nationalgeographic.com. timothy ferris of "national geographic." thank you for your time. guest: thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> getting under way this morning, c-span3, secretary of state hillary clinton, secretary of defense leon panetta, and

chairman of the chiefs of staff at martin dempsey on a treaty governing ocean rights. that hearing is just about to get under way on our companion network, c-span3. in half an hour on c-span, seeded service director mark sullivan will testify on capitol hill about secret service agents accused of hiring prostitutes when they were on a presidential trip to colombia. we got a preview with a capitol hill reporter. >> ed o'keefe is reporter with "the washington post," and author of a blog. secret service director mark sullivan is testifying on thursday but what do lawmakers want to hear from them? >> they want to hear that he has a handle on the scandal, that

this was an isolated incident and that he has a sense of other incidents that occurred in the past and that he is doing everything he can to avoid a repeat of this situation in the future. certainly we have seen in the weeks since the scandal first erupted the agency took some very big steps to show the personnel will not attempt to do anything like this in the future, by forcing them to essentially prohibit foreigners from hotel rooms, getting briefings on that countries they go to every single time, all going to ethics training of some sort in the next year to remind them of the responsibilities they have not only to the security of the prison, but the reputation of the agency -- not only to the security of the president, but the reputation of the agency, and the reputation of themselves and their families. i think it will be some not necessarily browbeating of

director sullivan, but an attempted to go on the record and say, look, you have done a good job so far, but if you find that there is something else that happened in a widespread way under your tenure, you are on notice, essentially. >> also on wednesday, on the witness list, the acting inspector general. what do they want to hear from him? >> they expect that the acting inspector general will say that he has received full cooperation from the secret service as he on behalf of the department of homeland security takes a broader look at how the institute responded to this and how it is making changes and how the investigation into the different agents in a vault was connected -- what kind of polygraph tests were done, the people who were involved, trying to get a minute by minute timeline about them, this was first alerted to them to the moment it was decided they to go

to the follow-up to our they doing their jobs? i suspect we will hear things are going well so far. the inspector general has sort of been in cahoots with the secret service, and will break off and take a bigger picture look at the agency while the agency will probe what happened in cartagena and is there evidence of such things happening in the past. >> is the cartagena investigation over and as the agency made changes since the incident? >> absolutely they have made changes. they are requiring mandatory ethics training and getting detailed briefings on the security situation and also some sense of the dos and don'ts when it comes to interacting with locals. there are bans on allowing guests and hotel rooms in overnight situations to avoid concerns about security, and more it supervisors traveling with these details as they go

overseas to make sure that management is much more aware of the situation stood something a rise. >> is, is considering legislation in the wake of the cartagena incident? >> as of right now, no bid as long as the secret service itself is attempting to figure out what happened and is taking steps to make changes, "we see no need to step in." no reason to upset the budget process or anything else. if at some point it is found that there is some other examples of this under the tenure of mark sullivan, current director, we will see lawmakers who so far have stood before him and supported him call for his resignation. ford o'keefe is a reporter "washington post." thanks for the update. >> great to be with you. >> again, that's a good service

hearing starts in just -- that secret service hearing starts at just half an hour. until then, headlines and viewer phone calls from this morning's "washington journal." host: 10 we start by taking a look at what spending cuts and increases are being looked at and in the report? guest: yes. the biggest thing is the bush- era tax rates from 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that george w. bush signed will expire.

they were extended in last- minute negotiations and 2010. we are also going to see automatic spending cuts totaling $109 billion. that was figured by the august debt ceiling deal. listeners may remember that it was forged when the house refused to raise the nation's borrowing limit unless it's not sufficient spending cuts -- it saw sufficient spending cuts. had two parts. the second part was a committee that was supposed to come up with $1.20 trillion in additional cuts. it failed around thanksgiving of last year, and as punishment, $109 billion across-the-board cuts are supposed to happen on january 2. those are the major ones. there are also things contributing to this. the payroll tax cut, temporary,

which no one expects to extend past december. we also have what is called the doc fix. it was supposed to be slashed automatically under medicare, but, as always extends that period -- but congress always extends that. they failed to do it this time. with the tax increases and spending cuts, demand would suffer and the economy would see a downturn. host: what does the cbo speculate as far as the severity of the downturn? guest: what made big news is that in the past, the cbo said that economic growth would be slowed, 1.1% gdp growth over 2013, if this is " cliff -- this fiscal cliff remain in place but

much smaller growth overall. in the first part of 2013, it would be contraction. the definition of recession is 2/4 of negative economic growth. we would see that important psychological barrier cross into recession in 2013. once that happens, it is for various reasons even more problematic for the economy. host: what does information from the report made for those on the hill debating about spending cuts and tax hikes? guest: hmm, well, we saw a flurry of reactions and statements about the report, and again, they show no signs of either side budging. it is important to remember that people don't strike deals until they really have to. until then, they can jockey for position advantage and will not strike a deal.

that is what people said nothing is quite happen until the election, because people don't know how many they will have in congress and who will be in the white house. there is an incentive to say if there is a hand i have, i will play it. we see people like this and hollen, -- like chris van hollen, harry reid, saying that the cbo report shows that we needed to deal with what we have been saying all along, tax increases and spending cuts over the long-term. on the republican side, we saw an emphasis on the tax increases, and eric cantor, house majority leader, went on fox news yesterday saying that the election is all but a choice -- all about a choice. if you want taxes to go up, vote for obama, if you want them

to go down, vote for mitt romney. i think for people on wall street or main street, you should be a bit nervous about congress being able to get this done. in the lame-duck session, we are likely to see temporary extensions of these things, where we don't actually go over the cliff, and then some sort of mechanism which they have used in the past to schedule a way to deal with the longer-term issues. as we saw the super committee failed, so they will leave it up to listeners to decide if the mechanisms work. host: the white house put out a statement saying that congress should pass the president's recommendations. what about that would work in light of this report? guest: the president has

overtime come closer and closer to the bowles-simpson bipartisan recommendations. and a deficit commission that came out with the report in 2010 that first obama basically came ultimately to embrace this idea of reforming the tax code, making it simpler and less of a headache for everybody. in doing that, the key is that obama wants to raise revenue and dedicated to paying down the deficit. republicans also want to reform the tax code, but they only one revenue to come from some sort of tangential economic growth. they do not want to raise net revenue, because of the pledge or for norquist, the not -- the

pledge of or grover norquist, the no net revenue pledge g. cuts and entitlement will be an issue, and republicans want to reform medicare in a very advanced way. that is a long-term issue over the next 10 years. i think that the tax issue and the discussions on the issue is really what matters in the 10- year budget window and a problematic negotiations and the lame duck for next year will center on. host: erik wasson of "the hill." sir, thank you for your time this morning. guest: thanks a lot. host: in light of that warning of going off at the school cliff, we want to get your

thoughts the information that' erik wasson shared with us and the nature of tax hikes it generally. new york city, you are up first, democrats' line. caller: thank you for c-span. you know, only in america could do it -- could you convinced poor people and middle-class people to become a cheerleader for tax breaks for wealthy people and for rich people at for wealthy corporations that make billions of dollars, like oil companies that get tax subsidies. it is mind-boggling. percenter.1 i'm probably a 5 or four percenter. i know people who are it two and three percenters.

we are not job creators. not anymore. those days are gone. what we are now is just like everybody else, skeptical about the future, hoarding and saving as much as we can. this whole business of trickle- down is nonsense. host: when it comes to what might happen at the end of the year, what should be done going forward? caller: you know, i am also a businessman, and in order to be in business, you have to pay your bills. you'd need revenue, no question about it. we need to go back to no-brainer -- paul ryan is right, it really is a choice. host: salt lake city, utah. joe, republican a line. caller: good morning, sir. this problem you have got with the government spending too much of the taxpayers' money is all because washington, d.c. is

set up for that. in my opinion, the first thing you need to do is make washington, d.c. move into denver, colorado, and get it out here where people are farmers and know what the meaning of the dollar is and get away from these special interest groups, and you people in washington, d.c. take all the taxpayers' money and spend it like a drunken sailor. that's the problem. you have the congressmen and senators up there, and they have enriched themselves, and why wouldn't they? if you send a bunch of people to an area and say here, here is money, go to spend it and make deals for yourself, the budget is just going to keep going on and on and on. we are sitting here trying to survive, and you people are up at there living off of our money. host: potential recession at the end of 2013, depending on what

happens this year -- that is from the cbo report. cbo.gov, if you want to read the report yourself. part of it says that taking together, "the cbo estimates tax-cut policies will reduce the federal budget deficit by $607 billion, up 4.0% of its domestic product between fiscal years of 20122013." florida, bruce, independent line. caller: good morning. i am amazed sometimes at some of the things the young man or a gentleman from new york was talking about with the 1% -- one percenters. but we won't go into that. it is very simple to take care

of the situation. we have at 10% cut in federal spending, and get people back to work, which would increase revenues coming in, because people would be paying taxes. it is not rocket science. if you put people back to work, you have more income coming into the government. they are always crying about social security going broke. they need to reinstate 2% of the payroll tax deduction for social security to put it back where the employee is paying 6% or 6.2 was a sign that the employer is paying. that maybe social security will not go broke and they will think about raising the 1.2% you pay for medicare that is matched by your employer. i appreciate you listening. host: you have identified

yourself as an independent but what is this story mean for those running for president? caller: well, over the last three years the democrats have not passed a budget. the president's budget that went to the senate, controlled by the democrats, voted his budget down 99-0. i really don't know what to tell you anymore, honestly. being nice, i will not say that we have 435 idiots up there, but basically, the way government is being run, i don't see anything changing. we have too much partisan, nobody wants to compromise, nobody wants to do anything except profess their ideology. i don't know really any more that we don't need to increased the deficit by $1 trillion, which will come again before the end of the year.

i could talk for hours, but you don't have that much time, so appreciate it. thank you very much. host: just before we go to tennessee, this is a statement from harry reid on the cbo report. "if the republicans want to walk away from bipartisan spending cuts, they after work with democrats and balance them with the deficit reduction package that asks millionaires to pay their fair share." tennessee, drew, democrats' line. caller: hi. i don't have a problem giving job creators tax cuts as long as they are creating jobs in this country -- key phrase, "as long as they are creating jobs in this country." if they are not, their tax cuts should be subject to being recalled by congress. as for social security going broke, i heard senator mccain say one time that something

about the highway trust fund, that it does not actually exist, and that they are paying that money out of social security. maybe that is it a little clue as to why social security is so broke. thank you. host: baltimore, maryland. wayne, republican . caller: what we need to do is eliminate the bush tax era across the board for everybody, so, you know, congress tells us and everything -- let's eliminate tax cuts for everybody and eliminate oil subsidies to oil companies, because they is certainly don't need the money. they are making money hand over fist. eliminate aid to countries such

as israel, because israel gets billions of dollars from us and they have national health care for all their citizens, who are jewish -- host: would you cut social programs like medicare and medicaid, those things as what? caller: absolutely not, because those are the very things that keep our elderly alive when they retire or become ill before retirement and everything. those unneeded because people -- those are needed because people, citizens, taxpayers of the in ad states, it needed that. that is a social safety net that is necessary to keep these people alive. host: twitter --

we will continue on with our topic in just a minute. a couple of stories internationally. this is from the egyptian presidential elections, the first three taking place. this is out of cairo, from the associated press. "nearly a year after the ouster of autocratic leader hosni mubarak, millions of egyptians lined up for hours at wednesday it to freely choose a president for the first time in an election that pits old regime figures promising stability against the sending islamists seeking to consolidate power. although concerns for meant that the nation's military rulers who took over after mubarak will try to retain influence, egyptians were hopeful as they waited for the chance to cast a vote in an unprecedentedly {." out of iran, "atlanta journal- constitution" has this headline.

"iran sends hopeful signal. a u.n. agency says it is is near an agreement with iran to lift the veil on some of the regime's past nuclear research. this is genuine progress, if it holds up." this story is playing out in the papers as well, including "the atlanta journal-constitution." iowa up next. potential recession in 2013, according to the cbo. caller: hi, pedro, how you doing? if my memory is correct, the republicans ran on the economy and jobs in 2010, and they voted against every one of obama's job bills, and we know the state of the economy. also, what would help us out to get this ball rolling is for the

democrats to agree to spending cuts, i think the republicans should agree to pay off their debts created during the eight years when george bush was in office. they may have to raise taxes to pay for their own debt. thank you very much. host: listing of some of the bush tax cuts that remain uncertain as the expiration date approaches. "these are only the most of all the provisions of the president bush tax cuts -- most well- known provision of the bush tax cuts and allowed to expire, and winning the marriage penalty elimination provisions will expire, the standard deduction for married couples will fall, and the ceiling of the 15% bracket for married couples will fall, no longer double what it is for single filers.

the child tax credit will fall from $1,000 to $500. the tax rate on long-term capital gains earned by middle- and-upper-income people would rise from 15% to 20%. this is part of the package of what could happen at the end of the year if things are allowed to expire and spending cuts take place. we are getting a thoughts on the cbo saying that there could be a recession in early 2013. atlanta, georgia, democrats' line. caller: yes, i want to be able to make a, and not be cut off so quickly, like the men are given time to speak. i want to make a comment. 1960's,the 1950's and 75% or more of the taxes that we collected came from one in five%

of the millionaires, because they were making good money, as they are now. the fort they to regulated all these law -- before they de regulated all of these laws, taxes were paying for highways, roads, sewers, schools, and it was a big boom in business. everything was going great andl the late, late 1970's the early 1980's, when the reagan administration got in and they let -- that is when they started deregulating all these laws and allowed the corporate rich to get in and started finding ways -- crooked rich to get in and started finding ways

to take away regulations where we had freedom to do what ever when it comes to corporate and making more money. host: in light of that, what does this mean frofor the current figures from the cbo? caller: it is the same thing going on, but you have a corporate greediness in congress fighting this president and trying to regain at power and control and trying to american public ignorance -- to the american public ignorant of the wealth they have been getting off the back of the taxpayers, and blaming this deficit all on the poor and working-class and middle-class, and they are trying to convince the public it is and their fault, and these corporate criminals have gotten

into congress and they are convincing people in bubbleville and blue collarville that your problems are caused by the poor and minorities collecting taxpayer dollars and being lazy. that is not what is happening. american people don't have any jobs because corporations have taken our jobs overseas and manufacture all of these products and sell it back to us at 200% of what it costs to make, and we pay for it, and they get away with not paying any taxes -- host: thank you, we will have to leave it there. south tower line, jim, republican online. caller: hi, how you doing great three years ago, democrats told us that all the financial collapse is the republicans'

fault, and that they created the barney frank-dodd act, whatever, and president obama passed it, claiming this would regulate the industry could what did we get? the jpmorgan debacle. they did not fix the problem. it shows that the democrats are not able to fix it, and was not just the purely republican fall our problem. they at this opportunity to fix the problem, and we get another loss and obama pushes it on somebody else . as to that person's claim about for about economics, if 20 people were stranded on an island tomorrow, a few of them would be creative and take initiative and create services for people on the island and get jobs out. it is trickle down to whether we like it or not, that is the weight it works. -- way it works.

government sits there like the soviet union tried or whatever. it does not work that way. host: as far as potential cuts in spending or tax and taxes, what should be done between now and the end of the year? caller: i am glad that the bush tax cuts will go. we need more revenue. but when new revenue comes in, the democrats just want to spend, spend, spend. you constantly hear that on c- span what you hear their bills coming up and want to spend money in california on illegal immigrants, which sounds like a good bill, and we wish we had money to help them with their issues, but we don't have the money. yet the democrats come out of good intention, when to keep spending and creating an -- want to keep spending and creating new bills all the time and if republicans don't want to spend

it, we're some kind of racists -- >> we will leave "washington journal" at this point. we are going why to capitol hill for testimony from a secret service director mark sullivan, making his first public simmons since secret service agents were accused of hiring prostitutes during a presidential trip to colombia. "the washington post" reported last night that four of the agents are challenging their dismissals. this morning, "the post" updated the store, saying that acting homeland security secretary general is investigating whether there was rushed to justice. >> the secret service has built an extraordinary reputation for selfless and still the devotion to the important and dangerous work its agents do it, protecting the president of the united states and other high officials of our government, as

well as foreign leaders who visit the united states. that reputation, a great reputation, was badly stained last month won 11 secret service employees engaged in at night of heavy drinking in cartagena, colombia, which ended with them taking foreign nationals, women, back to their hotel rooms. we have called this hearing as part of our committee's responsibility to oversee the functions of the federal government, particularly those within the department of homeland security the united states secret service agents. there are three things we hope to accomplish today, and in our committee's ongoing investigation. first, we want to get the facts about what precisely happened in cartagena, and where the secret service's own investigation of cartagena at stands today. as widely reported, the misconduct involved 11 agents and officers who arrived in

cartagena the morning of wednesday, april 11, and were off duty the rest of the day. the men went out in groups of a 2, 3 com and four to four different nightclubs that evening, after considerable drinking, they returned to their rooms at the hotel with women they met at the clubs, some of whom were prostitutes, and registered women as overnight guests, according to hotel rules. the secret service subsequently learned that another individual engaged in similar conduct in cartagena the night of monday, april 9. all of the agents and officers held security clearances, and two were in supervisory positions. if one of the agents had not argued with one of the women about how much he owed her, the world would never have known in this sordid story. but the world does know this sordid story, and that is why this is service, at the inspector general -- that is why

at the secret service, the inspector general, and we must do everything we can to learn the truth as best we can read our purpose is not to diminish the secret service, but quite the contrary, to restore its credibility, which our nation -- indeed, the continuity of our government -- so clearly depend upon. second, as part of that search for truth and lessons to be learned, we need to know if there were warning signs that misconduct had become a pattern among traveling secret service agents in the years before cartagena that should have been seen and stopped. it is hard for many people, including me, i will admit, to believe that on one night in april 2012, anin cartagena, colombia, secret service agents and there to protect the president suddenly and

spontaneous they did something that our other agents had never done before, gone out in groups of two, three, or four to four to nightclubs or strip clubs, drink to excess, and then bring foreign and national women back to their hotel rooms. that lingering disbelief lead our committee to send a series of questions to determine if there was any evidence in their records of patterns of previous misconduct. we have begun to review the agency's answers, and have found individual cases of misconduct over the last five years that i would say are troubling. but we do not yet find evidence at all sufficient to justify a conclusion of a pattern of misconduct or culture of misconduct. but the secret service disciplinary records take us so far.

they only include cases where misconduct was observed, charge, and/or adjudicated. we can only know what the records of the secret service reveal, and what others, including whistleblowers, come forward to tell us. thus far, the committee has received the relatively small number of calls from people outside whistleblowers, but they, too, have not provided evidence of the pattern of misconduct by secret service agents similar to what happened in cartagena. however, we've not concluded our oversight of this matter, at nor has the department of homeland security inspector general, and therefore, in this public forum, i would ask anyone who has information about the conduct of the secret service employees over the years that they believed is relevant to our investigation to contact us at the homeland security and

government affairs committee at the u.s. capitol. "washington post" reports that "sexual encounters had been condoned under an unwritten code that allows what happens on the road to stay on the road." the article also contends that this tolerance was part of what was called "the secret circus," a mocking nickname that was apparently used when large numbers of agents and officers arrived in the city." one of the men implicated in cartagena told associates that a senior supervisor had advised agents to follow loose guidelines when spending time with women they met on the road. one-night stands were permitted as long as the relationship ended when the agent left the country.

this "washington post" article, which, again, i say was based on anonymous sources, although the article contends there were multiple sources, obviously encourages people's worst suspicions about a pattern of conduct existing within the secret service, and need a response from the director sullivan, hopefully this morning. in addition, as i mentioned, our initial review of the secret service agency's disciplinary records from the last five years shows individual cases of misconduct which are troubling but not evidence yet of a pattern of misconduct. these records reveal 64 incidents, over five years, were allegations or complaints of sexual misconduct were made by employees of the secret service.

most of these complaints involve sending sexually explicit e-mails or material on a government computer. although three of the complaints involve charges of an inappropriate relationship with for a national -- with a foreign national, and one was a blight of non consensual sexual intercourse -- one was a complaint of non-consensual sexual intercourse. we would like the secret service response to those and needed to know more about. other cases over five years and of alcohol, almost all related to driving under the influence. these complaints involve a a very small percentage of the thousands of people who have worked at the u.s. secret service during the last five years. i also want to say that discipline was imposed in most of the cases. nonetheless, it is important to

know how most of those complaints were handled and whether looking back, at the sugar and warnings --. there should have been morning spirit we want to know what reforms the secret service is implementing to make sure that what happened in cartagena never happens again. i know that secret service director sullivan has made changes, such as increasing the no alcohol before reporting for duty grow from 6 to 10 hours and banning foreign nationals explicitly from hotel rooms. but i also want to hear what the secret service is doing to in the rich people to report egregious behavior when they see at -- doing to encourage people to report egregious behavior when they see it. let me finally put this in the larger context. in the last several days, the secret service has been called on to provide protection for a large number of world leaders who were attending the g8 and

nato summits in the united states. the presidential campaign of 2012 on going, and the secret service needs to protect the candidates and secure two large national conventions. all the ellicott most important, the president and vice president at -- ultimately, most important, the president and vice president of the united states and their families need protection every day. the credibility of the secret service is too important and its mission to critical to our country to leave any questions about cartagena and what preceded it unanswered. i want to personally thank the secret service director mark sullivan for his cooperation with our investigation, and also to thank him because he has worked very hard and fast since he learned of the crisis to investigate it and try to restore the credibility of the secret service.

director sullivan, i look forward to your testimony, as i do to yours, inspector general edward st. senator collins. >> let me begin my remarks today by stating my strong belief that the vast majority of the men and women of the u.s. secret service are professional, disciplined, dedicated and courageous. they do an extraordinarily difficult job extraordinarily well. the honorable conduct of the true professionals of the secret service stands in stark contrascontrast to the miscondut occurred in colombia last month on the eve of the president's visit there. the timing makes the appalling behavior all that much more troubling not only to me, but

also to the majority of secret service personnel both past and present. i will not dwell on the details of the incidents, since they have already been so widely reported and, i am a sure, will be discussed by director sullivan today. the behavior is morally repugnant, and i certainly do not want to downplay that fact. my concerns, however, go far beyond the morality of the agents' actions. first of all, it is reckless behavior could easily have compromised individuals charged with the security of the president of the united states. second, the facts so far lead me to conclude that while not at all representative of the

majority of secret service personnel, this misconduct was almost certainly not an isolated incident. let me discuss both of these concerns in a bit more detail. it is basic counterintelligence 101 the secret service personnel and others holding sensitive positions of trust in the u.s. government should avoid any situation that could provide a foreign intelligence source or secret service or criminal gangs the means of exerting coercion or blackmail. yet two of the primary means of entrapment -- sexual lures an alcohol -- were both present here in abundance while the preliminary investigation has

shown that none of these men had weapons or classified material in their hotel rooms, they still easily could have been drug were kidnapped or had their liaison'' with these foreign nationals used to blackmail them, therefore compromising their effectiveness and potentially zing the president's security. they willingly made themselves potential targets not only for intelligence or security services, but also for groups like the farc or drug cartels. there is absolutely no excuse for, or factor that can mitigate, such recklessness. the service, to its credit, regulation and oversight -- has tightened its regulations and oversight to make sure this

never happens again. second, the facts suggest to me that is likely was not just a one-time incident. if only one or two individuals out of the 160 male secret service personnel assigned to this mission had engaged in this type of serious misconduct, then i would think it was an aberration. but that is not the case. there were 12 individuals involved, 12. that is 8% of the male secret service personnel in the country, and 9% of those staying at a particular hotel. moreover, contrary to the conventional story line, this is not simply a single organized group that went out for an eye on the town together -- a night on the town together.

these were individuals of a small groups of it two or three agents who went out at different times to different clubs, bars, and brothels, but to all ended up in compromising circumstances. in addition, and perhaps most troubling, two of the participants or supervisors, one with 22 years of service, the other with 21, and both were married. that surely sends a message to the rank-and-file that this kind of activity is somehow tolerated on the road. the numbers involved, as well as the participation of the two senior supervisors, lead me to believe that this was not a one- time event. rather, the circumstances unfortunately suggest that

different rules apply on the road, and they suggest an issue of culture. it may well be a culture that spans agencies. the secret service and the department of justice inspector general are continuing to investigate yet another secret service agent in at least two -- and at least two dea personnel who entertain foreign nationals in the cartagena apartment of one of the agents. in that investigation, it suggests that was not a one-time incident. of course, the original reports out of colombia also alleged misconduct by about a dozen members of our armed forces. again, i want to emphasize that the vast majority of our law

enforcement and military personnel are real heroes, and i deeply appreciate the danger is that those deployed face every day . given this apparent question of culture, however, i am pleased that the dhs inspector general will be examining the culture of the secret service to see if there is something systemic that led to these incidents, and the director himself has convened a task force. i will follow these developments closely. finally, mr. chairman, i want to join you in recognizing that director seligmann and acting -- director sullivan and the acting ig worked in a forthright and open manner with this committee over the past six weeks as we have attempted to better understand the

ramifications and causes of this scandal. thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this important hearing. >> thank you very much, senator collins, for your opening statement. director sullivan, we thank you for being here, and we welcome your testimony at this time. >> thank you. good morning, chairman lieberman, ranking member collins, distinguished members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the surrounding the misconduct of the secret service employees in cartagena, colombia, the immediate actions taken by the agency to make sure that the mission was not compromised, the results of the internal investigation into this matter, and at the actions that have been put into place thus far. the last several weeks have been a difficult time for the u.s. secret service, and i would like to begin by talking about the

outstanding men and women who serve in our organization. the overwhelming majority of the men and women who serve in this agency exemplify our five core values -- justice, duty, courage, honesty, and loyalty. on a daily basis, they are prepared to lay down their lives to protect others in service to the country. it is precisely because of these longstanding values that a minimum of this agency are held to higher -- standard -- that the men and women of this agency are held to a higher standard. clearly, the misconduct that took place in cartagena are not representative of these volumes and the high standard we demand from our nearly 7000 employees. i am deeply disappointed, and i apologize for the misconduct employees and a distraction it has cost. the men and women of the u.s.

secret service are committed to continuing to live up to the standards that the present, the congress, and the american people expect and deserve. from the beginning of this incident, we have strived to keep members of congress and our committees of jurisdiction up to date as information became available. while my written testimony provides an overview of our date, i am committed to keeping you informed as the review continues. immediately upon learning of the allegations of the misconduct, i directed secret service personnel, supervisory personnel in cartagena, to initiate an investigation and that preliminary interviews of secret service employees allege to be involved in this incident. once the preliminary interviews had taken place, i ordered all 11 people alleged to be involved in misconduct to immediately return the united states. the prompt removal of these individuals allowed us to make

necessary replacements and adjustments to the staffing plan in advance of the president's arrival in cartagena. on saturday, april 14, the morning after their return to the u.s., these 11 individuals were interviewed by our office of professional responsibility, which acts as our agency's internal affairs component. at the conclusion of these interviews, all 11 individuals were placed on administrative leave, their security clearances were suspended, and all of their equipment was surrendered pending the outcome of this investigation. as the investigation progressed, a 12th person was implicated. at this point, administrative action has been taken relative to all 12 individuals. in addition, during the course of our investigation, we had one individual self-report an incident unrelated to the misconduct that occurred at the hotel.

this individual, too, has been placed on administrative leave, pending the investigation, and their clearance has been suspended. during the course of the investigation, we confirmed that none of the 12 individuals had received everything regarding the protective assignments prior to the misconduct taking place. we also confirm that none of the 12 individuals had a sense of security documents, firearms, radios, or security-related equipment in their hotel room. since the beginning of this investigation, we have been transparent and forthcoming with the department of homeland security's office of inspector general. instructed our office of professional responsibility to fully cooperate with the dhs acting inspector general at words as his office conducts its own comprehensive review of the matter. as i mentioned at the beginning of my statement, while the overwhelming majority of the men

and women who serve in our agency exemplified the highest standards of professionalism and integrity, i want to ensure that this type misconduct, which occurred in cartagena, is not repeated. as a result, a number of enhancements to existing code of conduct, in addition to new qualities, have been put in place. i have also established professionalism reinforcement working group to look at the efficacy of our employment standards, background investigations, disciplinary actions, at extending, at all related policies and procedures. director jon barry from the office of personnel management and director, patrick from the federal law enforcement training center are cochairs of this group. i am confident that this review will provide us with an objective perspective on our organizational practices,

highlighting the areas where we excel and identifying areas where we may improve. the u.s. secret service is an organization that maintains deep pride in the work it does on behalf of our nation. throughout our 147-year history, the agency has demanded service with honor and distinction by its agents, officers, and administrative professionals and technical staff. all employees are expected to adhere to the highest standards of personal and professional integrity. and recognize that the success of our agency's mission depends on the strong character and sound judgment of our people. one of the greatest privilege as i have is swearing in new agents and officers. it gives all of us a tremendous sense of pride to witness a new generation take that same oath we took many years ago. that pride comes for all of us from being part of a special organization with a history of dedicated people who serve our

country honorably. over the past several weeks, we have been under intense scrutiny as a result of this incident. to see the agency's integrity called into question has not been easy. through it all, then men and women of the u.s. secret service have demonstrated professionalism and integrity in their daily work. it just this past weekend, the agency successfully completed security operations for the g8 in maryland and the nato summit, which included the gathering of more than 40 world leaders from four continents in the city of chicago. concurrent with these events, we continue the planning for similar a large scale security operations for the republican national convention in tampa, florida and the democratic national convention in charlotte, north carolina later this summer. all of this comes on top of

exceptional work conducted every day in field offices around the country and throughout the world. today as i testified before eve, the men and women of this organization are protecting world leaders, a presidential candidates, former presidents, numerous embassies in washington, d.c., conducting criminal investigations, keeping american citizens and financial institutions safe from financial fraud. and preparing for the presidential inauguration. they are making a positive impact on their community. i am grateful to them for what they to every single day, and my sincere hope is that they are not defined by the misconduct of a few, but rather, but the good work they perform with character and integrity. thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. i would be more than happy to answer any questions you may have.

now the acting director, mr. charles edmonds. >> thank you. i appreciate this opportunity to update you on the inspector general's actions regarding the incident in cartagena, colombia, involving secret service employees' traction with colombian nationals on april 11 and april 12. my role began almost immediately after the indeed when on april 13 director sullivan and i discussed the events. we have since remained in regular contact. director sullivan has repeatedly stated to me his commitment to conduct a thorough investigation. his actions so far have demonstrated that commitment and the secret service has been completely transparent and cooperated with inspectors and

investigators since our team started its work. on april 26 i instructed our assistant ig for instructions and the acting director regarding the incident in cartagena. the next day our assistant ig and the acting deputy assistant ig for investigations met with officials from secret service's office of professional sports --lity, also known as we have a nine-person team augmented by three criminal investigators. on may 2, the team met with officials and began the first part of our three-part review.

in part 1, we are evaluating the adequacy of secret service's response to the incident in cartagena and adequacy of the scope, methodology, and conclusions of this internal investigation and the sufficiency of the collective actions already implemented or planned. we are in the process of interviewing secret service personnel responsible for coordinating the agency opposes response to the incident and conducting its investigation as well as personnel within the office of the director, those in charge of field operations, and in the office responsible for security clearances. we will review of records, documents, and other materials related to the secret service's internal investigation including standards for inspection and investigation. we will review protocols for the

secret service code of conduct, and disciplinary processes and records. our field work for part one of our review is currently taking place in washington, d.c. we have started meeting with staff members who interviewed secret service employees who were in cartagena at the time of the incident. we have also started reviewing records that resulted from interviews of nearly 200 secret service employees associated with the president's visit as well as 25 employees of the hilton and el caribe hotel in cartagena. plan to interview the special agent in charge paula reid, who had authority. we plan to also interviewed director sullivan. we will review the secret service's report on its internal investigation as soon as it becomes available. contingent upon our receipt of

that report, our goal is to complete the first phase of our review and report our findings by july 2. immediately thereafter, we will begin part two of our review, during which we will determine whether certain workplace conditions and issues have promoted and culture within the secret service that could have contributed to the cartagena incident w. we will examine their recruiting and hiring practices and vetting practices and looked at their equal employment opportunity cases, communications within the agency, its administration of awards and discipline, training, and any other programs that might cast light on the organizational culture of the secret service. this portion of our work will include it visits to miami and other field offices. the third phase of our review

will examine the memorandum of understanding between the secret service and our office. we will abide with changes in the secret service and the office of inspector general of investigative capabilities since it was created in 2003 and determine whether changes are necessary. we will report our findings on both phases two and three later this year. finally, i would like to stress that the value of secret service's efforts to date in investigating its own employees should not be discounted. it has done an incredible job uncovering the facts and does taken swift and decisive action. mr. chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. i would be happy to answer any questions of you or that committee members may have. >> thank you for the testimony and for what you have been doing. we will start with a seven- minute round of questions for each of the senators.

director sullivan, you have told us that you were shocked by the behavior of the 12 agents in cartagena and i believe that you were. you have felt confident that their behavior was not a common occurrence within the ranks of the secret service. i wanted to ask you, after reading the washington post story today and, whether you have that same confidence, in other words, can you give us your first reaction to what is contained in that story? "current and former agency employees say sexual encounters during official travel have been condoned under an unwritten code of that allows what happens on the road to stay there" >> thank you, senator. i absolutely feel the same way about the men and women of the u.s. secret service and the culture, after reading that article. when i read that article, it

cited numerous anonymous sources. i guess i would ask that if people do have information, i want them to come forward with that information either to our office of professional response ability or to the dhs ig the thought or the notion that this type of behavior is condoned or authorized is just absurd in my opinion. i have been an agent 29 years now. i began my career seven years in detroit. i have worked on the white house detailed price. i have worked for a lot of men and women in this organization and never had any supervisor or other agents tell me this type of behavior is condoned. i have never told any of our employees that it is condoned, so i feel as strongly now as i did after -- as i did before i read that article. >> mr. edwards, let me ask you,

because at least some significant part of the conclusions drawn generally without attribution in the article today are based on conversations with some cost of or perhaps all 12 agents involved in the cartagena's scandal. do you intend to interview any or all of them about what happened? >> thank you, sir. yes, we are going to interview all 13. in fact, today, this afternoon there will interview two of those individuals. >> that is very important and very encouraging news, because, obviously, you are conducting a formal inspector general investigation and, therefore, if they repeat the allegations but they have made it to the newspaper, presumably, you will find out whether they are credible or not and report to us and to the public as your investigation goes on.

director sullivan, let me ask you with respect to your own investigation thus far and the individuals alleged to have behaved improperly, were they asked whether they had engaged in similar conduct on other occasions? >> yes, sir, they were. >> what was their answer? >> their answer was they had not. >> for the record, were they under oath when they were interrogated? >> i believe they all gave a sign of that -- signed oath, but i'm not sure, i would have to check on that. >> were they all offered the opportunity to take a polygraph test? it would be of interest to me whether during that test they were also and asked whether they had ever been involved in a similar behavior. >> yes, sir. we did use every investigative

tool we had to include polygraph interviews, talking to other people, looking at records. thus far we have not found this type of behavior was exhibited by any of these individuals before. >> or the secret service personnel -- were the secret service personnel asked whether they considered their conduct unacceptable? > " this is a question of us have asked ourselves over the last month and a half. i believe when many of these people were interviewed, i don't think they could explain why they exhibited the behavior that they did. >> some people have tried to explain and understand why such irresponsible behavior would be carried out by 6 service agents. perhaps they were influenced by the fact that prostitution is legal in colombia.

i take it that would not matter so far as the secret service is concerned, because -- whether prostitution owas legal or not, by the behavior it would run the risk of compromising the security of the president of united states, because who knows who are there with on those occasions. >> absolutely. there's no excuse for that type of behavior from a kind of perspective and from a national security perspective. that type of behavior was just reckless. understood. ok, over the past five years, based on our review of the disciplinary records that so far we have gone over that you provided to the committee in response to our questionnaire, there appear to have been five cases that are directly relevant to what happens in cartagena and

therefore potentially noteworthy. the allegations involving allegationsor undocumented contact with a foreign national . one allegation of contact with a prostitute. and what allegation of non consensual sex. director sullivan, are you aware of these cases? if so, can you tell us what was involved and how the agency handled them? i believe so. any type of misconduct, we take extremely seriously and we investigate it. the one i believe you are talking about with the non- consensual sex was investigated by law enforcement who decided not to go forward with any charges after doing an investigation. >> may i ask whether the

complainant was someone within the secret service? was it a fellow employee or someone outside? >> someone outside the organization, senator. the other three, with the foreign nationals contact, those were investigated inappropriate -- and appropriate administrative action was taken on those three. >> did any of those have characteristics similar to what happens in cartagena, that they were prostitutes but they had picked up? >> nothing to do with prostitution. i believe all three may have been women that they had contact with, but nothing like this situation we are referring to now. >> were these launch relationships to the best of your understanding or just people they met when they were on assignment in a foreign location? >> i think they might have been people that at least on one of them, somebody that they met and

continued with the contact via e-mail. >> finally, what about the one case we have seen in the record of contact with a prostitute, which i gather occurred in washington? >> yes, sir. in 2008, an individual was involved with prostitution and was separated from our agency one month later. >> was that individual on duty at the time? >> yes, sir. >> i take it this was not somebody that he met during the course of his work, but he was caught in a sting. >> yes, sir. he solicited an undercover police officer. >> we will continue to talk about those cases. thanks for being so responsive. my time is up. senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director sullivan, it is my understanding that all of the

secret service personnel involved, with the possible exception of one agent who may have used another agent posing name, registered the women at the hotel front desk using their real names and using the women's real names. is that accurate? >> , yes, senator. >> that made it easier to track down the women, but it also seems to reinforce the claim that this kind of conduct has been tolerated in the past. in other words, it suggests to me that the agents were so unconcerned about being caught or about the impropriety of their actions that they did not even think to conceal it. what is your reaction?

do you think the fact that they register the women, they follow the rules of the hotel and registered the women, they used their real names, they used the women's real names, suggests that they were not really worried about being caught? >> again, senator, i go back to i have tried to figure this out for a month and a half, what would ever possessed people to exhibit this type of behavior? i will tell you i don't take this is indicative of the overwhelming majority of our men and women. i just think that between the alcohol -- and i don't know the environment -- these individuals did some really dumb things. i just cannot explain why they would've done what they did, but i don't believe they did it because they believed this type

of behavior would be tolerated. we have a zero tolerance for this type of behavior. i cannot figure out why they did what they did. >> what troubles me about this is, again, i will go back to the fact this was not a case where these 12 men together were out on the town in the same club bringing back women from that one source. they went out on the town in small groups -- in some cases two or three or individually, yet each one comes back to the hotel making no attempt to conceal the fact they are bringing foreign nationals into the hotel, actually register them at the front desk. they don't try to conceal their actions in any way. that suggests to me that they were not worried about being

caught, that they did not think there would be consequences if they were caught. otherwise, would you not expect they will try to conceal their actions? >> senator, when i was first apprised of this situation, i was dumbfounded. the decision and for me was so easy to make. people on an assignment protecting the president in a foreign country, that they could have acted in this manner, it was very easy decision for me to say we need to bring them back here. again, secretary -- senator, i have no excuse for those actions. all i can tell you is that we acted quickly and brought them back here and initiated our investigation. >> let me turn but related issue. when you discovered what had

happened, you updated some of the training manuals and in late april you issued a directive that clearly says that the laws of this country apply to secrets service personnel while abroad. and i give you credit for issuing that, making crystal lear, but wasn't your adjudication guidelines, the is it not already pretty clear in the guidelines that this type of behavior would not be acceptable? >> senator, absolutely. we put these guidelines out. i have been accused of being draconian for us putting them up. maybe they are. i go back to the overwhelming

majority of our men and women. i don't think they need these guidelines. we have men and women of character, men and women of integrity. what i wanted to make sure it was even if there is one individual out there who did not understand it, we wanted to make sure that we reached his individuals. you're absolutely right. there are adjudicative guidelines out there. people are aware of what those adjudicative guidelines are. we are professional organization. we travel around the world. over the last six years we have gone 37,000 trips around the world. we have had no situation like this one before. again, i am confident this is not a cultural issue, this is not a systemic issues. these are just off --we make decisions every single day. our employees makes a really critical decisions that, again, the overwhelming majority of the time they make good decisions. on this particular trip we had

some individuals who made very bad decisions. that is why it is very important for us to have a strong office of professional this possibility, to have a good relationship with the inspector general, because when those individuals, which are minority, make bad choices and have misconduct, we are going to act appropriately. >> i guess the point i was trying to make is, as i read these guidelines, it specifically refers to engaging in any activity that is illegal in that country or that is legal in that country but illegal in the united states, so there is no doubt that officially this kind of behavior was already predicted prior to your issuing directives on april 27, correct? >> that's correct, senator. >> mr. edwards, in the few seconds i have left, are you

conducting an independent investigation of what occurred in columbia or are you simply reviewing the investigation that director sullivan and his staff are conducting? >> thank you, senator. i am deeply troubled, just as you are. and we are doing a comprehensive review. what i mean is we are reviewing the investigation that is done by secret service. at the same time we are also doing some independent interviews ourselves. we also want to talk with the people who are interviewing the personnel. we have done 23. we have also sat in on about six of the interviews conducted. in order for us to get a comprehensive report and the phased approach, i don't have

the personnel to go interview all 200 of them, but they are doing a random sample to make sure our investigation is thorough. and thorough -- to make sure that our investigation is independent and transparent. >> i want to make sure it is completely independent. thank you. >> thank you, senator collins. i agree with you. i know this will require a commitment of personnel by you, mr. edwards, but it is so important to get to the bottom of this event so we can find out exactly what happened. the aim is to restore confidence to the secret service, which most of the members have good work. so i agree with that. the members of our committee,

senator brown is next. >> director sullivan and mr. edwards, thank you for tending. hist mr. sullivan, you said that you were not aware that this had happened before and that is evidenced by some of the investigations you have done in your long history in the service, correct? >> yes, senator. >> you are still trying to figure it out is something you also said, correct? the most recent incidents? >> yes, sir. >> you are making changes coming ethics training, changing policy, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> you said many times that a majority of the folks serving in the agency -- and i would agree -- do wonderful work and have gone on many missions and serve with great pride and resourcefulness. 147 years of service. is that fair to say? >> yes, senator. >> i know that you set out new

guidelines and indicated they were draconian. and that you need to do them but you feel it's necessary. i would ask do you also trust the men and women now that are serving, notwithstanding this individual incident? do you trust them in their sacrifice and service in the job they're doing now? >> yes, sir. i'm asking because there's potentially a new policy to send a supervisor from the office of professional responsibility which you indicated off as a member of the internal affairs division of the agency to go and basically babysit these agents when they are going overseas and doing their duty, so i'm a little confused as to why we would be sending a $155,000 a person, another person to basically babysit people that you say this has not happened before, you a change in policy, you have made draconian changes and you trust the men and women,

yet we are going to be sending someone to oversee that they are following your policies. i'm not sure how that makes financial sense or reestablishing the trust you have any agency? >> yes, sir. i was accused of being draconian for putting these four, but we thought it was important. as far as the gs15, he will have an assignment or she will have an assignment and i have heard them referred to as a babysitter. they are not. they are there to be working agent. however one of the things we found on this particular trip was that when we did have this situation, we had to look at t-- the person we need to rely on with the special agent at the miami field office, did an outstanding job. my preference would be for her to have continued on the upcoming visit. we do need to have supervision on these types -- " but you already have

supervision. u.s. agents in charge of agents and you have other agents in charge of those. you already have a chain of command. now it's seems you are going to insert an internal affairs person to basically babysit or oversee what's happening. i'm just going on your testimony where you said you have made changes and that you trust these people and that this is an aberration and that you have no knowledge and yet we are going to spend time and effort and take someone from doing another job to be there does in case something like this happens. i wonder if you think it's a little overkill? >> prior to this we have a jump team where we have a group of agents that go out and on this particular jump team we had 63 agents. this team was led by two gs14, two individuals involved in the incident. what we have done is we have replaced those two gs14

supervisors with two gs15 supervisors. one of them will come from the field and the other will be from our office of professional responsibility. they are not there to be a babysitter. they will have an assignment. but if a situation does come up, if they will be there to resolve that situation. >> is this on every mission that we do now? but this is on every foreign trip. >> nominee to be conduct per year? >> i would have to give you the numbers for that. >> just approximately, 10, 100, 500, just an approximation? " so far this year we have done done 200 trips or so. but this is only for a presidential visit or a vice presidential visit. >> how many of those? >> i would have to get you the numbers. >> once again, you are changing the entire structure, putting

14 orr paid people -- gs 15, they should be doing the job regardless of what level. having someone there to oversee an agency that you trust, i am still not quite clear. >> senator, i do trust those people, but we are talking about protecting the president. i believe supervision is very important. on this particular trip, supervision was lacking, clearly. on thisave to put 15'sa particular trip, that's what we are going to do. -- gs15's. if we can go back to the way we had before, we will do so. i want to make clear people are not there to babysit. will give an ethics briefing on the beginning of this trip and a code of conduct briefing on this trip.

>> how often do they get the ethics briefings? >> the ghettos throughout their career in training and an annual requirement. >> how about the polygraph and that sort of thing, every 10 years? >> they get a polygraph at the beginning of their career when they come on and after that we do five-year background updates. some of our individuals, depending on what type of position they hold, either internal or external to the organization, they get polygraphs throughout their career as well. >> what's the average, about every five or 10 years? >> not all of our employees get polygraphs every five or 10. >> how about these individuals that would have been doing the job they were doing? how often would they? get a they craigslist they were in a specialized position where that was required, they would not have gotten a polygraph once they got their initial polygraph. >> it could been 10 or 20 years for some of these people? >> yes, sir. >> you think maybe we should

review that policy? but that is what we are looking at now. >> did you think we would have found out about this if we did not have an argument regarding the price? >> i do. >> house so? >> i think somebody on the jump team would have reported that. >> if you believe the washington post article, it says something like this has been happening for quite awhile. did you have never heard of it. we're getting two different stories. i hope that mr. edwards, in your investigation, we can find out what the truth is and give the bad apples who are not adhering to the policy and deal with them accordingly. i believe there are amazing men and women serving in the secret service, mr. sullivan an. and taking a bullet for the president is the ultimate form of sacrifice an agent can make.

protecting the president and vice president is the most important job an individual can do. the image is stained and that is why i also appreciate your appearances before us and your efforts to be open and forthright and i thank you for holding this meeting. >> i would like to respond back to the washington post article. that referenced and numerous amount of sources. you had mentioned, you talk about waste and mismanagement. there was an allegation at the beginning of this about misconduct in el salvador. a lot of people took that and ran with it because it was reported on the news it. i took that allegations very seriously. i sent our office of professional was a possibility down to cartagena for almost a week. i spent thousands of dollars. petrino salvador? >> yes, i mental salvador.

we spent thousands of dollars to send those people down there. we interviewed 28t to 30 people. -- i meant wl salvador. we spoke to a contract drivers, we spoke to the police chief, we spoke to the owner of a nightclub where the incident was alleged to have occurred. we were not able to prove any of these allegations. we spoke to the rso who conducted his own investigation down there. if there is information out there, when you read about it in the paper from an anonymous source, it's very difficult for us to investigate that type of allegation. all i would say is we would like to know who, when, why, and names of people and who are the people condoning it. it's not the organization i know

that we would condone such behavior. >> thanks, . are next. >> thanks for testifying. i have great respect for the service and this is an incredibly sad episode. this hearing is all but how to restore credibility. agree withd to say i senator collins that is -- based on the facts of the case, it's hard to believe this is a one time occurrence. i wish i could believe that, but it is hard to believe. i've got a couple questions. let's go back to the polygraphs that senator brown was asking about. i think i heard you say earlier that polygraphs were offered to these agents. was that? not that? -- was that not a requirement? >> i think we did about 14 or 15 polygraphs.

they have the option to refuse a polygraph. >> what kind of constraints did you find in your investigation? what constraints are there and trying to get the facts of this, based on worker protections? >> going back to the polygraph, the polygraphs helped a couple people keep. their keep those particular individuals who refused to take a polygraph, we were able to come up with other information that refuted what they were saying. for us, not giving a polygraph did not really impact the way this investigation was conducted, because we were able to prove the allegations without using a polygraph. >> again, as we talked in our closed-door briefing, concern was that additional information starts coming out, other stories come out month after month. we need to get this behind us. i imagine you have the exact

same concern. in your investigation, what are you doing to make sure that we don't hear of another incident three months from now? what are you doing to assure that does not occur, other than just your belief that you have faith in your agents? >> part of it is that we have put together this professionalism reinforcement working group director berry and director patrick. inspector general will take a look at our investigation. last year in a government-wide review. survey when asked about if you would report an incident of unethical behavior, 60% of our employees responded that they would report it. improve that number to where it's 100%. we want to encourage them that if they seek an unethical behavior, they would report it. >> 40% is a high percentage that

would not report. i guess that's my concern. when you hear that was done on the road states on the road, my guess is there's a pretty high ps,el of esprit day ce cor possibly a code of silence. how do you get to the bottom of this? >> i go back to leadership. the leadership we have on these trips, the leadership that we have in our organization, that they encourage our people and make sure people know that there is not a point to be retribution or that there is not going to be a negative impact for them to report this type of behavior. >> but you have leadership on these trips and these things occur. so how do we get to the bottom? bottom its is there some mechanism where we can require a polygraph? maybe to a polygraph on all the members of the service to get to the bottom of this. >> we have a very aggressive and a very good polygraph program.

all of our agents get a polygraph when they first come on the job. we do five-year updates for every single employee that we have. every employee maintains a top security clearance, but we are taking a look at further use of polygraphs. >> what questions would be asked in a polygraph test in these type of episodes? >> that is something we would have to look at. there would be the national security polygraph and then there would be the character issue polygraph. for each one there would be two or three relative questions that we would look for the technologists to ask. >> of the polygraph that were administered voluntarily, was there a more general questions asked or all the questions asked related to the specific episode? in other words, did you ask those individuals have you ever

participated in this type of behavior in the past? but that type of question, i believe, was asked in the protest. but i would be more than happy to get you the exact questions that were asked. >> i would like to know whether that was asked and whether the question was also asked under oath and under polygraph, are you aware of any other type of behavior by someone else within the service? >> i would have to get that for you. >> those are types of questions that do need to be asked almost universally if we are going to get to the bottom of this. in terms of taking disciplinary action, up to and including discharge, do you feel constrained in your employment policies of actually being able to take the necessary steps? >> no, sir. i believe we did a very swift and comprehensive investigation. we took the proper action when we felt that we had enough

information to take that action. we also want to make sure that we protect the rights of not only in this type of investigation but any investigation we do when it comes to an employee, if we want to make sure that we protect the rights they have. we want to make sure whatever decision we make is going to be the right one and is one that cannot be refuted. >> we have had a number of agents retired but now are trying to get back in the service or they are challenging the dismissal. what are the numbers and what is the status? >> right now our numbers contradict what was in the washington post article. we have two employees who originally said they were going to resign that have now come back and said they're going to challenge that and they're looking to challenge that. so now we will look to revoke

their security clearance. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you. >> thanks, senator johnson. senator portman . >> thank you for holding a hearing and thanks for being on top of this situation from the start. i know that you share the concern of our colleagues to make sure this is fully investigated and necessary reforms are put into place. thank you, mr. director and to the acting ig for being here, for your testimony, and director sullivan, thanks for your 29 years of service and your willingness to take swift action and to be transparent with the acting ig and to be honest with us on the hill as we ask questions over these weeks. as is the case with the chairman, i am a former protectee and was in the cabinet

level role as u.s. foreign trade representative on a number of trips where i had secret service protection. earlier, director, you spoke about the five core values of the service. justice, duty, courage, loyalty, honesty. i will say that my experiences with the men and women who protected me exemplified those values. it is precisely because of my high regard for the character of their professionalism, those men and women, and for the importance of the service and related is the central role in the continuity of our governmental system that i am so concerned and deeply troubled by subjectdenct that is the of this hearing today. we all have their role to investigate this and to be sure that this kind of risky and unprofessional behavior does not occur again by putting in place of new protocols to try to

restore the trust and confidence of the american people. so, my questions are really about going forward what do we do? i think you took some appropriate swift action. it was appropriate to remove the secret service personnel from columbia as you did immediately. i think that some of the needed actions you have taken with regard to this incident are appropriate. i agree with my colleagues that it may not be an isolated incident, given the fact that there were supervisors involved , and so i would like to talk about what should be done in the future. i have been interested in the discussion today about the guidelines that are currently in place. it is my view that either because they are specifically written or because they're understood, it's not as if there were not adequate guidelines. i will read from a couple of your guidelines. one is the code of conduct which

says if, "the secret service employees and not engaged in a moral core disgraceful conduct or other conduct prejudicial to the government. the absence of a specific public standard of conduct covering an act tending to discredit an employee or department does not mean such an act is condoned." so even if it's not specifically identified in terms of what happened in cartagena would fall into this category. and under your rules of conduct with regard to security clearance, it says, "contact with a foreign national, if it creates a risk of foreign exploitation or coercion, is inappropriate, guidelines one against conduct a special while traveling outside the u.s. which may make an individual vulnerable to exploitation or coercion by a foreign person or foreign country." it seems you can write all the guidelines you want, but if the culture does not reinforce the

five core values we talked will not be successful. we talked all about the professional reinforcement working group. seems that's a good step forward. what else would you recommend, director sullivan, and ig edwards, in terms of looking forward to make sure this type of incident never happens again? >> thank you, senator. again, if one of the things we , we did not look backwards. we did look back at our discipline over the past five and a half years. when i look at that it is under 1% of our population was involved in some type of disciplinary action. that just gives me reason to believe this is not part of the culture. being part of this organization 29 years and never seen anything

like this before in my life, i just believe very strongly that this is not part of our culture. >> , a personnel do you have? >> closed through seventh thousand. >> on the jump team there were 53 individuals. how many secrets service personnel or on the cart and a trip? >> about 200 people on the trip. about 175 people in kardashian at the time of this incident. but some any foreign troops have the secret service been involved with? you said there were 200 this year alone. >> yes, sir. over the past seven years we have done about 2700. >> foreign trips? >> yes. >> this type of incident has never been reported before? >> no, sir.

but i do think the professional reinforcements working group, we will look at various areas with that. we have broken up into a subcommittee on workforce management and you're going to take a look at how we hire, performance management, discipline, and the security clearance process. we will also take a look at operational environment and have a subcommittee looked at our traditions, look at our operations, compare ourselves to other law enforcement and military organizations, take a look get the role of our high standards and that there's no margin of error within our culture and look at our workforce programs, attacked our employee assistance program, look at our diversity program. we will also take a look and are excommunication training and professional development. we do want to ensure that the men and women of this organization are not just

better, but the best. this is the goal of t committee. >> thank you. my time has expired. i appreciate your 29 years of distinguished service. and, mr. edwards, i appreciate the way you work seamlessly with the secret service. i know you have a lot of other responsibilities including other law enforcement responsibilities. thank you for your testimony today. >> thank you, senator. senator portman , thank you. senator corcoran. >> thank you very much. those of us in the senate have had the privilege to serve with a retired navy admiral, barry black, now the template for the u.s. senate. he often encourages those of us privileged to serve here to ask for wisdom in whatever our faith

might be. so we tried to do that in different ways. in preparing for this hearing, i took a few minutes to go back and read a passage, a famous passage in the new testament from the book of john. it is one where a woman was accused of adultery. she was being surrounded by a group of men. the men involved in the adultery were nowhere to be seen, but she was surrounded by a group of men who held stones in their hands. and jesus was close by. the pharisees said to jesus, look, what do you think should happen to this woman? and jesus was bending down and writing stuff in the dirt and kind of ignore them. after a while they said, jesus, we are talking to you, what do you think ought to happen to this woman because the laws of

moses say that she should be stoned and her life taken as a result of persons? jesus kept writing in the third and finally said, let those of you who are without sin cast the first stone. that's all he said. one by one, the men holding the stones from the oldest to youngest dropped their stones and walked away. and the woman was left their standing in the middle of kind of a circle. the only person still there was jesus. she said to him or actually he said to her, woman where are your accusers? she said they have gone away. said to her, your accusers have gone and i'm not going to accuse you either.

but then he added, go and sin no more. nobody here is going to lose their life because of what they did down in columbia. they have lost their jobs. they lost or harm to their reputation of a wonderful -- harm to their reputation and harmed the reputation of a wonderful agency. >> just under 7000 people serving. >> if you go back in time, any idea how many tens of thousands might have served in the secret service? >> tens of thousands, but i don't have the exact number. but a lot of people have come before us that we have built this organization upon. >> one indiscretion of this nature has been reported in colombia. that is one too many.

11 or 12 are too many. the folks who have done these things have not just ruined their careers, they helped to spoil the reputation of tens of thousands of people who have served and continue to serve in the secret service. none of us is without sin. the key for us is to figure out what went wrong, to make sure that post who have misbehaved are punished, and then make sure that we put in place the kind of policies and safeguards to ensure this kind of thing does not happen again. are you convinced, mr. edwards, that that is what we have done? >> can you repeat the question? >> the role for us and i think for you and mr. sullivan is to ensure that we have found out the facts, applied appropriate

punishment for those who have misbehaved, and put in place the policies and safeguards to ensure this kind of thing does not happen again. are you satisfied that the steps that been taken meet that test? >> absolutely. i will make sure that we do a complete review and make sure this never happens again. >> what further need to be done and what is the propofol for the congress? >> i owe it to the secretary and to congress for me to do an independent review and be transparent and to come back with the recommendations to report to you what else can be done. i'm still in the process of doing my review, so i don't have any findings yet. >> mr. sullivan, would you respond to those questions please? >> yes. i go back to the overwhelming men and women of this organization doing an outstanding job every single

day. my goal right now is to make sure that they know that we have confidence in them and that we believe in them and that we know this is not indicative of their character. what i would ask is that we continue to get your support. i appreciate the complimentary things that you said about our men and women today. we have a very challenging year that we are in the middle of right now. as i mentioned, we just finished at the nato summit and the g8. i would ask for your continued support and for you to continue to believe in what this organization is all about. i would ask that you continue to believe in us and to know that we are going to do everything we can do to make sure that we rebuild our reputation and do the right thing for the people that we protect and serve. >> you just mentioned "do the right thing." some of the best guidance i ever

received was to figure out the right thing to do, just do it. not the easy thing, but consistently do the right thing. mr. edwards, a like for you to make sure you do the right thing. the other thing i would say, is all of us make mistakes. god knows i have and i'm sure my colleagues have and we will make others in the future. having said that, some of the best advice i ever got was from my father. he said that if my work and life is not perfect, just make it better. and everything i do, i know it can be better. if it's not perfect, make it better, that should be our goal. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, senator carper. we will do a second round insofar as the members have additional questions. would either of you like to take

a break? >> i am fine. >> inspector general, generally speaking, what kind of time schedule are you putting yourself on? i know it's hard to do deadlines. am i correct to say that this is going to be the review and possibly an independent investigation of what happened in cartagena? >> the first part, i need to take a look at the investigation, how it was done, the scope and methodology, the questions asked, whether it was closed ended questions or open- ended questions. after listening to you and senator collins, for me to go back and redo all of the 200. originally i was planning on getting all this done by july 2, but i will revisit that because i truly want to come up with an independent investigation on the first part. the second part is looking at the culture.

this misbehavior or this risky behavior, what is the cost of that? what type of correction action was taken? what kind of vetting process or ethics training was offered? so to get an idea of that. i need to do a comprehensive inspection on that and i plan to have that done by the fall. >> it this point, it's fair to say that if you do a kind of independent investigation of cartagena, it is certainly not going to be done by early july, but hopefully you will have it by the end of the summer or some time like that, is that reasonable? >> i will put all my additional resources and make sure this is a top priority and get this done. >> thank you. mr. edwards, in response to the questions that are committee sent you, you indicated that you ig case fileshe

some records of an incident 10 years ago, actually, where more than -- or approximately five secret service agents were disciplined for partying "with alcohol with underage females in their hotel rooms while on assignment at the 2002 olympics." this is significant as we try to determine whether there was t prior thereo cartagena. do you know if this is a credible report? >> thank you, sir. we received a hot line complaint on april 20. this was referring to the favorite 2002 winter olympics in salt lake city. there were five secret service

agents send home after police responded and found them parting with alcohol with underage females in their hotel rooms while on assignment. this was investigated by the secret service at that time. i think the outcome of that was many of them have left the agency now, but since we received the hot line complaint i have an obligation to look into it, so we are looking into it. >> this is important. this actually came in relatively recently over the hot line that you maintain, which is an internet hotline? >> yes, sir. >> you might want to mention what the address is. >> it is www.dhs.org. got/hotline. >> director sullivan, are you aware that incident?

>> yes, sir, as far as i know there were three individuals involved in that particular incident. i believe those individuals were gone within a very short time of that incident. again, i go back to the fact that it does not represent the overwhelming majority of our people. like any allegation that comes to our attention, we will investigate it. >> let me ask this question. i assume that the seriousness of that behavior is not affected by the fact that it occurred in united states, as opposed to outside. and that occurred presumably with women who were not prostitutes. the behavior was not acceptable for secret service personnel. >> again, as i understand the allegations, it was under age

individuals. that would bring into account the seriousness of the allegation. >> in utah, it was a crime. >> i have not looked at that case. i would be happy to. again, i will cooperate fully. >> the 2002 olympics a side, but just to clarify, we are focused on these matters, unfortunately, because of what happened in columbia, outside of the united states. in my correct in presuming that the secret service would be just as concerned if you found that agents on assignment, somewhere here in the united states, or bringing back women who were not foreign nationals? where they had just met somewhere, to their rooms, while on assignment protecting

somebody? >> yes, sir. anything that will compromise our mission, we will be concerned with. we are going to investigate that. we want people to live up to the standards of our organization. women under the age of 21, not under the age of 18. i am not sure with the aid was out there. again, i will be more than happy to get the particulars for you. i do know they were gone pretty quick. >> ok. just to make the point, the concern that we have expressed quite explicitly and well, what we're worried about, what you are worried about, is an agent with the responsibility to protect the president or vice president could be compromised by being involved in a casual, sexual relation while on the road. the ultimate, it does not matter

if that happens and colombia or chicago, illinois. >> that is correct sir. >> let me just come to the final question, quickly. some of the code of conduct for the secret service, and the general rules were government- wide for anybody seeking security a clearance. the security clearance rules, contact with a foreign national, if that creates the risk of foreign exploitation, against conduct, especially. vulnerable to exploitation or coercion, the government or country. etc pretty high standards.

my question is, what becomes of these guidelines? and the general government-wide rules for people who have security clearance. in other words, were the agents required to study these guidelines? where they're trading sessions in them -- training sessions in them? anybody faced with reality would know that what they're doing that night was outrageously unacceptable and irresponsible. assuming, for a moment, they were in their right mind, do you think they were adequately on notice of these rules of conduct, that this behavior was unacceptable? >> senator, i do.

you have codes of conduct and then you have the security clearance issue. code of conduct starts at to the recruitment process. from the very beginning, when we hire somebody to come work for us, the first thing we talk about his character integrity. that is part of our background investigation. that is part of the conversation we have. it is part of our polygraph. their first day on the job, their orientation, we talk about our codes of conduct. that is reinforced when they go through the federal law enforcement training center. it is reinforced again and again to our training facility. about one week or two before the agent or officer's graduation, i, myself, and the deputy director meet with each class for one hour and a half. the first thing we talk about his character.

we tell these individuals that the thing that separated them from the others was their character and their integrity. when they go back into their field office, they have to annually certify that they have read our code of conduct, that they understand our code of conduct, and that is done with a supervisor. when they go to the organization through our various training ses, or when they get into upper management, we continue to talk about code of conduct. we have guidelines were this is all spelled out. as a matter of fact, it is on the passport travel log. it is indicated on the passport that you will abide by the rules and regulation -- and the regulations by the united states. i do believe is is pretty clear. i think anybody in our

organization -- it is a common- sense thing, to me. and a moral thing to me that people understand with the expectation is. >> i thank you for that answer. i think -- i hope you'll take a fresh look to make sure you are drilling all of these values that are important to the secret service. so, that the next time a secret service agents decides to think about doing something like they did, a light will go off in their heads and they will conclude the risk is too high. the memory and the dishonor brought on the agency will be so fresh that hopefully this won't happen. we need to have rules and procedures and drilling those

rules into personnel that goes on for a much longer period of time that meant the as fresh. >> initially, it you did not have information about these women. you did not know whether there were prostitutes, foreign agents, or members of a terrorist group. is that correct? >> that is correct senator. >> was there a sweet done to see whether the women involved have planted any electronic surveillance equipment? >> senator, one of the things we

always tell our agents, there could be some type -- never trust that it is safe. we did not do any sweep on these rooms that were used by these agents. >> there was no sweep? i am to understand that there is -- i would understand that there was no sleep before the incident, but when you first learned of the incident, when you were doing -- >> there was no type of electronic sweep. there was a visual sweep. as far as an electronic sweep, senator, there was none. >> have you now been able to definitively conclude that the women were not associated -- that there were not foreign agents?

that they were not involved in human trafficking? that they were not working, for example, other terrorist groups? >> the first thing we do, senator, is get the names of all the women. we have their country identification number. we provided those names and identifiers to some of the various partners out there who could verify for us if there was any connection with any type of criminal activity or criminal organization. all of the information -- all but two women -- we interviewed nine or 10 of the women. again, from the appearance of

those interviews, that is the information we have been able to derive. >> it is ironic that we can be relieved that these women were only prostitutes. obviously, it would have been more troubling if they were a foreign agents associated with drug cartels or other criminal activity. >> our investigation is pretty much confirm that these women did not know who these individuals were. >> i want to refer to an exchange that you had with senator johnson. i believe during that exchange, you referred to a government- wide survey. you asked federal employees

whether they would report on conduct. i understand correctly that you said that 60% of the secret service personnel who were interviewed in this survey said that they would report on ethical this cop -- misconduct and 40% said they would not? >> i think it was something like 58% or 60% said they would. i think there is about 18% or 19% said they wouldn't. and then the remaining percentage just for indifferent towards it. >> doesn't that suggest a broader problem? >> it is something we need to work on. i do not know that it presents a problem. i have talked to director,

barry, and we would like to see that number increase. >> from my perspective, when you combine the facts of this case -- of this case, the fact that the agents made no attempt to conceal their identity, or the fact that they were bringing these women back to their hotel rooms, a survey in which fewer than 60% of the secret service personnel said they would report ethical misconduct, the fact that this wasn't, as i said in my opening statement, a group of individuals who just got swept up into a situation, but rather a smaller group who engaged in the same kind of misconduct, to me, that spells a broader problem with culture in the agency.

and i say that with the greatest respect before the vast majority of people working for the secret service. but that does not mean that there isn't a problem. so, my final question to you today is, if i finally become successful in convincing you that there is a broader problem here, with culture, or with unacceptable behavior being condoned when agents are on the road, what actions would you take to address this problem that you are not taking now? how would you change the culture of an agency? >> you know senator, i hope i can convince you that it is not an issue. >> i know. >> i look at the number of

cases. one of the things i know as the director is i am going to have, on any given day, i and potentially going to have an employee who get into some type of incident. it might be a serious one, it might not be a big one at all. i just keep going back to the under 1% of our investigations have some type of misconduct. that is what i do feel very optimistic about this professionalism reinforcement. we have over 45 senior executives from the military, from other law enforcement, who i really do want to be very open with them and transparent. i want them to take a hard look at us. again, it is my opinion that the overwhelming majority of men and women in this organization -- i think what makes this organization what it is is our culture. i think we have a culture of

hard-working people who are committed every single day. when i was at the nato summit in chicago, i walked around and talked to a couple hundred agents out there. i can tell you that there is nobody who is more disappointed by this behavior, who is more upset, then the men and women. i think this is just something that is systemic within this organization. >> are there any additional actions that you would be taking if you felt that there was a systemic problem? >> well, again, training. i think training is a big test. you can never do enough training. it is something we have to be proactive with. where does have to continually

drill it into our people. with the result will be of a bad decision. frankly, senator, i do think the action was taken for these bad decisions. i think that sends a pretty strong message to the men and women of this organization that it will not be tolerated. >> i know i promised you that was my last question, but i do have just one final question. you stated earlier that you feel that this incident in colombia would have become public even if there had not been the dispute over money. what is your basis for feeling that the incident would become public? particularly, in light of this survey? >> we had almost 200 people there. it just goes back to have confidence in in the men and women in our organization. we're talking about an event

here. we are talking about 11 individuals, not 12 individuals who took part in misconduct. i believe and have a lot of faith in our men and women that somebody would have reported this misconduct because this just goes beyond the pale. i truly believe it would have a complaint to our office. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. i understand, put it this way. both your own faith in the secret service, which is the result of your own experience, you have been an extraordinary secret service agent and leader. but, to some extent, i want to suggest -- you know that what happened happened. you cannot have to believe the suspicions that most others

have. it is hard to believe this is the only case. to some extent, i think what you maintain your faith in the secret service, going forward you have to assume this is not the only case. yet to put in place exactly what i believe you're trying to do. rules and procedures to make sure, to the best of our human ability, that it never happens again. i was thinking about a slogan that we talk about a lot in the field of domestic counter- terrorism, which is, see something, say something. this is not easy. those numbers that you mentioned point to about a little less than 60% saying they would definitely report misconduct of a secret service

employe. there is a natural tendency in organizations to not want to get your colleagues in trouble or, in a sense, to not want to get yourself involved in a controversy. in the end, as we saw here, what suffers is the greater organization. i just hope all the personnel of the secret service have learned that and that you will try to put in place rules and procedures debt will continue to telegraph that message for years and years. the senator mentioned i was a protect the during the 2000 national campaign. i had nothing but the highest regard for the secret service details that were with me and my

family. there were people honor, great discipline. so, obviously, committed to protecting our safety and security. so, like you, i think, when the story came out, i was just heartbroken. and then i was angry at the people who did this. i think we have got to preserve those feelings. because this is like a wound. we have to get in it. find out what happens. clean it out. and let it heal. and then make sure, you put in place rules and procedures that's, this great body, if i can continue the metaphor, will not be subject to again in this way. i appreciate very much the presence and the testimony of both of you.

both of you, since this incident became public. the committee is going to continue to conduct its own investigation and work with both of you to make sure that we achieve total trust and confidence in the secret service agency. which has been the norm over its history. we want it to be the norm. senator, would you like to add anything? >> thank you, mr. chairman. director sullivan, in reflecting on the many conversations that we've had, and listening to you today, i cannot help but think that because you personally are

such an outstanding individual, completely ethical, dedicated, courageous, everything we want the secret service to be, and because in your career, you did not happen to see this kind of behavior it is very difficult for you to except that this happened. i urge you to try to put that aside because if there is a problem, if the story to date is correct, you cannot be confident that this has not happened before and it will not happen again unless a very clear message is sent that the rules are not different when agents are on the road.

they have the same rules that apply in their home town. i just want to close my remarks today by thinking deeper -- by thanking the brave men and women of the secret service. and who do perform such dangerous jobs. but if we ignore or downplay what happens here, it can be like a cancer.

it could be tarnished, if you will. i hope you have the disciplinary actions that are so clearly warranted in this case, but that you also take a really hard look at what procedural changes and training changes need to be made because i continue to believe that the problem is broader than you believe it to be. i thank you for your leadership and your cooperation. >> thank you, senator collins. >> thank you very much for your time.

this cannot be ignored. hopefully, everyone has seen with the action debt taken -- with the action we have taken. i know this is something that, internally, we may not be the best individuals to do and we do need to bring in outside people to take a look at our organization. as i said before, we aren't looking to be the best. i do believe that they too not only want to make us better, but the best. i do appreciate your support. i look forward to continuing to work with you on this. i value this relationship. i value the opportunity to talk about this.

i will tell you that this is a great organization with great people. >> thank you. do you want to add anything? >> i want to give you my commitment that we're going to do a comprehensive review. we will report back to you on the findings and recommendations as soon as possible. earlier, i did not give you the right website for our hot line. we also have an 800 number. it is 800-323-6033. we will respond accordingly. thank you sir. >> thank you. the record of this hearing will remain open for 15 days with additional questions or statements. the hearing is adjourned.

>> wrapping up the investigation into secret service agents. now live to the air force academy. president obama is giving the commencement address this afternoon. >> please be seated. good morning, everybody. it is wonderful to be at the united states air force academy on such a spectacular day. it is a privilege to join you in honoring the class of 2012. [applause]

i want to thank the secretary for his introduction, and more importantly, his leadership. the academy, faculty, and a staff. the governor, members of congress, distinguished guests, ladies and gentleman. i especially want to acknowledge a graduate of this academy who has kept our air force strong in a time of great challenge. a leader who might have relied on as chief of staff. we cannot be prouder of view and are grateful. [applause]

although he is not with us today, i am proud to have now made another academy graduate as the next chief of staff. [applause] this is my second visit to the academy. i was here in the summer of 2008. we were getting ready to have -- to head out. i was proud to be here at the beginning of your journey at but i would come back and help you celebrate at the end. it is great to be back at a school who is produce some many men that i have known as president. every day, i rely on outstanding academy graduates to serve at the white house. that photo, from the situation

room on the date we caught been watching, -- bin laden, you can see people next to me. last month, i was able to present, for the second straight year, a record 18 times. and, of course, every time i step onto air force one, i count on academy graduates, like my pilot today. i was going to tell you a joke about scott, but he is my ride home. i'll have to keep to myself. [laughter] cadets, you distinguished yourselves as leaders before you ever step foot.

when you arrived, i know you're upperclassman did you quite a welcome. the pleasure of recognition. they made you experts on filling out forms. i only ask that you resist the temptation to make -- to rate my speech fast, friendly, good, good. [laughter] but you survived. you will be the values of integrity, service, that will define reliance. and you could not have made it without the love and support of your moms and dads, brothers and sisters, grandmothers and grandfathers, uncles and cousins, give them all a big round of applause. [applause] this academy is one of the most

demanding academic institutions in america. i am told you have said at least -- set at least three academy records. the largest number of graduates ever to go to graduate school. the largest number of female graduates. [applause] you will fall -- and follow the footsteps of general janet who was proud to nominate as the first general in air force history. [applause] and, of course, the most impressive distinction, breaking the world's record for the largest game of dodge ball. [applause]

3000 participants, and 30 hours. i did know that was possible. [laughter] the class you're also who went into the superintendent's office and moved all the furniture in your dorm rooms. [laughter] which does bring me some important business. in keeping with long-standing tradition, i hereby grant amnesty to all cadets serving restrictions and confinements for minor offenses. [applause] of course, i'll leave that up to the general to define minor. [laughter] cadets, this is the day you finally become officers in the finest air force in the world. [applause]

like generations before you, you'll be charged with the responsibility of leading those under your command. like glasses of the past 10 years, you graduate in a time of war. you may find yourself in harm's way. you also face a new test. that is what i want to talk to you about today. four years ago, you arrived here in a time of extraordinary challenge for our nation. our forces were engaged in two wars. al qaeda, which had attacked us on 9/11 entrenched in their safe havens. many of our alliances were strained and our standing in the world had suffered. our economy was in the worst recession since the great

depression. around the world, and here at home, there were those who questioned whether the united states still had the capacity for global leadership. today, the step forward into a different world. you're the first class in nine years to graduate into a world where there are no americans fighting in iraq. [applause] for the first time in your lives and thanks to air force personnel that did their part, osama bin laden is no longer a threat to our country. [applause] we have put al qaeda on the path to defeat. you are the first graduates since 9/11 who can clearly see how we will end the war in

afghanistan. so, what does all of this mean? you came here four years ago. there was 180,000 troops in iraq and afghanistan. we have now cut that number by more than half. as more afghans step up, more of our troops will come home while achieving the objective that led us to war in the first place, off and which is being al qaeda and denying them safe haven. we are not just ending these wars, we are spending them in a way that makes us safer and stronger. today, we pay tribute to all of our extraordinary men and women in uniform. for the bravery, for the dedication. those who gave their lives in iraq and afghanistan, including

16 graduates of this academy. we honor them. we will always honor them. for one ticket, we have labored under the dark cloud of war. now we can see the light of a new day on the horizon. the end of these wars will shake your service and will make our military stronger. 10 years of continuous military operation have stretched our forces and strained our defense. going forward, we will face fewer deployments. will have more time to train and stay ready. that means you will be better prepared for the full range of missions you will face. and during these wars will also ensure that the birth of our security -- bulk of our security will no longer fall on the shoulders of men and women in

uniform. as good as you are, you cannot be expected to do it alone. there are many sources of american power. diplomatic, economic, and the power of our ideals. we have to use them all. the good news is, today we are. around the world, the united states is leading once more. from europe, to asia, our alliances are stronger than ever. our ties with the americas are deeper. we are setting the agenda like no other. we are leaving on global security, even as we maintain a strong nuclear deterrent, mobilizing dozens of nations to secure nuclear materials so they never fall into the hands of terrorists.

rallying to get the strongest sanctions on iran and north korea. boosting our exports, made in america. [applause] we are expanding exchanges and collaboration's in areas that people often admire most about america. the innovation, science, and technology. we are leaving on behalf of human dignity and on behalf of freedom. we are standing with the people in the middle east and africa. present -- preventing and massacre in libya in which the united states and our air force led from the front. [applause]

we deliver to our neighbors when they were in need and our japanese allies after earthquake and tsunami. because of this progress, around the world there is a new feeling. i see it everywhere i go. there is a new confidence in our leadership. when people are around the world are asked, which country the what to admire, the united states of america.

of course, the world stage is not a popularity contest. we will do what is necessary, always, to defend the country we love. make no mistake. how we are viewed in the world has consequence for our national security and for your lives. when other countries and people see us as partners, they are more willing to work with us. that is why more countries joined us and afghanistan and libya. why nations like australia are welcoming our forces, working side-by-side. it is why you got the and its african neighbors have welcomed us. i think of the disaster zone who, upon seeing our aaron, said, and never imagined they could help us so much.

think of the libyans to protecting our chairman when he ejected over their town because they knew america was there to protect them. in a region where we have seen burning american flags, think of all the libyans who were waving american flags. today, we can say with confidence and pride, the united states is stronger and safer and more respected in the world. even as we have done the work of ending these wars, we have laid the foundation for a new era of american leadership. and now, cadets, we have to build it. you have to build on it. thes start by putting aside tired notion that says america is in decline. you have heard that talk before.

there were those who predicted the end of capitalism. guess what. they were wrong. we fought our way back. after pearl harbor, some said the united states has been reduced to a third-rate power. no. we rallied. we stormed the beaches and liberated nations. we emerged from that war as the strongest power on the face of the earth. after the vietnam and the energy crisis of 1970, some said america passed a tide point. but the very next decade, because of our fidelity to the values we stand for, the berlin wall came tumbling down. liberty prevailed over the cold war. [applause]

as recently as the 1980's, there were those who said we lost our economic edge. but but we are retooled. we invested in new technology. we launched the information revolution that changed the world. thinkall of this, you'd most understand the basic truth. [applause] one of the reasons the united states has been and always will be the most indispensable nation. it is one of the many examples of why america is an exceptional. i certainly believe that if we rise to this moment in history,

if we meet our responsibilities, then just like the 20th century, the 21st century will be another great america century. that is the future i seat. that is the future i -- that is the future you can build. i see an american century because we have it resilience. education and high-tech manufacturing. science and innovation. we will pay down our deficits we need to get on with our nation- building here at home. i know we can. we're still the most dynamic economy in the world. we would not replace as with any other on earth.

i see an american century because you are the finest, most capable military the world has ever known. no other nation even comes close. as two words and, our military and air force will be a leader. i will not allow us to make the mistakes of the past. we still face very serious threats with al qaeda in yemen. there are still terrorists who seek to kill our citizens. we need you to be ready. from the conventional to the unconventional. we must be vigilant. guided by our new defense strategy, fast and flexible.

we will maintain our superiority in all areas. air, land, sea, space, and as cyber. as our newest veterans rejoined civilian allies, we will never stop working to give them the benefits and opportunities that they have earned because they have helped us rebuild america. we have to serve them as well as they have served us. [laughter] -- [applause] i see an american century because we had the strongest alliances of any nation with europe, asia. our alliances are the foundation of global security. in libya, all 28 allies played a

role. we were joined by partisan year from sweden to the gulf states. in afghanistan, we are in a coalition of 50 allies. today, air force personnel are serving in 135 nations, building their capacity. this is how peace and security will be upheld in the 20th century. more nation's bearing the cost and responsibilities of leadership. that is good for america. it is good for the world. making it happen. i see an american century because no other nation seeks to the role that we play in global affairs and no other nation can play the role that we play. that includes shaping the global institutions of the 20th-century to meet the challenges of the 21st. as president, i have made it

clear that united states does not fear the rise of responsible-emerging powers. we welcome them. when more nations stand up and contribute to peace and security, that does not undermine american power. it enhances it. when other people in other countries see that we are reaching for their success, it builds trust and partnerships that can advance our interests for generations. it makes it easier to meet common challenges and combating client -- climate change. we seek an order or the rights of all nations are upheld and work countries thrive by meeting their obligations. i see an american century because more and more people are reaching toward the freedom and bodies that we share. no other nation has sacrificed

more. the lives of our sons and daughters to force around the world. no other nation has made the advance since of human-rights and dignity so essential to foreign policy. that is because it is central to who we are as americans. it is also in our self-interest because democracy has become our closest allies and partners. sure, there'll always be some government that tries to resist the tide of democracy, thinking there's a better way. around the world, people know the difference between us. we welcome freedom. to speak, to assemble, to worship, to choose your leaders. they do not. we welcome the chance to compete for jobs in the market freely and fairly. they do not.

when fundamental human rights are threatened around the world, we stand up and speak out and they do not. we know that the sovereignty of nations cannot strangle the liberty of individuals, so we stand back to demand the life and dignity of opportunity. we stand with women everywhere who deserve the same rights as men. we stand with the activists and bound in the prison cells and leaders in parliament who is moving her country toward democracy. we stand with the dissidents who speak -- to -- who seeks freedom. for they know, as we do, that history is on the side of freedom. and finally, i see an american century because of the character of our country. the spirit that has always made us exceptional.

that simple, yet revolutionary idea. there at our founding, and in our hearts ever since. we have in our power to make the world anew. to make the future what we will. it is that fundamental faith that american optimism which says no challenge is to double great. no mission is too hard. it is the spirit that guided your class. never falter, never fail. [applause] that is the essence of america. there is nothing else like it anywhere in the world. it is what inspired of the oppressed in every corner of the world to demand the same freedoms for themselves. it was had -- is what has inspired generations to come to

our shores. that includes the fellow cadets graduating today. who grew up in venezuela and got on a plane with a one-way ticket to america. with a dream of becoming an air force pilot. [applause] edward said what we all know to be true. i am convinced that america is the land of opportunity. you are right, edward. that is who we are. that is the america we love. always young, always looking ahead to that light of a new day on the horizon. cadets, as i look into your eyes, as you join that long,

blue line, i know you will carry us further and hire. i am confident that the united states of america will remain the land of opportunity. we will stay strong as the greatest force of freedom and human dignity that the world has ever known. may god bless you. may god bless the cadets of 2012 and may god bless the united states of america. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> ladies and gentleman, the cadet class president for 2012. the spring that wing commander and the summer cadet wing commander will present the class gift to president obama. [applause] >> president barack obama, for your dedicated service to our nation and the nazis air force and air force academy, it is a great pride that we make you an honorary member of united states air force academy of 2012. [applause]

we are honored to take our place in history of 54 graduates in class from united states air force academy. we presented with a custom-made air force one painting. we also prevent year -- presented with a personalized jacket. thank you, mr. president. [applause] >> ladies and gentleman, mr. david jay, president of the

american air force foundation, will present the award. [applause] >> mr. president, on behalf of the air force academy foundation and its members, i am pleased to present to the distinguished american award. thank you for being here today to recognize and honor the next generation of american heroes, their parents, families, and friends. [applause] >> ladies and salomon, the general, -- ladies and gentleman, the general and dean

of faculty. >> president obama, off before presenting the entire class to you, i would like to single out some individuals for special recognition. first, i called your attention 110 distinguished graduates who are listed at the top of your program. these cadets, by their overall performance, have placed in the top 10% of their class and have demonstrated true excellence in accomplishing the academic, military, and athletic requirements for graduation. if we observed the customs of academic honors, each would be graduating either summa cum laude, magna cum laude, or cum laude. instead, we have determined distinguished graduates as most fitting in promise of distinguished service to our on