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. ..

who was aware of these misconduct issues? >> are you talking about the bogota incident? >> no. i'm talking about, 2005 to 2009. >> that they were aware of? >> highest ranking person. >> probably a group supervisor. >> did you have, did you have power to discipline on the level

of the regional -- >> i candice minute the regional director. he is an sef. >> you could have fired him is that right? >> i couldn't, i couldn't fire him. you have to show misconduct for him to be fired. but, with what the law allows me to do with an ses, he was counseled. >> so you do feel he did something wrong? >> he failed to report it when he learned about it. >> and so you you failed to discipline him? other than counseling him? >> the discipline available to me appropriate discipline was to reprimand him. >> well, who came up with the suspension then? i'm confused. >> an ses, the discipline, there has to be misconduct. >> right. >> and the discipline has to be 15 days or more.

reporting it to an embassy and working it out locally with the embassy, rather than reporting to it opr would not raise to that level. the only time that happened with him, would not raise to the level to be misconduct. >> one more question. >> so i counseled him. >> the reporting now if he had reported it, he was supposed to report it to the office of professional responsibility, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> if he had reported it there was a possibility that the agent would lose, would lose their security clearance is that right? is that, mr. horowitz, do you know that? >> they certainly could lose their security clearance, if the process is followed through as it is supposed to be followed through. >> if they lost the security clearance, does that mean they lose their job. >> yes. like the three cartegna agents. if you lose your security

clearance you can not be a special agent. >> looking hindsight regional director, do you feel that he received appropriate discipline? >> he believe he made a mistake by not reporting it in. he took action, but it wasn't the right action. that is not happened with him in the past. he has done a number of things in colombia since that incident to insure this does not happen again. >> do you think there is a culture problem here? >> i believe there may have been a culture problem. >> may have been? may have been? when did it stop? >> years back. >> when did it stop? you said may have been, you're assuming i assume you have a date you think it stopped and i would love to know when it is, why you say that? >> when you see that these party, and what was happening in

2000 to 2004 by one group of agents in boeing at that, colombia, i think that is culture problem. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> i recognize mr. mulvaney from south carolina for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i'm curious to the answer because i'm very confused. you said some things today that i think strike me as being unusual and untrue and people watching at home don't understand it either. you say you can't fire people. why can't you fire people? everybody else can be fired. why can't you fire people that work under you? >> under the civil service laws, i can't intervene in the disciplinary process. that's why dea's process similar to some of the other agencies, is a three-tiered process. the administrator, the deputy administrator, management is not, can not intervene in the

disciplinary process. that is prohibited personnel practice. >> who can fire people when they commit misconduct egregious misconduct, like participating in cartel-funded prostitution? >> our deciding officials. >> who in your agency? ho is a deciding official? >> we have two deciding officials. they're senior dea 1811s with prior opr experience. they make all of the disciplinary decisions for the agency. >> are they senior to you or junior to you? >> they're junior to me. >> could you recommend that they fire somebody? you can't fire somebody but somebody junior to you can fire somebody, is that what you're telling us? >> my position as administrator under the civil service act we have to follow certain civil service protections. and so our system is set up that

the discipline is decided by these two senior people within dea. deciding officials who have -- >> senior people but not senior to you. i get that. let's say you wanted to fire these people. you saw some activity that merited somebody getting fired. by the way have you ever seen that since you worked there? does any of this conduct we talked about today in couple dozen sex parties in your mind merit dismissal? >> the activity that has been explained today, i believe not knowing all the facts not knowing -- >> how can you, i can't you let you off the hook police leonhart. how can you not possibly know all the facts. >> deciding facts officials look at, the douglas factors not knowing that piece only knowing what the behavior was and what the investigations show, i took

action last year to put the agency on notice that activity like that, and i named it, prostitution named four or five other things, required significant discipline. and that put our deciding officials and our board of conduct on notice. >> do you have any idea how absurd all of that sounds to an ordinary human being? >> i can see someone not knowing the civil service system and not understanding our system, would think that. >> let's assume, because i think i just asked you if you saw anything that merited somebody being dismissed. you didn't say yes which i assume means you meant no. assume for sake of discussion you saw something that merited dismissal, what would you do? >> i can't intervene in the process the way the law is set up. >> how do you start the process? >> what you can do is put the

agency on notice, like i did last year that will not be tolerated and that i, in writing, told the deciding officials and the board of conduct that these kinds of behaviors required significant discipline. >> mr. horowitz, mr. perkins, is it like this at the other agencies? does everybody deal with these arcane rules at other agencies? >> congressman i can't speak for the other agencies but for the fbi we are exempt from title 5 and civil service rules, regulations and statutes. director comey can and has summarily fired individuals. we have highly structured disciplinary process within the bureau, will, as you go through the process it raises it up to the appropriate levels for the appropriate level of punishment. there are occasions when the conduct is soing green just and director can intercede and

summarily dismissed somebody and has. >> mr. horowitz. >> my understanding that the fbi is unique in that regard as mr. perkins outlined and other three law enforcement components in the department have to follow title five rules and civil service rules. >> one last question, miss leonhart, and i will wrap up. is it true, miss leonhart, if you suggest a suspension longer than 14 days all the examples, i got paperwork couple dozen events, no one was ever suspended for 14 days, is it true if someone you recommend or get as suspension for 14 days a merit system protection board takes over investigation of handling that matter? >> not quite. if the deciding officials dole out discipline and it is more than 14 days suspension the employee can appeal it. when the employee appeals it goes to the merit system protection. >> who takes over the investigation of the matter when the merit system protection board gets involved?

>> no one takes over the investigation because the investigation is already been done. this is a very end of the disciplinary process. so, the dea deciding official can say, 30 days. >> but is that internal to you or external to you? >> the deciding official is internal. the mspb is external. >> thank the gentleman. >> i thank the chairman. ask both the chairman and the ranking member, this is just this is nuts. how we can't fix this i have no idea. clearly telling us she doesn't have the legal authority to do what everybody on this committee thinks she should have done. maybe we should try to figure out a way to fix that. >> i recognize the gentleman from california, mr. desaulnier for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. we'll say as new member of this body i keep thinking i've gone through the looking glass and i won't do it again. then you come to a hearing like this this just seems on the surface hard to believe and it

does bring a number of questions, including sort of the collateral consequences to drug dealers on the street and larger problems we have to face in this country when people see this kind of different type of administration of justice. so mr. horowitz, first question is what was different, do you think between atf and the u.s. marshal that your underlings mid management people were able to access the information you asked for so quickly as opposed to dea and the fbi? >> they have been fully croptive through our reviews. have not raised legal objections read the ig act and complied what we asked for. >> is it cultural thing? do you need more enforceability? >> certainly we don't have any enforceability at this point other than my testifying publicly raising it to -- >> doesn't seem to be sufficient in this instance. >> ultimately turns out to be in some instances but it's a

problem and it is repeated problem. >> miss leonhart so the individuals involved in these sex party, the rolex the accepting sophisticated weapons are they still employed? >> the majority are still on the job, yes. >> and it's hard to believe seems completely counter intuitive could go back to work with little as 10 day suspensions and be model agents. have you had to spend extra time overseeing their job performance? >> their supervisors there are special agents in charge, or their are high level bosses, are aware of the conduct. and with the exception of one we have not seen any misconduct since. >> do they have heightened supervision because of their past conduct? >> the reason that the supervisors are made aware of

what the conduct is so that they can put them in positions where they can have good supervision. >> so go back to the questions i asked mr. horowitz. can why is it it took so long get the information? why did it take so long for the ig to get the information from your underlings, didn't you feel at some point you were spending too much time on? didn't you admonish people underneath your command they should be more forth coming to the ig? >> well i knew early on there was disagreement or misunderstanding in a couple of areas. what the scope of the audit was that delayed it. what type of records they were looking for that delayed it. i wish i would have known about all of those delays and i could have done something more about it. but at the end of the day the reports did, did get to

mr. horowitz. and, with audits since he and i, would kind of have an agreement that if, someone is going to deny something to the ig, that it has to be raised up to my level right away so that he and i can discuss it. >> sitting here, seems like question of management that you have to spend this amount of resources in something such an egregious case? just seems misappropriation of taxpayer funds. so mr. horowitz, if the dea had at that time the same exemption that the fbi has would that be a more efficient response by congress in terms of making sure that the management tools are there? >> well, certainly in the personnel side and discipline side that would be something that could occur. frankly on access issues, getting records promptly, there's no reason why dea and fbi should not have done the same thing the marshals service and atf did. they didn't question scope of

audit. didn't raise concerns whether we could see names or see the facts or run search terms. they just did it. >> seems you're complicit in management problem. not just culture problem. with all due respect with years of service, we heard this from the ig, with respect to the secret service, you need someone from the outside. so how do i defend your performance? >> i think being a dea agent and being within the agency i can intervene in ways -- >> all evidence to the contrary with all due respect in this case. >> on this audit, i think there was misunderstandings misunderstandings of what the scope was as well as misunderstandings on this bogota case on this bogota case. not a closed case. >> excuse me. my time has expired, for me to go back and talk to somebody in poor section of my district or any of these members who have

people selling drugs how can you admonish and want to make laws tougher for us when you let the dea manage their own department this way is quite, it is counter intuitive with all due respect. i yield back what time i have. >> thank the gentleman. we'll now recognize the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. administrator leonhart, if an agent stateside were soliciting a prostitute that was provided by a drug conspiracy, he was investigating, what punishment would you recommend? >> i can't recommend a punishment. i would hope that would be thoroughly investigated and -- >> so, you're telling me nobody cares what the administrator of the dea thinks should happen to an agent? you're powerless to express your opinion? you have no first amendment right, when it comes to who works for your agency?

>> i have expressed my opinion in certain ways. >> what did you express? what did you think the proper sanction was. >> last year, i sent email and i sent a memo to every employee in dea and put them on notice that this kind of conduct -- >> my question, my question must have been ambiguous because i wasn't talking about future conduct. i was talking about past conduct. what punishment did you did you recommend for conduct that happened in the past? >> under the civil service law i can not recommend a penalty. i can't intervene in the disciplinary process. i can't even make a recommendation -- >> what does it take, what would it hypothetically, what would it take to get fired as a dea agent? because the agents i used to work with, worried about using their car to go pick up dry cleaning. they were using worried about

using ogf ogv to pick up dry cleaning. they were wore remembered about being disciplined. apparently that world has changed. do you know whether any of the prostitutes were under age? >> i don't know. >> would that impact whatever recommendation you might have in terms of a sanction? >> i don't recommend the sanctions. i cannot fire. i can't recommend a penalty. there is a guide that the deciding officials abide by and they have, they have a penalty guide that they look at. and the penalty guide for this kind of activity is anything from reprimand to removal. >> how about security clearance? do you have any impact over that, whether or not an agent has a scatter clearance? >> no. there is ajudicate tiff guidelines and that has to be ajudicated. >> honestly, what power do you have? you have to work with agents over whom you can't discipline and have no control and you have no control over the security

clearance, what the hell do you get to do? >> what i can do is build on and improve mechanisms to make sure that the outcome is what we believe the outcome should be. and that is what happened in cartegna. that is what is going to happen moving forward. >> inspector general horowitz i find that stunning. let me ask you this. do the agents know that the cartels were providing the prostitutes? >> what we found congressman from looking in the file was that they should have known given their they are trained law enforcement agents, and they were dealing with corrupt local law enforcement that was providing them with the prostitutes as well as the various gift. >> were they supposed to be investigating these cartels? >> they were. >> so they are receiving prostitutes from cartels that they are supposed to be

investigating? and she can't fire those agents? do you agree with her she can't fire them? >> i think as a matter of title v she can't directly intervene and fire them. i do think one of the concerns we outline in the report as to today. ea and the other three agencies is how they ajudicate these cases. they undercharge them in some instances and so, at dea, for example, sexual harrassment, if you're charged with that there is only one punishment, removal. but if you're charged with conduct unbecoming, or poor judgment which isn't even actually a category, then you have got a range of penalties. and so one of the issues, as you know as former prosecutor how you charge the case. and that has a consequence. >> well, mr. chairman, i don't

know what would need to be done but i like my friend from south carolina, find it stunning that you can solicit prostitutes -- administrator leonhart, do we know whether any of the prostitutes were underage? do we know whether any were part of human trafficking rings? >> because the bogota case happen ad decade ago there were no interviews of prostitutes. on the more recent one the cartegna one it did not identify an age for the prostitute involved. >> mr. chairman i would just find it impossible to explain to any reasonable-minded person how an agent can not be disciplined for soliciting prostitutes from drug cartels they were ostensibly investigating. i find that stunning. >> if the gentleman will yield if somebody murdered somebody, could you fire them? >> if someone murdered someone

there would be criminal charges and that is how they would be fired. >> but, if they were could you take away their security clearance? >> the office of security programs can rereview security clearances and take their clearances as they did with the three agents in the cartegna incident. >> gentleman for south carolina. >> gentleman yield for just a second. there is one thing you could actually fire somebody for which is sexual harrassment. see if i have that correct mr. horowitz mrs. leonhart. if i flirt with a coworker in the office and that constitutes sexual harrassment i can be fired but i can take an underage hooker from a cartel i'm investigating, and you can't fire me, is that what we're talking about here? >> actually congressman if you charge the offense removal is a possibility.

if you charge something less, conduct unbecoming or poor judgment you don't charge what actually occurred that is when the ability to discipline is limited. that is the concern we found as you know, in our report. >> thank you. thank the gentleman. both from south carolina. we'll now recognize the gentleman from california, mr. li e.u. for five minutes. >> i -- truck about the security risks from sex party. page 15 from the opr says the following. mr. corroborate tore two believed that mr. corroborate tore one gained information from the u.s. agents by getting their guard down, paying for parties. mr. corroboratetor one bragged about the. sold for agents to mr. corroboratetor two and could get agents to talk.

do you believe actually. >> there was no evidence that information was compromised. this behavior, bringing foreign nationals, bringing prostitutes to your glq, bringing them around other agents, all of those are security risks. >> doesn't the report itself provide evidence that you had agents in compromised positions, at least foreign officials believed that the agents were compromised and that they could get the agents to talk? did you, did you do -- how do you know that agents didn't say something, that maybe they should not have said or maybe disclosed some information they should not have?

>> reading the report, one of the concerns was that the agents got very close to these two corrupt colombian national police and that the colombian national police were providing prostitutes and gifts to get in the good graces of the agent. that is about the furthest that it goes. >> did you then do an investigation what information may or may not have been leaked? >> the opr investigation, because it was 10 years after the fact, did not did not identify any instances. in fact the agents were all out of country by the time it was investigated. but that, that -- >> it is possible that information was leaked or compromised? >> absolutely. that's a major concern. >> so let me focus on this discipline issue. when i served active duty in the air force and reserves as a jag

i dealt with the douglas factors and i understand some of the restrictions that you have because we're civil service system. the fbi is not under title five. dea agents like fpbi agents go under cover and they're law enforcement. any reason not to move dea out of title five? >> we would entertain any look at that any exemption could be given so that an administrator or director can take action and make sure that only the people with outstanding reputations and ethics, are employed by the agency. >> if deciding officials make decisions you don't like can you do anything with that decision? >> i can't do anything with the decision but i can do what i did last year and that is put on

notice for the entire workforce not any one particular case, put on notice for the entire workforce that behavior is unacceptable and that i ordered the deciding officials the board of conduct to consider significant discipline to include, up to, removal for behavior in these areas moving forward. >> now, even though there are civil service protections for, sort of the rank-and-file when something goes badly wrong and it is a climate issue a cultural issue what happens is leadership resigns or gets fired. so for example when in the air force when there was problems with some of the nuclear weapons we had even though the secretary of the air force at time chief of staff really didn't know about it, wasn't

aware be but because those things happened, they were both removed. secret it was their head is gone. do you believe the climate issue, if it's a climate issue do you believe then maybe instead of suggesting on rank-and-file maybe you need leadership change or removed? >> we have changed leadership. we have different set of leaders within dea now than we did a decade ago. and i believe that moving forward, with a better system to deal with discipline and moving forward with instead of looking at, what the discipline was in the past that was doled out to individuals who took part in this kind of behavior, the deciding officials and the board of conduct has the clear

ability now to, to, it is a reset. and they can look at the activity, and they can say this is the administrator said, this is deserves significant discipline. and they can take that kind of action. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. now recognize the gentleman from north carolina mr. walker, for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. miss leonhart, you said earlier today you do not dispute the report i believe is your exact words, yet a couple of times you mentioned this is an isolated incident. from what we've heard today, this has been sort of a spring break frat party mentality for the last 15 years. the ajudicatetive guidelines determining eligibility for classified information these are consideration whether or not someone is given a security clearance, is that correct? >> [inaudible] >> okay. part of the guidelines covers

conduct that reflects lack of judgment or a person's ability to protect classified information, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> are you aware of anyone who has ever been fired for breaching that? >> cartegna the three agents and we've had other agents throughout dea's history that have been fired. >> did you ever have a role someone losing their job because of the security breaches? >> cartegna. >> okay. soliciting prostitutes does that expose an agent to blackmail? weren't some of those agents married? >> i believe so. >> i believe really is to me a more potent question, two weeks ago we had largest human trafficking event in north carolina. brought mem 40 members of from agencies across the state. 83% of those girls were from 12 to 14. so my question is this. having gratuitous sex with an

underage prostitute first of all, how egregious it is to even use that despicable language, but second of all at what point does it become a security breach? you mentioned the word appalled several times. are you appalled about that. >> absolutely. >> how appalled do you have to be before you jump up and down and say this can't be tolerated? >> the first incident i had any dealings with this matter or this behavior was cartegna and i made sure the disciplinary system, there was coordination between the people that do the investigations and the people that do the security clearances. because i like you feel, it is outrageous behavior but there are security concerns. they have put themselves in danger. they have put other agents in danger. they have -- >> sure they have but there is no statute of limitations in our

own countries for having sex with 13, 14-year-old. why are you just telling me that was long ago but picking up at this point on we're -- i don't understand that. can you help me understand that? >> well, i will say the security clearances of all the people involved in the bogota incident, the person, the one person involved in 2009, those security clearances are currently underreview by the department of justice. >> do you have any concrete proof of the age of these prostitutes that, that the these men were involved with? have you done any research on that at all? is there any record that you have read? >> i have read the reports and there is nothing to indicate a name. >> so maybe nobody ever even asked that question? let me ask you something else. last friday, april 10th, the chairman referred to this a little earlier three days before this hearing the attorney general had to send out a memo

reminding law enforcement agents they are not to solicit prostitutes. are you familiar with that memo? >> yes, i am. >> the problem with it or else what? what happens? just reminder first of all the fact we have to remind the agents to be on your best behavior is ludicrous. the fact is, then what? evidently in the past hey, may take a couple days off or even unpaid for two weeks at most where is the or else in this? would you answer that question? what happens? the attorney general said it out, hey, guys leave the prostitutes alone. what else? what's the penalty? what's the concrete solution that has been clearly communicated? can you explain that or talk about that? >> we're working within our system in the same way the attorney general put the entire department of justice on notice, i a year ago last year, put the entire dea workforce on notice

that this type of behavior was not to be tolerated and there would be significant discipline. >> you know, i have three children and i tell them, talk about sometimes, not to do that. but unless the consequences are very clearly communicated i don't have a shot they change the behavior. last question and i will yield back. if you had a chance going back would you be so appalled you would do some things different handling these matters? >> without a doubt. >> thank you yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, miss norton. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i don't know how to describe what we've seen here. boys going wild, out of sight out of signed e mind, what we do know and what most concerns me, is how these prostitutes were funded. we are looks like we have implicated taxpayer funds that some may have come out of official funds and some out of

cartel funds. hard for me to know which is worse. but, it does seem pretty clear that, we may be dealing, to be sure with a cultural problem but with a cultural problem that is so deep that it is now a problem of corruption. and, i say that, because i'm looking at some of the excerpts from the report where apparently there were corroborating witnesses. some of this is so eye-popping i will have to ask you what is your response? i'm not going to ask you about why you don't fire people because i do understand that when a when the state that is the united states or any of its agents is an actor then due process of course requires you to go through certain processes. after all the processes were put there by the congress of the united states. so i'm going to ask you whether

about some things that perhaps you could do. this corroborating witness stated, he recalled that the asac that is the assistant special agent in charge i believe his farewell party in 2003 and 2004 where part of the money requested from operational budget, those are the operative terms, operational budget, was used for his party. he stated that, his party was organized by the assistant special agent in charge and that he paid 500,000 pesos. that is approximately $261 for each prostitute with funds from an operational budget. now i want to try to identify what that means. what is the purpose, miss

leonhart, of an operational budget? is it taxpayer funds? >> what i believe that refers to is money is given to the colombian national police to pay for their operations that they're doing in collaboration with us. >> so it is given taxpayer funds are given to them. so what we're talking about funds, that were paid, not by the, in this case, out of the operational budget it looks like by, agents? who is responsible for accounting for these funds in the regional office? >> the regional director would be responsible for that. >> now if that is the case, since of course, you have indicated, and i understand why you can't precipitously fire someone if this were the private

sector if this state were an agent, would the funds continue to be under the same supervision, if you had, having this kind of information? as it was before? >> the bogota incident you're talking -- >> i am. >> was three regional directors ago. and the way that dea operates with the colombian national police in these special units has completely changed since -- >> i didn't ask you that. i'm asking how the operational now how is the operational budget dealt with? in other words now it is not in control of the agents themselves, to pass out this money to bogota or anybody else? is it controlled from your office? >> no. the funds by the dea bogota office that go to colombian national police for operations are now audited.

they require receipts. the 2000-2003 time frame was at the beginning stages of these units. >> well, according to this cooperating witness the again word operational operational budget, were presented to the dea and it was additional information here, i want to quote, for additional funds. apparently not enough funds were in the operational budget, for additional funds which were used for prostitution and parties for agents. are you aware of that allegation, that they didn't have enough so they went back and got some more funds? >> i'm aware that the corrupt national police officers who ended up being indicted by dea and convicted, that, what they were talking about is padding their operational requests that went to dea. >> yeah.

>> to get additional money. >> in other words fraudulent budgets? >> yes. on behalf of the colombian national police. >> you can't wipe, you can't wash the hands of the office -- look, this is cooperating witness here, who stated that the operational budgets were presented to the dea to cover operational expenses. so it doesn't seem to me you can wash your hands of that at the dea or they could have washed their hands of that. has someone looked back at how these funds were expended during this period so that you can now lay out exactly what happened during this period? part of the problem here, the frustration i think of the committee, it has taken so long, because you had no policy to go up the chain of command. so you can tell me this was 2003 and 2004. if i was there i would want to know exactly what happened then,

to make sure it wasn't happening now. >> one part of the investigation was to go through an audit and do just that. >> from that period? >> yeah, to look at the books from that period of time. >> because we understand, again from one of these cooperating witnesses he could obtain, this is a quote prostitutes from the agents dea bogota office. this is what the cooperating witness said. woe pay the girls to come to the parties and then the agents would pay the girls directly for any sex they wanted. he recalled getting prostitutes that were at least for 15 to 20 parties. why did the dea agents, in colombia, had to crack down on the agents on the cartels who were given funds to pay for these parties? >> gentlewoman's time has

expired but the gentlewoman can answer. >> that is the problem with this. the corrupt police were getting mon from traffickers. they were on their payroll and using that money for the prostitutes. >> thank the gentlewoman. we'll now recognize the gentleman from georgia mr. hice for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. in your report you noted during the interview, some in your office staff were evidently told that some dea employees were under the impression, at least, that they were not to discuss information regarding open cases. do you know who provided that information? >> we don't know who told them that information. but that is in fact what we were told. >> all right. so did you ever determine whether or not the dea staff in fact someone communicated that information? >> we didn't determine

definitely whether it occurred. we believe it did occur given we were told that by several individuals. >> so you were told by several individuals? that was not an isolated incident. so you did not investigate further? >> we did not. >> okay. miss leonhart, did your office ever give information instructions to that effect? >> no, my office didn't and when the report i saw the draft asking the office of professional responsibility and inspections about that, they said that there was a miscommunication. they were, they were under the belief that closed cases were not a part of what mr. horowitz's audit would cover. >> there was obvious confusion. did you yourself, at anytime, ever give instruction to anyone to ever withhold information. >> absolutely not.

>> did anyone in your staff? >> no -- >> how do you know? >> because we weren't involved in the process. >> then you can't definitely say no one did it if you weren't involved in the process. i mean obviously there were reports, there was testimony given to mr. horowitz's team, that your employees were instructed not to give information. >> the inspectors that were interviewed received instructions from opr and the office of inspections. there's, i have no information about what information was relayed to them other than, it was relayed -- >> so you don't know, is the bottom line? you don't know if that information was relayed or not. let me, miss leonhart, you're all over the board today. you say you can't fire anyone and, that you didn't have all the facts yet you send information that this behavior

is not going to be tolerated. is absolutely all over the board. you have junior officers who evidently can fire but you can not fire. do you have any authority over them? can you fire those junior officers? >> if they are not doing their job, they can be replaced and that is done by -- >> did they do their job but not disciplining appropriately in this situation? >> i'm disappointed in the discipline. i think that it's not enough. >> so why were those junior officers not replaced? >> again i can't interfere with the disciplinary process but i can make sure through our career board, replacements or people coming up to take those positions to take those positions are of -- >> do you or do you not have any

authority over junior officers? >> i don't have the authority to intervene in the disciplinary process. >> all right. a moment ago you would said you would act differently if you had this to do all over again. why in the world would you say that? seems you made it clear today that your hands are tied, that you can do nothing? i'm really having a difficult time understanding, it appears to me no one listens to you quite frankly. you write a letter saying this behavior is not going to be tolerated and yet you have no influence as to whether that behavior is going to be tolerated or not. did anyone listen to you when you wrote that letter? >> yes the entire workforce listened to me. and in fact, like me -- >> why would they listen to you if you have no influence whatsoever on the disciplinary process -- miss leonhart, you say you're in charge of discipline on one hand.

then you come back you say you have nothing to do with discipline. you're in charge of the entire agency. then you come back and say you have nothing to do with correcting problems. quite honestly i have serious questions as to your competence, quite frankly and it appears to me that we need to seriously consider new leadership at the dea. and i yield back the balance of my time. >> before the gentleman yields back i would like to give mr. horowitz the opportunity to respond to the questions mr. hice asked earlier. if you could address that directly mr. horowitz. >> sure certainly. with regard to the production of information and in answering questions, again the frustration we had with both the fbi and dea, during this process was we kept having to go back and ask for more, once we learned what we didn't, weren't told originally. that was the case with regard to documents. we got redacted information. we had to, i had to elevate it, in both instances, months after this all started with regard to

the interviews, we learned later in the process, that certain individuals at dea, that we had interviewed hadn't told us about an open case because of their understanding that they shouldn't talk about an open case. we found out that when we did get productions from both the fbi and the dea that they didn't give us everything. we only learned that because they went back and checked our own records to compare and see if we had everything that, that they provided us with everything that we already had. we thought they had even more than we had, which is why he went to them in the first instance for the information but then we found out that the production was incomplete. we then had to go back and ask for a further review and then after we did the draft report, we found out that the dea hadn't run all the search terms we had done, without telling us that they had made that decision on their own. so we had multiple instances where that occurred. it delayed our report.

i can assure you it frustrated the good, hard-working folks in my office, who spent months just trying to get information. i will go back to what i said earlier, the atf the u.s. marshal's service asked made the same requests of them. we got the material. we got it fast. we never thought we didn't get from them what were entitled to. it should have happened across the board and should be happening across the board in all instance. >> appreciate it. recognize the gentleman from virginia mr. connolly, for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. >> mr. horowitz, the ig report we're discussing today would seem to suggest that dea's tolerance level for prostitution depends on the local culture in which the what we would call offense occurs. for example your report says that the dea inspector told us that prostitution is considered

a part of the local culture and is tolerated in certain areas called, tolerance zones. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> miss leonhart, does the dea recognize that prostitution is embedded in certain local cultures and by implication therefore tolerable? and that you recognize the agency, the agency recognizes tolerance zones of prostitution? >> no. what i believe the inspector was talking about in colombia there are certain tolerance zones for prostitution. it doesn't matter with the deea. the partaking in that kind of behavior is against all dea policies. it's not doesn't matter if it is legal in particular country. it doesn't matter if it's legal in a particular area of a city. it doesn't matter. they're not to take part in that type of behavior.

>> so it's always wrong in terms of your policy, no matter where, no matter when, no matter what the circumstances? >> that's correct. >> that's an explicit policy? >> it's, you find it in our personnel manuel. you find it -- >> does is there a chapter called, thou shalt not? >> basically. it is very clear. >> okay. mr. horowitz, did you confirm that? >> well certainly that wasn't the case back during the course of the years that we were reviewed that's the problems we identified here. >> it was not case? >> certainly not the culture and certainly not the understanding based on the interviews we conducted. >> i'm going to get to that but did you find an explicit policy in their personnel manuels human resource policy, that explicitly barred such illicit activity? >> it did not, at that time, it does now.

and in light of both the administrators mow and the attorney general's memo. >> so miss leonhart, when you said to me now that is violation of our existing policy you meant the new existing policy, is that correct? >> the new existing policy, but it existed in our personnel manuel in a couple of different sections. one about you can not have a relationship with someone involved in illegal activity. you can't do anything -- >> wait, wait, wait. you just said to me, that the tolerance zones referred to colombia, not to dea designating tolerance zones. in which prostitution, in fact was legal. you just cited something that refers to illegal. but if you go to colombia, it is not illegal in certain parts of the country. and, did your policy therefore in a sense open the door for

what we would consider in most of the united states illegal activity that was not prohibited in the host country? >> what we find, found with the cartegna case was, our policies didn't specifically say, you can not partake in prostitution. but we had different sections in our personnel manuel, different sections in our standards of conduct, that the every agent in the agency signs one year as acknowledges. dea personnel are prohibited from engaging in nye criminal, infamous dishonest or notoriously disgraceful conduct or other conduct prejudicial to dea, doj, or the government of the united states. >> well apparently some of your agents when they went to cartegna thought prostitution was not included in that litany. >> no dea agent thought that

prostitution was okay. >> hmmm. well i don't think that is what the inspector general found. let me read to you further from the report. according to the inspector, it is common for prostitutes to be present at business meetings involving cartel members and foreign officers. the dea inspector also stated that the acceptability of this type of behavior affects the way in which federal law enforcement employees conduct themselves in a particular country. so, what you just read to us, not withstanding, the practice seems to be, very much contingent upon local acceptable practices. and we're influenced by that your policy not withstanding. would that be fair to say? >> i would say every dea agent knows to include going back to

the 2000 to 2004, in that period of time, knows that partaking in that kind of activity is against dea policy. when cartegna happened, and we reviewed all of our policies just to make sure, we decided to strengthen them and to put wording in about prostitution specifically just so that, to put everybody on notice to make sure it was clear. our policies were not as clear. they did not specifically say prostitution but there are three or four different places in our standards of conduct where you could point to that and say, that's a violation of standards of conduct. >> would the chairman allow me one more question? i just have one more question if the chair would indulge? thank you mr. chairman. mr. perkins, the report talks about fbi providing employees with extensive predeployment

training regarding conduct abroad and has done the most to prepare its employees to make day-to-day decisions unlike apparently dea or even the secret service. can you comment on that? does your training program in terms of deployment overseas explicitly deal wish shoes like prostitution -- with issues like prostitution and dishonor it brings on the united states if employees engage in that activity? >> yes congressman, it covers issues of personal security of individuals going overseas to standards of conduct we would expect them to exhibit while they're overseas. a good bit of this began under former director louis freeh as we began to expand our overseas presence with the wars in iraq and afghanistan. we had a significant significant presence overseas at that time, which required that, yet, again additional training

added to that as our overseas presence remains high we see great benefit in maintaining that type of predeployment training for these individuals. >> and final point on training, miss leonhart, does dea have a program similar to the fbi in terms of predeployment training? >> yes we do. it is auld the foreign orientation program and in may of 2012, we started we were handing out state department cable prohibiting prostitution, even if it's legal in a country. we also added extra slides to a presentation that our opr gives to all the employees and their spouses before they head overseas. and that includes information about prostitution information about security clearances, so they are informed before they go

overseas. >> okay. thank you. my time is up. mr. chairman i just, would like to pursue with you at some point this whole issue of training because i think that has a great bearing on what as allowed to happen. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. now recognize the gentleman from north carolina mr. meadows, for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. miss leonhart, you've been with dea for how many years? >> 35. >> 35 years and, as i understand it about five years as, in your current position? >> since 2010. >> since 2010. >> so you take this very seriously, being part of law enforcement? i enjoy a great relationship with law enforcement back home. and, in the standards of which they, they take and so standards that are violated by some within our ranks really paint a very bad picture for the rest who

serve diligently, wouldn't you agree with that? >> yes. these are you know, a few compared to the 4600 agents that work for dea. very proud of our agency and this hits us hard. >> well, and it should hit you hard. it sounds like, that you know, you keep saying you're appalled and you just can't believe this kind of behavior but my concern is in 1994 there was a gao report outlined, you were there at that particular time that outlined sexual misconduct within the agency. . .

every company every organization has the people that are going to follow the rules, and to see what happened back in 2000-2003 in colombia, to see what happened in 2009 with the incident with the agent in oka.com and then to see cartagena, this is our opportunity to make sure that culture, if there was one that existed, that there's no doubt that employees know that this is unacceptable, and see what will happen to them. that is why firing the three

employees, agents after cartagena sets the tone for what happens from here on. >> well, it might if it wasn't reinforced in other ways. let me tell you you keep coming back to cartagena because it really may be the only time that there have been people that have actually been disciplined for improper conduct wouldn't you agree? you keep running back to this as a good example, but yet your directives didn't come out until two years after that event. you are bragging about your directive that you set out. didn't that go out in 2014? >> yes, it went out of -- >> so why if you're concerned about the culture wouldn't it have gone out immediately after the event or is it just that the press has started to report this as a problem and now it's a problem for you? >> no. actually we have discussion the

executive staff on what things we should put in place. and we started putting things in place in 2012 after the discovery of what happened in cartagena. >> is it your testimony it took you two years to figure out what to put in a directive, is that your testimony today? >> no. actually we drafted that back after a working group got together to decide what steps do we immediately put in place. we drafted that, and on the heels of the cartagena case being able to show kids what happens if you partake in this behavior we have a case, disciplinary case finalized. we went out with a series of things. that memo we had already put additional training every basic agent training, every intel analyst training -- >> i'm running out of time so let me do this one follow-up because i have reason to believe that some of the people that

today you are saying made, should it then fired but you didn't give a directive but i have reason to believe that some of them have actually gotten promotions have gotten bonuses and have gotten new assignments. would you agree with that? >> i know that i know a number of them were promoted between activity in 2000 and when it came to light in 2010. i can tell you that since the allegations were raised and investigated and there have been no promotions. >> how about bonuses? i have reason to believe that the were bonuses that were given. i'm sure you just looked into all of this. where their bonuses given to some of those folks. >> i know there were bonuses given to the regional director. i don't know about bonuses -- i don't know about --

>> so some bonuses were given to people who were directly involved in this particular thing that most americans aren't offensive, yes or no? >> no. the regional director of -- >> you said you did know so how would know? >> the regional director that got bonuses was not directly involved in this. i don't know as to the other employees. >> so is a possible they got bonuses? >> it's very possible. >> it's very possible because our into would say that it is. i appreciate the patience of the chair. if you would give without means because obviously that is critical, would you agree today to give the names and the number of people involved in this to the oig to the report back to this committee on how many of those people got bonuses? would you agree to do that? because i find that that's reinforcing a bad behavior if they are getting bonuses.

would you do that? would you agree to that? >> i will work with the department who is going to be giving you additional information here shortly to see about adding that in. >> so we can get bonus information just to see these people got involved in this got bonuses. you can redact the names. i just want to know the number of them. >> so i will discuss it with the department and -- >> is that a no? you're the administrator. you can make the decision. are you going to give it to us or not? >> if i'm able to give it to you, you will get it. >> mr. chairman -- >> will the gentleman you? >> yes. >> we're asking you to provide the information to the inspector general. will you or would you not do that? >> if it was up to me to give it to you -- >> you are the administrator. you are the administrator. who do you have to ask? who do you report to? >> the documents that are going to your committee --

>> we're asking you to give them to the inspector general. >> if the inspector general wants that, we will give it. >> does the inspector general want that information? >> i would be happy to take that information to look into the issue. >> will be inspector general report out to this committee about these particular individuals? as suggested the more senior person wasn't directly involved was involved, was he not? >> he was not involved in the activities. >> did he properly report up the chain of command? >> he didn't report it to the right place. >> okay. so he was involved in a. he may not have been naked having sex in his apartment like everybody else was but he was involved correct? >> he failed to report to opr. >> that person should be included in the information that you give regarding bonuses and promotions. and would also add to their promotion title changes?

bonuses, title changes, promotions. is that fair? looking for a yes year from the administrator. >> we will work to do to the information. >> is that a yes or no? >> yes, we will get you that information. >> thank you. does the gentleman have any other -- >> i thank the chair for their patients. i yield back. >> did you want to add something, mr. horowitz? now recognize the gentleman from wisconsin who is now recognize for five minutes. >> one of the things that's a little bit frustrating about this hearing, and i apologize, i feel a little sorry for you can is that you've expressed concerns about some of the civil service protections. people back home understand civil service protections are very important because if we did

have civil service protection you would wind up in agency like the irs or something firing anybody who wasn't on the right side politically. nevertheless you have expressed frustration entity believe some of the people who are expressing the greatest anger at you to are the one who expressed anger at you may be the first to fight any change in the civil service laws. but could you give us some suggestions that you may have to make it easier to remove an employee who is is misbehaving -- one thing i will say, we have a situation with people. just behaving in outrageous conduct. you know late night talk show host, you wouldn't believe but it really happened apparently. so things that are obviously wrong, it makes me wonder what's wrong.

it's their job or where it's more subjected. could you give me any suggestions pertaining changes to the civil service law? >> if you look at giving us the same exception as the fbi i think that we then would be able to make sure that the penalties were appropriate. >> and what would you think an appropriate penalty is for this behavior is? >> i think this is outrageous behavior and that knowing the facts of the case as i do without having to be concerned with the appeal rights and being able to sustain it in a merit systems protection board, i believe that some of the behavior would race to the level of removal. >> you mean they should be fired speak was just like cartagena yes. >> okay.

just because you kind of danced around, could you describe to the public today why you feel this behavior was wrong so i get a sense of? why is this bad behavior? can you explain in your own mind? >> partaking, it's wrong on a number of levels. start with prostitution itself. you know human trafficking is like the second highest illegal market decide drug trafficking. look at all the efforts the government has been putting into especially in recent years to go after the human trafficking threat. that's number one. number two it is so far away from the type of conduct and ethical behavior that is

required of someone to carry a badge as a federal agent, that those are the reasons. and the security clearance issues the security, putting people and our information at risk are all reasons that i this is appalling. >> it is appalling. when i read his stuff, is the right some of the establishment establishment brought to detention the attention or were you aware by colombian authorities? they were aware of is spent actually by colombian authorities by the time this was discovered on the corruption of the police officers the colombian national police did a great job in helping us convicted them and also they removed a number of colombian national police officers who were involved in the same activity. >> okay.

i will ask the same question to mr. horowitz. could you comment on how you feel we should change -- still keeping protections but change things a little bit so we maybe had a little, not just outrageous conduct but even competent conduct out of the bea? >> well, within the current structure there needs to be prompt reporting, prompt investigating, prompted disciplinary action and follow through. that's within the current structure, that can be done. you mentioned the colombian national example. those events that were learned about from the colombian national officers who were corrupt and disclose the information related to the 2001-2004 events, all of the dea officials involved in those events down in columbia said

nothing about it. it was learned eight years six seven, eight years later when corrupt colombian national officers disclosed it. that's a problem a serious problem but no one thought that that was reportable to headquarters and that there needed to be follow through. whether it's the current system, frankly, whether it's under an fbi regime. that was the fundamental flaw. no one thought it was important enough or serious enough to grace to headquarters. >> it's good that the colombian people had little higher standards, the right speak with these with the corrupt officers. that they felt it was wrong and once they of course got arrested, they were more than happy to come in and report out on what had occurred. >> thank you. >> now recognize the gentleman from alabama mr. palmer, for

five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. leonhart is there any post policy against turning over dea weapons or communication devices to foreign agents or any non-dea or non-u.s. official? >> if i hear you right you were asking about prohibition on turning over a device? >> not having immediate supervision of the weapons and devices that belong to an agent. >> well, number one securing your weapon that's required. >> i'm not asking you about that. i'm asking you, is there any policy at the dea that would result in any kind of reprimand or punishment for not having immediate supervision of your

weapons and communication devices? that is a yes or a no. >> it could fall under -- >> no. yes or no. you either have a penalty for not securing your weapon and georgia communications device because there are things in those communication device that could be used against other agents or against this country. >> it could fall under poor judgment. there's a number of areas that policies -- >> poor judgment has already been pointed out, poor judgment is not one of the official criteria. and what happened here you talked about these corrupt police officers. is it true that the same officers who helped facilitate these parties may have helped pay for the prostitutes supervised, had control of the agents weapons and mutation devices, possibly their security their badges is the

also the case of? >> part of the report is that while some of the agents were involved in that activity -- >> it's a yes or a no. >> yes. >> okay. as egregious as the activities the agents were involved in in many respects crimes against humanity because the age of these girls could you not find a reason to reprimand or fire agents for turning over their weapons and their communication devices to foreign nationals? i mean, for crying out loud china is investing in south american, latin america. they will spend another 250 billion over the next 10 years down there. did it not occur to anyone that this might also be a national security breach or a problem all along that line? >> someone doing a security adjudication could look at that

and find that those are reasons why a security clerics should be suspended and revoked. >> were they for any of these people? >> for the bogotá case, their clearances were never looked at. >> let me ask you this and mr. chairman, you brought this up. who is your immediate supervisor? who do you report to? who has the authority to hold you accountable for the oversight of the dea? >> the deputy attorney general. >> okay. have you discussed this with the deputy attorney general and how to proceed with this? >> i briefed the deputy attorney general on these cases -- >> did he make recommendations about how to proceed? >> yes. the security clearances are currently being reviewed by speed i want to ask you something more specific. did the deputy attorney general express any reservations about how the dea has handled this? and in the discussions, were

there any discussions about how to respond to the request and inspector general's office, office of the inspector general? >> i've had multiple conversations with their office on documents, turning over documents to the oig and they have given us good guidance on that span so they give you good guidance, so that means they approve not turning over the documents that inspector general requesting? >> no. actually we didn't know, we were worried about the victim, victim's names and how to handle that period. >> mr. horowitz you have said that there've been numerous instances where the fbi has -- you mentioned it about when you were here in january, you spoke of agency, particularly the fbi and others dealing production of material. i asked you then did this rise

to obstruction. you said it had a significant impact on reviews but fail to go as far as calling it a obstruction to i want to ask you again. are you willing to call it up structure and now? >> waterbird back in 2013 when we were given -- what occurred back in 2013 when we are given documents indeed our ability to move forward with this investigation in a time and manner. and it took months and it required me to elevate it to the leadership of both agencies and it was when i elevated that we got the reaction. but i didn't have to do that with atf and the marshals service. and i shouldn't have to do that. i'm still having to that. >> i'm not trying to put you on the spot but it appears to me you have been obstructed. >> i think in this instance we were obstructed. >> is there still information you would like to get from the

dea? >> i think at this point we made a decision to simply move forward and issue the report even with concerns about the fbi and dea's productions because this is so important to put forward and, frankly at this point we've got other reports to do and get to but we saw the same issues on. >> is there additional information to like to? >> on this issue, no. on others yes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman. now recognize that children from massachusetts, mr. lynch. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'm not sure if the memo from attorney general holder has been admitted into of us evidence but in case it hasn't which is -- >> without objection, so ordered. >> okay, great. ms. leonhart and mr. horowitz, in the attorney general's memo, are all department personnel dated april 10, 2015 subject

prohibition on solicitation of prostitution. it says that solicitation of prostitutes creates a greater demand for human trafficking victims and a consequent increase in number of miners and adult persons trafficked into commercial sex slavery. do you agree with that? do you agree with that assessment? >> i certainly think it raises the risks. >> i certainly do. >> and also under the department of homeland security regulations and a couple of the statutes we have what we're talking about here is solicitation of prostitutes for 15 15 to 21st at its codefendant definition of human trafficking, and yet the dea is actually charged, i know that mr. farenthold and myself

and mr. issa were down in central america recently, and that's a big part of the epa's mission is really to combat human trafficking. would actually give grants to the department, to the dea into the fbi and the state department as part of the trafficking victims protection act and the violence against women act. we give grants to your agency to prevent human trafficking prevent prostitution. and get the very people, and their departments that are getting this money come in this case, are engaging in human trafficking. and it just brings me, you know back to the unbeliever ability of what has happened here -- and believability. it is really unbelievable. under the douglas factors that we use in determining

discipline, one of the factors is the seriousness of the offense and whether the offense is in direct violation of the agency policy. and the notoriety of the offense, and whether that offense prohibits that individual from doing their job. so in this case we have dea agents that are still on the job, that are receiving federal grants to stop trafficking who have already engaged in an admitted to trafficking. and i don't see the end of this. i don't see the end of this if we leave the situation the way it is. and so ms. leonhart, you know i wouldn't believe this would be necessary but we may need to

amend title v. we may have to put in a provision that says that that holds you accountable. because right now you could pass it off to someone below you. you don't have to accept responsibility, and you have it and that's clear. but if we adopted an amendment to title v that said outrageous and/or criminal conduct in direct violation of an agency admission would give you the ability to fire somebody, that would solve this i think in part. and also the failure to report, because that's where this started where the managers at the lower level did not report did not take this up the chain of command. and so we need to hold them accountable, too, and there should be a provision that says refusal or failure to report an offense like this will give the agency in the government the

ability to clawback pensions clawback salary that was accepted by those individuals who were violating the law. it's a shame we have to get to this but, you know i actually think that may be where we are at right now. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you gentlemen. i'm going to recognize myself. i do have a series of questions as we wrap up. administrator leonhart he became them you try to paint a picture of a decade ago, i heard you say multiple times, 10 years ago. once you become the deputy administrator -- when did you become the deputy administrators? i was confirmed in march 2004. >> how many deputies are there deputy administrators are there? >> there is one. >> so you were the sole deputy administrator. and he became the acting administrator. when was that? >> 2007. >> and you'll confirmed in --

>> 2010. >> it's safe to say you've had your finger on the pulse of this department or the agency for more than a decade, correct? you have been at their 35 years, correct? >> there is the deputy or the acting administrator or administrator, yes, since 2004. >> one of the things that you said that is troubling, and a long list and was brought up by mr. lynch, is the idea that and it was in response to some of the gentleman over asked a question about those that were directly involved. i want you too seriously consider, i want all these departments and agencies too seriously consider, in my mind they are directly involved if they failed to report. you may not have been the person who was directly fully engaged in the inappropriate behavior, but once you know about it you have a responsibility to deal

with it under the department, correct? >> that's correct. >> when you suggest they were not directly involved, that offers me great concern to do you understand that? >> i do understand that. i was, i was just making the point that it wasn't involved in the behavior. he failed to report and that's what his shortcomings were. >> part of the important behavior is covering it up. -- aboard behavior. that's the concern. that's what it. that's what her district is covering it up by not reporting it up the chain because as mr. horowitz pointed out the only, the only alternative based on the law enforcement component of fans, appendix three of such misconduct and sexual harassment is removal. the only one. there's no his fans our butts,

no ambiguity. i know there's things were going to look at with title v and whatnot but removal is the only option. selecting ask you administrator, do you believe that soliciting prostitution is sexual harassment? >> no. i believe that prostitution is sexual misconduct. >> explained the difference between sexual misconduct and sexual harassment. >> sexual harassment is a workplace behavior. it's what, sexual harassment is something that affects the employees in the workplace, or an employee. sexual misconduct is outside of the workforce, outside of the workplace, like prostitution. there's a difference. does it affect the employee

getting a raise? does it affect an employee getting a transfer, getting a particular job? isn't a hostile work environment? those are sexual harassment sexual misconduct -- those are sexual harassment. sexual misconduct you could have sexual misconduct that is also sexual harassment but there is a difference. prostitution would be sexual misconduct. >> so explain to me then exactly what you believe fully come with going to be what you think sexual harassment is. what would be some examples of what is sexual harassment? >> unwelcome remarks touching an employee, a supervisor touching an employee. a supervisor making threats

about you are not going to get that promotion unless you do a b, c or d. those kinds of activities. >> mr. horowitz, you want to waitwithin, the difference between sexual harassment and sexual misconduct? >> i think it's based on what you have before you, which is what's written down as the definitions, and looking at the actions. some of these, for example, one of the incidents that we cite talks about the assistant regional director making inappropriate sexual comments forcing others to watch graphic movies, yelling at employees, other kinds of actions. obviously, clearly within the definition of -- >> so do you believe those are sexual harassment? >> that is sexual harassment.

>> so if you're a dea agent, let's say and you were having sex, commercial sex paid for you don't believe that that sexual harassment? >> no. that's sexual misconduct. >> is procuring a prostitute sexual harassment? >> it would be sexual misconduct but it didn't happen -- >> no harassment? >> it's not the workplace. >> it happened in government housing. spent it's not it's not behavior against a fellow another employee. >> so in your mind come in your world, a different planet which i live it's not sexual harassment if you do something to somebody who is not a federal employee? what if they were here and the washington d.c., or you were in

charge of the the los angeles field office. isn't sexual harassment if they go up to someone in los angeles and start saying, you know some ridiculous comments trying to solicit somebody, is that harassment, or it's not in your old? >> as it's defined for government, as it is defined by the eeo, in eeo terms, it's all workplace related. >> so in the course of the workplace, somebody they're investigating, if they accept the federal employee accepts commercial sex is that sexual harassment? >> that is sexual misconduct. >> we will have to further explore this because i think this is, we're getting too hard of one of the biggest problems here, which is in your world, which i don't think is the real

world, the charger for the person in bogotá was improper association. does that sound like the inappropriate charge? >> or which person in bogotá's? >> a dea agent in bogotá in july 2009 when they engaged -- this is the case with a prostitute. they had a payment dispute. he throws a glass at a woman. a security guard sees this happening. there's no doubt about the facts according to your previous testimony, so that was not sexual harassment. >> sexual misconduct. >> wow. and under sexual misconduct do you think that improper association is one of the proper charges? you think this person was probably i guess the word is charged? based on that case and everything that you know, this person was suspended without pay

for 14 days, for conduct unbecoming and improper association. do you believe that that was proper charge for that person? >> i believe those are two proper charges. the deciding official had a number of other charges that they could've looked at as well. >> i'm asking what you personally believe. what do you believe they should been charged with, or deeply that was the proper conclusion? >> conduct unbecoming, it is improper association. i would have concerns about false statements. i have a number of concerns with those cases. >> in the other, in your professional opinion your experience, he worked for the opr you've been at the agency for 30 plus years, you've been the acting or the deputy or

administrator for more than a decade. do you believe that this person in bogotá was properly charged or do you believe that they fell short? what else if they did fall short what else do you think they should be charged with? >> i do believe they fell short. >> what else do you think you should be charged with? >> it's not so much the charge. it's the penalty. the other charges -- >> the charge determines the penalty. and when you say that this person engaging with a prostitute throwing a glass at her, how many things could we list out that are wrong along every step, improper association is the one they go with? >> the penalty for improper association in conduct unbecoming can be removal. >> and it was only 14 days. we even had an eyewitness security guard who worked for the federal government.

do you think any of these cases that we have brought before you should be, there should be additional charges? >> again, not knowing all the facts that -- >> you said you knew all the facts. you issued a memo saying unit fully investigated this. >> if i can -- >> it says quote these allegations were fully investigated i dea office of professional responsibility you send this out at 5:33 p.m. on march 26, 2015. >> not knowing all the circumstances that the deciding officials who are the only ones that can decide punishment in dea, and that not everything they took into consideration they they could have come up by charging conduct unbecoming and improper association the penalties are up to removal. >> mr. horowitz, do you have a comment on this? >> i think the concern we found

is as we cite in our report is that they were charged with offenses such as conduct unbecoming, poor judgment which by the way is in the category, and others that were inconsistent. and the conservatives and we deal with this in our own agency when we have to look at individuals who may engaged in misconduct, you want to charge what the number of charges should be in part because there's president. youyou look to a private individual accounts for similar situated conduct under similar charges. and so that's one of the concerns we have as we lay out your as the imports of insistence of charge and charging the appropriate offense. >> to the administrator, are you, a dea part of the intelligence community? [inaudible] is part of the intelligence

community. >> is it a governed by the intelligence community directive number 704? >> that sliver of the agency is yes. >> defined that sliver please. >> under 60 positions in dea within the intelligence division division. >> those serving overseas, would they be subject to this? >> it depends on the position. there are in some countries some intelligence analysts that would be under that. a special agents would not. >> again we are getting -- we are not half-time. we are well past that walk me through security clearances. who makes the determination who gets the security clearance and who makes the decision as to whether or not it's revoked and when? >> the same office that

determines that a new employee is a security clearance that same office makes -- >> what office is that? >> office of security programs. they do all adjudicating of security clearances for new employees them for contract employees for anybody that's going to be in the workforce within dea. the same office also handles review periodic re- investigations and handles reviews of people who already have security clearances. so for instance, in the cartagena case opr referred, referred the case over to security programs when they had completed their investigation. and the security programs did a complete review of the security clearances adjudicated it, made a decision that there was enough

to move to suspend the clearance, and then the agency moved for because the person no longer has a security clearance removal from service because they can't be they can't be a dea employed without having security clearance. >> so what are the standards of which you can have and not have security clearance? where is that standard? >> there's a number of things to look at. the main thing is securing securing information, national security interest information. does this person -- >> contact with a foreign national allowed or not allowed? unreported i should say. >> not allowed if it's unreported, and there's rules for reporting. >> is there a document that determines that governs what

you will and will not give for security clearances? >> there's a document that every employee is to fill out spent but it's just a couple of dudes down in the bowels of dea that make a random decision or how is this a decision made? >> no. they are trained on adjudication adjudication. they review, if there's anything that is a red flag for them like past -- >> social misconduct a red flag? >> sexual misconduct if a person is discipline received any discipline they on their form jacket, office of security programs does a review of that spending does the office of security, have they ever revoked somebody's security clearance

for people engaging in prostitution? >> i don't know about prostitution. i know that they have revoked security clearance is. so other than the three from cartagena i'm not sure. >> administrator -- mr. horowitz, have you looked into the security clearance possibility? >> we didn't look into what could have happened had they been referred to the offices of secret programs, primarily because the concern we saw was that they were not being referred to the offices of security programs. so we weren't in a position review what actions they took with regard to these matters because we learned that opr when he did finally get these allegations were never turned around and sent them to the osd. >> what do you say about that ms. leonhart? >> that's one of the changes we

put in place. >> went? >> november. november of last year. we have never had in history of dsa can, we've never had a formal neck mechanism for the security glances, review upon an opr investigation. >> you i did minister, deputy administrator and acting administrator for almost 10 years at that point and you never have that policy in place? it seems like -- >> we never had a formal policy. it would be up to the office of professional responsibility to flag an internal investigation that had security issues and then to refer that over to security programs. so we have set up a mechanism for that to happen automatically

automatically. >> so were those recommendations made before or after the draft report from the inspector general? >> the recommendation that 30 programs that office of professional responsibility flag security violations and give them the security programs was happening long before the. what we did is come in cartagena, made sure that the security clearances were reviewed. and then more recently in november set up a mechanism so that security programs and opr have a mechanism to pass on a regular basis security clearances over speed and this is just unbelievable to me. you know, there's some things you just think, you just think this has to be happened. on the one hand, you've got this

problem. i mean, we listed out the host this is not one incidence. we're going to have some people did something stupid somewhere. people are going to make mistakes. people are going to get themselves into trouble. this is happening with such frequency. cannot have that moved up the chain, for you earlier not say they were not directly involved, you've got told to put a candle to get the thing all the way to the finish line. i just don't understand what you personally don't think he had in the. mr. horowitz has referenced these major categories of offenses why did you make those up? >> that the employees for the last 40 years have been charged at dea. so -- >> so nevermind the guidelines? you just keep doing like they did 40 years ago? >> part of charging by the board of conduct and by the deciding officials is to look at agency precedent and government

president -- precedent and so -- >> and again we've exhausted this, getting to the end, is that this is a problem. you say, you get called before this committee and say oh it's terrible, it's awful. but you, you personally have been responsible for this for more than a decade. you didn't have anything about it. you may cry in the mirror, but i'm telling you you are in a position to do it and you didn't. after cartagena that should've been a wakeup call. and it took you two years to get out a memo. two years. as mr. meadows brought up. i, i we have a lot more that we need to go through. mr. horowitz, are there any other outstanding issues that you need help with from the department, the drug enforcement agency? >> with the drug enforcement agency, no.

>> with the fbi? >> we have, not as to this review, let but has to at least four other ongoing reviews, we still do not have all the records that we need because of the fbi's continuing process of reviewing records, determining what it is allowed under its legal judgment to provide to us go through that process can go to the attorney general, deputy attorney general, get their approval and then get it to us. so as to several ongoing reviews we still do not have all the materials that are responsive to our request. >> why does the fbi think it is so special and don't have to adhere to the law don't do with the other agencies are doing within the department of justice? >> we are adhering to the law. i take exception with the inspector general's comments along those lines. let me tell you sir his latest letter dated yesterday there

were five investigations noted. the records that they wish to receive, they are being delayed involved e-mail. we have turned over 35000 e-mails to them. there are 200 e-mails in question out of 35,000 that we are working with them to go through. we believe in the rule of law. we have a legal disagreement with the inspector general. >> mr. horowitz? >> they are not working with us to get us the 200 e-mails. they haven't given us the two under the nails. our understanding is it's because they believe they have a legal review to conduct. that's why what our understanding is to why we're not getting the. for some of these matters these are multi-months we been waiting for them. there is no reason why we should not be getting the materials immediately. none whatsoever. i understand they have a legal position. it is different, frankly.

the easiest way to resolve this and in this we are in complete agreement is that the office of legal counsel would simply issued its opinion i think we both said we would be very satisfied. >> and how long has that been pending? >> in may will be the one year anniversary. >> i concur with the inspector general. we will follow the olc opinion to the letter. >> what are you different than the other department and agencies within the department of justice? >> i can't speak to the other agencies, mr. chairman. what i can speak with his matters involving rule six matters involving the financial privacy act and other matters that we believe we strongly believe we have a legal responsibility to review and provide them to the inspector general.

>> what are you not willing to share with the inspector general? >> a number of series of items estimated to for instance, world 6-e material. material. >> explained that so people can -- >> sorry 6-e is secrecy rules involving grand jury information. >> adjudicative and that to them previously? >> once mrsa matters have been reviewed, once matters are -- >> there's been a long-standing practice to provide inspector general is that you correct? >> i can't speak to that sir. >> you can't speak to the history of the fbi like the production? that's why you are here spent we provide information once there's been a legal review that says, that we determined legally that we are on solid ground to provide -- >> but that is a change, correct? what was it before mr. horowitz? >> pre-2010 there was no such objection from the fbi asked to wiretap information, fair credit

reporting act information, grand jury information. we got that material. in fact, in a 1998 and 1999 proceedings in district court in oklahoma, the departments of took the position that we are entitled to grand jury material and two federal judges agreed to this is all changed since 2010 with no change in the law. daily thing frankly that occurred was several hard-hitting oig reviews about the fbi was handling some of its national security authorities. other than that nothing changed in 2010. >> mr. perkins, that's the concern from this committee. we have hundreds of people working for the inspector general's office in the department of justice intended to be the fair arbiters who can get in and look under the hood and see, and ferret out these problems. and quite frankly the reason that the dea and the fbi are here today is they are the

problem children with cited several times that atf and marshall's and other this is not a problem. it's not an issue. they've got problems within their agencies don't get me wrong. they've got things that got to clean up and we are going to work with them on that but the reason you are sitting here today in hearing and i know we are very focused on the dea but the two agencies, the fbi as well as the dea are impeding the ability to understand and unearth what the problems are. >> let me clip. there's an apples and oranges issue. with regards to this particular report there are process issues within the fbi that the deputy director has made changes come inspector general is aware of and changes in our business process to eliminate these types of holdups spent all of them? >> for these types of records. not having to do with the other issues that he brings up in section 218. we're waiting as to inspector

general said the olc would render their opinion we will march forward and abide by it 100%. >> and i would just add on that, i think we would both take any opinion at this point good or bad, because this is ongoing. we completely disagree on the legal issue, and certainly we have question why all of a sudden in 2010 -- >> we are wrapping up. i've got hours of questions on this but we're going to wrap up pretty quick. this act, the inspector general act, authorizes quote to have access to all records, reports audits reviews, documents papers recommendations or other material available to the applicable establishment relates to the programs and operations with respect to which that

inspector general has responsibilities under this act. doesn't sound ambiguous. doesn't sound like, and there was no change in the law. it's just in 2010 after the inspector general was unearthing a lot of very difficult things for the agency, they just decide we're going to change the rules. we're going to change the rules. i'm not suggesting mr. perkins, you did that personally but the consequent is the consequence is we have hundreds of people at the inspector general's office who can't do their jobs. and you the fbi our standing in their way. and the dea is standing in their way. we are going to keep yanking you up here time after time after time if we have to. you know, i'm fortunate enough to be the chairman of this committee. the very first hearing we had is on this. and i can promise i can promise you we will continue to yank you up here as long as this continues to be a problem. the act is clear. the inspector general is to have unfettered access to all

records. not just the ones you want to choose from. i don't, this idea that an olc opinion is just then and it's going on for close to a year is just intolerable. and is not a prevailing attitude within the fbi or the dea that believes that inspector general work is a valley to those departments and agencies to otherwise they would want them to come and help clear their good thing, or ferret out problems and work to fix it. in this nation we are different. we are self-critical. i can't have this type of hearing in another nation that i probably couldn't go to colombia into this type of hearing. but you can in the united states but it requires good people to somebody to come and check and look under the hood, which is what the inspector general is supposed to do. we've had a long care and i appreciate your patience. we need your help and cooperation moving forward. again to the thousands of men

and women who serve in these departments and agencies i cannot thank them enough for putting their lives on the line. my grandfather was career fbi agent. i care about the agency. >> thank you, sir. >> i care about law enforcement. but we are going to do it the right way. we are going to do it the right way. and allowing sexual harassment or misconduct to get a little slap on the wrist with two to 14 days paid leave is not acceptable. it wasn't then and it isn't now and it shouldn't be moving for. we are going to look toward other things we can do within the law to give future administrators and directors more latitude, into the inspector general i thank you for this report a we wouldn't have known about it without your good work and the good people in the agency. and so we thank you and this hearing stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

>> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in. they will begin -- >> during the revolution while internet \40{l1}s{l0}\'40{l1}s{l0} she was considered in any by the british who threaten to take her hostage. later she would become our nation's first first lady at age 57. martha washington, this sunday night at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span's original series "first ladies." >> as a complement to the serious c-span's new book "first ladies," presidential

stored on the lives of 45 iconic american women, providing lively stories of the fascinating women creating an illuminating entertaining and inspiring read. it's no avail as a hardcover or in e-book through your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. >> c-span2 providing live coverage of u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events, and every weekend booktv now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2 created by the cable tv industry and brought you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in. they will begin the day with general speeches and then at 11 senators were to work on human trafficking bill. a are expected to vote on an amendment day with limits on abortion funds for human trafficking victims. this afternoon the senate will

vote on a couple of presidential nominations, the homeland security management undersecretary and the national indian gaming commission chair. now live coverage of the senate to c-span to. -- here on c-span2. te will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. immortal god, you rule the earth with goodness. great and marvelous are your works. help us to so live that we can be your instruments for good in our world. fill our hearts with your peace and undergird us