it was not correct. was there any disciplinary action, and who is involved in that chain of command to review what the secret service is saying? because as a member of congress, as a united states citizen, the secret service misled us on purpose. was there any consequence to any personnel? did you follow the code, and did you suspend or remove people from their service? was there any penalty or consequence for providing false information? >> sir, i agree with you that i have the same outrage you have regarding the communication. >> we have to do a much better job of communicating in the internal. >> did anybody face disciplinary action? you have a major morale problem. and this is why. there doesn't seem to be a consequence to doing something in obvious violation of your own internal codes. >> sir, this was nonan

intentional violation of the code. we just haven't communicated as well. >> they just made a mistake. an innocent mistake? was there any consequence? >> no. there was no discipline administered. >> with all due respect, my time is expired. until you actually live by your own codes and you hold people responsible and accountable, you're going to continue to have this problem. there has to be consequences when people purposely and knowingly mislead the press and the congress. >> with respect, sir, again, from what i've heard, been briefed and have seen, i would not say it's intentional. there's a difference between misconduct and operational errors. and i think there's a very clear distinction. >> did you not know immediately he was apprehended at the the doors or deep in the white house? >> time of the gentleman has

expired. he will be permitted to answer the question. you can can answer that question. >> yes, sir, again. some people -- how that information was relaid, again, not being there i don't know how that information was relaid to our public affairs office, but it wasn't relayed in the proper manner. we gave bad information. it's something we cannot do. we have to slow down with our communication. we know it's critical to give accurate information. and that's what our goal is. but we failed on that day. i agree with you, sir. >> the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffries is recognizeded. >> thank you, mr. chair, and thank you, mr. clancy for your service to this country, to the secret service, and for your presence here today. it's my understanding that the number of threats to this particular president, barack obama in the the white house, has increased significantly since the president first took

office in january of 2009. is that correct? >> no, sir. i would say there are spikes. threats rise and lower depending on world events. >> and so how would you characterize from a comparative standpoint the number of threats that this white house or this president has faced as compared to modern presidents over the last 20 or so years? >> yes, sir. our protective intelligence department does metrics regarding just what you're referring to here. and we do compare it to previous administrations, previous presidents. and the last one i looked at, it does look as if the president's threat level has gone up slightly. but that's not unnatural. it has gone up slightly. >> so the president's threat level has gone up to some degree. and at the same time over the last six years, we've seen

security breach after security breach after security breach. i think that is a reason for us to be concerned, if not outrage ed as it relates to the state of the secret service right now. as it relateses to the concern cans that you've established upon your arrival, i think you mentioned three. staffing, training and morale. is that right? >> that's correct, sir. >> and is it fair to say the staffing issues you confront relate to the fact that you don't have the budgetary resources necessary to operate at an optimal level? >> sir, i think our staffing levels from a budget perspective are appropriate at this time. one of things we need to do to build our staffing is to better our hiring process.ed in an opening statement, it takes about 12 months for us to get people hireding on. we have to do a better job of identifying good quality people early on in the process so we

can streamline that process, maybe move that 12 months to 7 months, possibly shorter. # # # as we're experiencing now, first of all, there's still an incredible interest in the secret service. the last job announcement we had 45,000 applicants. only 72 made it through the process and were hired. >> now if i can hone in on that point in terms of interest 234 the secret service. connect it to the problem that you've identified and members of this panel and other members of congress have identified, you've got the elite presidential protection unit, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and that is generally viewed as sort of an optimal assignment within the secret service, is that fair to say? >> in my view, yes it is, sir. >> you demonstrated yourself in that time. we thank you for that. as it relates to the uniformeded division, there's a general perception among many observers

to the secret service that that is viewed as a less than desirable assignment or on a cash system perhaps some may say, as it relates to secret service hierarchy. is that fair? is that fair to say? >> for the uniformed division? >> yes. >> that's a very challenging position. yes, sir. those officers at the white house and in the foreign missions, they have a very challenging mission. i have great admiration for what they do when you consider, as was mentioned earlier, the the number of people in the white house. we have over 300,000 people screened coming through that white house every day. and these officers are confronted with a variety of issues and i have great admiration for the work they do there. >> what can you do to sort of improve both the morale and the operational ability, the competence of the members of the uniform secret service division who play a very important role, and of course, with the most recent incident we saw in terms of if fence jumping episode,

clearly did not perform at a level commensurate to what the american people, the president, and the first family deserve? >> yes, sir. our people are -- they desire more training. they have a passion to get out to our facility for more training. and we've got to get them out there for that additional training. that's one thing that may help their morale. additionally, i think we've got to do a better job of communicating and hearing their sures. and that's why we put more focus on the anonymity of the concerns sent. because these officers want to be heard. and it sits on my director's staff. so twice a week, when i meet with the director staff, they will bring those issues to the table where i'm sitting. and as much as we want to allow people to communicate up, we have to communicate down as well. and that will help the morale of

the uniformed officers, too. training and better communication will be a good start for helping the uniformed officers. >> thank you. yield back. >> thank you. >> chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. marino for his questions. >> thank you. director, it's a pleasure to talk with you today. it's nice to have a fellow pennsylvanian as director of the secret service. i worked for the secret service for 18 years as state and federal prosecutor. and i have nothing but praise for the secret service. you have the best of the best, and i have personal experience there, so i thank the agents for their service. the president made the right choice putting you in this position. i can tell instantly from the way you answered several of these questions. the right choice of assigning u.s. director. you have your hands full. >> yes, sir. >> there are some changes that have to be made, but i have complete confidence in you that you will square these issues away, improve security, improve morale, et cetera.

i do believe that i'm kind of old fashioned. i think secret service should be with treasury, not homeland security. i think there was a finer system of operation there. no disrespect to homeland security. they have their hands full in many other areas. and with that, i'm going to yield back, because many of my questions pertain to the second round. so thank you for being here. >> yes, sir, thank you, sir. >> thank the gentleman. if you'll bear with me, i'll recognize the the next person. mr. sicilini from rhode island. excuse me. i'll recognize ranking member mr. conyers. >> thank you both. i apologize for my tardiness. and i too welcome mr. clancy.

i wanted to raise a little discussion about the ten people that have successfully climbed over the white house fence. and is there any thought yet about how we're going to repair this problem that keeps happening? replacement or a different design, or what are your thoughts as you sit here before the judiciary committee, sir? >> yes, sir. there's several levels to this, sir. the the first is from our own operational standpoint to address what happened on september 19th. we immediately instituted additional training and integrated training between the

tactical units and our uniformed division officers, first with the four-hour block. classroom work. and then additionally six-hour block out of our training facility, where we would do the integrated training, so we could do a much better job and not allow what happened on september 19th to occur again. but additionally, there are some other things that we are looking at to include adjusting to either the height of the fence or some modification to that fence. and again, we've worked very well with our partners at national park services. we've met with them already regarding this concern. and we've also met with the -- we're meeting in the very near future with the national capital planning commission. and the fine arts commission. and with those meetings, we think we're going to do a -- we're going to find some solutions to make it more difficult for people to get over that fence. >> thank you. now the secret service performs

two huge missions. one, protecting the president, vice president, their family and dignitary. but also of investigating crimes against our financial system. and some have raised a question whether secret service should maintain both missions and question whether the investigative mission reduces the effectiveness of the protective mission. have you examined these issues yet? >> yes, sir, thank you, sir. and let me just break it up. uniformed division the officers at the white house complex are strictly there for protection. on the agency side of the house, we do have a robust investigative field office. field offices throughout the country. we think that is critical to our mission. our protective mission and overall mission. the work our agents do in the field allows them to build

skills from working the streets, doing interviews, situational awareness, those skills carry over into the protective mode so you're much more attentive, you pay attention to your details. it helps you with your advance work. there's a direct correlation between the investigative side of the house. and to include with the cyber investigations, where we've had great success, we use a lot of those people in our critical protection systems division, which we use on protective movements. we used them significantly with our national special security events. so that we see the correlation between the physical security of our sites as well as the cyber securit security. >> thank you. let me ask you about the september 19th incident. it revealed numerous problems

with radio systems, alarm systems, officer training, physical attributes o f the white house grounds and officer performance. do coyou have any way of determining in your capacity as acting director whether we have facilities in training, to host wholescale drills, to test the equipment so that we can be confident that it will not fail us in the future? >> sir, just as an example, with the training that we've instituted just recently, again, for retraining, we sent our officers out there. we built a mockup of the white house grounds. we have the proper distance from the north fence line to the north portico.

but it's a mockup at our facility. ideally in the future, we would love to have a true replica of the white house. so that our dogs can feel comfortable working in the true environment of what the north grounds are like. so that would be a long-term goal to get a mock-up of the white house at our training facility. >> glad to hear you say that. i ask unanimous consent that my opening statement be in the record. >> without objection. i thank the gentleman from michigan. the chair will now recognize the je nan from north carolina, the the former united states attorney. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director clancy, thank you for being here. i think it's very good that someone with a long history in the secret service is there to address these problems. like my friend, miss marina. i spent a long time working with the secret service and have

nothing but respect. the secret service is always willing to jump into a task force and bring whatever resources they have to the table and how to multitask is always good. they bring a lot to the table and always pride themselves in having prepared cases and so forth. picking up where mr. mari in, a left off, it saddens me to hear the secret service is having such morale problems. considering the elevated rate of statue in secret service and in talking to agents over the years, some think that the problems with mora wile started

when secret service was taken out of treasury and lumped together with a lot of other law enforcement agencies, all great agencies, i'm not saying them. but you were in the the secret service when it was in the treasury department. take a moment and just reflect on that. do you think some of these problems started then, and if so, you know, what have you thought about ways to address morale problems that may have started when secret service left treasury? >> yes, sir, when i was a younger agent, a younger manager in the secret service, we were under treasury. but i didn't have a lot of exposure to those decisions at that time. so my true management experience has been with the department of homeland security. and to be candid, sir. the issues that we've had as of late are really a reflection on some of the things that we've

done. and i'm really focused on we've got to fix our own operational procedures, our conduct, and our morale. obviously concerned when i came back from the private sector and saw the reports on the morale issues, that was very concerning. so that's one of the areas, one of the top three areas, i think, we need to fix. and i'm committed to working oen ways to fix that morale. and as i said earlier, i think training is one thing we're going to have to build up the training. if we can get our folks trained, they're going to feel more confident in their actions every day. and the other is communication. our folks want to be heard. they can see how we can be better. they've got good ideas out there. we want to hear their ideas. if it's an idea we cannot implement, we need to get word back to them and explain why we can't implement the idea that we

have. the key is communication. people want to be heard. my first day on the job, i met with our senior staff and said that's one o f the priorities we've got to have. we've got to communicate with all of our people. all of our agents, our officers and protective staff. and make sure they're being heard and respected. >> good. one other follow-up question, and then i'll yield back. regarding the security guard who was armed and hadn't been cleared, were there any other security guards armed? >> sir, as i've been briefed, there were other armed security at the the cdc. they were not on the perimeter. they were on the outside of the inner perimeter. which is not uncommon on the the outside perimeter to have arms -- >> so there were armed security who had not been cleared on the outside of the perimeter. were there any on the inside of the perimeter, like the individual that we've noted? >> as i've been briefed, sir, not on the inside of the perimeter, other than the elevator operator who was armed.

>> thank you, i yield back. >> thank the gentleman from north carolina. the chair will now recognize mr. cicilini. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you mr. clancy for be with us today. as you understand, the protection of the president is a critical national responsibility, and i know that we all recognize dm many ways the work of the secret service really, our able to defend our democracy is directly tied to our ability to protect the occupant of the white house, whoever he or she is at any time. so these issues are serious. and i think we all appreciate the seriousness with which you are approaching these new responsibilities and i thank you for being here to provide some testimony today. you made some reference to staffing levels having declined over the last several years while the workload of the agency has not. and so i would like to hear from you whether or not, recognizing there are training and personnel and scheduling and communications issues for -- that relate to each of the incidents we're reviewing in

particular, are there more general concerns that you have about resources, both at the staffing level and in terms of infrastructure, equipment, and the capacity that you have to integrate new equipment as it becomes available. >> yes, sir, first with the staffing levels, we think we are appropriately funded for the staffing levels at this point. our concern is getting people into our pipeline and getting them hired quicker. so we can build up our staff. from the infrastructure standpoint, there are some things that we will be looking for additional funding. we've talked about the the fence here today. once we get good renderings and get the approval, if we get the approval from our partners in the national region, that will be -- that will be required. some additional funding for that. but also our communications we would like to update our communication systems. we saw that we had some failures on september 19th. so our communications need to be

upgraded. and then, you know, the vice president's residence, we have a lot of facilities we protect. all of those are under constant review. we want to update our alarms and cameras, and that's the main focus. >> now, i was pleased to hearto additional training, to be sure that you have some expectations to make requests for additional facilities at your training facility. but in addition to that, it seems as if staffing policies also played a role in the incident, particularly in the incident on september 19th. and the agents being required to work overtime and many shifts in a row, and that obviously contributes to a general weariness, and the way seniority plays a role. so can you speak to what you will be doing or have already done to address the staffing

issues so that they are contributing to the kinds of experiences that we are -- >> yes, sir, you bring up an excellent point, sir. particularly at the white house. we are taking it and making a review of our staffing in terms of experience at the white house. we want to make sure we have a good mix of experience as well as newer agents at the white house complex. and that review is ongoing now. we've already completed that review at our other branches of the uniformed division. >> because it appears that sometimes the the least experienced officers are being assigned the most important responsibilities. isn't that what happens? >> we may have an overabundance of junior officers. to make sure we have good experience and mentors for the junior agents who may be on duty at the same time. >> and that's an issue that you're examining? >> we are, sir. >> i should have started with this, and i'll end with this to say i have enormous respect for

the men and women of the secret service. they have always really representeded the gold standard in many ways, and i'm very pleased you've undertaken the responsibility to address these deficiencies and help raise the morale of this agency. it's essential because of the important work that they do, and obviously i think this committee and this congress will look to be a partner and support you in any way you think is necessary to achieve that mission successfully. and with that i yield back. >> thank you, sir. >> thank the gentleman from rhode island. mr. director, i want to start by also thanking you for your service. i hold law enforcement in very high esteem. i would be bias towards law enforcement. i think they have been given unique powers in our culture. with those come correspondingly unique responsibilities. it's a difficult job. and it takes a different kind of person to be able to do that job. when i hear reports about alcohol abuse while you're either on the job or about to go on the job, and when i hear

reports of sexual harassment of female agents or solicitation of prostitution, with all due respect, that doesn't strike me as a training issue. that's a morale issue, that's a character issue. that's a recruitment issue. if you need to go to a seminar to learn at that stage of your career not to send sexually explicit texts to female agents, you have no business being in the secret service. there's a quote from the spokesperson. periodically we have isolated incidents of misconduct, just like every organization does. but the secret service is not like every organization. that is not a defense to me. you guys are different. >> yes, sir. >> and so in from a recruitment standpoint, and we're going to get to jurisdiction in a second. but from a recruitment standpoint, are you getting the recruits you want or state and

local law enforcement folks, men and women applying? are you getting folks with no experience? talk to me about recruitment. >> we're getting a wide rang of candidates in our recruitment. one of the things we feel in my short time here is through the usa jobs, we're getting a lot of applicants who may get moved on because they use the right words and the computer system. what we need to do is if any of our people know good quality people. people who served in the military. people who have law enforcement experience, good quality people, get them to our field offices. get them an interview and get them in the hiring process. we have to get back to that. >> i'm going to refer to your experti expertise. i'll probably have a different perspective on whether or not yo jurisdiction should be as expansive as it is. way back when the earth cooled when i used to work with secret

service, i never got the the connection between investigating counterfeit $100 bills that were created on an ink printer and protecting the life of the president or vice president or judge. i would rather have a state local law enforcement officer who used to do homicide cases or child sex assault cases. so, you know, i watched atf in the early 1990s kind of delve more towards title l 21 cases. they just found themselves matriculating towards drug cases. i just wonder if it would not be in the service's best interest to let the marshals or bureau or somebody else handle some of these and focus on what really is incredibly important, which is protecting the life of our commander and chief and our judges and other important people. i mean, why is that not enough? >> sir, i appreciate your view. i would say additionally from my

earlier statement that our field office, in addition to the investigations they do regarding counterfeiting, cyber crime and whatnot, they also do protective intelligence investigations. so if you're sitting in kansas city or texas, and there's a threat made to the president, those same field offices, agents go out and do the investigation. so they've got the skills, and they've got to make judgments on is this someone who could potentially threaten or harm any of our protectees. so they learn those skills as well. additionally, when our protectees travel to any city within the country, those same field offices, those agents who already built up rapport with the locals in the the county officers, that has already been built through their investigations. and now we're going to rely on us to support them in a protective mission. in the middle perimeter, the outer perimeter. and so those relationships are very strong. and we use that from a

protective standpoint. they start the advance work. when a president goes to kansas city, the beginning is done by a field agent. well, you're the expert, and clearly i'm not. but it's really tough for me to draw a connection between the investigation of financial crime and the investigation of counterfeiting and protecting the life of "x." there may be categories of crime where there's a more natural, seamless transition. i don't know. you're the boss. there may be books that do prepare your agents. i don't see that. i'll share with a colleague outside. for whatever reason we tend to have the person who is not responsible before us. the person who you could argue was responsible is no longer in that position. i'm not going to spend my energy speaking. i do not understand not searching the white house when

there is any evidence of a shooting. i cannot understand not doing that. but it's not fair to you for me to ask you about that. so, let the record reflect that i will on at least one occasion. i will recognize the gentle lady from texas, miss jackson lee. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. this is a very serious hearing. and i'm grateful to the judiciary committee for its concern, and i particularly want to thank you mr. gowdy for his words. i associate myself, as i imagine every single member of congress does, and that is to recognize first of all, the storied history of the secret service. your name has certainly traveled through many presidents' careers and we thank you so much for your sacrifice. as well, i associate myself with

that the most important responsibility, i believe, is the securing of the commander in chief. although, you haved a added additional duties. i think you've been engaged in the treasury before coming to homeland security and our founding fathers and mothers thought that was an appropriate role for you to be engaged. so the changes would require assessment and overhaul from many parties, including members of the yeets congress. but i did want to put on the record that i thought that no one doubted the respect that we have for the secret service. and particularly for the important and crucial role that you have. as i recall, a former director pearson was brought onto address the scandal about the culture of

the service, and an independent review panel will ensure a report in the near future. just for the record, is that report coming soon? >> yes, ma'am. that report has been completed. >> >> and i'm not talking about the one we received on homeland security. is there another report coming? >> the investigation on september 19th conducted by the deputy of homeland security. that's completed. >> right. >> now there's a blue ribbon panel. >> that's correct. >> by the secretary that was set up. my understanding is december 15th it will be completed. >> okay. >> that's what i'm asking. december 15th we can expect that. >> yes. >> that ties into the reason director pearson was appointed or besides the kpen tensy, but the idea was issues need to be addressed before. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and so, we also know that every director has to address emerging threats and resolve staffing moral problems, et

cetera. and so i'm hoping this report will address that question. just as a side, and i'm going to into the aspects of december 19th. but we know there are issues dealing with morale. i think you acknowledged that. >> yes, ma'am. and are you focused on trying to address those questions? >> absolutely. >> and i know that a recent order or notice came out for a female agent to wear their hair in a bun. as opposed to any other kind of hair style. can you tell me how that is relevant to caring for the principles that they have concern for. >> i'm not familiar with that directive. but i will certainly go back after this hearing. >> would you please check that? i would appreciate a response back. and i would argue vigorously that is inappropriate and certainly contributed to low morale. who is responsible for overseeing the disciplinary processes? is a discipline consistent and

appropriate across the workforce for similar violations? and has that -- so the base of my question is who is responsible, and is there an attempt to make sure there's even handed assessment of the sis plin? >> yes, yes ma'am. as a result of the events, the office of integrity was set up by director pearson, and so, the purpose of office integrity is to have one central location where all discipline willerred into. and there a decision is made whether or not it's a criminal violation or whether it's a misconduct violation. et cetera. but what we wanted to make sure is that there's a consistency and a discipline that is affected. we have a table of penalties now that will ensure there's a kinsy as we are confronted with these operational errors or misconduct. >> let me go to two incidents and and say i have the greatest

respect for the first amendment and the greatest respect for the media. but i do know sometimes we have to get to the facts. let me get two facts on the table. without any personal acknowledgment as to what is going to happen. on one instance in the breach, a gentleman was on the phone, on a personal phone. ear plug not in their ear, and they're walkie-talkie was in the locker room. second instance is the gentleman on the elevator who has the story is told was certified and authorized to be there with a gun. and he was doing his job.

he was a commander in chief after he got in the car. how does that trickle up to if you were at that time director. how does that trickle up? those are incidents that with the best mind you couldn't imagine that happening. and they were legitimately doing his job, certified and got star happy and took pictures? why don't i yield to you and find out, because i want to get to the point that we're not knocking off directors every five minutes because of incidents happened that should have been taken care of by the immediate manager? mr. clancy? >> yes, sir. yes, ma'am. as far as the officer at the white house complex on the cell phone, that's been reported through the investigation deputy secretary of homeland security, we waited for that report to be

concluded. and we forwarded the facts of that report onto our office of integrity. so that's under review now. for any discipline that may be affected. and in regards to -- >> that would be the responsibility of the special agent over that area, the white house? >> it's actually the responsibility of this specific central office of integrity. so that it's removed from the direct supervisor. >> but the actions were under the direct supervisor. >> in regards to the cdc events, that is -- that was fully investigated. it was actually self f reported. they saw the individual in the elevator was armed. he self f reported that. immediately we had an interaction. we had a full inquiry. and those details were also sent to that office of integrity to determine what discipline, if any, should be administered. >> time of the gentlewoman has

expired. >> thank you. >> i yield back, thank you. i'm going to be brief. two predecessors ago we had a scandal. it turned out that this committee, two other committees were never given the full facts. and we then had subsequent revelations time and time again. during each of these, committees of jurisdiction including my other committee oversight endeavored to work with your people and homeland security to get the full facts, and in each case, we did not get the full truth. will you pledge today in all cases during your tenure to give us more, not less, and if

there's something that may be relevant in even the most spurious way, at least make the staffs of the committees of jurisdiction aware that there is something else we may or may not want to pursue, and at least in an in camera format. because without that we're playing a game i don't want to play ever. certainly not publicly. i ask. you answer. i ask another to see if there's anything else. i don't want to ask publicly. i don't think the chairman wants to ask publicly or any of the rest of us what it is you're not telling us. >> yes, sir, you have that commitment. >> thank you. and i'll end this as quickly as i can. the term law enforcement sensitive is one recently used, if you will, in the two versions of this report. and now our other committee got to look in camera at the sensitive material.

do you know how fox got what we were only allowed to look at in camera to get it on the air, and in other words, it was on camera but we were looking at it in camera? >> no, sir, i'm not aware. >> will you pledge to see if you can find out, and if it came from the offices of the president or anyone else in the administration, would you at least report back to us so that we know that there's two standards, the standards for the press, when convenient, and the standards for congress, because i just have to share one thing with you. i have always felt that an in-camera review followed up with a discussion about what should be made available fully to the committee and under what conditions is a reasonable middle ground. but if anything is withheld from congress and asked to look at in camera, by definition i think it is fair to say you have, in fact, asserted a form of

privile privilege, so at least the potential for privilege or sensitivity or near classification, and that bars from the administration from willy nilly releasing it from the the press, in order to get, if you will, either a positive spin or get ahead of the story. i hope you appreciate the sensitivity. >> yes, sir. thank you, sir. >> so will you come back with any findings of how that got to fox before it got to chairman? >> i will, sir. this is the first i'm hearing about that, yes, sir. >> okay. our staff at oversight will be glad to share the detailed time line with your people. >> thank you. >> thank you. and i do yield back the balance of my time, mr. chairman. >> chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. desantes for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, director. and you've been frank about some

of the incidents in response to the organization of the secret service. you said, look, these are just mistakes we made. that didn't necessarily attribute to that. and i appreciate it. and i think it's important that we in congress will conduct oversight on how the agencies operate. we have to conduct oversight on legislative processes that we've done. you look at the history and congress created a lot of problems as well in various different areas. and i think moving the secret service to dhs is something i've been thinking a lot about since these have become more public. and i think we need further inquiry. and you did mention when the united nations protective operation was undertaken there was utilization at the coast guard and the u.n. i appreciate that. but you would still be able to liaison with other agencies, correct? >> yes, sir.

that's correct. >> and so being a part of the bigger bureaucracy, does that make the secret service's mission -- is it conducted more efficiently as a result of that? or are there bureaucratic hurdles that the secret service has to deal with that they did not when they were a part of treasury? >> again, sir, it's difficulty me to compare the two because i was not in management role under treasury. i will say the department of homeland security is very inclusive. the secretary has had me up there several times to work with the other components and meet with the other components, and so there's a good sharing of information. >> what about in terms of, you mentioned the competition, or you wanted to hire and you're not doing that on the scale you want. are you competing for more resources because you're in dhs? there are alled in that, and it seems like you have less competition. is that accurate?

>> it would be hard for me to evaluate compared to the treasury. i know all the agencies have important missions. so we are all vying for those dollars. >> yes. >> and i know you said you were in a management position. but i have retired secret service agents in my district, and they've served in both capacities. pre-2003 and then after, and i think by and large, you know, i get negative feedback. but when you're talking with people, other agents who have lived through this, is it something you would say a substantial number have misgivings about? >> when we have failures, they're really our failures. >> and i understand that. you've been frank. but we have to look at how are we, you know, we're legislating this stuff. we're funding these different agencies. and if we haven't done that in a way that best meets the needs of

the american people, we have to go back and evaluate. so i'm just curious. i know there's morale issues with the secret service. you know, if you're just, you know, at over the water cooler with people, who have been in the secret service, is it something people will look back and say, man, that was a great thing the congress did. or are you likely to hear people say, man, i liked it better in treasury? >> certainly some people have said they liked our time in treasury, and they had good memories of that time frame. but again, i have too be focused on, you know, our agency and where our failures are, and working with our people, and that's really my focus. and others can determine whether or not we're situated properly in the department of homeland security. but i'm focused on the operational needs. >> now i understand, and as you should be. but we need to always look at this stuff. and it just seemed to me, and again, i would like to do some more investigation into this.

but with treasury, there's less bureaucracy. and actually for congress it's good because i think we conduct better oversight that way. dhs has been problematic for us in terms of oversight of other functions, other than the secret service. but anyways, i appreciate you stepping up to take this position. i know it's a tough job, and we wish you all the best, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding back the remainder of his time. we now go to the gentleman from east texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, director, for being here. you know, we've had different hearings, secretary of homeland security has been here a number of times. and you know, there seemed to be in the the past a feeling of invulnerability of the white house. that the fences, you know, somehow there was bound to be more security there than you see. so it rattles folks when

somebody can jump over the fence and get there. and somebody else was saying, oh, i think there's two rows of fences. isn't there just one row of fence around the white house? >> sir, as a result of september 19th on pennsylvania avenue on the sidewalk there, we've now put a bike rack in addition to the permanent fence. realizing that people can still get over the bike rack, but it gives us a little more time to react. so there is bike rack in front of the original fence. >> well, how tall is the fence there, and i'mclassify ied. >> 7'6". >> is there any talk about making it higher? has that been discussed? >> yes, sir, it's been discussed. and we've been working closely with the narter i er ipartners .

>> your time as acting director. but you remember late 2009 there was a christmas, christmas party crashers, the salahis that got in there, and they were not on the the list, and there was a hearing that it wasn't so much involved that there was a social secretary of the white house who is supposed to be there. and if somebody is not on the list, gives the ultimate yes or no. and she told someone she didn't care about having to be the one to say no, and it left the secret service in a terrible bind. but what was obvious to those of us who would go over to the white house regularly is that it was all about appearances over the christmas party crashers, that even though it really

wasn't so much the secret service's fault as a breakdown in the white house leadership, the secret service who wore plained clothes suits were made to start wearing uniforms so that it looked like there was a lot more security there. . and in fact, we went from just having one check point you had to go through there at the southeast corner to adding another there near the monument. and then adding another down on 15th street. and so, it pretty clearly was all about appearance to make it look like, gee, it was a secret service's fault and we've sure -- we've tripled those up, added a bunch of people there when really it wasn't necessary that anymore need to be done, other than just make sure white house gave proper direction.

so my concern is that there's been too much about appearances and not as much about actual protection. has there been any thought to just eliminating the fence around the white white house t napolitano, maybe having a virtual fence or electronic fence? has that been discussed at all? >> sir, i'm not aware of any discussions in that regard. >> would you be in favor of removing the fence around the white house and having a virtual or electronic fence around it? >> sir, by knee-jerk reaction, that would be, no, sir. partly because of the number of tourists that come on pennsylvania avenue and come right up to that area. and they take pictures and whatnot. >> secretary that pal ton notice said the fence was worthless. you put a ten-foot fence up, somebody is going to build a 12-foot ladder. so, i would think if the administration is going to be consistent, it's now time to

remove the fence from around the white house because if it isn't good enough for our border, it isn't good enough for the white house. i would ask you to consider the consistency and also consider the fact that maybe there is real virtue in having a fence that slows people down. with that, i yield people back. >> i thank the gentleman. as originally scheduled, we'll take a short recess, maybe you have a short bite of lunch. is 1:30 okay to reconvene? >> yes, that will be okay. >> we'll have the room made right and be back in at 12:30. we stand in recess.

as joseph clancy has finished up his testimony in the open portion of this hearing, if you missed any of today's open session, you can watch the hearing any time on our website, c-span.org. another hearing we'll have for you live today on c-span3 coming up at 2:30 p.m. eastern time,

the senate foreign relations committee holding a confirmation hearing on the nomination of antony blinken. and c-span2 will be live for national book awards in new york city with the announcement of winners for fiction, nonfiction, poetry and young people's literature awards. the national book awards, live coverage on c-span2 starting at 8:50 eastern time tonight. yesterday house republicans and democrats elected their committee chairs for the 114th congress, which begins in january. more now from a capitol hill reporter. >> cristina marcos, the house leadership decided who would chair their committees. what's the headline? >> well, what's most remarkable

about this is once again, there's only one female house committee chairwoman. every single new house committee chairwoman that was announced yesterday is a white male. and every single one of the committee's chairs for next year will also be white. and that reflects, these issues with diversity that the republican party's been having. >> and there was most of these contests, if you will, for top spots on the committees were not surprises. however, there was a contest for oversight and government reform committee, darrell issa, stepping down. who will take his position? >> jason chaffetz will be replacing issa. and he was in a four-way race between three other competitors, mike turner of ohio, jim jordan

of ohio and marcos of florida. >> he comes out on top, why? who was backing him? >> he was considered the front-runner along with mike turner. and chaffetz has been active on the oversight committee for a long time. made his interest in the committee chairmanship clear. his argument to the committee was that he'd be this aggressive watch dog of the obama administration. but at the same time, he argued he would be better able to work with democrats than the current chairman has been, who has created headlines for clashing quite vividly with democrats. >> so, then what -- what was the reaction from democrats? >> well, of course, last night they're only -- they just put out nice statement saying they look forward to working with the new chairman, et cetera. jason chaffetz is very aggressive lawmaker. some democrats even fear he won't be so unlike darrell issa.

he also, like i said, he is also very aggressive investigator. >> well, who else is noteworthy here? buck mckeon, a familiar face to our viewers, is no longer going to be armed services chairman. he's stepping down from congress. he's retiring. mack thornberry, i understand, republican of texas, will take this over. what does that mean for the military and defense policy? >> well, thornberry's been second highest ranking republican on the committee for the past four years. and he had the implicit endorsement of chairman mckeon ever since mckeon announced he would be retiring at the end of the year. he's been working on some of the biggest issues that face policy, like acquisition program and a variety of other things. >> and then also noteworthy is

judiciary committee bob goodlatte, he will retain that post. what does that mean for immigration? >> well, it's probably going to be more of the same, frankly. i mean, you have the same chairman who's -- you know, the committee did approve some immigration related bills regarding visas and that sort of thing in this congress. but it never made the floor. so, it remains a question of does the leadership and the rest of the republican conference actually want to deal with the issue? >> and bob goodlatte, republican of virginia, he writes in the opinion pages of "the wall street journal" this morning that congress will fight obama's power grab. the president's amnesty plan for millions of unlawful immigrants clearly violates the constitution s what he writes in "the wall street journal." cristina marcos, any other takeaways from the chairmanship posts?

>> another chairman that was surprising is house intelligence committee, appointed by speaker boehner. out of three competitors the most senior was jeff miller of florida. currently chairman of veterans affairs committee. nunez of california won out over the other competitors. it's noteworthy because nunez is a close friend of speaker boehner. that surely helped him in the selection process. >> for more information about these chairmanships g to the hill's website, thehill.com. cristina marcos, that are for your time. with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span2, here on c-span3 we complement that. and on week ends, c-span3 is the home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story. including six unique series, the civil war's 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events.

american artifacts, touring museums and historic sites to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past. history bookshelf with best known american history writers. presidency, looking at policies and legacies of our commanders in chief lectures in history with top college professors delving into america's past. new series, real america, featuring archival government from the 1930s through '70s. c-span3, created by the cable tv series, watch us in hd, "like" us on facebook and follow us on twitter. officials from british foreign office update on u.s. policy in kurdistan region of iraq. during yesterday's hearing they answered questions on the legal objections to koth combating isis, uk business investments in iraq and nato and european union

in providing nonlethal weaponry support. >> order, order. can i welcome members of the public to the sitting of the foreign affairs select committee. it's our third and final evidence session of our committee into kurdistan and on this testify. so, welcome. and can i also welcome edward oakden who's the director of the middle east and foreign office. i welcome you both. minister, it's now three months since mr. abadi was installed in baghdad. have you made any assessment of how he's getting on? what are the prospect of him having a more