i know you're new on the job, but i told you when we visited you've got a big job, and you're going to have to make heads roll. if there's a, if there's a place to send people in your agency that is the mojave desert of the secret service service, maybe some people need to be sent to the mojave desert so that they know their behavior's unacceptable. so you think about all that.

chairman's got plenty of hearings he's got to attend so i'm now going to turn to the chairman for any questions he may have. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i can't believe you did not learn of this incident from wednesday when it happened until monday. why -- what happened? why did you not learn of this incident immediately? >> yes, sir, and that's what we're trying to find out through, obviously the officer of inspector general -- >> i don't care about the office of inspector general. god love them and good luck to them. you're in charge. >> yes sir. >> this is an administrative problem you've got among other things. why did you not get word from your subordinates about this incident for what, five or six days? >> yes sir. not knowing all the facts -- first of all you're right, mr.

chairman there's no -- at the least of the description of these events, i should have still been informed of what transpired that evening. anytime you have a senior level on the president's detail who is alleged to have even come through a secure area as he did that evening, i should have been informed, and we're following up on that, and there will be accountability. and i know that our work force is listening today as we go through this hearing. and they're waiting to see what how people are going to be held accountable. and this is my first test and we'll wait for these facts to come out we'll wait for that i due process, and we'll go back through the reports that were written that evening we'll go back through, and the oig will interview these mid-level supervisors and going up the chain. but, mr. chairman, you're absolutely correct, and i think part of this again goes to a culture of trust. do you have the trust in your leadership that you can bring this to lineup's attention -- to

leadership's attention? i've got to work to earn that trust, and i'm going to do that through my actions. >> well, your actions in my judgment, should be punishment termination, firing people who have subordinated their command. you can't run an agency like this, for god sakes or any other agency unless you have discipline in the ranks. and this is a breakdown to put it mildly, of discipline within the ranks of your agency and that, that's a cancer. it can consume you. now, who -- were these people given a sobriety test? >> they were not, sir, to my understanding. >> why not? >> sir, i can't answer that. >> who said not to do that? >> sir, i can't answer that either. i don't know that those facts are -- have been -- >> well, who discovered that this had happened? >> sir, it was anonymous e-mail

that first was published, and i want to say it may have been several days later. i don't have the facts on when that was released, that e-mail. typically, an event like that there would be some chatter there would be some discussion if it occurred the way it has been described. >> well, who was, who was the agent in charge at that time at the white house? >> there is a watch commander there is -- at a captain level who would have been in charge of the white house complex at that time certainly during that incident -- >> who was that? >> by name sir? >> yes sir. >> i believe it's braun, sir. >> bronson? >> braun, b-r-a-u-n, and my staff can correct me if that's incorrect. >> he was the person in charge of the white house detail at that period of time? is that correct? [inaudible conversations] >> yes sir.

>> did he report any of this activity to anyone else? >> no, sir. >> have you talked to him? >> i have not spoken to him, sir. again, as frustrating as it is for all of you on the committee it is frustrating to me as well to have to wait to do this. >> why do you have to wait? >> sir, i don't want to interfere with this investigation. in the past when we've seen investigations where different people have interviewed witnesses, stories are perceived differently, and i don't want to have any impact on that investigation. >> have you asked braun for a report on what happened? >> i have asked to see the report, and i have seen nothing that indicates -- any written report indicating that this event, as described, has occurred, had occurred. >> what kind of barricade was it that they broke? >> sir, it was a, it's an orange

construction-type barrel which when the vehicle approached, initial it backed up because at 15th street and e street which you may be familiar with, you may have come in sometimes at 15th and e street, this orange barrel didn't allow the vehicle to go through. it was to the right of the bumper, so they nudged this barrel out of the way. the barrel did not fall over they nudged it over they moved up to the checkpoint where the officer typically would be positioned, and it appeared that they were showing their badges to go through the checkpoint. and then that's the ec tempt of the video that -- extent of the video that we saw as they continued to progress forward. >> why were they there? >> sir, my understanding is that the passenger in the seat, in the vehicle was returning to get

his vehicle. they had been at the reception and they left together to his -- the passenger had his vehicle parked at the white house complex. >> will well, needless to say we want to get to the bottom of it right away. and i'm disappointed that you have not waged your own vigorous tough investigation of in this that occurred on white house grounds be by security agents -- grounds by security agents who appeared to be inebriateed. the say you're not investigate -- to say you're not investigating because you want the inspector general of the department to investigate is hogwash. >> sir. >> what do you think? >> sir, on my limited experience

since i came back, i read a report sir on 2011, the shooting from constitution avenue that the rounds had hit constitution avenue. and is one of the officers i remember reading when i first came back, this individual was interviewed three different times by our agency, by the oig, i believe, and by federal bureau of investigation. my recollection is each of those interviews was different which distorted the facts, what were the facts. and what did that officer i truly see -- officer truly see and hear? for right or wrong that resonated with me. and i didn't want any perception that we would be -- it can be intimidating. if someone from my staff goes to one of these uniformed officers and says what did you hear what did you write, what happened that evening they may tell me and my staff one thing and another from the oig, they may

interview them and they may have a different perception of the words spoken. words are important. and i'm, i'm frustrated i'm very frustrated that we didn't know about this, i didn't know about this until monday. i'm frustrated that i can't act until we get all the facts because i know that our work force is waiting. what's your action going to be. but i just don't want to act improperly, too soon. let me just say this the president, the first family, they're safe. we've moved these individuals to non-supervisory positions. rather than administrative leave where they're getting paid for no work. we can still get work out of them. but in a different capacity. >> they're still getting paid. >> yes, sir. >> no reduction in pay no

penalties, financial or otherwise, right? >> no financial penalties. is sir, i would say that -- sir i would say that i'm sure they're paying a penalty right now. >> well, unfortunately, this is the last in a long line of episodes somewhat similar -- drinking carousing on and off duty that this agency has suffered these last few years. it's not working right, mr. director. >> yes sir. >> we've got to have some changes. and you've got to be the one that makes those changes. and i don't sense at this moment that you have the determination to make that happen. am i wrong? >> sir i would disagree with you with that, with all respect. i will say that there is an element within our agency, there is an element within our agency that does cope with the stresses

that many of you have mentioned today by using alcohol. there's no question, we have that element. we also have other elements in our agency that go to a different route. some go to exercise, some go to religion, some go to their family to cope with these stresses. but we do have an element that goes to alcohol. three, four weeks ago we kicked off an initiative, a work life initiative to look at these stresses that our people are under, and they are considerable. there's no excuse for the actions. we have to take -- there has to be self-discipline self-accountability, but we've got to find a way to help some of these people that are going towards alcohol to solve their, the as a coping mechanism. >> well i'm concerned about their health as well, but i'm more concerned about the health of the president of the united states and who's protecting him from harm. >> will yes, mr. chairman. >> and if we've got special agents on the grounds at nights

in the white house ramming a barricade drunk, it seems to me that the only discipline that you could exert would be caused by the ability of you and your staff to terminate as punishment so that every other agent knows, boy, i don't want to go there. that director's going to fire me. that's, that's what makes the mind work. what do you think about that? >> no, i agree with you. i think deep down within our agency as in others people want to see discipline. people want to be disciplined. they want to have people held accountable. i just want to respect the due process. as frustrating as that is. and then let my actions speak for how we're going to move forward in this agency. >> we'll be watching. >> yes sir. >> and waiting. >> yes, mr. chairman.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> [inaudible] >> mr. chairman -- >> oh, i'm sorry. ms. lowey. >> excuse me. >> thank you, but there's so many hearings today. i just want to follow up briefly, because with all due respect, i'm just shocked by your testimony. first of all, you said it wouldn't have been reported to you other than a whistleblower. i mean it wasn't someone in the chain of command that reported it to you. and then you said what really shocks me, it will take time to change the culture. i don't understand this one bit. it seems to me it should take time to help people who think this is the culture to go get another job. how can we as members of congress have respect for an agency that feels it's okay? we're not talking about someone drinking at a party, we're

talking about a respected member of the secret service who was absolutely drunk. how many people do you know, how many friends do you know who may go to a party and then take a car and go ram it into a fence or some other barricade? i find this testimony shocking following up on my colleague. i just don't understand it. i would think it would take five minutes to change the culture before you even know the fact, you can say based on the allegations if, in fact, you are not aware that this kind of activity is inappropriate for a member of the secret service you better get it now and go find another job. that's why i'm so puzzled. i can't believe you said it will take time to change the culture. can you explain to me why it's okay for a member of the secret service to get so inebriated

that they would take a car and run into a barricade? >> if those are the facts and they may come out exactly as you stated them, then you're absolutely correct, and that -- we will, we have a table of penalties which explains exactly how they can be disciplined. and when i said that the culture, it's going to talk some time for the culture to be changed -- talk some time for the culture to be changed specifically i'm talking about if there was an event that night as it was described. let's assume it was as you described it. why wasn't that reported up to my office? and i think that's a longstanding process possibly where people don't want to relay bad information. and we have to, we have to prevent that. but to your point, you're right that we've -- my actions are going to determine how that culture is changed. but i don't have the ability to

just fire people at will. in the government, i don't -- my understanding is you cannot do that. it doesn't mean that due process, after due process there aren't some actions. >> maybe i'm, maybe my statement is not clear. i understand due process. but do you think it would be inappropriate to send out a very strong message that this kind of behavior is absolutely inappropriate, wrong for a member of the secret service? did you do that? >> i did that. that statement went out, without going into the specifics of the event on march 15th, although we referenced that. we did put out a statement saying that there's accountability, this type of activity is not tolerated and that we've got, we've got to shape the future of this service. >> i guess i just don't understand because in my time in congress, which is 26 years, i've had such enormous respect

for the secret service protecting so many of our people in public life including members of congress. so i just don't understand even off duty how a respected member of the secret service could get so inebriated that they'd take this kind of action going into a fence, knocking down a barricade. i don't get why it would take time to change the culture, and that's why i'm puzzled sir, with your comment. and i would hope it's very clear that if they're off on a thursday and not on duty, they can get so inevenlated -- inebriated that they can go into a fence but when they're on duty they understand this behavior's unacceptable. i don't want member of the secret service frankly, who's capable of getting so inebriated that this kind of an action can be accepted. it can be accepted when they're

off duty but not on duty? this is why i'm totally puzzled. i don't think there's any doubt that this action took place is that correct sir? >> that's correct. >> so is it clear now that it's going to not take time to change the culture? do you understand why that doesn't make sense to someone like myself who has such respect for secret service? i don't think we want this kind of person in the secret service. whether they're on duty or off duty, you don't want them -- [laughter] behaving this way at any time. that is not the kind of person you want in the secret service. they can go find another job, frankly. >> yes ma'am. >> so can the culture change immediately, or do you still believe it'll take time to change the culture? >> i cannot terminate people this afternoon if that's -- >> i understand that. but can there be a very clear

directive that if you are a gushed member of the -- distinguished member of the secret service whether you're on duty or off couth, duty you cannot get so inebriated, it is not accepted that you're capable of taking a car and going into a fence or killing someone on street. these are people with guns. >> yes. again, i agree with everything you're saying. i will tell you again, the work force is hearing your message loud and clear today and we've been stressing this through training, through mentoring, through coaching through this discipline that we've put in place one year ago so people know the rules. it's up to individuals to have the self-discipline to follow those rules and conduct himselfs in a professional manner -- themselves in a professional manner both, obviously, on the job and off the job. >> well, i just want to conclude by saying i do hope you can send a strong message again and make it very clear to the

distinguished member of the secret service that it shouldn't be business as usual even if they're off duty, because i know. i was the author of the .08 law. and to go get so inebriated that you're going to take a car and go into a fence, you need to be pretty pretty inebriated out there. so i do hope you send that strong message and changing the culture can be done immediately, not take a long time. and i understand you cannot accuse anyone until an investigation is complete. but you can make it clear that whether you're on duty or off duty, this kind of behavior is unacceptable for a distinguished member of the secret service. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, ma'am. >> thank you ms. lowey. ms. roy roybal-allard, thank you for yielding. it's your turn. >> okay. director clancy, i have to say that i am equally concerned by

some of the responses that you have given today, and i hope that i misunderstood you in terms of your saying that you needed to wait for the ig's report to take any action. it seems to me that there are many things that can be done now and actions that you can take now before that ig reports. because i think it's quite obvious that there are lots of problems within the secret service that the incidents at the white house and other incidents are just indicative of those problems. so i want to give you an opportunity to elaborate a little bit on your opening statement, because i think it's important that we and the public hear loud and clear that you not only acknowledge that there are problems facing the secret

service, but that you're actually implementing an effective plan in turning things around, things that you can do now. right now you can demand with a discipline behind it if it doesn't happen that you're immediately notified of any, any other incidents. hopefully, there won't be such an incidence. but there are things that you can do now. also as you're answering that question as to what you will be doing over the next weeks and months to reassure secret service personnel, the white house, congress and the public that you are moving in the right direction, if you could also talk a little bit about what you're doing in terms of sending a message of discipline. not necessarily -- not dealing with this case but just in general that certain things are not acceptable and that there

will be consequences. and as reported in the paper if true, that the incident at the white house -- those who were involved in that -- were actually given a less stringent approach than the service has taken in the past. if that's true why? so i just want to give you an you opportunity to respond to that as well. >> yes. well consistency's very important. i'm not aware of how our discipline or the actions we've taken so far would differ from the past. now, i haven't been here for three years, although i have been briefed on some of those recent incidents. you know, i talked to our legal counsel, i talked to our human resource people to see what options we have in terms of first steps in regards to this incident. i will tell you in general, and we may get into this later, we are going through a restructuring within our organizational chart.

and that will be a subject maybe later during this hearing. but the idea of discipline and to give you examples, before every trip on a foreign trip any agent on that trupp is given a briefing -- on that trip is given a briefing on ethics and what's expected of them before our personnel e meetings, before a visit in any city. the agents working that visit are briefed on their professionalism as well as the operational aspect of the visit. but these topics are constantly broughtr

>> the best way to weed out bad actors for a hard and swift disciplinary action which could mean immediate dismissal. so what is it that you're actually doing now to start addressing the problems within the secret service? more specifically, what are you doing now? >> some of these measures were put in place prior to me arriving, and i think they're good measures. for example the us a of integrity -- the office of integrity reports directly to the director. so rather than in the old days if there was an issue of misconduct in a local field office, that special agent in charge would handle that. and there may be inconsistencies on the way discipline was handed out. so over, just over a year ago this office of integrity was

stood up to insure consistency. and within that office of integrity is a table of penalties which is modeled after other agencies so that we're not stand alone. we're looking at the best practices in the industry and in the other agencies. >> i just -- >> sure. >> -- stop you right there. obviously, whatever has been done, you're mentioning a year ago, it's not working. things aren't working. so the question is, what is it that you are planning to do to make whatever these systems that are in place if they're good systems, to reevaluate them ask make sure that they are working so that we don't have incidents like this, so the message is loud and clear that if a secret service agent, you know, drinks or whatever, whatever the violation is that there is

going to be immediate and quick disciplinary action, something that really is going to count like chairman rogers said you're dismissed, period? so the point is whatever's been put in place, whatever's been done, it is not working. and i guess my question is if you're not able to answer it now but for the record, what are the plans that you are considering or putting into place that will make the system work and send the right message to the secret service so that they know that there will be a harsh penalty if they violate whatever the rules are of the secret service? that's my question. and like i said, the, you know, you can submit it to the record if you don't have all the information now. but whatever has been put in place, whatever has been done in the past obviously, is not working. >> i agree with you that it is not working, and i would prefer to put together a document

spelling out what we are legally able to do and what we cannot do and where we would move forward to try to correct this. it's not working. >> well legally and, mr. chairman then i'll turn it over, but legally can or can't do? are you saying that there's some -- that when someone violates rules, is destruction, whatever -- is drunk, whatever, that they have -- you don't have the authority to dismiss them? >> i don't have the authority to dismiss them on the spot. >> on the spot. >> no. >> okay. but there are rules in place? >> there are rules in place where there's a process in place where you make a proposal, and the individual receiving that proposal has a chance to appeal that proposal and it's somewhat of a drawn-out process. >> okay. maybe we need to, you need to look at that as well. >> yes.

>> mr. stewart? >> thank you, mr. chairman. director, thank you for coming here. kind of a tough harding. i've got to tell you, i'm going to jump on and you'll forgive me for that. before that i'll tell you i recognize that you and most of the agents that serve under you are honorable, they're driven by love for country, and they're trying to do the right thing. but leadership is taking care of not the good people in some cases, it's taking care of the problems, and you have enormous problems ahead of you in that case in my opinion. and some of that has been talked about. i've got the tell you, as a former military guy i am stunned by this environment and this culture. and i'll elaborate on that in just a minute. but i think there's two problems here. one of them is this: we have this behavior of drinking and driving and kind of carousing around, and les lots of examples of it -- there's lots of examples of it. i've got three pages i could go through. i kind of get that, i understand that a little bit. that happens. that's troubling but it

happens. we have to deal with it, as we've talked about. but i think a greater problem to me is the fact that there is an officer who was aware of this or many officers, at least one who was aware of this and took steps to protect their friends rather than to hold them accountable. i mean if anyone was aware of this and they didn't tell you, they have lost your trust. how could you ever trust them again? you may not be able to fire them, but you should assign them to the furthest tip of the aleutian islands, in my opinion because they have lost your trust and the trust of the american people. and they have shown loyalty to their friends and coworkers rather than loyalty to their responsibilities. and i don't know how you, how you say it any differently than that. again, i was a military man for many years and i hear you say well, you know people are coping with stress. and i've got to say i kind of go please. oh please. because lots of people

experience stress. this is a stressful job, but there's lots of dressful jobs in the -- stressful jobs in the world. military members experience acute stress, and they would never protect, more sanction the behavior -- nor sanction the behavior such as this. and i can give you many examples from young airmen to new lieutenants to senior colonels in some cases generals who were caught dui on base, and they were just gone. you know? they just, they were dismissed. and we knew that. and the military was better because we knew that was the rule. and we knew that we would be held accountable for that. and the american people were better and our nation was better protected because we had a culture that we simply don't entertain this. and for someone to have done that and then have one of their peers or a supervisor protect them is hard for me to imagine that that would happen, you know? in our cases we were dealing with top secret information,

many of us. as are you and your agents. the most highly classified information this nation has they have access to. and the accountability just simply isn't measuring up to the responsibility that they have. and i guess i would ask you to respond to that but i don't know what else you could say other than what you've already said here except for, you know this idea of changing the culture. you said mr. director -- and i understand what you're trying to do i really do. but when you say i have to set the example, i have to earn their trust, dude, you don't have to earn their trust, you're their boss. they're supposed to earn your trust. and they haven't earned your trust. and the way you earn their trust is hold them accountable -- >> we will break away from this hearing now as the u.s. senate is about to gavel in. just a reminder you'll be able to see it all later in our program schedule, and it's also available online at c-span.org. the u.s. senate returning after failing this morning to move forward with the human

trafficking bill. they needed 60 votes the vote was 55-43. the majority leader mitch mcconnell, saying that he will file additional motions on moving forward with that bill, and in that vote this morning john barrasso at the meeting of senate democrats including amy klobuchar, senators lay my fine stein -- haily coons and blumenthal all voted against cloture today but voted for that bill in committee, so we're likely to see additional votes on that if not today, in the coming weeks. you're seeing on your screen reports that various news courses aaron -- reports aaron shock resigning from congress. now to the senate floor on c-span2. importance of international trade and the enforcement of international trade agreements. we talk a lot about international trade in this chamber and frame minute terms of opening new markets -- in

terms of opening new markets with new trade agreements. but as the certainly distinguished chair of the senate understands while it's important to ensure future agreements are fair for workers and business it's, we should be going more time to the 290 trade agreements that we already have. and after -- ask ourselves are we doing a all that we can to ensure that we're enforcing these trade agreements on behalf of american businesses and workers who are affected by trade agreements. on behalf of communities who are affected by trade agreements. i don't think we are despite strong efforts by the obama administration. and i say that because this particular report, which is very heavy here, is a report from the u.s. trait representative that has -- trade representative that has

384 pages detailing all of the trade barriers we face around the globe. all of the trade barriers that we face around the globe. that's 384 reasons why we need to do more to fight for our manufacturers, our farmers our innovators, our workers everyone employed in all of the industries that are affected by trade barriers. so today senator graham and i are introducing the trade enforcement act which would make permanent the interagency trade enforcement their center at the ustr. it was created in 2012 by executive order i appreciate that very much. senator graham and i have been working for a number of years to get a trade enforcement office and i appreciate that president obama put in place by

executive order this new center with responsibilities to coordinate enforcement powers of multiple federal agencies, and it has already demonstrated its value in helping our nation win major trade enforcement cases. we just need to make it permanent. around the same time as the center's creation, china began imposing illegal duties on american cars and s.u.v.'s in defiance of world trade organization rules. these duties threatened the jobs of america's 850,000 automobile workers and had a direct impact on more than $5 billion of u.s. auto exports. with the help of the interagency trade enforcement center, the u.s. trade representative challenged this practice by china at the w.t.o. and the w.t.o. agreed with the united states that china's

duties breached numerous international trade rules and last june the duties were terminated. they ended. another case, argentina was restricting imports of u.s. goods, blocking energy products electronics and machinery, pharmaceuticals medical devices cars and parts, billions of dollars in potential sales. the center helped to challenge that practice by arch teen and again, -- arch argentina, and again the w.t.o. ruled in favor of the united states. the center helped oppose the duties on rare earth materials so important again to our basic technology and manufacturing. and in fact in that case the united states won. again the center helped can challenge india's ban on u.s. agricultural products and we won again. so what we're learning is that

when the u.s. trade representative works with the interagency trade enforcement center with an entity who is laser focused on enforcing the trade laws, to challenge unfair trade practices around the world, the united states wins. and we can continue winning if only we devote more time and enention to enforcing the rules in our existing trade agreements. again, we've got a lot of work that needs to be done here with all the trade barriers stopping us from -- stopping us from having the opportunities to the markets that would allow us to export our goods. for example ustr's report on nontariff trade barriers highlights how china provides export subsidies to its auto parts manufacturers so they can sell their parts to other countries at blow market value and still turn a profit.

this makes it impossible for our parts manufacturers many of them small businesses, to compete in those markets. in a letter i wrote to the president which i was pleased to have 188 members of congress sign i asked for the administration to take action. and i'm very pleased and was very pleased when the ustr announced later that year that the united states was formally challenge china's illegal practices on autos and auto parts. without the investigation and the technical work done by the interagency trade enforcement center that challenge would not have been possible. again, we have a free trade agreement with korea yet that nation continues to erect new trade barriers that make it more difficult for u.s. automakers to do business there. even today despite best efforts

to open things up, korea is one of the most closed auto markets in the world. mr. president, our legislation is based on the fact our enforcement needs to be farther and faster and we need to support it. we need to give ustr the resources it needs to take swift, decisive action to crack down on unfair trade practices and i very much appreciate the work that is being done by that center and they're showing what happens when you are focused when we as a country are focused on those things that our businesses and workers need in terms of eliminating unfair trade practices. but i think it's really important that this interagency trade enforcement center become permanent and that's what the bill that senator graham and i have and that's what it with would do. our bill would establish also a chief trade enforcement officer to lead the center so that we

have one person being held accountable on enforcement that would be accountable to the senate and to the american people. and we also do something i think is very, very important that will help manufacturing. we right now have at the ustr a chief agricultural negotiator. i support that as somebody helping to lead our efforts on agricultural policy. but we know to have a strong economy, it's about making things and growing things. and the making things part of it does not as a result a chief negotiator and that's why we in our bill create a chief manufacturing negotiator to focus squarely on the interests of manufacturers in our country. that would clearly send the message when we talk about growing the middle class growing the economy we're going to be laser focused on manufacturing as well as on

agriculture. we know that for every $1 billion in goods we export, we support 5,800 american jobs. by passing the trade enforcement act, we will remove more trade barriers meaning that we will export more goods and create more american jobs. and we all want to create jobs and grow the economy. so i'm looking forward to working with colleagues in the months ahead to ensure that in this global marketplace where we find ourselves that there is, in fact a level playing field and that we have an agency, and individuals who are laser focused on making sure we have fair trade. in the end our goal should be to export our products, not our jobs and that's what senator graham and my bill would do.

thank you very much. i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gardner: mr. president in 1893 cat lynn lee bates made her way up the slopes of pike's peak and wrote one of the greatest hymns poet sizing amber waves of