we have instances and we have penalties most of them omp gol minor penalties and it is known that some of us has posed great security risks. i guess drug folks were paying for some of this activetivity and they got anywhere from four to six days. only a suspension of 515 days or many is considered serious for adverse employment action, so those people went right on working at that time. so, what i'm saying is the culture existed while you were there, up to car te hey na and there were low penalties. after that, you took some action. some people were fired, is that correct? >> yes, tha the first case that came -- >> and the difference about the members of the committee, this is the same thing whether it's the secret service, dea, irs

any agency. she doesn't have the right to fire people. unless you change that law and get these people the ability to fire people sa merically when they were found in you know, a proper process and a speedy process to violate whether it's sexual assault, sexual harass m, you'll have this all these problems continue across the scope of all of our civil service systems. the only one exempt is fbi. we'll get that on the record as some point i hope. yield back. >> recognize the ranking member mr. lynch the gentleman from massachusetts, who's the ranking me. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank the ranking

member for allowing me to go in his place. how do you hold people accountable if you are not able to discipline them? >> the system in place, it's the three tooered system. the inspectors who -- >> you're not answering me question. briefly, how do you hold people accountable when you cannot discipline them when they do like okay, so, we got 15 to 20 sex parties. 15 to 20. we've got all these allegations. a lot of these agents admitted to prostitution. to so liss itting prostitutes. we don't know their ages. there's been nothing disclosed here. we have them taking weapons. we've got foreign individuals.

parts of terrorist groups. come police it in this. we've got national security at risk. and you don't have the ability to discipline these people. when i came to this hearing, i thought my problem was that we weren't disciplining these people. i think the problem here now after hearing you testify even though you've said you were not happy, even though you said you were very disappointed. this is a prostitution ring. they're using tax pare payer money to pay for pros cutes and you're not happy in i think we're on different levels here and i find completely vapid the statement well your not quoing to let this happen again. we're not doing anything. we haven't, i think the problem now is is we're protecting these

people. that's what's happening in your agency. you're protect inging the people who slis itted prostitutes who had 15 to 20 sex parties, went through this whole operation. used taxpayer money to do it. and i believe compromised the national security. and you're not happy. that's not what i would expect from your department. i really wouldn't. i work with dea in afghanistan. and those folks did a great job and i think this is a, this is a disgrace. that their reputation i see and they're on some dangerous, dangerous places in afghanistan. down in helmand province. doing heroic work. those are the agents i know that work hard and upheld the dignity of this country. and worked with the local

families down there the farmers, just to try to protect them. i'm proud of those dea agents. they're doing wonderful work on behalf of our country. and this is a, this is a -- a blemish, this is disgraceful that they should be associated with this activity. so, i actually feel your system is protecting these people. so, these 15 or 20 sex parties and then by the way it says here sexual harassment, it should be sexual misconduct up front. that's what we're talking about here. this is a very serious issue. and you've done nothing. you've done nothing. how about disclosure? if you can't even, if you can't prosecute them, if you can't, if you can't bring justice to the situation, why are we why are we stoppinging the inspector

general from looking at this? why do the american people do not, why do they not have the names of these individuals? >> well, we did provide the inspector general with the information so that he could do his review. as far as protecting them, i take great offense to that -- >> you do? you do, you take offense that someone who runs a 15 to 20 prostitution parties, abusing women, gets a three-day, two-day, one-day, you're offended by that? you're offended by that? >> i'm offended by their conduct. i'm offended -- >> i don't see it though. >> i'm offended by behavior. i am trying to fix the system. i can't fire. i'm trying to fix a system. >> how about just naming them? name and shame. how about that? you get, there was some discipline. it's laughable. it's laughable. but you did suspend some people

here were ten days. one guy got ten days. conduct unbecoming and poor judgment. it just -- you know what i think? and i appreciate the gentlemen's earlier comments about we've got to give you power. i don't think that's the answer. i think there's a mentality here that needs to be ek stra kated. i think we need an independent agency that goes in not part of the good ole boy network, that goes in with sun light disclosure, that goes after these people. like i said, when i think of the dea acts and jobs they're doing in afghanistan today, today and trying to protect the home land, this is a real, this is a disservice to those good agents. i'll yield back the balance of my time. >> now recognize the gentleman

from texas for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. lynch really hit on something with respect to the good ole boy culture and this is my concern i'm seeing more of the good ole boy culture. we've seen it with the dea. sex parties. we've seen it with some of the things going on in the secret service admittedly, not subject to this. we see, we see it in a lot of government agencies. in your investigation, do you get a sense there is a good ole boy mentality? is it as bad as i think it is? >> it's interesting, congressman, you use those words because this our first review was of the good ole boy round up events in the early '90s. we did a report in 996 about the culture and need to make a it clear about what is and isn't permissible on off duty and yet

we're 20 years later and there are still no department wise policies or training. >> you run the dea. do you think it's appropriate in your off time, even in a country where prostitution is illegal, to engage prostitutes? >> absolutely not. and it's against dea policy. >> and how -- >> illegal. >> how could any of your agents not know this? this strikes me as just common sense. and we have a memo from eric holder, not a fan of mr. holder but i mean he really, i can't believe there's even a need for a memo that says it's not appropriate to hire prostitutes. i mean, let me read from the memo. the solicitation of prostitution threatens the core mission of the department. not simply because it invites extortion, blackmail and leaks of sensitive information, but

because it undermines the department's effort to eradicate the scourge of human trafficking. regardless of whether prostitution is legal or tolerated in a particular jurisdiction, slis itting prostitutes creates a greater demand for human trafficking and minor and adult persons trafficked into commercial sex slaves. for this reason, i want to reiterate the all department personnel, including attorneys and law enforcement officers, they're prohibited from slis itting or accepting commercial sex. to me, it seems ludicrous that we would have to write a memo like this. mr. perkins what about the fbi? is there anybody in the fbi that thinks it's okay to go hire a prostitute? >> no, sir we make it clear to our employees. >> but the message we're getting with no disciplinary action or time off with pay tends to reenforce that.

mr. horowitz, is there congressional action that needs to be taken? do we need to change some of our laws to make it easier to fish people who are proved to have engaged in this? >> that's certainly something congress could look at. it's been noted the fbi has certain authorities the other three deny. one of the things that would help address these is that the oig, they get reported as they should to headquarters. that they get reported to the oig as they should and that we get cop miss of records that we need. promptly so that we can look at them proptly. that would help as well and it takes no congressal action because you have the law in act that says that should occur, but it's not. >> what do we do to fix that? somebody's going to have to be disciplined for not reporting it. t not just the rank and file. men and women who are engaged in misconduct that need discipline. it's their sue per yors that are covering it up and obstructing.

is that not correct? >> it's certainly argued that if a employee fails to report to headquarters what the policy requires, which all law enforcement agencies cases in the department, that's the policy. that is a violation -- >> we are also see inging, you want disclosure from the folks that you're investigating. we're starting to see lots of redakt d d stuff here in congress when the ig act only says the identity needs to be needs to be with he would. in fact, had we wanted more information wit held, we could have modified it on section i6 03 of the irs code. you want full reporting. what's the excuse for not givinging us more access here in congress? >> anybody want to field that?

i mean, some of the it is the i guess guess. >> we've put forth on our website everything we're allowed to pursuant to the privacy act. we have not with held material. >> the gentleman will yield. miss leonhart will you agree to allow the inspector general to search all 45 terms? you limited it to three. >> yes. we don't have a, the search capabilities that this systems have. >> will you allow him full and unfettered access to review these records? >> we would be glad to run that search. we had problems in doing a search that many names. we found a different way to do it by running a fence code, but mr. horowitz and i have a very good working relationship and if there's something that he wants

he has not hesitated to pick up the phone and talk to me about it and we will work it out. >> has she allowed you all the access you want? >> i think the problem has been frankly, i've had to call too much. i shouldn't have to make those calls to get access. the staff my staff shouldn't have to spend four months going back and forth with the lying dea staff getting redacted versions being told they can't get things because of privacy issues when that is not a basis for a legal objection, which the dea and fbi ultimately conceded. i shouldn't have to be engaging at the highest lel estest levels of the fbi and dea to get the access that occurred and let me say something here about two agencies that complied fully. the atf and the u.s. marshal service got us the material immediately. we had no delays. what it took us four, five, i

don't know how many months to get from dea to atf we golt in a matter of weeks from atf and marshall service. >> i think you meant to say dea and fbi. >> compared to atf and the marshall service. >> thank you very much. i see my time has expired. >> the ranking member for five minutes. >> thank you very much. do you think you're the right person for this job? i've been, i just intentionally wanted to hear some of the testimony. i have a lot of concerns. it seems like there's a culture that has developed here. even attorney general's letter. where he has to say don't fraternize with prostitutes. hello. am i missing something? i think that we are at an all time low here.

don't you? >> as a dea agent and a female dea agent for the past 35 years, i'm appalled of it over this as well. and like the attorney general had to send a memo reminding people last friday, i had to send one last year. to remind everyone and put everybody on notice. >> i only have a few minutes. i just -- i'm very concerned, mr. horowitz, on page 12 of your report, you made the following statement. i quote, we found a regional director intacting regional director failed to report through their chain of command or to dea, opr, repeated allegation of dea special agents patronizing prostitutes and frequenting a brothel while overseas treating these allegations as local issues. is that correct?

>> that's correct. >> so, despite these facts, none of these employees, special agent, the group supervisors regional director and the acting assistant regional director ever reported these allegations to the office of professional responsibility. or to you. the ig's office. is that right? >> that's correct. now, when these allegations finally came to light in 2012, your report, i quote the dea administrator counseled the regional director for failing to report the allegations. is that right? >> correct. >> did you personally counsel the regional director? >> regional director was first counseled by the chief inspector. then by the deputy administrator. and then i counseled him as well. >> was that the only discipline that he got? somebody sitting there saying you're supposed to do your job? >> yes. >> please. you mean to tell me that was a discipline? do your job. that's not displip.

is it? come on. >> the regional director was not aware of any allegations until it was brought to light a year, a year after an incident. >> who was the regional -- >> when i talked to him. >> tell me what you said briefly. >> i was concerned that he had warnings that this person was involved with prostitutes. and i talkeded to him because if that was the case i would have been looking at significant discipline. it was not the case with him. i even went and looked at the letters that were sent. the letters -- >> so what did he say? i wish i had a tape recording of that conversation but in a 30 seconds, what was said? by him.

>> he said when he was aware of it, he was notified by the embassy, the rso, of what had happened. he was told about the incident. he called the agent in that was the first he knew this agent was involved with prostitutes. he called in the agent, told the agent you're out of here, you're going home. he sent him tty back to the states until he could start -- >> so, were they suspended? >> i'm sorry. >> you said he sent them back to the united states. >> yes. the agent received 14 days off. >> and this and so, you think that was sufficient? >> the regional director took action when he heard about it and he took action immediately after to put in place some mechanisms to make sure that those types of behaviors were reported promptly. >> who was the highest ranking

dea official between 2008 who was aware of these misconduct? issues. >> are you talking about the bogota incidents? >> i'm talking about the, let me change that, 2005 to 2009. >> that they were aware that -- >> the highest ranking person. >> probably a group supervisor. >> did you have power to discipline on a level of regional? >> i could discipline the regional director. an ses. 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 feel that he did

something wrong? >> he failed to report it when he learned about it. >> and so, you and you failed to discipline him. other than counseling him. >> the discipline available to me appropriate discipline was to rep remand him. >> well who came up with a suspension? 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 it to opr would not raise to that level, the only time that's happened with him, would not raise to the level to be misconduct. >> one more question. >> so, i counseled him. >> reporting now, if he had reported it, he was supposed to report it to the office of

personal responsibility. is that correct? >> correct. >> and if he had reported it there was a possibility that the agent would lose, would lose their security clarence, is that right? is that right? do you know that a? >> certainly could lose their security clearance. if the process was followed through. >> if they lost the security clearance, does that mean they then lose their job? >> yes, like the three cartagena agents. if you lose your security clearance, you cannot be a special agent. >> in looking in hindsight, the regional director, you feel he received appropriate discipline? >> i believe he made a mistake by not reporting it in. he took action, but it wasn't the right action. and he, that is not happened with him in the past. and he's done a number of things in colombia since that incident

to ensure that this does not happen again. >> do you think there's a culture problem here? >> i believe there may have been a culture -- >> may have been? may have been? >> may have been a culture problem. >> when did it stop? >> years back. >> when did it stop? >> i -- >> when did it stop? you said b may have been. so you're assuming that, i assume you have a date that you think it stopped. i would love to know what it is. why you say that. >> when you see that these parties and what was happening in 2000 to 2004 were by one group of agents within bogota colombia, i would say that's a culture problem. >> i recognize gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you mr. chairman. i'm new to the committee, so i'm going to ask you questions that i'm just curious as to the answers. i'm very confused. you said some things today that

i think strike me as being unusual and maybe true and i'm certain if anybody back home is watching, they 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 for you? >> under the civil service laws, i can't intervene in the disciplinary process and that's why dea's process similar to some of the other agencies is a three tiered process. administrator, deputy administrator, management cannot intervene in the disciplinary process, that's a prohibited personnel practice. >> who can fire people when they commit agree jous misconduct like participating in cartel funded prostitution? >> our deciding officials. >> who in your agency, who is a deciding official? >> we have two. senior dea 1811s with prior opr

experience. they make all of the disciplinary decisions. >> are they senior to you or junior? >> they're junior to me. >> could you recommend they fire somebody? so, somebody saying you can't fire somebody, but somebody junior to you can. 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. say you wanted to fire these people. say you saw some activity that merited somebody getting fired. have you seen that since you worked there? does any of this conduct we've

talked about today and these couple dozen sex parties merit dismissal? >> the activity that's been explained today, i believe not knowing all the facts, not knowing -- >> how can you possibly -- i can't let you off the hook like that. how do you not know all the facts by now? >> not knowing the same facts the deciding officials look autot, which are called 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 and 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. and you didn't say yes. which i assume means you meant no. say 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? >> put the agency on notice like i did last year that this will not be tollerated and that i in writing, tolgd told the deciding officials and the board of conduct that these kinds of behaviors required significant discipline ch. >> 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 others but for the fbi, we are exempt from title 5 and civil service rules, regulations and statutes. director comby can and has fired individuals. we do have a highly structured disciplinary process within the bureau that will as you go through the process, it raises it up to the appropriate levels p for the appropriate level of punishment. there are occasions when the conduct is so agree jous that the director can intervene and has. >> my understanding is that the fbi is unique in that regard as mr. perkins outlined and that the other three law enforcement components in the department have to follow the title 5 rules and the civil service rules. one last question then i'll wrap up. is it true that if you suggest a suspension longer than 14 days,

and it all the examples that i've got to paper work on are these couple dozen events, no one was ever suspended for more than 14 days. if someone gets a suspension of more than 14 days that a merit system protection board takes over the investigation and the handling of that matter? >> not quite. if the deciding officials dole out discipline and ths more than 14 days, sus suspension the employee can appeal it and when the employee appeals it 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 is already been done. this is the very end of the disciplinary process so the dea deciding official can say 30 days -- >> but is that internal or extennell to you? >> the deciding officials is internal. the mspb is external. >> i thank you, chairman. i asked both the chairman and ranking member, this is just,

this is nuts. how we can't fix this, i have no idea, but clearly she's 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 fix that. >> now recognize the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will say as a new member of this body, i keep thinking i've gone through the looking glass and i koent do it again. and then you kind of are like this and this just seems on the surface, it's hard to believe and does bring number of questions including sort of collateral consequences to drug dealers on the street and the larger problems we have to face in this country when people see this 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 mid management

people were able to access the information you asked for so quickly? as opposed to the dea or the fbi. >> they've been fully cooperative throughout our reviews. have not raised legal objections and have read the ig act and come complied with what we've asked for. >> is it a cultural thing? do you need more enforceability? >> certainly, we don't have any enforceable i at this point other than my testifying publicly and raising it to the -- >> doesn't seem to be sufficient. >> it ultimately turns out to be in some instances but it is a problem and it's a repeated problem. >> miss leonhart, so the individuals involved in the sex parties, rolex accepting sophisticated weapons, are they still employeed? >> the majority are still on the job, yes. >> it's hard to believe since completely counterintuitive that they could go back to work with

as little as ten days suspension and be model agents. have you had to spend extra time overseeing their job performance? >> their supervisors, there are special agents in charge. there 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 is so they can put them in positions where they can have good supervision. >> so, go back to the questions i asked mr. horowitz. why is it that it took so long to get this information? why was it why did it take so long for the ig to get the information information? from your underleagues, of being aware, didn't you feel you were spending too much time on this? didn't you admonish people

underneath your command that they should be more forthcoming to the ig? >> well i knew early on there was disagreements or misunderstanding in a couple of areas with 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 get to mr. horowitz and with audits since he and i, we kind of have an agreement that if someone is going to deny something to the ig, then it has to be raised up to my level right way bay, so that he and i can discuss it. >> sitting here, it seems like this question management that you have to spend this much amount of resources in something such an agrunlgs case, it just

seems a misproep ration of taxpayer funds. if the dea had the same exception that the fbi has, would that have been a more efficient response by congress in making sure that the management tools were there? >> certainly on the personnel side and discipline side that would be something that could occur. on the access issues and getting the records promptly, there's no reason why dea and fbi shouldn't have done the same thing the marshall service and atf that they didn't question the scope of our audit, raise concerns about. one search terms they just did it. >> so that seems you're come police anytime the management problems. it's not just a culture problem. secret service sometimes, you need somebody from the outside. so, how do i defend your performance? >> i think being a dea agent and

being within the agency -- new ways -- >> all evidence to the contrary with all due respect to this case. >> on this audit i think there was misunderstandings. misunderstandings of what the scope was. as well as misunderstandings on this bogota case. >> for me to go back and talk to somebody in a poor section of my district or any of these members who have people selling drugs who say how can you admonish us and want to make laws for us when you let the dea manage their own department this way is quite counterintuitive with all due respect. i yield back what time i have. >> thank the gentleman. recognize mr. goudy for five minutes. >> administrator leonhart if an agent state side were slis

itting a prostitute provided by a drug conspiracy, what punishment would you recommend? >> i can't recommend a punishment. i would just hope that would be thoroughly investigated. >> so, you're tell inging 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. >> what was your opinion? what did you express? >> last year -- >> what did you think the proper sanction was? >> last year, i sent e-mail and i sent a memo to every employee in dea and put them on notice that this kind of conduct, my question must have been ak

ambiguous. i was talking about past conduct. what punishment did you recommend for conduct that happened in the past? >> under civil service law, i cannot recommend a penalty. i can't intervene in the disciplinary process. i can't even make a recommendation. >> what does it take to get -- what would it hypothetically, take to get fired as a dea agent? because the agents i used to work with were worried about using their car to go pick up dry cleaning. worried about using their og fwrks to pick up dry cleaning. they were worried about being disciplined. apparently, that world has changed. do you know whether any of the prostitutes were underage? >> i don't know that. >> would that impact whatever recommendation you might have in terms of a sanction? >> i don't recommend the sanction. i can't 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 rep remand to removal. >> how about security clearance? do you have any imact over that? whether or not an agent has a security clearance? >> no, there's adjudicative guidelines -- >> 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 a is what happened in cartagena and that's what's going to happen moving forward. >> i find that stunning.

let me ask you this. did the, did 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 they're 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 gifts. >> 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? is you agree with her? she can't fire them? >> i think as a a matter of title 5, she can't directly intervene and fire them. i think one of the concerns we outline in the report as to dea and the other three agencies is

how they adjudicate these cases. they undercharge them in some instances and so at dea, for example, sexual harassment, if you're charged with that, there's only one punishment. removal. but if you're charged with conduct unbecoming or poor judgment, which isn't even actually a category, then you've got a range of penalties and so one of the issues you know as a former prosecutor is 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 many south carolina find it stunning that you can solicit prostitutes, administrate administrator, do we know if any were underage? part of any human trafficking rings? >> because the bogota case happened a decade ago, there

were no interviews of prostitutes. on the more recent one, the cartagena 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 cannot be disciplined for slis itting prostitutes from drug cartels they were ostensibly investigating. i find that stunning. >> if somebody murdered somebody, could you fire them? >> if someone murdered someone there would be criminal charges and that's how they'd be fired. >> but if they, could you take away their security clearance? >> the office of security programs can review security clearances and take their clearances just as they did with the cart three agents in the cartagena incident. >> gentleman yield for just a

second. sor sorry, i heard you say there was one thing you could fire somebody for, sexual harassment, see if i get this correct. if i flirt with a co-worker in the office, and that constitutes sexual harassment, 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's when the ability to discipline is limited. you know in our report. >> thank you. thank the gentleman. >> thank you.

i like to tell you about the possibility security risk. it says mr. -- stated he believed that mr. corroborator one gained information from the u.s. agents by getting the gartd down. paying for parties. bragged about the parties with prostitutes and how he sold relationship closeness with agents to mr. corroborator two. and then mr. corroborator one said he could easily get the agents to talk, so do you believe actual information was compromised through these sex parties? >> there's no evidence that actual, that any was compromised, but the concern is that participate ng this kind of behavior bringing foreign nationals, prostitutes to your glq, bringing them around other

agents all of those are security risks. >> does doesn't the report itself provide evidence? that you had agents in compromised positions of these foreign officials believe that the agents were compromised and they could get the agents to talk? did you do an, how do you know agents didn't say something? that they maybe should not have said or disclosed some information they should not have? >> the 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 and that's about the furthest that it goes. >> did you then do an investigation as to what

information may or may not have been leaked? >> the opr investigation, because it was ten years after the fact, did not, did not identify any instances and in fact the agents were all out of country by the time it was investigated. but that, that is -- >> so it's possible that information was leaked. >> absolutely. that's a major concern. >> so, let me focus again on this discipline issue. when i served active duty in the air force and as a jag, i dealt with a douglas factors and i understand some of the reser jensen that you have because we're a civil service system. the b fbi is not under title 5. dea agents like fbi agents go undercover. they're law enforcement. any reason not to move the dea out of title 5? >> we would entertain any look

at that. any exemgts that could be given so that an administrator or director could take action and make sure only the people with outstanding reputations and ethics are employed by the agency. >> if the deciding officials make decision 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 this behavior is unacceptable and that i ordered the deciding officials and 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's a climate issue, a cultural issue, what happens is leadership resigns or getting fired. so, for example, in the air force when there's problems with some of nuclear weapons we had even though the secretary of the air force at the time, the chief of the air force didn't know about it, wasn't aware, but because those things happen, they were both removed. secret service. their head is gone. do you believe it's a climate issue? and if it's a climate issue do you believe then maybe instead of rank and file maybe you need leadership changed or removed? >> we have changed leadership

we have a different set of leaders within dea now than we did a decade ago. and i believe that moving forward, with our 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 it's a reset and they can, they can look at the activity and they can say this is the administrator said this is these are 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. you have said earlier today that you do not just dispute the report i believe is your exact words, yet a couple of times, you mentioned this was an ice isolated incident. from what we've heard today, this has been a spring break frat party for a number of years. access to classified information, these are the considerations for whether or not someone is given a security clearance. is that correct? okay. >> part of the guidelines covers conduct that reflects lack of judgment or a person's able tiility to protect classified information. is that correct? >> correct. >> are you aware of anyone who's before fired for breaching that? >> cartagenat the three agents and we've had other agents throughout dea's history. >> did you have a role in someone losing their job because

of the security breaches? >> cartagena. >> okay. slis itting prostitutes. does that expose an agent to blackmail? weren't some married? >> i believe so. >> you know what really even you know what. to me a more potent question two weeks ago we had the largest human tracting ingtrafficking event in north carolina. talked about the human trafficking specifically, the drug cartels are involved with. 83% are up to 14. having gratuitous sex with an underage prostitute, first of all, how egregious it is to use that despicable language. but second of all, at what point does it become a security breach? you mentioned appalled several times. are you appalled with that? >> absolutely. >> how appalled do you have to be before you jump up and down and say they cannot be tolerated? >> the first incident that i had

any dealings with in this manner or about this behavior was cartagena, i made sure there was coordination between the people that do the investigation 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 not -- >> sure they have. there's no statute of limitations for having sex with a 13 or 14-year-old. why are you telling me that, well that was long ago but picking up at this point on -- i don't understand that. can you help me understand? >> i will say that the security clearances of all the people involved in the bogota incident, the one person involved in 2009 those security clearances are

currently under review by the department of justice. >> do you have any concrete proof of the age of these prostitutes that 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. there's nothing to indicate a -- >> nobody asked that question? let me ask you something else. last friday april 10th the chairman referred to this 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? >> yes, i am. >> the problem is or else what? what happens? just reminder. the fact that we have to remind these agents to be on your best behavior is ludicrous. the fact is, then what? evidently, in the past, hey it may take a couple days off or even unpaid two weeks at the

most. where is the or else in this? would you answer that question? what happens? the attorney general sent it out. 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? >> 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 then tire d entire dea work force that this was not to be tolerated and that there would be significant discipline. >> i have three children. i tell them -- talk about not do that. but unless the consequences are clearly communicated, i don't have a shot to change their behavior. last question and i will yield back. if you had a chance going back, would you be so appalled that would you do things different

handling these matters? >> without a doubt. >> thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. the chair recognizes miss norton. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i don't know how to describe what we have seen here. boys gone wild out of sight, out of mind. what we do know and what most concerns me is how these prostitutes were funded. it looks like we have implicated taxpayer funds that some may have come out of official funds and some out of cartel funds. it's 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 has -- 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 reports where apparently there were corroborating witnesses. some of this is so eye popping i will have to ask your response. i'm not going to ask you why you don't fire people. because i do understand that when the state -- that's the united states or any of its agents is an actor, then due process, of course requires to you go through certain processes. after all the processes have been put there by the congress of the united states. so i'm going to ask you whether -- about things that perhaps you could do. this corroborating witness stated he recalled that the asac -- the assistant special agent in charge, i believe, that his farewell party that was in 2003 and '04, where part of the money requested from an 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's approximately $261. for each prostitute with funds from an operational budget. i want to try to identify what that means. what is the purpose of an operational budget? is it taxpayer funds? >> what i believe that refers to is money is given to the columbian national police to pay for their operations that they're doing in collaboration with us. >> it's given -- taxpayer funds are given to them.

what we're talking about funds that were paid not by -- 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. >> if that's the case, and, of course, you have indicated and i understand why you can't fire someone as if there were the private sector when the state is an agent, would that fund continue to be under the same supervision if you had -- having this kind of information, as it was before? >> the bogota incident you were talking about was three regional directors ago. and the way that dea operates

with the police in these special units has 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 the national police for operations now are audited. they require receipts. the 2000-2003 time frame was at the beginning stages of these units. >> according to this witness -- again, the word operational budgets 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 to get additional money. >> in other words fraudulent budgets. >> yes. on behalf of the national police. >> you can't wipe -- you can't wash the hands of the office -- this is a corroborating witness here who stated that the operational budgets were presented to the dea to cover operational expenses.

it doesn't seem to me you can wash your hands of that at the dea or that they could have washed their hands of that. has someone looked back at how these funds were expanded during this period so that you can now lay out exactly what happened during this period? part of the problem here and the frustration i think of the committee is that it has taken so long because you had no policy to go up the chain of command. so you can tell me, well, this was 2003 and 2004. but if i was there, i would want to know exactly what happened so i would make sure it wasn't happening now. >> one part of the investigation was to go through and audit and do just that. >> from that period? >> to look at the books from that period of time. >> we understand again from one of the corroborating witnesses he could obtain -- this is a quote -- prostitutes for agents from the dea bogota office.

this is what the witness said. he could -- he would 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 for these 15 to 20 parties. weren't the dea agents in -- they had a crack down on the agents on the cartels given funds to pay for these parties. >> the time has expired. you may answer. >> that's what is so appalling about this, that although the agents didn't know, the corrupt police were getting money from the traffickers. they were on their payroll and using that money for the prostitutes. >> thank the gentle woman. we recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you. mr. horowitz, in your report you noted that during the

interviews, some in your office staff were 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 definitively 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. 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 under the belief that closed cases were not a part of what mr. horowitz's audit would cover. >> well, there was obvious confusion. did you yourself at any time ever give instruction to anyone to withhold information? >> absolutely not. >> did anyone in your staff? >> no no one -- >> how do you know? >> because we weren't involved in that part of the process. >> well then you can't definitively say that no one did it if you weren't involved in the process. 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. 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. you were all over the board today. you say you can't fire anyone and that you didn't have all the facts and yet you send information that this behavior is not going to be tolerated. it's absolutely all over the board. you have junior officers who evidently can fire but you cannot 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 the -- >> did they do their job by not

disciplining appropriately in this situation? >> i'm disappointed in it the discipline. i think that it's not enough. >> 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 that replacements or people that are coming up to take those positions are of -- >> do you or do you not have any authority over the junior officers? >> i don't have the authority to intervene in the disciplinary process. >> a moment ago you said you would act differently if you this to do all over again. why in the world would you say that? it 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 that 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 is tolerated or not. did anyone listen to you when you wrote that letter? >> yes, the entire work force listened to me. and, in fact like me -- >> why would they listen to you, if you have no influence whatsoever on the disciplinary process? i just got to tell you, you say you are in charge of discipline on one hand. then you come back and say you have nothing to do with discipline. you are in charge of the entire agency, then you come back and say you have nothing do with correcting problems. quite honestly, i have serious questions as to your competence quite frankly. it appears to me that we need to seriously consider new leadership at the dea. i yield back the balance of my time. >> before the gentleman yields back, i would like to give mr.

horowitz an opportunity to respond to the questions. if you could address that directly. >> certainly. with regard to the production of information and answering questions, again the frustration we had with 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 we 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 they provided us with everything that we already had. we thought they had even more than we had which is why we went to them in the first instance for the information. then we found out the production was incomplete. we 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 hardworking folks in my office who spent months just trying to get information. and i will go back to what i said earlier. the atf and the u.s. marshal service, we asked -- i made the same request of them. we got the material. we got it fast. we never thought we didn't get from them what we were entitled to. that should have happened across the board and it should be happening across the board in all instances.

>> appreciate. recognize the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you. 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 what we would call offense occurs. for example, your report says 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 lionhart does the dea recognize that prostitution is imbedded in certain local cultures and by implyication tolerable and you recognize -- the agency recognizes tolerance

zones for prostitution? >> no. what i believe the inspector was talking about was in colombia there's certain tolerance zones for prostitution. it doesn't matter with the dea. the partaking in that kind of behavior is against all dea policies. it's not -- doesn't matter if it's legal in a 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? >> you find it in our personnel manual. you find it -- >> there's a chapter called thou shalt not? >> basically. it's very clear.

>> okay. mr. horowitz, did you confirm that? >> certainly, that wasn't the case back during the course of the years that we reviewed this. that's the problems that we identified here. >> it was not the case? >> that was not -- certainly not the culture and certainly not the understanding based on the interviews we conducted. >> i'm going to get to that. did you find an explicit policy in their personnel manual human resource policy that explicitly barred such elicit activity? >> it did not at that time. it does now in light of both the administrator's memo and the attorney general's memo. >> when you said to me just now that's a violation of our existing policy, you meant the new existing policy is that correct? >> the new existing policy. but it existed in our personnel manual in a couple of different sections. one about you cannot have a

relationship with someone involved in illegal activity. >> wait a minute. wait, wait. you just said to me that the tolerance zones referred to colombia, not to dea designated tolerance zones, in which prostitution in fact was legal. you just cited something that refers to illegal. if you go to colombia, it is not illegal in certain parts of the country. 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 found with the cartagena case, our policies didn't say you cannot partake in prostitution. but we had different sections in our personnel manual, different

sections in our standards of conduct that every agent in the agency signs once a year and acknowledges. things such as dea personnel are prohibited from engaging in any criminal infamous dishonest or notoriously disgraceful conduct or other conduct prejudicial to dea to dea, to doj or the government of the united states. >> some of your agents thought prostitution was not included in that. >> no dea agent thought that prostitution was okay. >> well, i don't think that's 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 inspector said the accept built of this behavior affects

the way in which federal law enforcement employees conduct themselves in a particular country. what you just read to us notwithstanding, the practice seems to be very much contingent upon local acceptable practices. and we're influenced by that your policy notwithstanding. would that be fair to say? >> i would say every dea agent knows to include going back to 2000 to 2004, in that period of time knows that that -- partaking in that kind of activity is against dea policy. when this happened and we reviewed all our policies to make sure, we decided to strengthen them and to put wording in about prostitution specifically just so that -- just to put everybody on notice

and 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. >> please. >> thank you. mr. perkins, the report talks about fbi providing employees with extensive predeployment training regarding conduct abroad. and has done the most to prepare employees to make day to day decisions unlike apparently the dea or even the secret service. can you comment on that? does your training program in terms of deployment overseas explicitly deal with issues like prostitution and the sense of dishonor it brings on the united

states if its employees engage in that kind of activity? >> yes, congressman. it covers a universe of issues from the personal security of the individuals going overseas to the standards of conduct that we would expect them to exhibit while they're overseas. a good bit of this began actually under former director freeh as we began to expand our overseas presence with the wars in iraq and afghanistan. we had a significant presence overseas at that time which required 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. >> final point on training. does dea have a program similar to the fbi in terms of predeployment training? >> yes we do. it's the foreign orientation program. 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 was 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. you have been with dea for how

many years? >> 35. >> 35 years. 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. the standards of which they take. 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 4,600 agents that work for dea. we're very proud of our agency. this hits us hard. >> well, it should hit you hard. and it sounds like that you keep saying that you are appalled and that you just can't believe this kind of behavior. but my concern is is in 1994,

there was a gao report that outlined -- you were there at that particular time. that outlined sexual misconduct within the agency. then again in 2004 there was an oig study that talked about the same kind of inappropriate behavior. and yet, here we are today with a new oig report that's over 100 pages in length. but we're addressing a decade-old cultural problem. aren't we? this is not new to you is that correct? >> this is new to me in this position. but in law enforcement obviously, every company, every organization has some people that are not going to follow the rules.

to see what happened back in 2000 to 2003 in colombia to see what happened in 2009 with the incident with the agent in bogota and then to see cartagena, this is our country to make sure that 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 may be the only time that there have been people that have actually been disciplined for improper conduct. wouldn't you agree with that? you keep running back to this as a good example.

but yet your directive didn't come out until two years after that event. you were bragging about your directive that you sent out. didn't that go out in 2014? >> yes. it went out as -- >> if you were 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 had 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. >> is it your testimony that it took you two years to figure out what to put in a directive? is that your testimony here today? >> no. actually, we drafted that back after a working group got together to decide what steps should we immediately put in place. we drafted that.

and on the heels of the case being able to show here is what happens if you partake in this behavior, we had the 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. >> okay. i'm running out of time. let me do this one follow-up. i have reason to believe that some of the people that today you are saying may -- should have been fired but that 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 -- >> that some of them -- >> i know that a number of them were promoted between the activity in 2000 and when it came to light in 2010. i can tell you that since the

allegations were raised and investigated, there have been no promotions. >> how about bonuses? because i have reason to believe that there were bonuses that were given. i'm sure you've just looked into all of this. were there bonuses given to some of those folks? >> of the -- i know that there were bonuses given to the regional director. i don't know about bonuses given to the -- i don't know about -- >> some bonuses were given to people who were directly involved in this particular thing that most americans find offensive? yes or no? >> no. the regional director -- >> you said you didn't know. so how -- >> the regional director that got bonuses was not directly involved in this. i don't know as to the other employees. >> is it possible they got bonuses? >> it's very possible. >> it's very possible. because our intel would say that

it is. so here is my -- i appreciate the patient of the chair. if you would give without names -- because, obviously, that is critical. would you agree today to give the names and the number of people involved in this to the oag so he can 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're getting bonuses. 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. >> we can get bonus information to see if these people that were 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 -- >> is that a no? you are 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 -- >> if the gentleman would yield -- >> yes. >> we're asking you to provide the information to the inspector general. will you or will you not do that? >> if it was up to me to give it to you -- >> you're the administrator. you're 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 him it. >> does the inspector want that information? >> i would be lap pi tohappy to take that and look into the issue. >> will the inspector general report back to the committee at its earliest convenience? >> we will. >> to suggest that the more senior person wasn't directly involved -- he was involved. was he not?

>> he was not involved in the activity. >> did he properly report up the chain of command? >> he didn't report it to the right place. >> okay. so he was involved in it. 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. can we also add into their promotions, title changes? bonuses, title changes promotions. is that fair? looking for a yes here. to the administrator. >> we will work to get you that information. >> is that a yes? or no? >> yes, we will get you that information. >> thank you. >> i thank the chair for

patience. i yield back. >> did you want to add something, mr. horowitz? we now recognize the gentleman from wisconsin who is now recognized for five minutes. >> one of the things that's a little bit frustrating about this hearing -- i apologize. i feel sorry for you. that you have expressed concerns about some of the civil service protections. so people back home understand, civil service protections are very important because if we didn't have civil service protections, you could wind up in an agency like the irs firing anybody who wasn't on the right side politically. nevertheless, you have expressed frustration. i do believe some of the people who are expressing the greatest anger at you today are some of people who express anger at you may be the first to fight any change in those civil service laws. could you give us some suggestions that you may have to

make it easier to remove an employee who is a misbehaveingeing employee? we have a situation in which people are behaving in outrageous conduct. if a late night talk show host made it up you wouldn't believe it. but it happened apparently. things that are obviously wrong. it makes me wonder what's happening if we have employees who aren't doing a very good job at their job where it's a little more subjective. could you give me any suggestions you would have for changing the civil service laws? >> if you looked at giving us the same exemption as the fbi i think that we then would be able to make sure that the penalties were appropriate. >> what would you think an appropriate penalty is for this behavior? >> 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 system protection board i believe that some of these -- some of the behavior would raise to the level of removal. >> be removal, you mean they should be fired? >> just like cartagena, yes. >> okay. just because -- you danced around it. could you describe to the public today why you feel this behavior was wrong so i get a sense? why this is bad behavior, could 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 besides 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 behaveior 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 this stuff, is it

right that some of this stuff was brought to the attention by colombia authorities? >> actually, the colombian authorities, by the time this was discovered on the corruption of the two police officers, the colombian national police did a great job in helping us convict them and also they removed a number of colombian national police officers who were involved in this same activity. >> okay. i will ask the same question to mr. horowitz there because he seems -- could you comment on how you feel we should change still keeping protections for people, but change things a little bit so that we maybe had a little not just outrageous conduct but even competent conduct out of the dea. >> well, within the current structure, there needs to be

prompt reporting, prompt investigating, prompt discipline disciplinary action and follow through. 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 disclosed the information related to the 2001-2004 events. all of the dea officials involved in though events in colombia 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 that 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 there. no one thought it was important enough or serious enough to raise to headquarters. >> it's good the colombian people had a little higher standard. >> these were the corrupt officers. >> right. eventually, that they felt there was something wrong. >> right. they felt it was wrong and once they got arrested, they were more than happy to come in and report out on what had occurred. >> thank you. >> thank the gentleman. recognize the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer for five minutes. >> thanks, mr. chairman. miss leonhart, is there any policy against turning over dea weapon or communication devices to foreign agents or any non-dea or non-u.s. official? >> if i hear you right, you're asking about prohibition on turning over a device?

>> not having immediate supervision of the weapons and device s 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's a yes or no. >> it could fall under -- >> that's a yes or no. you either have a penalty for not securing your weapons and communication devices, because there are things on the devices that could be used against other agents or against this country. >> it could fall under poor judgment. there's a number of areas -- there's policies --

>> poor judgment has already been pointed out, poor judgment is not one of those official criteria. 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 communication devices possibly the security their badges? is that also the case? >> part of the report is that while some of the agents were involved in that activeity -- >> it's a yes or no. >> yes. >> as egregious as the activity that the agents were involved in which is in many respects a crime against humanity because of the ages 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 america, latin america. they will spend $250 billion down there. did it not occur to anyone that this might also be a national security breach or a problem along that line? >> someone doing a security adjudication could look at that and find that those are reasons why a security clearance should be suspended and revoked. >> were they for any of these people? >> for the bogota case, their clearances were never looked at. >> let me ask you this. 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.

>> have you discussed this with the deputy attorney general and how to proceed with this? >> i briefed the deputy attorney general on these cases recently. >> did he make any recommendations about how to proceed? >> yes. the security clearances are currently being reviewed -- >> i want to ask you something more specific. did deputy attorney general express any reservations about how the dea has handled this and the discussions -- was there any discussion about how to respond to the request from the inspector general's office -- the office of the inspector general? >> i have had multiple conversations on document -- turning over documents to the oig. they have given us good guidance on that. >> so they gave you good guidance. that means they approved if not turning over the documents that

the inspector general requested? >> no. actually we didn't know -- we were worried about the victims' names and how to handle that. >> mr. horowitz, you have said that there have been numerous instances where the fbi has failed to submit sufficient material. you mentioned it about the dea. when you were here in january, you spoke of agencies particularly the fbi and others delaying production of material. i asked you then did this rise to obstruction. you said it had a significant impact on reviews but failed to go -- you failed to go as far as calling it obstruction. i want to ask you that again. are you willing to call it obstruction now? >> what occurred back in 2013 when we were given redacted documents impeded and obstructed our ability to move forward with

this investigation in a timely manner. it took months. it required me to elevate it to the leadership of both agencies. it was when i elevated it that we got the reaction. but i didn't have to do that with atf and the marshal service. i shouldn't have to do that. i'm still having do that on multiple instances. >> i'm not trying to put you on the spot. it appears you have been obstructed. >> i think in this instance we were obstructed. >> is there still information that you would like to get from the dea? >> i think at this point, we made a decision to simply move forward, issue the report, even though we had concerns about the fbi and dea productions because this was so important to put forward. frankly, at this point we have got other reports to do and get to that we still have the same issues on. >> is there additional information you would like to have? >> on this issue, no. on others, yes. >> thank you mr. chairman.

>> thank the gentleman. recognize the gentleman 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 evidence. in case it hasn't, would you -- >> without objection, it's ordered. >> great. miss leonhart and mr. horowitz, in the attorney general's memo for all department personnel dated april 10 2015 subject prohibition on solicitation of prostitution it says that the solicitation of prostitutes creates a greater demand for human trafficking victims and a kwent increase in the number of minors trafficked into sex slavery. do you agree with that? do you agree with that assessment? >> i certainly think it raises the risks. >> do you agree with that. >> i certainly do. >> okay.

also under the department of homeland security regs and a couple of the statutes we have what we're talking about here, the solicitation of prostitutes for 15 to 20 parties is within the definition of human trafficking. and yet the dea is charged -- i know myself and others were down in central america recently. that's a big part of the dea's mission is really to combat human trafficking. we actually give grants to the department of -- to the dea and to the fbi and to 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 yet the very people -- the very departments that are getting this money, in this case, are engaging in human trafficking. it just brings me back to the unbelievability of what has happened here. 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 agencies that are still on the job that are receiving federal grants to stop trafficking who have already engaged and admitted to trafficking. i don't see the end of this. i don't see the end of this if we leave this situation the way it is. miss leonhart you know i wouldn't believe this would be necessary, but we may need to amend title 5. we may have to put in a provision that holds you accountable. because right now you could pass it off to somebody below you. you don't have to accept responsibility, and you haven't. that's clear. but if we adopted an amendment to title 5 that said, outrageous and/or criminal conduct in direct violation of an agency's mission would give you the ability to fire somebody.

that would solve this, i think in part. and also the failure to report. that's where this started, where the managers at the lower levels did not report, did not kick 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 and the government the ability to claw back pensions, claw back salary that was accepted by those individuals who were violateing the law. it's a shame that we have to get to this. i actually think that that may be where we are at right now. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank the gentleman. i recognize myself. i have a series of questions as we wrap up here. administrator leonhart you

became the -- you have tried to paint a picture of this as a decade ago. i heard you say multiple times ten years ago. when did you become the deputy administrator? >> i was confirmed in march of 2004. >> how many deputies are there -- deputy administrators are there? >> there's one. >> so you were the only one. then you became the acting administrator. when was that? >> 2007. >> you were confirmed in? >> 2010. >> it's safe to say that you have had your finger on the pulse of this department or this agency for more than a decade? correct? you have been there 35 years? >> either as the deputy or the acting administrator or administrator, yes, since 2004. >> one of the things that you said that is it troubling -- and a long list and was brought up

by mr. lynch is the idea that -- it was in response to some of the questions about those that were directly involved. i want you to seriously consider -- i want all the departments and agencies to seriously consider in my mind, they are directly involved if they fail 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 policies. correct? >> that's correct. >> so when you suggest that they weren't directly involved, that offers me great concern. do you understand that? >> i do understand that. i was just making the point that he wasn't involved in the behavior. he failed to report. and that's what his shortcomings

were. >> part of the on whohor on behaveior is covering it. as mr. horowitz pointed out the only -- the only alternative based on the law enforcement component offense tables in appendix three of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment is removal. it's the only one. there's no if, ands or buts. i know there are things we will look at with title five. but removal is the only option. so let me ask you, administrator, do you believe that soliciting prostitution is sexual harassment? >> no i believe that prostitution is sexual misconduct. >> explain 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 work force -- 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? is it a hostile work environment? those are sexual harassment. sexual misconduct is a different -- you could have sexual misconduct that's also sexual harassment. but there is a difference. prostitution would be sexual misconduct.

>> so explain to me then exactly what you believe -- explain to me what you think sexual harassment is. what would be some examples and what's sexual harassment? >> unwelcome edd 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 and d, those kinds of activities. >> mr. horowitz do you want to weigh in 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 pornographic movies. movies. yelling at employees other kinds of actions. obviously, clearly within the definition. >> within the report, you believe those are sexual harassment? >> that's sexual harassment. >> so if you're a dea agent, in this case and you're having sex, commercial sex paid for, you don't believe that's sexual harassment? >> no, that's sexual misconduct. >> is procuring a prostitute sexual harassment? >> it would be sexual misconduct. it didn't happen -- >> no harassment. >> it's not the workplace. >> it happened in government

housing. >> it's not behavior against a fellow -- another employee. >> so in your mind, in your world, a different planet than i live it's not sexual harassment if you do something to somebody who is not a federal employee? what if they were here in the washington, d.c. area, or you were in charge of the los angeles field office. is it sexual harassment if they go up to somebody in los angeles and start saying, you know, some ridiculous comments and trying to solicit somebody? that's just harassment, or is it? it's not in your world. >> as it's defined for government, as it's 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's sexual misconduct. >> we'll have to further explore this because i think this is -- we're getting to the heart of one of the biggest problems here which is in your world which i don't think is the real world, the charge here for the person in bogota, was improper association. does that sound like the appropriate charge? >> which person in bogota? >> the dea agent in bogota in july of 2009 when they engaged, this is the case with the 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 improper association is one of the proper charges? do you think this person was properly, 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 the proper charge for that person? >> i believe those are two proper charges. the deciding official had a number of other charges that they could have looked at as well. >> i'm asking what you personally believe. what do you believe they should have been charged with? or do you believe that was the

best proper conclusion? >> i think it would be conduct unbecoming. it's improper association. i would have concerns about false statements. i have a number of concerns with those cases. >> any other in your professional opinion your experience, you work for the opr, you've been at the agency for 30-plus years, you have been the acting or the deputy or administrator for more than a decade. do you believe that this person in bogota was properly charged or do you believe they fell short? what else, if they did fall short, what else do you think they should have been charged with? >> i do believe it fell short. >> what else should they have been charged with? >> as i said it's not so much the charge it's the penalty. the other charges, it could have

been not -- >> the charge determines the penalty. when you say that this person engaging with a prostitute, throwing a glass at her, i mean, how many things could be list out that are wrong with that in every step. and improper association is the one that they go with? >> the penalty for improper association and conduct unbecoming can be removal. >> it was only 14 days. we even had an eyewitness, security guard worked for the federal government. do you think any of theese cases that we brought before you, there should be additional charges? >> again, not knowing all the facts -- >> you said you knew all the facts. you just issued a memo on march 26th saying you had fully investigated wristhis. it says, quote, these allegations were fully investigated by dea office of professional responsibility. you sent this out at 5:33 p.m.

on march 26th, 2015. >> not knowing all the circumstances that the deciding officials who are the only ones who can decide punishment in dea, not knowing everything they took into consideration, they could have by charging conduct unbecoming and improper association, the penalties are up to removal. >> mr. horowitz, do you have a comment on that? >> i think the concern we found is we state in our report, is that they were charged with offenses such as conduct unbecoming, poor judgment, which by the way isn't a category and others that were inconsistent. and the concern is and we deal with this in our own agency when we have to look at individuals who may have engaged in misconduct, you want to charge what the number of charges

should be in part because there is precedent. you look to what prior individuals got for similarliy situated conduct under similar charges. and so that's one of the concerns we have as we lay out here to the importance of consistent charging and charging the appropriate offense. >> to the administrator, is the dea part of the intelligence community? >> a sliver of dea is part of the intelligence community. >> is it governored by the intelligence community directive, number 704? >> that sliver of the agency is yes. >> define that sliver, please. >> under 60 positions in dea within the intelligence division. >> those serving overseas, would they be subject to this? >> depends on the position. there are in some countries some

intelligence analysts that would be under that. the special agents would not. >> again we're getting close to wrap-up, i promise. we're not at halftime. we're well past that. walk me through security clearance. 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 gets a security clearance that same office makes the determination -- >> what office is that? >> office of security programs. they do all adjudicating of security clearances for new employees, for contract employees, for anybody that's going to be in the workforce within dea. the same office also handles

reviews, periodic reinvestigations and handles reviews of people who already have security clearances. so, for instance, in the cartagena case, opr referred the case over to security programs when they had completed their investigation, and security programs did a complete review of their 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 the security clearance removal from service because they can't be a dea employee without having a security clearance. >> what are the standards by which you can have and not have a security clearance? what is that standard?

>> there's a number of things they 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 determine s determines determines, that governs, if you will, what you will and will not give for security cleerps? >> there's a document that everyone employee is to fill out. >> that's just a couple of dudes down in the bowels of the dea that just make a random decision hoar or how is the decision made? >> they're trained on adjudication. they review if there's a