the head of this agency, michelle leonhart is here with us today. giving her extended tenure at dea during the same timeframe of these abuses, we will have very direct questions for her. the administer was nominated by

president bush in 2003 served as deputy administer as daa to begin serving as an acting administrator in 2007 and president bush nominated her to serve as administrator in 2008. she was nominated again by president obama and confirmed by the senate in 2010. the inspector general reports and i quote, says that the dea supervisors treated alleged sexual misconduct and sexual harassment as a local management or performance related issue come into school. it also finds it when the administrator learned about these allegations, or agency of posed extremely light penalties. for example, when she was informed about wild parties involving prostitutes, she counseled the regional director for failing to report the

allegations, in the quote. that was it. just counseling. no other this plenary action. one question for the administrator is what women who work in these law enforcement agencies must think. with only counseling sessions, suspensions of two weeks or less for misconduct like this what incentives do women employees have to report sexual harassment by their supervisors? so on friday the attorney general sent a letter to the committee outlining steps to address the issues. we were very pleased to receive that letter. these included re-examining the security clearances of those involved, reviewing dea procedures to investigating misconduct and prohibiting solicitation of prostitution

regardless of whether it may be people overseas. these steps are critical but they are clearly long, long overdue. if the person of this misconduct occurred in 2001. finally, let me note that these problems transcend politics. on march 27 chairman chaffetz and i wrote a bipartisan letter to dea announcing our investigation, and we are fully committed to working together to investigate these incidents how the agency responded and with additional steps are needed to help prevent this conduct from ever happening again and with that mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i will hold the record over five which is a day for any member who would like to submit a written statement. we will not recognize our first and only panel of witnesses. please welcome the honorable michelle leonhart, administered of the drug enforcement agency.

the honorable michael horowitz come inspector general of the united states department of justice and mr. kevin perkins associate deputy director of the fbi, the federal. of investigation. we welcome all of you and thank you for being here. pursuant to committee rules all witnesses must be sworn before they testify. please rights and racial right hand. -- please rise and raise your right hand. [witnesses were sworn in] >> thank you. let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. in order to allow time for discussion we would appreciate limiting your testimony to five minutes. your entire written statement will be made part of the record. dea administrator ms. leonhart we were recognized you first. >> chairman chaffetz ranking member cummings, distinguished members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to

discuss the department of justice office of inspector general's report on sexual harassment and misconduct allegations by the departments law enforcement components. bea has a single mission, to enforce our nation's drug laws. are more than 9000 employees including over 4600 special agents are dedicated to the single mission, and each one of us took an oath, the same i took over 30 years ago to serve the citizens of the united states with honor professionalism and pride. pride. dea personnel located in over 300 offices around the world, including 67 foreign countries are doing extraordinary work under often difficult and dangerous circumstances. this includes the investigation and arrest of leaders of the most violent and sophisticated drug cartels in the world. unfortunately, poor choices made by a few individuals can tarnish the reputation and overshadowed

the outstanding work being done at the dea. i want to ensure the members of this committee that, like you, i am disgusted, i am appalled by the behavior described in the inspector general's report. if you see the integrity of my agency and a federal law enforcement, which i've been a part of for nearly my entire professional life, damaged by these allegations has not been easy. this conduct is a violation of high professional standards conduct of the men and women of the dea are held to come and undermines our effectiveness in fulfilling our mission. and as noted in the report this behavior is contrary to the behavior of the overwhelming majority of those of dea. although the oig audit generally found that the were relatively few reported allegations suspected of harassment and such misconduct, the serious

allegations oig highlighted are certainly troubling, and describe behaviors that cannot be ignored. in particular, the allegations that agents assigned in bogotá engaged in prostitution and accepted gifts from drug traffickers was pursued by our office of professional responsibility. however, the resulting investigation left some questions unanswered. even though the events in question occurred between 2001-2004 and were not reported and investigated until 2010, it is nevertheless important that we hold our employees to the highest standards. and in this instance i assure you that i was quite disappointed in the penalties imposed. however, consistent with protections afforded to employees under civil service laws, i do not have the ability to change the imposed penalties. i can and do, however ensure

that disciplinary actions are appropriately noted in an employee's personnel file which is taken into consideration when that employee is considered for future positions within the dea. this behavior should not be rewarded. as outlined in my written statement, dea concurred with and has begun influencing changes, responses to each of the oig recommendations. however, it is also essential that we make clear to all employees at this behavior is not acceptable. it is my hope that the additional training and guidance that we have provided to all personnel, particularly those stationed overseas, will prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. dea has taken specific concrete steps to accomplish this including ensuring that it is already understood by all dea employs that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. outlining the steps employees and supervisors must take when

incidents occur increasing training for all employees especially those employees assigned overseas. further clarifying the guidelines for disciplinary offense and improving internal procedures to appropriate individuals and field management and the office of security programs and in the office of professional responsibility are made probably aware of allegations and can take appropriate action in a timely manner. in closing, i want to reiterate that the kind of activity reported by the oig has not and will not be tolerated. oig plays an important role in reviewing our policies and procedures, and i'm committed to working with the oig to ensure they have access to the documents they need to do their work. we have taken steps to address this kind of behavior in moving forward, dea well respond to this kind of misconduct that on and with the decisive resolve you and the public expect the we are open to further recommendations so that we can

continuously improve our policies, policies that demand the highest level of personal and professional integrity from our employees. and thank you again for the opportunity to address you today. >> thank you. now recognize mr. horowitz for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, mr. cummings and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. federal agents are held to the highest standards of conduct both on and off duty. as a former federal prosecutor and as an inspector general it has been my experience that the overwhelming majority of the department agents meet those high standards and perform the work with great integrity and honor. thereby helping keeping keep our communities safe and our country safe. nevertheless, we find instances where law enforcement agents in the cage in a series of conduct and even criminal violations affecting the agency's reputation, potentially compromising prosecutions, and possibly affecting the security

of the agents and agency operation. furthermore, misconduct that involves sexual harassment affects employee morale and creates a hostile work environment. following the incidents during the president's trip to colombia in 2012, the oig conducted to reduce. one relating to department policies and training involving off to the conduct employees working in foreign countries and one relating to the handling of allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct by the departments law enforcement components. are off duty conducts report found policies or training requirements pertaining to update conduct with in the united states or in other countries. this was particularly concerning given that we made recommendations back in 1996 in an oig report involving allegations at the time of the department law enforcement agents off duty conduct. despite those earlier recommendations we found little had changed in the intervening

two decades. we did find, however, that the fbi made changes including providing comprehensive training for its employees took to make day-to-day decisions take appropriate day-to-day decisions about off duty conduct while working abroad. however, we found the other three department law enforcement components contained little or no information about off duty conduct before sending employees abroad. having only one of for law enforcement components effectively preparing its employees for overseas assignments, demonstrates the need for departmentwide training and policies. in march 2015 week issued a report on the nature for consumer reporting investigation and adjudication of allegations of sexual harassment or misconduct in the departments for law enforcement components. the report identified significant systemic issues that require prompt corrective action by the department. these issues include a lack of

correlation between internal affairs offices and security personnel, failure to meet report misconduct allegation to component headquarters, go to investigate allegations fully, weaknesses in the adjudication process and weaknesses in detecting and preserving sexual explicit text messages and images. together our -- improve discipline and security processes. as well as particularly communicate doj's the committee gave doj and components employees the expectation for employ conduct. strong and unequivocal action from department and component leadership at all levels is critical to ensure that department appointed by hired -- high standard of conduct that are held fully accountable for any misconduct. as we also describe in a march 2016 report the failure by the dea and fbi to probably provide information we requested significant heeded our review. both agencies raise baseless

legal objections and only relented when i elevated the issue the agency leadership. however even then the information we received was still incomplete. we, therefore, cannot be confident that the fbi and dea provide us with all information relevant to this review. in addition after we completed our draft report we learn the dea failed to conduct the entire search of its database we had requested. in order to conduct effective oversight the oig must have timely complete access to documents and materials. this review starkly demonstrates the danger in allowing the department and its components to decide on their own what documents they will share with the oig. the delays we've experienced in heeded our work delayed our ability to discover the significant issues ultimate identified, wasted department at oig resources and affected our confidence in the completeness of our review. unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident but rather we face repeated instances in which

our timely access to records has been impeded. congress recognizes the significance of this and include a provision, prohibiting the department from impeding our timely access to records. nevertheless, the fbi continues to proceed exactly as it did before section to which he was adopted, spending appropriate funds to review records to determine if they should be withheld from the oig. we are approaching the one anniversary of deputy attorney general requested office of legal council for an opinion on these matters. if that opinion remains asking if we been given no timeline for its issuance. although the oig has been told that the opinion is a priority once the assignment is passed which is otherwise the the status quo continues the american public deserves and expects an oig that is able to conduct rigorous oversight of the departments activities. unfortunately, out of the to conduct an overnight is being

undercut every day goes by without resolution of this dispute. i want to thank the committee again for its bipartisan support for our work and i would be placed into any questions that you have. >> we when i recognized mr. perkins for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, chairman chaffetz, ranking member cummings and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss issues raised an inspector general's audit entitled the handling of sexual harassment and misconduct allegations by the departments law enforcement components. the fbi's policy on sexual harassment and sexual misconduct is very simple. the fbi does not told with sexual harassment or sexual misconduct within the ranks. the fbi has a robust disciplinary process guided by well established policies procedures and practices. it consists of trained special agents in the inspection division, integral investigations section who

conduct thorough investigations of employee misconduct. when the investigation is completed a team of experienced lawyers in the fbi's office of professional responsibility takeover. review and investigate materials and determine whether applicable policies, rules, regulations laws or other legal standards have been violated, and if so what penalties should be imposed on employees in question up to and including dismissal. in addition to the office of inspector general reveals all allegations of misconduct at the fbi prior to any investigation team initiated, and all final adjudications of misconduct at the fbi are reported on a regular basis to the oig. we are pleased that the office of inspector general found relatively few reported allegations of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in the department. law enforcement components for fiscal years 2009-2012. in fact the oig found that the fbi had the lowest rate of this

type of misconduct across the component. and while we strive to know cases of sexual harassment or misconduct, we have and we will continue to implement measures to better address these types of allegations. we are also pleased the oig's audit recognize that the fbi's coordination between our internal investigations section and our security division as a best practice to ensure that misconduct allegations are evaluated for potential security concerns, including continued eligibility to hold a security clearance. notwithstanding these findings there are improvements to be made. we must always look to improve, evolve as an organization. we appreciate the oig's recommendations for making our process better. as a result the fbi concurs with the recommendations in the oig's report. the fbi takes very strictly our obligation to enable congress and the oig to conduct effective

oversight of all of our activities. we were close with the oig staff to ensure that we are responsive to their requests him and the issues identified and promptly resolve. unit also be aware that we have a good-faith disagreement with the oig regarding what law requires with respect to providing fbi documents that have been obtained pursuant to provisions of law such as the wiretap act the bank secrecy act and those related to grand jury proceedings. we have been completely transparent with the oig and the leadership of the department of justice with respect to our legal disagreement and are presently awaiting the office of legal counsel to render an opinion as to the correct reading of the law. in the interim we are giving the oig and assumption of access to these come in these audits with respect to title three, rule six materials. senior leadership is also directed that our internal business process consulting

group rigorously evaluate our processes to ensure that we are as effective and efficient as possible in providing the inspector general with requested documents in a timely fashion and pursue it with the law. chairman chaffetz, ranking member cummings, and members of the committee i thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today concerning our commitment to ensuring allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct are addressed in a prompt thorough and equitable manner. we take our responsibilities on this topic very seriously and appreciate your interest in these matters. i am happy to answer any questions you have. >> not recognize myself for five minutes. mr. perkins, i totally disagree with your assessment being open and transparent and providing access to the inspector general. that is a topic we will continue to discuss today but i find your comments to be totally inconsistent with what the inspector general is telling us. we need to hash that out because one of the reason you are here today. but my question, want to focus

with the dea here for a moment. do you have any questions administered, as to the accuracy of the oig report is you don't question the eye could see of the report, do you? >> i don't question the accuracy speed so this included allegations and examples of dea's agents participating in so-called sex parties or local police were watching the equipment included a quote loud party incident involving one would consider bad judgment or allowing prostitutes and allowing those in close proximity of dea agents to actually be in these agents rooms and housing. you would then have a problem with his going away party that was involved at dea assistant

regional director at his residence? you wouldn't disagree then with the assessment that you have multiple accounts of landlords complained about the large loud parties and whatnot going in there. is it wrong for prostitutes to be in government housing? >> well, first of all it's deplorable behavior by those agents be dished but is it a violation of policy? >> absolutely a violation of policy. >> is it wrong to have a foreign national in close proximity to a dea agent gun personal effects, computer, smartphones does that pose any kind of security risks because of course it poses a security risk and that is why these are very serious allegations. >> did you get any investigation as to the age of the women involved? were they simply there for entertainment? >> the investigation although

10 years later the investigation -- >> don't, don't try to paint a picture that this is one incident 10 years ago. there's an incident, for instance in july 2009 for instance where the dea agents in bogotá was accused of physically assaulting a prostitute over a payment dispute, a security guard witnessed this agent throwing a glass and hitting the woman. this agent then claim that the woman had a seizure while she was in the bathroom and cut herself on a candlestick, later admitted that yes, he had engaged with a prostitute. and you know what the punishment for this person was? 14 days unpaid leave. go on vacation for two weeks. you can sit here and cry a pretty picture about how deplorable it is your actions suggest otherwise. because there was not the consequence that should have happened. this person is imposing a national security risk. engaging in behavior that is

it's embarrassing that we have to talk about this. it's an investment that you don't fire that person. it's it appears that that you don't revoke his security clearance. why can't you revoke their security clearance? what prohibit you from revoking a person security clearance? >> everything you said about the behavior i completely agree with. as far as the disciplinary penalties that were handed out in that case, i'm very disappointed in that. >> you are the administrator spent a system that is set up following civil service law i don't i don't fire. i can't -- >> can you revoke their security clearance? >> i can't revoke their security cleared. i can ensure that there's a mechanism -- >> why can't you? >> like it did after the cartagena incident, make sure there is a mechanism in place for the security, for security review, which resulted in those free agents having their

security clearances revoked, and they were -- >> here's the problem. here's the concern i have. high profile. it's involving beatty. everybody is reporting about the secret service engaging in prostitutes. you all get nervous about it and those people have to be disciplined but when it's quiet and nobody hears about it, and it comes across your desk and your senior staff can you show me another example where people were engaging in prostitution and creating these national security problems where you revoke their security clearances? that's what i want to see. in this case that's not what happened. that wasn't too long ago. you are not disputing any of the facts that showed up on the report. is there a statute of limitations? is there a limit that you can't reach further back? and yet you about this person who engages a prostitute, throws glass at her there's blood all over the place and they are still employed at the dea?

and you allow that. you are allowing that period i mean, did you try to fight in? if you try to revoke their security clearance? we need to change the law. what we need to do speak with well, you could look at an exemption like the fbi has because the current disciplinary process, myself and other directors of federal law enforcement agencies are not allowed to invoke ourselves in the disciplinary process. if we were exempted or if there was other legislation passed, that would allow that that would allow our our directors of federal law enforcement take action. the same thing that with a result like cartagena where they have done these deplorable activities that it is investigated and that the decision is made by the agencies without appeal rights to the

mspb see. so my concern is high profile take action. when it's not so high profile and there's a woman involved you don't take action and that's a concern but here what you are saying. last question because i have exceeded my time. if you are both from the fbi and the dea sincere about rooting out this problem and find solutions, then you need to allow the inspector general to look at the information. why do you continue to prohibit him from seeing that information? whitey hold it back? why not do all 45 search terms? why did you only do three? so i really have to question your sincerity by getting out in rooting out this problem if you don't even know the extent of the problem. you don't even know the extent of the cases because he won't even allow the inspector general and his staff to actually look at the cases that are there. you are limiting the inspector from doing their job.

which is to help you can't help us, help them, help the rest of the agencies. that, i need you to both explained and to me and then i will yield to the ranking member member. >> the, moving forward, because there's a number of things that i put in place after cartagena and you should know that the other incidents i learned about after cartagena, but they had already been through the system. will be put in place in cartagena, moving forward is the model for how we will handle -- >> is the model to impede the ability of the inspector general to look at information? >> i'm talking about -- >> i'm talking about the ig. why can't the ig look at this? >> and know that those cases when the first reported are reported immediately over to the oig. they had those cases back to us to handle it has management, as a management review. we felt that the behavior was so

outrageous they needed to be investigated. what we put in place speed but you went back and invested them and still came to the same conclusion that we would've come to the same conclusion. my time is far exceeded. but you gave them two to 10 days paid leave. you put them on vacation. you didn't take the display action. i've got to yield to the gentleman from maryland. we will go to pashtun now recognized for five minutes plus, very generous overtime if you need. >> thank you, mr. chairman ranking member. good morning to you all. you know, of course we all find the reports of sexual harassment and misconduct particularly icing the actions of the dea going back to 2001 extremely troubling. and the american people can understandably outraged over this. and particularly women. the ig report states unequipped

sexual-harassment sexual misconduct and sexual-harassment in the workplace also affect employee morale and hamper employees ability to have and maintain effective working relationships. mr. horowitz, can you explain of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct can impact employee morale? >> well, it has a significant debilitating effect on morale particularly when the individuals in the workplace try to report the information and see no results. and that's one of the things we highlight here that's particularly concerning wind, for example in three of the incidents we identified, in one of them we learned about it or it was reported speedy's and which agency is that? >> these are the three matters involving dea. one is reported in june 2010 through an anonymous letter. that's a that information gets

forwarded. at 2001-2004 defense that are referred to and reported as sex parties, those don't get reported until 2009-2010 when the corrupt law enforcement officers -- >> and what's the rational you were given as to why? >> because they were dealt with locally, viewed locally and did need to be reported and -- >> and with a dealt with? >> they were not and that was the concern with identified. and on the third incident we report that's said to the oig and dea by the state department. not through the dea. employees in the organization's not only need to know that the safe work environment and and a nonhostile work in private but they need to know he can come forward, report allegations and we taken seriously and that they will be addressed promptly. >> okay, thank you. ms. leonhart, you spoke about how your own outraged the law enforcement officer for 30

years. i completely understand that your i was raised by a new york city police officer who says every good cop -- because they make all the good cops, a completely tainted everyone else. but do you agree with the ig that sexual harassment negative impacts morale? have you seen in your agency? >> i know it has the potential to do that and that is why several directives reminders -- >> but i didn't ask you its potential to i asked you has it affected the morale. >> in the offices where the employees attempted to report misconduct and there was nothing that happened it was not reported up and investigated. i can imagine that those employees felt they lost faith in the agency. in a number of other cases however, where they are reported

up, they are investigated, the supervisors take immediate action, help the employee who has come forward with the complaints. i feel over my 35 years in dea a huge change more willingness to report, more willingness for supervisors to help the employee who came forward with it. and my job is to work on the disciplinary and to make sure that as these are reported, as they are thoroughly investigated, that the proper discipline is handed out. >> well, that's interesting that you say it's your job to deal with the discipline, because you just stated earlier to the chairman that you don't have any say over the discipline. so which one is it? you or don't you have say over the discipline of these individuals? >> i am not in the process for investigating, proposing, or

handing out discipline. what i can do is what i did a year ago. i sent out a directive to every dea employee and said here are the conduct issues i'm concerned about. they must be reported. they are not acceptable. this is not acceptable behavior, and about five or six different areas. innocent a strong message to the board of conduct and to the deciding officials that in these type of instances there should be severe discipline handed out. >> what would you consider severe discipline? >> i would consider what happened with the cartagena agents to be severe discipline. >> what about the agents who were given two to 10 days of paid leave? >> are not happy with it. i am not in the disciplinary process. i am very disappointed speed wait a minute. so you're not into spooner

process but you responsible for the discipline? >> i am responsible for the agency. so i am responsible to set up a mechanism, to send messages to our employees, to hold people accountable if they are not going come if they are going to conduct the misbehavior that they face significant discipline. and that is what i have done over the last couple of years, to send that message to make sure our employees number one report, report their allegations, and number two hold managers accountable for not reporting, and number three, make sure that we set of a process, have good opr inspectors. i was one at one time. do the investigations so that our disciplinary process our board of conduct that proposes and our deciding officials have all the information they need to be able to impose severe

discipline. >> don't you believe the morale of your agents and the good men and the women of the agency would have been better served and they would've believed that you really stood behind that if the information had been more fully and quickly forthcoming to the ig? how can you say that you are, you were not pleased with the discipline when you and your agency impeded the investigation of, at the ig level? >> the ig gave the investigation back to dea. >> but they give you the portion related to discipline the end end of the chip or not investing a systemic problem in the structure of your agency. >> no. they give us back the investigation and said that they would not take it. it looked like a management issue. we investigated as misconduct come and as we investigated it and we learned more and more by

anything a number of witnesses in the old polkadot case, the information -- bogotá case the information put together, the interviews, all of that was entered into the discipline system. and i'm very disappointed that our discipline system did not do what it needed to do and we have to fix it and i put mechanisms in place moving forward to make sure that that does not happen again. because i don't believe that that discipline that was sold out in those -- doled out in this case is that chairman chaffetz mentioned is even close to what it should be. >> i have run out of more than a generous time that you have given me, mr. chairman, ranking member, but it's my assessment that the discussion here and the actions are at a complete disconnect. >> thank the gentleman. now recognize mr. mica for five minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

let me ask, let me follow up on some of the questioning at stake in place as to whether it was a full investigation of this whole matter. you claim administrator, but there was a full investigation of the matter. all of these sexual harassment sexual assault issues that have been raised that were part of the inspector general to review. you claim, again just tell us, do you believe they were fully investigated? >> i believe that they were investigated. i have concerns about the completeness, thoroughness of a couple of the investigations. >> so then you agree with mr. horowitz, the oig that there was not a thorough investigation of all of the incidents?

>> i agree that some of the incidents were not fully investigated, fully investigated, yes. >> and that which are position two, and the assumption i have from your report, is that correct? >> that's correct spent that in itself racist great questions. when the inspector general says that these incidents were not fully investigated. so that to me is a big issue right there. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> i hate to do this to you. on march, i was just handed or 26 of this year you ms. leonhart, as the administrator, sent this e-mail out within your agency and you said these allegations were fully investigated by the dea office of professional responsibility. yield back. >> again, there seems to be a conflict between again that the chairman has just cited what we've had as a this testimony

and what the inspector general -- that being said and i have some questions too. you said you don't have the authority, but you took the authority post cartagena. it looks like before cartagena you've been there since 2010 is that right? >> that's correct. >> you didn't just arrive on the block. indeed see the conduct that took place in 2006 2008, the sex parties, all of these things that were going on. cartagena was what two years ago? >> 2012. >> three years ago. well, what's happened is you set up a culture within the agency that you get away with this, and you were there. you must have known some of this was going on. cartagena roddick to the press and our attention, to the size

and scope of what was going on. the thing that concerns me is that before that, some of the people got were involved, looks like if you attended a sex party one reporter, one agent was cleared of any wrongdoing seven of 10 agents ultimately attended the parties, engaging with prostitutes. so it looks like the penalty they got suspensions of a few days, and i think the most was like six days, up to that time. so that was sort of the standard operating procedure while you were there. until cartagena. that's the kind of penalty they were kidding, right? >> if i can explain -- penalty they were kidding, right? >> if i can explain pakistan, the first i heard of any of the

sex parties or the behavior that is described in the report was actually cartagena. when cartagena happened i became concerned system has this happened before and we went back and we took a look at where this activity had occurred, anybody had been disciplined for, and we found one bogotá case. >> well again we have instances and we have penalties, most of them only got minor penalties, and it was known that some of this had pose a great security risk. i guess drug folks were paying for some of this activity and they got anywhere is from four to six days. only a suspension 15 days or more is considered serious or adverse employment action. so those people went right on working at that time.

so what i'm saying is a culture existed while you were there up to cartagena, and there were no penalties but after cartagena he did, he took some action, some people were actually fired is that correct? >> yes that's the first case that came -- >> for different folks, members of the committee this is the same thing whether it's secret service, dea irs hud any agency. she doesn't have the right to summarily fire people. she has to go through a process, merit system protection the protections of title five, the federal act created by congress, and lets you change that law and give these people the ability to fire people summarily when they are found, you know in a proper process, at a speedy process to violate whether it's sexual assault, sexual harassment, you will have this continued, all these problems continue across

the scope of all of our civil service system to build would exempt from the understand his fbi. didn't get enough time to ask you how many people been fired but yield back. >> now recognize the ranking member unser mr. lynch, the gentleman from massachusetts who is the ranking member on national security. now recognize for five minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the ranking member for allowing me to go in his place. ms. leonhart, how do you hold people accountable if you are not able to discipline them? >> the system in place a three tiered system, there's the inspector speed you are not answering my question. basically, very briefly because i'll have a couple of minutes how do you hold people accountable when you cannot disciplined them when they do like okay, so we've got 15-26

parties, 15-20. we have all these allegations. all these agents admitted to prostitution, to soliciting prostitutes having sex with prostitutes. we don't know the ages because there's been nothing disclosed here. we have them taking weapons. we've got foreign individuals parts of terrorist groups complicit in this. we've got a national security at risk and you don't have the ability to discipline these people. you know, when i came to the thing i thought my problem was that we were not disciplining these people. i think the problem here, now after hearing you testify, even though you've said you were not happy even though you said you were very disappointed, this is

a prostitution ring. 15 -- they are using taxpayer money to solicit and pay for prostitutes, and your very disappointed. you are not happy. i think we are at different levels here. and i find completely vapid the statement we're not going to let this happen again. but when i don't think it will not do anything. we haven't, i think the problem now is with protecting these people. that's what's happening in your agency. you are protecting the people who solicit prostitutes, who of 15 to 26 parties went through this whole operation to use taxpayer money to do it and i believe compromise national security. and you are not happy. that's not what i would expect from her department but i really wouldn't. i work with da in afghanistan and those folks did a great job and i think this is, this is a

disgrace that the reputation and they were in some danger is a dangerous places in afghanistan, down and helmand province trying to do with the opium exportation there, doing heroic work. those are the dea agents that i know that worked hard and upheld the dignity of this country and worked with local families down there the farmers. just to try to protect them. i'm proud of those dea agents. they are doing wonderful work on behalf of our country. and this is, this is a blemish you know, this is disgraceful that they should be associated with this activity. so i actually feel your system is protecting these people. so there's these 15 or 20 sex parties and and by the way it

says here sexual harassment and misconduct. they should be such misconduct up front. that's what we are talking about here. this is a very serious issue and you've done nothing. you've done nothing. how about disclosure? if you can't even come if you can't prosecute them if you can't, if you can't bring justice to the situation, why are we stopping the inspector general from looking at this? why do the american people, why do they not have the names of these individuals? >> well we did provide the inspector general with the information so that he could do his review. as far as protecting them, i take great offense to that. >> you do. you do take offense that someone who runs a 15 to 20 prostitution parties, abusing abusing women,

gets a three day today one day, you are offended by that? you are offended by that? >> i am offended by the conduct. i am offended -- >> i don't see that though. >> i am offended by the behavior i'm trying to fix this system. i can't fire. i'm trying to fix a system -- >> how about just naming them? name and shame. how about that? there was some discipline, it's laughable. it's laughable but you did suspend some people with pay one guy got 10 days conduct unbecoming and poor judgment. it's just, do you know what i think? and i appreciate the gentleman's earlier comments about we've got to give you power. i don't think that's the answer i think that there's a mentality here that needs to be extricated extricated, root and branch, from the dea operation but i think we have to have an

independent agency that actually goes and that's not part of the good old boys network, that actually goes in and with sunlight with disclosure goes after these people who, like i said when i think of the dea agents and the job they are doing in afghanistan right today, today, trying to protect the homeland, you know, this is a real this is a disservice to those good agents. i will yield back the balance of my time. >> now recognize the gentleman from texas mr. farenthold for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. store which, mr. lynch really hit on something with respect to the good old boy culture. and this is my concern that i am seeing more and more of the good old boy culture as this committee continues its investigation. i think, we have seen with the dba six parties. we've seen with some of the things going on in the secret service admittedly, not subject to this period we see we see it in a lot of government agencies.

in your investigation, you get a sense that there is a good old boy mentality, that this is as bad as i think it is? >> it's interesting you use those words because this all our first review was of the google blog roundup events back in the early '90s. we did report in 1996 about the culture and the need to make it clear -- good old boy roundup -- what clearly is a permissible on and off today we're 20 years later and there's still no depart what policies or training training. >> you run the dea. do you think it's appropriate in your off time, even in the country where prostitution is illegal to engage prostitutes? >> absolutely not. and it is against dea policy. >> and how could any of your agents not know this? this strikes me as just common sense. we have a memo from eric holder

i'm admittedly not a fan of mr. holder but i mean he really, i can't believe there's even a need for a memo that says, assess it's not appropriate to hire prostitutes. i mean, let me read a couple of things from the memo. the solicitation of prostitution threatens the core mission of the department. not so but because it invites extra like methane leaks of sensitive or classified information but because it also undermines the departments efforts to eradicate the scourge of human trafficking. regardless and whether prostitution is legal or tolerated and soliciting prostitutes creates a greater demand for human trafficking victims and as a consequence increase in the number of minor and adult persons trafficked into commercial sex slavery. for this reason i want to reiterate to all department personnel, including attorneys and law enforcement officers that they prohibited from soliciting, or accepting commercial sex.

to me it seems ludicrous that we would even have to write a mental like this. it defies common sense to mr. perkins, what about the fbi? is anybody and yet by who thinks it's okay to go hire a prostitute? >> no, sir. we make a a very good to our employees both are domestically and overseas spent but the message we are getting with noses when they action or time off with pay tends to reinforce that. mr. horowitz is the congressional action that needs to be taken? do we need to change some of our laws to make it easier to fire people who proved to have engaged in this speaks well that's certainly something congress could look at is as noted the fbi certain authorities and the other three components do not. i will add one of the things that would help address these is that the oig to that they get reported as we showed to headquarters the figure reported to the a-wedge as they should, and that we get copies

of records that we need probably so that we can look at them probably. that would help as well and that takes no congressional action because you already have the law and the ig says that should occur but it is not occurring. >> so what do we do to fix that? somebody will have to be disciplined for not reporting if it's not just the rank-and-file men and women who are engaged in misconduct that needs discipline but it's their superiors that are covering it up and obstructing. is that not correct? >> it's sorting our view that if an employee fails to report to headquarters what the policy requires which all law enforcement agencies cases in the department, that's the policy, that is a violation of -- >> but we are also seeing, you want disclosure from the folks that you're investigating the we're starting see lots of redacted stuff in congress when the ig actually says the

identity needs to be withheld. in fact, had we wanted more information withheld we could have modified it on section 6103 of the taxpayer, of the irs code. i mean you are for full reporting but what's the excuse for not giving us more access in congress? does anybody want to field that? some of it is the ig, mr. horowitz. >> we certainly put forth on our website publicly and center covers everything we are about to put forth pursuant to the privacy act. we have not withheld material. >> i think we have a different interpretation but ici amount of time. >> if the gentleman will yield. ms. leonhart, will you agree to about inspector general to search all 45 -- you limited to three. >> yes. we don't have the search

capabilities that -- >> will you allow him full and unfettered access to review these records? >> we would be glad to run that search. we have problems in doing a search that many names. we found a different way to do it by running a fence code, but i, mr. horowitz and i have a very good working relationship, and if there's something that he wants he has not hesitated to pick up the phone and talk to me about it. and we will work it out. >> as she allowed you all to ask is that you will? >> i think the problem has been that frankly i've had to call too much. i shouldn't have to make those calls, frankly to the administrator to get access. the staff, my staff should have to spend four months going back and forth with the dea staff getting redacted version, being told they can't get things because of privacy issues when

we that is not a basis for a legal objection which the dea and the fbi ultimately conceded. i shouldn't have to be engaging at the highest levels of the fbi and the dea to get the axis that occurred to let me just put in say something here about two agencies that complied fully. batf and the u.s. marshals service got us the material immediately. we had no delays. what it took us four five i don't know how many months, to get from dea and atf we got in a matter of weeks from atf and the marshal service. >> i think you meant to say the and the fbi. >> i'm sorry, compared to atf and the marshal who fully cooperative with us. >> thank you very much. >> now recognize the ranking member for five minutes. >> thank you very much. ms. leonhart, do you think that you're the right person for this job? you know, i just intentionally wanted to yield some of the

testimony. i have a lot of concerns it seems like there's a culture that has developed here even the attorney general's letter where he has to say don't fraternize with prostitutes. hello. am i missing something? i mean i think that we are at an all time low here. don't you? >> as a dea agent and a female dea agent, for the past 35 years, i'm appalled of it over this as well and like the attorney general had to send a memo reminding people last friday, i had to send one last year to remind everyone and put everybody on notice. >> i only have a few minutes but i just, i'm very concerned mr. horowitz, your report, you make the following statement and i quote, we found the regional

director and acting assistant visual director and group supervisor failed to report to their chain of command repeated allegations of dea special agent, prostitutes frequenting a brothel in and overseas posting treaty obligations as local issues, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> so despite these facts none of these employees, regional director and the acting assistant regional director ever reported these allegations to the office of professional responsibility, or to you at the ig's office, is that right? >> that's correct. >> when these allegations by the came to light in 2012, your report says adequate the admission council the region director for them to report the allegations, is that right? >> that's correct. >> ms. leonhart, is that correct

did you personally counsel the region director? >> the regional director was first held by by the chief director perkins been counseled by the deputy administrator and then i counseled him as well. >> with that the only discipline he got somebody sitting there saying to you, you're supposed to do your job? >> yes. he was -- >> please. to me to tell me that was the discipline, do your job? that's not discipline, is it? come on. >> the regional director was not aware of any allegation until it was brought to light a year, a year after an incident. so i counseled him, so when i talk to him speak just tell me what you said very briefly. i only have a minute. >> i was concerned that he had warnings, that this person was

involved with prostitutes and i talked to him because if that was the case i would've been looking at significant discipline. it was not the case with india i even went and looked at the letters were sent. the letters were sent -- >> so what did he say? i wish i had a tape recording of that conversation. in 30 seconds, what was that? >> he said he was aware of it he was notified via the abc of what had happened to the embassy. it was the incident. he called the agent and. that was the first he knew this agent was involved in prostitutes. he told the agent you are out of here, you're going home. ..