the '98 global crisis. i think there's been some increase in the death rates over the last year or so with this economic downturn. it's hard to say why. it just seems to be more so than most other countries. we had our financial crisis in the late 2000s. overall life expectancy in these arctic regions.

there's an institute for the arctic people that's been abolished. i don't think it's a priority like it is in the u.s. >> we've gotten into the end of our time. i think this is is a very, a very opportune year. we have the arrival of the u.s. chairmanship. we have paris climate change at the end of year the summit. thank you for bringing the expertise you have. it's been astonishing to listen

and we know you had to travel a bit of a distance to get here. thank you for your leadership. watching you over the course of this morning has exhausted me. congratulations. thank you for your great questions and comments and your patience and sticking with us. thank you all. we're adjourned. >> thank you. [ applause ]

a live look at the new hampshire republican party what it's calling the leadership summit with potential republican candidates. among those speaking to the group include new jersey governor chris christie. former governor rick perry and also senator marco rubio. we just saw former governor jim gillmore of virginia. the conference continues saturday morning with remarks from senators rand paul, ted cruz and lindsey graham. that starts saturday morning.

at age 25 she was one of the wealthyiest widows in the colony. later she'd become our nation's first first lady at 57 martha washington. from martha washington to michelle obama sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv c-span3.

the justice department inspector general issued a report saying drug enforcement agencies had sex parties with prostitutes. the parties were paid for by the drug cartel the dea is supposed to fight. she said she can't order the agents to be fired because of laws protecting civil servants but she said congress should change the law to allow her to fire them.

good morning. without objection the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. we're here to talk about some alarming problems in our law enforcement agencies. the latest report from the department of justice inspector general outlines a number of problems with the conduct that both law enforcescement agentofficers and the agencies that managed them. first law enforcement personnel at home and abroad engaged in reprehensible sexual harassment and misconduct that jeopardized our national security. second, the agencies where they work mishandled their responses

to those incidents by failing to properly report them, leading to insufficient punishment and third, the fbi and the d.e.a. tried to hide these incidents from the inspector general by improperly withholding information and encouraging employees not to cooperate with the inspector general. hiding information from the inspector general is simply and totally unacceptable. the department of justice inspector general report documents a number of highly concerning findings about federal law enforcement. one of the most shocking incidents, mr. horwitz described in his report involved d.e.a. agents in colombia partying with prostitutes paid for by drug

cartels. while the d.e.a. agents were spending time with those prostitutes, local colombian police were watching the agents' guns and property. the fact that this happened was bad enough. but none of these agents were even punished by the d.e.a. most of the agents involved were suspended for a few days and allowed to return to work with their security clearances in full. based on the testimony we have read from the d.e.a. administrator, she says she doesn't have the power to simply fire these people. i don't buy it. the american public doesn't buy it. and for the thousands of men and women who serve honorably, they're patriotic, they work hard. they put their lives on the line. this administration, this d.e.a. administrator has got to hold those people accountable and get them out of in. if this is the kind of behavior that they're going to engage in, it's totally unacceptable. they should not have a security clearance and they should be fired.

some of these agencies compromised our national security and then essentially got a vacation. the punishment for engaging in this type of behavior was two to ten days off paid leave -- or non-paid leave. that sounds like a vacation to me. it doesn't sound like punishment. to suggest these people couldn't be fired or do something more severe is simply unacceptable. and again, i want to remind our members, this is a matter of national security. we're talking about people's lives. and the d.e.a. as much as anybody puts people overseas in very tough and difficult situations. but when we have bad apples who repeatedly do the same type of behavior, compromise their national security, then they need to lose their national security clearances and they need to be fired. the i.g. found this was hardly an isolated incident. the report highlights repeated incidences of misconduct including unreported cases of atf training instructors sleeping with their students, using government vehicles to facilitate inappropriate sexual relationships, and managers sexually harassing employees and asking them to watch pornography.

the report also makes clear that when law enforcement agents engage in inappropriate and illicit sexual behavior the agency they work for oftentimes just simply looks the other way. to use the i.g.'s language, these cases of sexual misconduct are treated as "local management issues." in other words, they're basically swept under the rug. adding to the concerns raised in this report is the fact the d.e.a. and the fbi tried to hide these incidents from their own inspector general. both the d.e.a. and the fbi went out of their way to impede and delay the inspector general's report. according to their report, the d.e.a. and the fbi delayed responding to requests for information, provided heavily redacted documents, and even told their employees not to cooperate. for example, the inspector

general asked the d.e.a. to run more than 40 search terms, to search their data base, and identify relevant information. the three terms, three out of the more than 40 that they ran, included sex, prosti, and exposure. not included were brothel, escort, harass, rape, solicit, and the list goes on. why exclude? why exclude the search terms the inspector general's asking for? it's not the d.e.a.'s responsibility to weed that out. your job is to allow the inspector general to get in there, get his fingernails dirty, and go figure out the truth. but that's not what happened. i want to put up a slide here. when the d.e.a. finally did provide information after significant delay, in some cases documents were so heavily redacted the i.g. couldn't even tell what the documents were about.

this is the type of documentation that the inspector general was given by you at the d.e.a. and we want answers as to why that is. the good men and women who work at the inspector general's office do tough, difficult work. but they can't do anything if they get that kind of material from the d.e.a. and it's not just the d.e.a. it's the fbi. it's the other agencies as well. it's not acceptable. we have a lot of questions for our witnesses here to testify on behalf of both the d.e.a. and fbi. it's incumbent on the leadership of both these law enforcement agencies to weed out employees who put our security at risk, embarrass the country and break the law. to our good men and women the overwhelming majority of men and women who do their job in a patriotic hard-working way put their lives on the line. god bless you. we need you, we love you, we care for you.

but it's also irresponsible of management to not deal with the bad apples. people are going to make mistakes. but these weren't simple mistakes. this went on and on and on. multiple reports of sex parties, of loud parties. to the point that the landlord was actually complaining back to our government about how to control our own federal employees who are serving overseas. again, the people who cause these problems i recognize are a small population -- small percentage of the total population, who have not been held accountable for their dangerous lapses in judgment. i would ask unanimous consent. i'd like to enter two documents into the record. first of all, is from our attorney general eric holder, on april 10th of this year. prohibition on the solicitation of prostitution. how bad is it? one of his last acts as the attorney general, eric holder has to actually go forward and

issue a memorandum explaining to people that you can't do this again. it's almost embarrassing that he has to do this. i appreciate that he did it. to clarify if there's some misunderstanding out there. but i'd like to enter that into the record. i also want to enter into the record a document response. this is to the assistant inspector general for evaluations and inspections. the office of inspector general tanina -- i'm going to slaughter her last name. pelletier, i guess. from michael dixon, the acting chief deputy inspector office of inspection. the last line, "d.e.a. did a second review of the cases the o.i.g. reviewed to determine if the office of professional

responsibility had appropriately and thoroughly investigated these allegations. it was found through the review that the investigations were investigated properly through the d.e.a.'s disciplinary process and related misconduct." basically telling the inspector general that yeah, we did everything we could, that it was properly moved -- investigated properly through d.e.a.'s disciplinary process. and that's a sad day for the d.e.a. with that i will yield to the gentleman from maryland, the ranking member mr. cummings for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. it's set forth, mr. chairman, at the beginning of the inspector general's report a well-known doctrine for law enforcement officers. it simply says, and i quote, "given the nature of their work, federal law enforcement employees are held to the highest standards of conduct and must be accountable for their actions both on and off duty. although this tenet should be obvious, it bears repeating here

today and bears repeating every day. the inspector general's report details conduct that is simply deplorable for anyone. let alone law enforcement officials serving the united states of america. the report details allegations that a colombian police officer, and i quote, "arranged sex parties," end of quote, with prostitutes funded by the local drug cartels for these d.e.a. agents at their government-leased headquarters, end of quote. although inspector general's report describes activities between 2005 and 2008, last night our committee obtained new documents showing that some of these allegations were made far earlier. and some date back as early as 2001. in response to the committee's request, the d.e.a. has now produced to the committee 88 internal reports issued by its

office of professional responsibility. one of these reports in particular, case number 20120085, goes into great detail about these allegations. however, the agency has warned that releasing the entire report could, and i quote, expose complainants, witnesses, and victims, end of quote. so we must summarize its findings today. this new internal report details years of allegations beginning in 2001 that portray d.e.a. agents as completely out of control. they appear to have fraternized with cartel members, accepted lavish gifts, and paid for prostitutes with no concern whatsoever for the negative repercussions or security vulnerabilities they created. this new internal report describes not one or two

isolated incidents but literally dozens of parties with prostitutes in which d.e.a. agents use government funds and government offices. mr. chairman, my staff prepared a summary of this new internal report. and i ask unanimous consent that it be included in the hearing record. >> without objection. >> this new internal report details a truly breathtaking recklessness by d.e.a. agents who are sworn to protect our country. today i want to know how these egregious misconduct incidents could have continued for so long. for the better part of a decade, without being addressed.

the head of this agency, michele leonhart, is here with us today. given her extended tenure at d.e.a. during the same time frame of these abuses, we'll have very direct questions for her. the administrator was nominated by president bush in 2003 to serve as deputy administrator of d.e.a. she began serving as acting administrator in 2007. and president bush nominated her to serve as administrator in 2008. she was nominated again by president obama and confirmed by the senate in 2010. the inspector general reports, and i quote, says that the d.e.a. supervisors treated alleged sexual misconduct and sexual harassment as a local management or performance-related issue, end

of quote. it also finds that when the administrator learned about these allegations her agency imposed extremely light penalties. for example, when she was informed about while parties involving prostitutes, she, and i quote, counseled the regional director for failing to report the allegations, end of quote. that was it. just counseling. no other disciplinary action. one critical question for the administrator is what women who work in these law enforcement agencies must think. with only counseling sessions and suspensions of two weeks or less for misconduct like this, what incentive do women

employees have to report sexual harassment by their supervisors? so on friday the attorney general sent a letter to the committee outlining steps to address the issues. we're very pleased to receive that letter. these included re-examining the security clearances of those involved, reviewing d.e.a. procedures for investigating misconduct, and predict the solicitation of prostitution regardless of whether it may be legal overseas. these steps are critical, but they are clearly long, long overdue. if the first instances of this misconduct occurred in 2001. finally, let me note that these problems transcend politics. on march 27 chairman chaffetz and i wrote a bipartisan letter to the d.e.a. announcing our investigation, and we are fully committed to working together to investigate these incidents. how the agency responded and whether additional steps are needed to help prevent this misconduct from ever happening

again. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. we hold the record open for five legislative days for any member who'd like to submit a written statement. we now recognize our first and only panel of witnesses. we're pleased to welcome the honorable michele leonhart, administrator of the drug enforcement agency, the honorable michael horowitz, inspector general of the united states department of justice, and mr. kevin perkins, associate deputy director of the fbi, the federal bureau of investigation. we welcome all of you and thank you all for being here. pursuant to committee rules all witnesses will be sworn before they testify. if you'll please rise and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. in order to allow time for discussion, we would appreciate

limiting your testimony to five minutes. your entire written statement will be made part of the record. the d.e.a. administrator ms. leonhart, we'll recognize you first. >> chairman chaffetz, ranking member cummings, distinguished members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the department's report on sexual harassment and misconduct allegations by the department's law enforcement components. d.e.a. has a single mission, to enforce our nation's drug laws. our more than 9,000 employees including over 4,600 special agents are dedicated to this single mission, and each one of us took an oath. the same one i took over 30 years ago. to serve the citizens of the united states with honor, professionalism, and pride. d.e.a. personnel located in over 300 offices around the world including 67 foreign countries are doing extraordinary work

under often difficult and dangerous circumstances. this includes the investigation and arrest of leaders of the most violent and sophisticated drug cartels in the world. unfortunately, poor choices made by a few individuals can tarnish the reputation and overshadow the outstanding work being done at the d.e.a. i want to assure the members of this committee that like you i am disgusted, i am appalled by the behavior described in the inspector general's report. and to see the integrity of my agency and of federal law enforcement, which i have been a part of for nearly my entire professional life, damaged by these allegations has not been easy. this conduct is a violation of the high professional standards of conduct that the men and women of the d.e.a. are held to and undermines our effectiveness in fulfilling our mission. and as noted in the report, this behavior is contrary to the behavior of the overwhelming majority of those at d.e.a. although the o.i.g. audit

generally found that there were relatively few reported allegations of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct, the serious allegations o.i.g. highlighted are certainly troubling and describe behaviors that cannot be ignored. in particular, the allegations that agents assigned in bogota engaged in prostitution and accepted gifts from drug traffickers was pursued by our office of professional responsibility. however, the resulting investigation left some questions unanswered. even though the events in question occurred between 2001 and 2004 and were not reported and investigated until 2010, it is nevertheless important that we hold our employees to the

highest standards. and in this instance i assure you that i was quite disappointed in the penalties imposed. however, consistent with the protections afforded to employees under civil service laws, i do not have the ability to change the imposed penalties. i can and do, however, ensure that disciplinary actions are appropriately noted in an employee's personnel file, which is taken into consideration when that employee is considered for future positions within the d.e.a. this behavior should not be rewarded. as outlined in my written statement, d.e.a. concurred with and has begun implementing changes responsive to each of the o.i.g. recommendations. however, it is also essential that we make clear to all

employees that this behavior is not acceptable. it is my hope that the additional train can go and guidance that we have provided to all personnel, particularly those stationed overseas, will prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. d.e.a. has taken specific concrete steps to accomplish, this including ensuring that it is clearly understood by all d.e.a. employees that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. outlining the steps employees and supervisors must take when incidents occur. increasing training for all employees, especially those assigned overseas. clarifying guidelines for disciplinary offices. in the office of security programs and in the office of professional responsibility are made promptly aware of allegations and can take appropriate action in a timely manner. in closing, i want to reiterate that the kind of activity reported by the o.i.g. has not and will not be tolerated. o.i.g. plays an important role in reviewing our policies and

procedures. and i'm committed to working with the o.i.g. to make sure they have access to the documents they need to do their work. we have taken steps to address this kind of behavior, and moving forward, d.e.a. will respond to this kind of misconduct head on and with the decisive resolve you and the public expect. we are open to further recommendations so that we can continuously improve our policies, policies that demand the highest levels of personal and professional integrity from our employees. and thank you again for the opportunity to address you today. >> thank you. now i'll recognize mr. horowitz for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, ranking member cummings, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. federal agents are held to the highest standards of conduct, both on and off duty. as a former federal prosecutor and as an inspector general it has been my experience that the overwhelming majority of department agents meet those high standards and perform their work with great integrity and honor, thereby helping keep our community safe and our country

safe. nevertheless, we find instances where law enforcement agents engage in serious misconduct and even criminal violations affecting the agency's reputation, potentially compromising prosecutions, and possibly affecting the security of the agents and agency operations. furthermore, misconduct that involves sexual harassment affects employee morale and creates a hostile work environment. following the incidents during the president's trip to colombia in 2012 the o.i.g. conduct two reviews, one relating to department policies and training regarding off-duty conduct by employees working in foreign countries and one relating to the handling of allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct by the department's law enforcement components.

our off-duty conduct report found a lack of departmentwide policies or training requirements pertaining to off-duty conduct whether in the united states or other countries. this was particularly concerning given that we made recommendations back in 1996 in an o.i.g. report involving allegations at the time about department law enforcement ags agent off-duty conduct. despite those early recommendations we found little had changed in the intervening two decades. we did find, however, that the fbi made changes, including providing comprehensive training for its employees to help them make day-to-day decisions, to

make appropriate day-to-day decisions about off-duty conduct while working abroad. however, we found that the other three department law enforcement components contained little or no information about off-duty conduct before sending their employees abroad. having one in four law enforcement components effectively preparing its employees for overseas assignments demonstrates the need for departmentwide training and policies. in march 2015 we issued our report on the nature and frequency of reporting investigation and adjudication of allegations of sexual harassment or misconduct in the department's four law enforcement components. the report identified significant systemic issues that require prompt corrective action by the department. these issues include a lack of coordination between internal affairs offices and security personnel, failure to meet -- to report misconduct allegations to

component headquarters, failure to investigate allegations fully, weaknesses in the adjudication process, and weaknesses in detecting and preserving sexually explicit text messages and images. together our reviews demonstrate the need to improve disciplinary and security processes as well as to clearly communicate to d.o.j.'s and the -- to communicate to d.o.j. and components' employees the expectations for employee conduct. strong and unequivocal action from department and component leadership at all levels is critical to ensure that department employees meet the highest standards of conduct and are held fully accountable for any misconduct. as we also described in our march 20 sa report the failure by the d.e.a. and fbi to promptly provide information we requested significantly impeded our review. both agencies raised baseless

legal objections and only relented when i elevated the issue to agency leadership. however, even then the information we received was still incomplete. we therefore cannot be confident that the fbi and d.e.a. provided us with all information relevant to this review. in addition, after we completed our draft report, we learned that the d.e.a. failed to conduct the entire search of its data base we had requested. in order to conduct effective oversight the o.i.g. must have timely and complete access to documents and materials. this review starkly demonstrates the dangers of allowing the department and its components to decide on their own what documents they will share with

the o.i.g. the delays we experienced impeded our work, delayed our ability to discover the significant issues we ultimately identified, wasted department and o.i.g. resources, and affected our confidence and the completeness of our review. unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident. rather, we faced repeated instances in which our timely access to records has been impeded. congress recognized the significance of this impairment and included a provision in the recent appropriations act, section 218, prohibiting the department from impeding our timely access to records. nevertheless, the fbi continues to proceed exactly as it did before section 218 was adopted. spending appropriated funds to review records to determine if they should be withheld from the o.i.g. we are approaching the one-year anniversary of the deputy attorney general's request to the office of legal counsel for an opinion on these matters. yet that opinion remains outstanding and we have been given no timeline for its issuance. although the o.i.g. has been told that the opinion is a priority, the length of time that has passed suggests otherwise. instead the status quo continues. the american public deserves and expects an o.i.g. that is able to conduct rigorous oversight of the depending activities. unfortunately, our ability to conduct that oversight is conducting every day that goes by without a resolution of this dispute. i want to thank the committee again for its bipartisan support for our work. and i would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you, mr. horowitz. we'll now recognize mr. perkins for five minutes.

>> good morning, chairman chaffetz, ranking member cummings and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss issues raised in the inspector general's audit entitled the handling of sexual harassment and misconduct allegations by the department's law enforcement components. the fbi's policy on sexual harassment and sexual misconduct is very simple. the fbi does not tolerate sexual harassment or sexual misconduct within the ranks. the fbi has a robust disciplinary process guided by well-established policies, procedures, and practices. it consists of trained special agents in the inspections divisions, internal investigations section, who conduct thorough investigations of employee misconduct. when the investigation is completed, a team of experienced lawyers in the fbi's office of professional responsibility take over. reviewing the investigative materials and determining whether applicable policies, rules, regulations, laws, or other legal standards were violated and if so what penalty should be imposed on employees in question up to and including dismissal. in addition, the office of the inspector general reviews all allegations of misconduct at the fbi prior to any investigation being initiated and all final adjudications of misconduct at the fbi are reported on a regular basis to the o.i.g. we're pleased that the office of the inspector general found relatively few reported

allegations of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in the department's law enforcement components for fiscal years 2009 through 2012. in fact, the o.i.g. found the fbi had the lowest rate of this type of misconduct across the components. while we strive to have no cases of sexual harassment or misconduct, we have and we will continue to implement measures to better address these types of allegations. we're also pleased the o.i.g.'s audit recognizes the fbi's coordination between our internal investigation section and our security divisions as a best practice to ensure that misconduct allegations are evaluated for potential security concerns including continued eligibility to hold a security

clearance. notwithstanding these findings, there are improvements to be made. we must always look to improve and evolve as an organization. and we appreciate the o.i.g.'s recommendations for making our process better. as a result the fbi concurs with the recommendations in the o.i.g.'s report. the fbi takes very seriously our obligation to enable congress and the o.i.g. to conduct effective oversight of all of our activities. we work closely with the o.i.g. staff to ensure that we are responsive to their requests and that issues are identified and promptly resolved. you may also be aware that we have a good faith disagreement with the o.i.g. regarding what law requires with respect to providing fbi documents that have been obtained pursuant to provisions of law such as the wiretap act, the bank secrecy act, and those related to grand jury proceedings. we have been completely transparent with the o.i.g. and the leadership of the department of justice with respect to our

legal disagreement and are presently awaiting the office of legal counsel to render an opinion as to the correct reading of the law. in the interim we are giving the o.i.g. an assumption of access in these audits with respect to title 3, rule 6-e and fcra materials. senior leadership has also directed that our internal business process consulting group rigorously evaluate our processes to ensure that we are as effective and efficient as possible in providing the inspector general with requested documents in a timely fashion consistent with the law. chairman chaffetz, ranking member cummings, and members of the community, i thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today concerning our commitment to ensuring allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct are addressed in a prompt, thorough, and equitable manner. we take our responsibilities on this topic very seriously and appreciate your interest in these matters. now i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you.

i'll recognize myself for five minutes. mr. perkins, i totally disagree with your assessment that you're being open and transparent in providing access to the inspector general. that is a topic we will continue to discuss today. but i find your comments to be totally inconsistent with what the inspector general is telling us. we'll need to hash that out. it's one of the reason that's you're here today. i'm glad that you're here. but my questions -- i want to focus with the d.e.a. for a moment. do you have any questions, administrator, as to the accuracy of the o.i.g. report? you don't question the accuracy of the report, do you? >> i don't question the accuracy. >> so this included allegations and examples of d.e.a. agents participating in so-called sex parties where local police were watching d.e.a. equipment. it included a, quote, loud party incidents involving what one would consider bad judgment, allowing prostitutes and allowing those in close

proximity with d.e.a. agents to be actually in these agents' rooms and housing. you wouldn't then have a problem with this going away party that involved a d.e.a. assistant regional director at his residence. you wouldn't disagree then with the assessment they had multiple accounts of landlords complaining about the loud parties and whatnot were going in there. is it wrong for prostitutes to be in government housing? >> well, first of all, it's deplorable behavior by those agents -- >> but is it a violation of

policy? >> it's absolutely a violation of policy. >> is it wrong to have a foreign national in close proximity to a d.e.a. agent, close to their guns, personal effects, computer, smartphones? does that pose any sort of security risk? >> of course it poses security risks. and that is why these are very serious allegations. >> did you do any investigation as to the age of the women that were involved? were they just simply there for entertainment? >> the investigation, although it's ten years later, the investigation -- >> don't try to paint a picture that this is one incident ten years ago. there's an incident, for instance, in july of 2009, for instance, where the d.e.a. agent in bogota was accused of physically assaulting a prostitute over a payment dispute. a security guard witnessed this agent throwing a glass and hitting the woman. this agent then claimed that the woman had had a seizure while she was in the bathroom and cut herself on a candlestick but later admitted that yes, he had engaged with a prostitute. and you know what the punishment for this person was? should days unpaid leave. go on vacation for two weeks. you can sit here and cry a pretty picture about how deplorable it is. but your actions suggest

otherwise. because there was not the consequence that should have happened. this person is posing a national security risk, engaging in behavior that is just -- it's embarrassing that we have to talk about this. it's an embarrassment that you don't fire that person. it's an embarrassment that you don't revoke his security clearance. why can't you revoke their security clearance? what prohibits you from revoking that person's security clearance? >> everything you've said about the behavior i completely agree with. as far as the disciplinary penalties that were handed out in that case, i'm very disappointed in that.

>> you're the administrator. >> the system that's set up following civil service laws, i don't fire. i can't -- >> can you revoke their security clearance? >> i can't revoke their security clearance. i can ensure that there's a mechanism -- >> why can't you? >> like i did after the cartagena incident, make sure that there's a mechanism in place for those security -- for a security review, which resulted in those three agents having their security clearances revoked. and they were -- >> but here's the problem. here's the concern i have.

high profile. it's in all the media. everybody's reporting about the secret service engaging with prostitutes. you all get nervous about it. and those people have some discipline. but when it's quiet and nobody hears about it and it comes across your desk and your senior staff, can you show me another example where people were engaging in prostitution, in creating these national security problems where you revoked their security clearances? that's what i want to see. because in this case that's how it happened. that wasn't too long ago. you're not disputing any of the

facts that show up in the report. there's nothing that -- is there a statute of limitations? is there a limit that you can't reach further back? and yet you allow this person who engages a prostitute, throws glass at her, breaks the skin, there's blood all over the place, and they're still employed at the d.e.a.? and you allow that. you're allowing that. i mean, did you try to fire them? did you try to revoke their security clearance? do we need to change that law? what do we need to do? >> well, you could look at an exemption like the fbi has. because the current disciplinary process, myself and other directors of federal law enforcement agencies are not allowed to invoke ourselves in the disciplinary process. if we were exempted or if there was other legislation passed that would allow that, that would allow our directors of federal law enforcement to take that action. the same thing with the result like cartagena where they have done these deplorable activities, that it is investigated and a decision is made by the agency without appeal rights to the mspb. >> okay. so my concern is high-profile, you take action. when it's not so high-profile and there's a woman involved, you don't take action. and that's a concern. but i hear what you're saying. the last question, because i've exceeded my time. if you are both, the fbi and the d.e.a., sincere about rooting out this problem and finding solutions, then you need to allow the inspector general to look at the information. why do you continue to prohibit him from seeing that information? why do you hold it back? why not do all 45 search terms? why did you only do three? so i really got to question your sincerity about getting out and rooting out this problem if you don't even know the extent of the problem. you don't even know the extent of the cases because you won't

even allow the inspector general and his staff to actually look at the cases that are there. you're limiting the inspector from doing their job. which is to help you, help us, help them. help the rest of the agency. that's -- i need you to both explain that answer to me, and then i'll yield to the ranking member. go ahead. >> moving forward, because there's a number of things that i put in place after cartagena, and you should know that the other incidents i learned about after cartagena, but they had already been through the system. what we put in place in cartagena moving forward is the model for how we will handle -- >> is the model to impede the ability of the inspector general to look at the information? >> i'm talking about the discipline --

>> i'm talking about the i.g. why can't the i.g. look at this? >> and know that those cases when they were first reported are reported immediately over to the o.i.g. they handed those cases back to us to handle as management, as a management review. we felt that the behavior was so outrageous they needed to be investigated. what we've put in place -- >> but you went back and investigated again and still came to the same conclusion, that we would have came to the sum conclusion. my time is exceeded. but you gave them two to ten days' paid leave. you put them on vacation. you didn't take the disciplinary action. i've got to yield to the gentleman from maryland. we're going to go actually to miss plaskett first. now recognized for five minutes. plus very generous overtime if you need it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. ranking member. good morning to you all. of course we all find the reports of sexual harassment and misconduct, particularly i think the actions of the d.e.a.

spanning back to 2001, extremely troubling. and the american people seem understandably outraged over this behavior, and particularly women. the i.g. reports states, and i quote, "sexual misconduct and sexual harassment in the workplace also affect employee morale and hamper employees' ability to have and maintain effective working relationships." mr. horowitz, can you explain how sexual harassment and sexual misconduct can impact employee morale? >> it has a significant debilitating effect on morale, particularly when the individuals in the workplace try to report the information and see no results. and that's one of the things we highlight here that's particularly concerning when, for example, in three of the incidents we identified in one of them we learned about it -- or it was reported -- >> which agencies is that? >> the three matters involving

d.e.a. one is reported in june 2010 through an anonymous letter. that's how that information gets forwarded. the 2001 to 2004 events that are referred to in the report as the sex parties, those don't get reported until 2009, 2010, when the corrupt law enforcement officers are charged. >> and what's the rationale that you were given as to why they weren't reported? >> because they were dealt with locally, reviewed locally, and didn't need to be reported to -- >> and were they dealt with? >> they were not. and that was the concern we identified. and on the third incident that we report there that's sent to the o.i.g. and d.e.a. by the state department. not through the d.e.a. employees in the organizations not only need to know they have a safe work environment to go to

and a non-hostile work environment, but they need to know they can come forward, report allegations, and they'll be taken seriously abe addressed promptly. >> thank you. miss leonhart, you spoke about how your own outrage being a law enforcement officer for 30 years. how your own outrage being a law enforcement officer for 30 years, i completely understand that. i was raised by new york city police officer who said every good cop hates the most of bad cop, because they make the good cops -- it taints everyone else. but do you agree with the e.ig, that sexual harassment negatively impacts morale and have you seen it in your agency? >> i know it has the potential to do that and that is why several directives reminders -- >> i didn't ask you -- it's potential. i asked you, has it affects theed the morale in. >> in the offices where the employee has attempted to report

misconduct, and there was nothing that happened, it was not reported up and investigated, i can imagine that those employees felt they lost faith in the agency. in a number of other cases however, where they are reported up, they are investigated the supervisors take immediate action, help the employee who has come forward with a complaint. i see over my 35 years in d.e.a. a huge change. more willingness to report. more willingness for supervisors to help the employee that came forward with it. my job is to work on the disciplinary end, to make sure as these are reported, thorough thoroughly investigated, that the proper discipline is handed out. >> well, that's interesting that you say that it's your job to deal with the discipline. because you've just stated earlier to the chairman that you

don't have any say over the discipline. which one is it? do you or don't you have say over the discipline of these individuals? >> i am not in the process for investigating, proposing or handing out discipline. what i can do is what i did a year ago. i sent out a directive to every d.e.a. employee and said, "here are the conduct issues i am concerned about. they must be reported. they're not acceptable. this is not acceptable behavior in five or six areas." and i sent a strong message to the board of conduct and the deciding officials, that in these type of instances there should be severe discipline handed out. >> what would you consider severe discipline? >> i would consider what happened with the cartagena agents to be severe discipline.

>> what about the agents who were given two to ten days of paid leave in. >> i'm not happy with that. i am not in the disciplinary process. i am very disappointed. >> wait a minute. you're not in the disciplinary process but you're responsible for the discipline? >> i'm responsible for the whole agency so i am responsible to set up a mechanism, to send mess j a ages to our employees, to hold people accountable. if they're going to conduct this disbehavior, that they face significant discipline. that's what i've done over the years. to send the message. make sure the employees report their allegations. number two hold managers accountable for not reporting. number three make sure that we set up a process have good o.p.r. inspectors. i was one at one time. do the investigation.

so that our disciplinary process, our board of conduct that proposes and the deciding officials have all the information they need to be able to impose severe discipline. >> but don't you believe that the morale of your agents and the good men and the women of that agency would have been better served and they would have believed that you really stood behind that, if the information had been more fully and quickly forthcoming to the i.g.? how can you say that you are -- you weren't pleased with the discipline when you -- your agency impeded the investigation at the i.g. level? >> the i.g. gave the investigation back to d.e.a. >> they gave you the portion of it related to disciplining the individuals. not to investigating the systemic problems in the structure of your agency. >> no they gave us back the

investigation and said that they were not going to take it. it looks like a management issue. we investigated as misconduct. as we investigated it and we learned more and more by interviewing a number of witnesses in the old bogota case, the information that was put together, the interviews, all of that was entered into the discipline system. and i am very disappointed that our discipline system did not do what it needed to do. and we have to fix it. i've put mechanisms in place moving forward to make sure that doesn't happen again. because i don't believe that that discipline that was given out in those cases, that chaff chaffetz mentioned, is what it

should have been. >> i'm run out of time, but it's my assessment that the discussion here and the actions are at a complete disconnect. >> thank the gentlewoman. >> let me follow up of some of the questioning that's taken place, as to whether there was a full investigation of this whole matter. you claim administrator that there was a full investigation of the matter. all of these sexual harassment, sexual assault issues that have been raised. that were part of the inspector general's review. you claim -- again, just tell us, you believe they were fully investigated. >> i believe that they were investigated. i have concerns about the

completeness thoroughness of a couple of the investigations. >> so then you agree with mr. horowitz, the o.i.g., that there was not a thorough investigation of all of the incidents? >> i agree that some of the incidents were not fully investigated, yes. >> and that was your position too, and the assumption i have from your report? >> that's correct. >> okay. that in itself raises great questions. when the inspector general says that the incidents were not fully investigated. that, to me is a big issue right there. >> may the gentleman yield? >> yeah. >> i hate to do this to you, but i was handed something. on march 26th of this year you, ms. leonhart, as the administrator, sent this e-mail out within your agency. you said "these allegations were fully investigated by the

d.e.a., office of professional responsibility." yield back. >> again there seems to be a conflict between, again, what the chairman has just cited what we've had as previous testimony and what the inspector general said. that being said, i have questions, too. you say you don't have the authority, but you took the authority post-cartagena. it looks like beforecartagena, and you've been there since 2010? is that right? >> that's correct. >> you didn't just arrive on the block. you see the conduct that took place in 2006 2008, the sex parties, the assaults, all of these things that were going on. cartagena was what, two years ago? >> 2012. >> three years ago.

well, what happened is you set up a culture within the agency that you could get away with this. you were there. you must have known some of this was going on. cartagena brought it to the press and our attention, the size and scope of what was going on. the thing that concerns me is before that, some of the people got -- who were involved, looks like attended a sex party. one report one agent was cleared of any wrong doing. seven of ten agents ultimately attended the parties engaging with prostitutes. looked like the penalty they got, suspensions of a few days. i think the most was like six days. up to that time. so that was sort of the standard operating procedure while you were there, until cartagena.

that's the kind of penalty they were getting, right? >> if i can explain congressman, the first i heard of any of these sex parties or the behavior that's described in the reports was actually cartagena. when cartagena happened, i became concerned. is this systemic? has this happened before? we went back, and we took a look at where this activity had occurred. if anybody had been disciplined for it. we found one bogota case. >> again we have instances, and we have penalties most of them only got minor penalties. and it was known that some of this had been -- had posed great security risks. drug folks were paying for some of this activity.

they got anywhere from four to six days. only a suspension of 15 days or more is considered serious for adverse employment action. so those people went right on working at that time. so what i'm saying is, a culture existed while you were there, up to cartagena, and there were low penalties. after cartagena, you did some -- you took some action. some people were actually fired is that correct? >> yes, that's the first case that came -- >> yeah, the difference folks, members of the committee, this is the same thing whether the secret service va irs, hud, she doesn't have the right to fire people. she has to go through the merit system protection the title five created by congress. unless you change that law and give these people the ability to

fire people when they are found in, you know, a proper process, at a speedy process to violate, whether it's sexual assault sexual harassment you'll have this continue -- all these problems continued across the scope of all of our civil service system. the only one exempt from that i understand, is fbi. they get enough time to ask you questions about how many people you've fired. we'll get that on the record at some point i hope. yield back. >> recognize mr. lynch, the gentleman from georgia, the ranking member on the subcommittee for security. >> thank you. i want to thank mr. cummings for allowing me to go in his place. ms. leonhart how do you hold people accountable if you are not able to discipline them? >> the system in place it's a

three-tiered system. there's the inspectors who -- >> you're not answering my question. basically, very briefly because i only have a couple minutes, how do you hold people accountable when you cannot discipline them when they do -- 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 soliciting prostitutes, having sex with prostitutes. we don't know their ages because nothing has been disclosed here. we have them taking weapons. we've got foreign individuals, parts of terrorist groups complicit in this. we've got national security at risk. you don't have the ability to discipline these people. you know, 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. 15 to 20. they're using taxpayer money to solicit and pay for prostitutes. and you're very disappointed, not happy? i think we're at different levels here. and i find completely vapid the statement that we're not going to let this happen again. we're not doing anything. we're not doing anything. we haven't -- i think the problem now is we're protecting these people. that's what's happening in your agency. you're protecting the people who solicited prostitutes, who have 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. you know that's not what i would expect from your department. i really wouldn't. i worked with d.e.a. in afghanistan, and those folks did a great job. i think this is a disgrace, that their reputation -- and they were in some dangerous, dangerous places in afghanistan. down in helman province, dealing with the opium exportation there. doing heroic work. those are the d.e.a. agents that i know that worked 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 d.e.a. agents. they're doing wonderful work on behalf of our country. and this is a -- this is a blemish, you know this is just disgraceful, that they should be associated with this activity.

so i actually feel your system is protecting these people. so as these 15 to 20 sex parties, and then -- and by the way, it says here sexual harassment and misconduct. 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 bring justice to the situation, why are we stopping the inspector general from looking at this? why do the american people why do they not have the names of these individuals? >> well, we did provide the inspector general with the information so that he could do his review. as far as protecting them, i

take great offense to that because -- >> 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 tooffended by that? >> i'm offended by their conduct. >> i don't see it. >> i'm offended by the 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? there was some discipline here. it's laughable. it's laughable but you did suspend people with pay for one two, three one guy got ten days. conduct on becoming and poor judgment. it just -- you know what i think -- and i appreciate the gentleman's earlier comments about, we have to give you power -- i don't think that's

the answer. i think there is a mentality here that needs to be extra kate ed ed, root and branch from the d.e.a. i think we need an independent organization that's not part of the good old boy network, and goes after the people. when i think of the d.e. agents and the job they're doing in afghanistan today, trying to protect the homeland, this is a real -- this is a disservice to those good agents. i'll yield back the balance of my time. >> now, the gentleman from texas. mr. farenthold. >> thank you. mr. lynch hit on something with respect to the good old boy culture. this is my concern that i'm seeing more and more of the good old boy culture as this

committee continues itself investigation. i mean we've seen it in the d.e.a. sex parties. we've seen it with some of the things going on in the secret service, admittedly, not subject to this. we see it in a lot of government agencies. in your investigation, do you get a sense that there is a good old boy mentality? is it as bad as i think it is? >> well it's interesting, congressman, you use those words, because our first review was of the good old boy roundup events back in the early '90s. we did a report in 1996 about the culture and the need to make it clear about what is permissible and what clearly isn't permissible on and off duty. yet, 20 years later there are still no department-wide pollicy policies or training. >> ms. leonhart you run the d.e.a. is it appropriate in your off time, even in a country where prostitution is illegal, to

engage with prostitutes? >> absolutely not. it's against policy and illegal. >> how can any of your agents not know this? this strikes me as common sense. i mean, we have a memo from eric holder, not a fan of mr. holder, but he really -- i can't believe there's even a need for a memo that says it's not appropriate to hire prostitutes. 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 or classified information, but because it also undermines the department's effort to eradicate the scourge of human trafficking. regardless of whether prostitution is legal or tolerated in a particular jurisdiction soliciting prostitutes creates a greater demand for human trafficking victims and as a consequence, increase in the number of minor

and adult persons trafficked into sex slavery." "for this reason i want to reiterate to all department personnel, including attorneys and law enforcement officers, that they're prohibited from accepting commercial sex." to me it seems lewd ss lewd -- ludacris that we have to write this. does anybody in the fbi think this is okay? >> we make it clear to the employees here and overseas is that it's not. >> just getting disciplinary action or time with pay tends to reinforce that. mr. horowitz does congressional action need to be taken? do we need to change laws to make it easier to fire people who are proved to have engaged in this? >> well that certainly is something congress could look at. the fbi has certain authorities

the other components do it. i will add one of the things that will help address these is that the o.i.g., that they get reported, as they should to headquarters. that they get reported to the o.i.g., as they should. and we get copies of records that we need promptly so that we can look at them promptly. that would have as well. that takes no congressional action because you already have the law in the i.g. act that says it should occur but it's not occurring. >> what do we do fix that? somebody is going to have to be disciplined for not reporting it. it's not just the rank in file men and women engaged in misconduct. it's their superiors that are covering it up and obstructing. is that not correct? >> it's certainly our view that if an employee fails to report to headquarters what the policy requires, which in all law enforcement agencyies cases in the department, that's the

policy, that is a violation. >> we're also seeing you want disclosure from the folks that you're investigating. we're starting to see lots of redacted stuff here in congress. when the i.g. act only says the identity needs to be withheld. in fact had we wanted more information withheld, he could have modified it. in one of the sections of the irs code. i mean you want full reporting. what's the excuse for not giving us more access here in congress? anybody want to field that? i mean, some of it is the i.g., mr. horowitz. >> we've certainly put forth on our website, publicly and sent to congress everything that we're allowed to put forth pursuant to the privacy act. we've -- we have not withheld material. >> we have a different interpretation, but i'm out of time. >> if the gentleman will yield,

ms. leonhart will you agree to allow the inspector general to search all 45 terms? you've limited it to three. >> yes. we don't have the search capabilities that his 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 of that many names. we found a different way to do it by running a fence codes. but i -- mr. horowitz and i have have a very good working relationship. if there is something that he wants, he has not hesitated to pick up the phone and talk to me about it. and we'll work it out. >> has she allowed you all the access that you want? >> i think the problem has been that frankly, i've had to call too much. i shouldn't have to make those calls to the administrator to get access.

the staff, my staff shouldn't have to spend four months going back and forth with the line d.e.a. 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 d.e.a. and fbi ultimately cononceded. i shouldn't have to be engaging at the highest levels of the fbi and d.e.a. to get the access that occurred. let me say something here about two agencies that complied fully. the a.t.f. and the u.s. marshall 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 d.e.a., we got in a matter of weeks. >> d.e.a. and fbi. >> compared to atf and the marshall service, who fully cooperated. >> i see my time has expired.

>> thank you. >> mr. cummings for five minutes. >> thank you very much. ms. leonhart do you think you're the right person for this job? i've been -- i 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 the attorney general's letter, where he has to say don't fraternize with prostitutes. hello. am i missing something? i mean i think that we are at an all-time low here. don't you? >> as a d.e.a. agent and a female d.e.a. agent, for the past 35 years, i'm appalled over this as well. 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 everyone on notice. >> i only have a few moments. i'm very concerned, mr. horowitz, on page 12 of your report you made the following statement statement. i quote, we found the regional director and acting assistant regional director and the group supervisor failed to report through their chain of command, or to d.e.a. opr repeated allegations of the special agents frequenting a brothel while in an overseas posting, treating these allegations as local issues. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> despite these facts, none of these employees the special agent, the group supervisor, regional director and the acting assistant regional director ever reported these allegations to the office of professional responsibility. or to you at the ig's office, is that right?

>>. >> that's correct. >> when these allegations came to light in 2012, your report says the d.e.a. administrator failed to report the allegations. is that right? >> that's correct. >> ms. leonhart, is that correct, did you personally counsel the regional director? >> the regional director was first counseled by the chief inspector. then counseled by the deputy administrator. then i counseled him as well. >> was that the only discipline that he got? somebody sitting there saying you supposed to do your job? >> yes. >> please. you mean to tell me that was a discipline? do your job? that's not discipline is it? >> the -- >> come on. >> regional director was not aware of any allegations until it was brought to light a year after an incident.

>> who was the regional director? >> i counseled him. >> okay. >> when i -- >> tell us what you said briefly. i only have a minute or so. >> i was concerned that he had warnings that this person was involved with prostitutes. i talked 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 mean i wish i had a tape recording of that conversation. >> right. >> in 30 seconds, what was said by him? >> he said when he was aware of it, he was notified by the embassy 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 in prostitutes. he called the agent in, told the

agent, "you're out of here. you're going home." he sent him tby back to the states until he could finalize -- >> were they suspended at all? >> i'm sorry? >> you said he sent them back to the united states. >> yes. the agent received 14 days off. >> and this -- and so did 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 d.e.a. official between 2001 and 2008 who was aware of these misconduct issues? >> are you talking about the bogota incidents? >> i'm talking about the -- well, let me change it.

2005 to 2009. >> that they were aware of it? >> the highest ranking person. >> probably a group supervisor. >> did you have power to discipline on the level of the regional? >> i could discipline the regional director. he's an ses. >> you could have fired him, is that right? >> i couldn't fire him. you have to show misconduct for him to be fired. but with what the law allows me to do with an ses, he was counseled. >> so you do feel that he did something wrong? >> he failed to report it when he learned about it. >> and so you -- and you feltailed to discipline, other than counseling him. >> the discipline available to me, appropriate discipline was

to reprimand him. >> who came up with the suspension then? i'm confused. >> an ses the discipline, there has to be misconduct. >> right. >> 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 o.p.r. would not raise to that level. it's the only time that's happened with him would not raise to the level to be misconduct. >> one more question. >> i counseled him. >> if reporting -- now, if he had reported it he was supposed to report it to the office of professional responsibility, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and if he had reported it there was a possibility that the agent would lose their security clearance, is that right? is that right mr. horowitz? do you know that? >> they certainly could lose

their security clearance. if the process was followed through as it's supposed to be 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, then you cannot be a special agent. >> so in looking at it 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. he has -- that has not happened with him in the past. he's done a number of things in colombia since the incident to ensure that this does not happen again. >> do you think there is a culture problem here? >> i believe there may have been a culture -- >> may have been? >> may have been a culture problem. >> when did it stop? >> years back. >> when did it stop? when did it stop?

you said may have been, so you're assuming -- i assume you have a date that you think it stopped. i'd love to know what it is. >> when you -- >> why you say that. >> when you say 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. >> thank you. >> i recognize the gentleman from south carolina for five minutes, mr. mulvaneyl vavaneymulvaney. >> i'm new to the committee and very confused. you said things today that strike me as being unusual, maybe true and i'm certain if anyone at home is watching it, they don't understand 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. that's why d.e.a.'s process, similar to some of the other agencies, it's a three-tiered process. the administrator, the deputy administrator, management cannot intervene in the disciplinary process. it's an inhibited personnel practice. >> who can fire people when they commit egregious misconduct, like cartel funded prostitution. >> pre >> deciding officials. >> who are your deciding officials? >> we have two. senior d.e.a. 1811s with prior o.b.r. experience o.pr experience. >> are they senior or junior to you? >> junior to me. >> could you recommend that they fire somebody? you're saying you can't fire

somebody, but somebody junior to you can fire somebody. is that what you're telling us? >> my position as administrator under the civil service act, we have to follow civil service protections. so our system is set up that the discipline is decided by these two senior people within d.e.a., deciding officials who have -- >> senior people but not senior to you. i get that. okay, let's say you wanted to fire these people. let's say you saw activity that merited somebody getting fired. by the way, have you seen that since you've worked there? does any of this conduct that we have talked about today, the couple dozen sex partyies, in your mind, merit dismissal? >> the activity that's been explained today, i believe not knowing all the facts, not knowing -- >> how could you possibly -- i can't let you off the hook. how do you not possibly know all

the facts by now? >> not knowing the same facts the deciding officials look at, which are 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. 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 service and not understanding our system, would think that. >> let's assume -- because i think i just asked you if you saw anything that merited somebody being dismissed. you didn't say yes, which i

assume you mean meant no. let's say that you saw something that merited dismissal. what would you do? >> i can't intervene in the process the way the law is set up. >> how do you start the process? >> what i can do is put the agency on notice, like i did last year that this will not be tolerated and i, in writing told the deciding officials and the board of conduct, that these kinds of behaviors required significant discipline. >> mr. horowitz, mr. per kinkins, is it like this at the other agencies? these rules? >> congressman, i can't speak for the other agencies but for the fbi, we are except from title v and the civil service rules, regulations and statutes. the director can and has fired individuals. we 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 for the appropriate level of punishment. there are occasions when the conduct is so egregious, that the director can intercede and dismiss somebody, and has. >> mr. horowitz? >> my understanding is that the fbi is unique in that regard, as mr. perkins outlined and the other three law enforcement components department have to follow the title 5:v rules and civil service rules. >> last question, is it true ms. leonhart if you suggest a suspension longer than 14 days and in all the examineples i've got, no one was suspended more than 14 days, is it true if you recommend or 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 it's more than 14 days suspension, the employee can appeal it. when the employee appeals it it goes to the merit system protection board. >> 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 has already been done. this is at the very end of the disciplinary process. so the d.e.a. deciding official can say, 30 days. >> is that internal to you or external to you? >> the deciding officials is internal. the m.s.p.spb is external. >> i ask both the chairman and ranking member to -- this is just nuts. how we can't fix this, i have no idea. she'll telling us she doesn't have the legal authority that everyone on this committee thinks she should have done. we should try to fix that. >> the gentleman from california

for five minutes, mr. de desaulnier. >> as a new member i say i won't look at the looking glass again, but looking at this, it brings a number of questions, including the collateral consequences to drug dealers on the street and the larger problems we have to face in this country. when people see this kind of different type of administration of justice. mr. horowitz, first question is, what was different, do you think, between the atf and the u.s. marshall that your mid-management people were able to access the information you asked for so quickly, as opposed to the d.e.a. or tffbi? >> they've been fully cooperative, not raised legal objections and have read the i.g. act and complied with what we've asked for. >> is it a cultural thing?

enforcement thing? do you need enforceability? >> certainly, we don't have any enforceability at this point, other than my testifying publicly and raising it to the -- >> doesn't seem to be sufficient in this instance. >> it ultimately turns out to be, in some instances but it's a problem and repeated problem. >> ms. leonhart, so the individuals involved in the sex parties, the rolex accepting sophisticated weapons, are they still employed? >> the majority are still on the job, yes. >> and it's hard to believe, seems completely counter intuitive that they can go back to work in as little as ten day suspensions and been model agents. have you spent extra time overseeing their job performance? >> their sooupsupervisors, special agents in charge, or their high-level bosses are aware of

the conduct. with the exception of one, we have not seen any misconduct since. >> do they have heightened supervision because of their past conduct? >> the reason that the supervisors are made aware of what the conduct is so that they can put them in positions where they can have good supervision. >> so go back to the questions asked mr. horowitz. why is it it took so long to get the information? why did it take so long for the i.g. to get the information from your underlings? 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 i.g.? >> well, i knew early on that there was disagreement or misunderstanding in a couple of areas. what the scope of the audit was that delayed it.

what type of records they were looking for. that delayed it. i wish i would have known about all of those delays, and i could have done something more about it. but at the end of the day, the reports did 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 i.g., that it has to be raised up to my level right away. so that he and i can discuss it. >> sitting here, it seems like it's question management that you have to spend this amount of resources in something as such an egregious case.misappropriation of taxpayer funds. if the d.e.a. had what the fbi has, would it be a more efficient response, in making sure the tools were there?

>> certainly on the personnel side. on the discipline side, it could occur. on the access issues and getting the records promptly there is no reason why d.e.a. and fbi shouldn't have done the same thing the marshall service and a.t.f. did. they didn't question the scope of the audit, didn't raise concerns about whether we could see names or the facts or run the search terms. they just did it! that seems, ms. leonhart you're complicit in the management problems. with all due respect to your years of service, we heard this from the i.g. when it comes to the secret service, you need help from the outside. how do i defend your performance? >> i think being a d.e. agent and being in the agency, i can intervene -- >> all to the contrary in this case. >> with the audit, there were misunderstandings of what the

scope was, as well as misunderstandings on this bogota -- or this bogota case. >> ms. leonhart -- excuse me, my time has expired, but for me to talk to somebody in a poor section of my direct or any of the members who have people selling drugs who say, how can you admonish us and want to make laws tougher for us when you let the d.e.a. manage their own department this way? it's counterintuitive, with all due respect. i yield back the time i have. >> now recognize the meantgentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy, for five minutes. >> thank you. if an agent state side was soliciting a prostitute provided by a drug conspiracy he was investigating, what punishment would you recommend? >> i can't recommend a punishment. i hope it would be thor lowinvestigated.

>> you're telling me nobody cares what the administrator of the d.e.a. 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? >> what did you think the proper sanction was? >> last year i sent e-mail and i sent a memo to every employee in d.e.a. and put them on notice that this kind of conduct -- >> my question must have been ambiguous. i once talking about future conduct. i was talking about past conduct. what punishment did you recommend for conduct that happened in the past? >> under the 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 d.e.a. agents? >> the agents i worked with were worried about using their car for picking up dry cleaners. using their ogv to pick up dry cleaning cleaning. they were worried about being disciplined. apparently, that world changed. do you know if the prosecutes were underage in. >> i don't know that. >> would that impact whatever recommendation you would have in terms of a sanction? >> i don't recommend the sanction. i can't fire or recommend a penalty. there is a guide that the deciding officials abide by and they have a penalty guide that they look at. the penalty guide for this kind of activity is anything from reprimand to removal. >> how about security clearance? do you have any impact over

that? whether or not an azwrentgent has a security clearance? >> no. there is adjudicative guidelines. that has to be adjudicateadjudicated. >> 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, improve mechanisms to make sure that the outcome is what we believe the outcome should be. that is what happened in cartagena. that is what's going to happen moving forward. >> inspector general horowitz i find that stunning. let me ask you this 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 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 receiveing prostitutes from cartels that they are supposed to be investigating? and she can't fire those agents? do you agree with her she can't fire them? >> i think as a matter of title v, she can't director intervene and fire them. i do think one of the concerns we outlined in the report as to d.e.a. and the other three agencyies is how they adjudicate the cases. they undercharge them in some instances. so at d.e.a. 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 actually a category, then you've got a range of penalties. so one of the issues as you know as a former prosecutor, is how you charge the case. that has a consequence. >> well, mr. chairman, i don't know what would need to be done but i, like my friend from south carolina, find it stunning that you can solicit prostitutes administrator leonhart do we know whether any of the prostitutes were underage? do we know whether any of them were part of 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. >> chairman i would find it impossible to explain to a reasonable minded person hoz an

agent cannot be disciplined for soliciting prostitutes from drug cartels that they were investigating. i find that stunning. >> if the gentleman will yield if somebody murdered somebody, could you fire them? >> if someone murdered someone, there would be criminal charges and that's how they'd be fired. >> but if they were -- could you take away their security clearance? >> the office's security programs can review security clearances and take their clearances, just as they did with the three agents in the cartagena incident. >> gentleman from south carolina. >> yield for just a second. i heard you say there's one thing you could fire somebody for, sexual harassment. do i have this correct? mr. horowitz, ms. leonhart, 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? >> 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. that's the concern we found, as you know, in our report. >> thank you. >> thank if gentleman, both from south carolina. recognize the gentleman from california, mr. lieu for five minutes. >> thank you. i want to talk about the possibility security risks from the sex parties. on page 15 of lpr report, it says the following, it says, he stated he believed that mr. corroborator one gained information from the u.s. agents by getting their guard down.

through prostitutes and paying for parties. mr. corroborator one bragged about the parties and how he sold relationship closeness with agents to mr. corroborator two. one said he could easily get the agents to talk. ms. leonhart, do you believe actual information was compromised through the sex parties? >> there's no evidence that actual -- that any was compromised. but the concern is that participating in this kind of behavior bringing foreign nationals, bringing prostitutes to your glq, bringing them around other agents, all of those are security risks. >> doesn't the report itself provide evidence that you had agents in compromised positions that at least foreign officials believe that the agents were

compromised and they could get the agents to talk? did you do an invest -- how do you know agents didn't say something that they shouldn't have said or disclosed information they should not have? >> the -- reading the report one of the concerns was that the agents got very close to these two corrupt columbian national police. and that the police were providing prostitutes and gifts to get in the good graces of the agent. 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 o.p.r. investigation, because it was ten years after the fact did not identify any instances and, in fact, the agents were all out of country by the time it was investigated.

but that -- >> so it's possible the information was leaked or compromise snd. >> absolutely. it's a major concern. >> let me focus on the discipline issue. when i served active duty in the air force and still in the reserves as a jag, i dealt with the douglas factors. i understand some of the restrictions that you have because we're a civil service system. the fbi is not under title v. d.a. agents like fbi, go under cover. any reason not to move the d.e.a. out of title v? >> we would entertain any look at that. any exception that could be given so that an administrator or director can take action and make sure that only the people with outstanding reputations and ethics are employed by the

agency agency. >> if the deciding officials make the 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. that is, put on notice for the entire work force, not any one particular case, put on notice for the entire work force 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 the rank and file when something goes badly wrong and is a climate issue, a cultural

issue, what happens is leadership resigns or gets fired. for example, in the air force when there are problems with some of the nuclear weapons we had, even though the secretary of the air force at the time, the chief of staff really didn't know about it, wasn't aware, but because those things happened, they were both removed. secret service their head is gone. do you believe it's a climate issue? if it's a climate issue, do you believe instead of focusing on the rank and file maybe you need leadership changed or removed? >> we have changed leadership. we have a different set of leaders within d.e.a. 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 dolled 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. they can look at the activity, and they can say the administrator said this deserves significant discipline. they can take that kind of action. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. walker, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. leonhart, you've said earlier today you do not dispute the report, i believe is your exact words. a couple times, you mentioned this was an isolated incident. from what we've heard today, this was a spring break, frat party mentality for the last 15

years. now the adjudicative guidelines for determining eligibility for acts classified information, these are the considerations for whether or not someone is given a security clearance. is that okay. part of the guidelines covers conduct that reflects lack of judgment or a person's ability to protect classified information. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> are you aware of anyone who has ever been fired for breaching that? >> the three agents and we've had other agents throughout d.a.'s history that have been. >> did you ever have a role in someone losing their job because of the security breaches? >> cardahana. >> soliciting prostitutes does that expose agent to blackmail? weren't some of those agents married? >> i believe so. >> you know what, really even as a -- to me as a more potent question, two weeks ago, we had

the largest human trafficking event in north carolina, brought members from 40 agencies from across the state. talked about the human trafficking, specifically the drug cartels are involved with. 83% of those girls are from 12 to 14. so my question is this having gratuitous sex with an underage prostitute, first of all, how egregious it is to even use that despicable language. but at what point does it become a security breach? you've mentioned the word appall appalled several times are you appalled with that? >> absolutely. >> how appalled do you have to be before you jump up and down and scream and holler and say this cannot be tolerated? >> the first incident i had any dealings with in this manner or about this behavior was cartahana and i made sure there was coordination between the people that do the investigations and the people that do the security clearances.

because i, like you, feel it is outrageous behavior. but there are security concerns they have put themselves in danger, other agents in danger. >> sure they have. >> but there's not statute of limitations for having sex with a 13-year-old or 14-year-old. why are you just telling me that, well, that was long ago, but picking up at this point on we're trying to. i don't understand that. can you help me understand that? >> well, i will say that the security clearances of all the people involved in the bogota incident. the person the one person involved in 2009, those security clearances are currently underreview by the department of justice. >> do you have any concrete age of the prostitutes that the -- these men were involved with? have you done any research on that at all? is there any record you've read? >> i have read the reports, and there's nothing to indicate a

name. >> so maybe nobody ever 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 memo they are not to solicit prostitutes. are you familiar with that memo? >> yes i am. >> or else what? what happens? first of all, the fact that we have to remind the agents to be on your best behavior is ludicrous. but the fact is, then what? evidencely ly evidently in the past, a couple days off, where's the or else in this? would you answer that question? what happens? the attorney general sent it out. hey, guys, leave the prostitutes alone. what else? or what's the penalty? what's the concrete solution that has been clearly

communicated? can you explain that or talk about that? >> well, working within our system in the same way the attorney general put the entire department of justice on notice last year put the entire dea workforce this type of behavior. >> talk about sometimes not to do that but unless the consequences are clearly communicated, i don't have a shot changed the behavior. last question, and i'll yield back. if you had a chance going back would you be so appalled that you would do some things different handling these matters. >> without a doubt. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i don't know how to describe what we've seen here. boys going wild, out of sight

out of mind. but 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 tell which is worse. but it does seem pretty clear that we may be dealing to be sure with a cultural problem. but with a cultural problem that is so deep that it is now a problem of corruption. and i say that because i'm looking at some of the excerpts from the reports. and some of this is so eye-popping, i'm going to have to ask you what is your response. i'm not going to ask you about why you don't fire people. because i do understand that when a -- when the state that's

the united states or any of its agents is an ok or the actor, going through certain processes. put there by the congress of the united states. so i'm going to ask you what you should do. this corroborating witness stated. he recalled that the special assistant in charge that his farewell party in 2003 and 2004 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 he

paid 500,000 pesos, that's approximately $261 for each prostitute with funds from an operational budget. now, i want to try to identify what that means. what is the purpose of an operational budget? is it taxpayer funds? >> what that refers to is money is given to the colombian national police to pay for the operations they're doik inng in collaboration with us. >> taxpayer funds are given to them. we're talking about funds that were paid not by -- it looks like by agents. >> who is responsible for accounting for these funds in

the regional office? . >> the regional director would be responsible for that. >> now, if that's the case, and of course, you have indicated and i understand why you can't precipitously fire someone as if this 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're talking -- >> i am. >> was three regional directors ago. and the way that dea operates with the colombian national police in the special units has completely changed since -- >> well, i didn't ask you that. i'm asking how the -- and 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 colombian national police for operations now are audited, they require receipts. the 2003 to time frames was at the beginning stages of these units. >> well according to cooperation witness the again, the operational budgets were presented to the dea and it was additional information here and 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? they didn't have enough so they

went and got 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 dea to get additional money. >> yeah, in other words, fraudulent budgets. >> yes. on behalf of the colombian national police. >> you can't wipe -- you can't wash the hands of the office. look, this is a cooperating witness here who stated that the operational budgets were presented to the dea. so it doesn't seem to me you can wash your hands of that at the dea or they could have washed their hands of that. has someone looked back at how the funds were expended during this period so that you can now lay out