national captioning institute] >> in a few moments, the head of the secret service testified on capitol hill about the incident involving agents and prostitutes in colmbia. then president obama's commitment speech at the air force academy. then gop presidential candidate mitt romney spoke at an economic summit about education. >> right now, i want you to look

around you and not think about where everyone has been but where they are going. the guy in front of you could win an academy award sunday. the girl behind you could be a future president of the united states, or, even, better than that, the mayor of new york city. the guy sitting to your right could be a future nobel laureate. ok, maybe not the guy to your right, but certainly the one to your left. >> memorial day weekend, commencement speeches, sharing their thoughts with graduating classes of 2012, saturday through tuesday at noon and 10:00 p.m. eastern. >> the head of the secret service apologized today for the incident involving agents and prostitutes in colombia, but mark sullivan disputed reports this was more than isolated incident. he testified for more than two hours.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the hearing will come to order. good morning, and thanks to those who are here, particularly director mark sullivan of the united states secret service, and charles edwards, the acting inspector general of the department of homeland security. >> 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 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 2, 3, 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 the secret service, the inspector general, and we must do everything we can to learn

the truth as best we can. 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, in 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. today's "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 a foreign national, and 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 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, there should have been warnings. 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 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. 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 contrast to the misconduct that 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 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 and 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 liaisons' with these foreign nationals used to blackmail them, therefore compromising their effectiveness and potentially jeopardizing the security.s 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, 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 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 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 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 facts 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 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 findings to 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 co-chairs 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 privileges 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 testify before you, the men and women of this organization are protecting world leaders, 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, by 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. >> thank you, director sullivan.

now the acting director, mr. charles edwards. >> 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 responsibility, also -- known as res, briefing them. 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. 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? it says, "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 we 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 risky, irresponsible behavior would be carried out by secret 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 was 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 they're with on those occasions. >> absolutely. there's no excuse for that type of behavior from a conduct 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 happened in cartagena and therefore potentially noteworthy.

the allegations involving allegations or undocumented contact with a foreign national. one allegation of contact with a prostitute. and one 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 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 that 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 long 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 a 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's 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 registered the women, they followed 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 possess people to exhibit this type of behavior? i will tell you i don't think 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 clear, but wasn't your adjudication guidelines, the e -- 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 a -- we make decisions every single day. our employees makes 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 responsibility, to have a good relationship with the inspector general, because when those individuals, which are a 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 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 -- 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. you have 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 higher paid people -- gs14 or gs15, 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. if we have to put gs15's on this particular trip, that's what we are going to do.. 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. the gs15's 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

- they get those through 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 polygraph? >> unless 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. >> how 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. 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. >> you meant to say el salvador? >> yes, i meant el salvador. we spent thousands of dollars to send those people down there. we interviewed 28 to 30 people. 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. you 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. i'm also sad to say i agree with 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 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. we want to 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 level of esprit de corps, 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 the incident that is the subject 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 about, it 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 did do, 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. that is the goal of this 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 carper. >> 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. and he 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 caused harm to their reputation and harmed the reputation of a wonderful agency. how many are serving? >> just under 7000. >> 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 found in the ig case files 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.gov/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 are going to investigate and take the appropriate disciplinary action.i go back to the fact that that 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.

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? my question is, what becomes of these guidelines? and the general government-wide rules for people whoanybody facd 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 classes, 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. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

f

>> it came to life pretty recently over their hot line. we will pursue that and find out how many, but they were all separated from the secret service. >> is that worsening the situation for the secretary? >> i want to stress these were anonymous, but there were multiple sources, and the problem is the story in the post f thatencourages the believ

it was not just an isolated incident, but one day in colombia 13 agents decided not to go to one place together but to go to four different places, it makes you believe either this group have been doing it a lot or it was a pattern of misconduct, so the story requires our response director sullivan gave, and i am particularly glad the inspector general said he was going to interview these agents spirited we will conductin the end, we he troops out. >> can you address the apparent disconnect? i think the director is a

very fine individual. i think there was a difficult time coming to grips with this one incident. >> do you think there was a disconnect? >> there is no evidence at all that suggest he is not pursuing every allegation that comes to his attention, but i am going to be censuring him to take a look at this from a broader perspective. the only answer that served me today is that he kept saying over and over again that this

was an isolated incident. i don't see any basis for that conclusion. >> i agree. i know that is what -- i know that he believes what happened was an isolated incident. he has to assume at was not an isolated incident. i do not see any reason to ask director sullivan to leave his position. we are going to stay on it. again, i think something very significant happened today with the inspector general said he is not just going to review the secret service investigation, he is now going to conduct his own investigation. he has conducted over 200 interviews.

that is a big change and is significant. >> it is significant. when i asked the inspector general of that, i was concerned all he would do is review the investigation. that is clearly not adequate. in talking to other i.g.s, say there should be another investigation. >> thank you senator. >> i do not know. one is a matter of priority and personnel. it is interesting to me -- i asked him before the hearing if he would interview any of the 13 agents involved because they were clearly a big source of the

story. he said and, in fact, he was interviewing two of them today. today, it became a very public commitments. i know that director sullivan -- probably as much as anybody in the world -- what to clean this up and move forward, but ultimately, there is nothing better than to have an independent investigation by the inspector general as opposed to self investigation by the agency of the service involve. we are going to stay on it. we are going to go with the information we have. we'll see what the inspector general and his investigation turns up. thank you.

>> you can learn more about the members of the senate homeland security committee with the congressional directive. to get a copy, send $12.95 plus shipping and handling to c- span.org/shop. in a few moments, president obama's commencement speech at the air force academy. in a half hour, mitt romney speaks to the latino coalition's economic summit about education. we will we air at the head of the secret service testifying on

capitol hill about the incident involving agents and prostitutes in colombia. several lives events to tell you about tomorrow morning -- the public policy center host a discussion on religious freedom. it will include the unveiling of a plan to launch caucuses in the 50 state legislatures. that is on c-span at 10:00 a.m. eastern. also on 10:00 a.m. eastern on c- span3, the senate banking committee on home mortgage refinancing. witnesses include the association of home realtors and quicken loans. >> welcome to old cowtown museum, wichita, kansas.

>> waking up the city for 22 years. today he is going to be talking a little bit about the problem we are having in the city. 9:20. >> june 2 and third, booktv and american history tv discover wichita, kansas. >> it contains an alphabetical list of the numbers in the senate and house of representatives done in 1831. i believe this was issued only use only.rs' they were not supposed to loan this out because it tells exactly where everybody lives. >> wichita on june 2 and third

on c-span2 and c-span3. >> now, president obama's commencement speech. >> thank you so much. [applause] please be seated. good morning, everybody! it is wonderful to be at the united states air force academy on such a spectacular day. and it is a privilege to join you in honoring the class of 2012. [applause] i want to thank secretary donley for his introduction, but more importantly, for his leadership. generals gould, clark and born; academy faculty and staff; governor hickenlooper; members of congress; distinguished

guests; ladies and gentlemen. i especially want to acknowledge a graduate of this academy who has kept our air force strong through a time of great challenge, a leader i've relied on and for whom today is his final commencement as chief of staff -- general norton schwartz. norty, suzie, we could not be prouder of you and we are grateful for 39 years of extraordinary service to our nation. [applause] and although he is not with us today, i'm proud to have nominated another academy graduate, general mark welsh,

as the next chief of staff. [applause] this is my second visit to the academy. i was here in the summer of 2008, and you were getting ready to head out to jacks valley. so i was proud to be here when you began this journey, and i thought i'd come back and help you celebrate at the end. [laughter] it's great to be back at a school that has produced so many of the airmen i've known as president. every day, i rely on outstanding academy graduates who serve at the white house. some of you know that photo from the situation room on the day we delivered justice to bin laden -- you can see right next to me a great leader of our special operations forces, general brad webb. last month, i was able to

present the commander-in-chief trophy to coach calhoun and the fighting falcons - [applause] -- for the second straight year, a record 18th time. and of course, every time i step on air force one, i count on academy graduates like my pilot today -- colonel scott turner. now, i was going to tell you a joke about scott, but he's my ride home. [laughter] so i'm going to have to keep it to myself. cadets, you distinguished yourselves as leaders before you ever stepped foot on the terrazzo. and when you arrived, i know your upper classmen gave you quite a welcome. they let you experience the joy of the beast. the pleasure of recognition.

they made you experts on filling out forms. i only ask that you resist the temptation to rate my speech -- "fast-neat-average-friendly- good-good." [laughter] [applause] but you survived. in you we see the values of integrity and service and excellence that will define your lives. and i know you couldn't have made it without the love and support of your moms and dads and brothers and sisters and grandmas, grandpas, aunts, uncles, cousins. so give them all a big round of applause. [applause] this academy is one of the most demanding academic institutions in america. and you have excelled. i'm told you have set at least three academy records: the largest number of graduates ever to go directly on to graduate school; the largest

number of female graduates in academy history - [applause] you will follow in the footsteps of general janet wolfenbarger, who i was proud to nominate as the first female four-star general in air force history. [applause] and of course, your final and perhaps most impressive distinction -- breaking the world's record for the largest game of dodgeball - [applause] - 3,000 participants, 30 hours. i didn't know that was possible. [laughter] of course, you are also the class that snuck into the superintendent's office and

moved all the furniture into your dorm rooms - [laughter] - which does bring me to some important business. in keeping with longstanding tradition, i hereby grant amnesty to all cadets serving restrictions and confinements for minor offenses. [applause] of course, i leave it up to general gould 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 classes over the past 10 years, you graduate in a time of war and you may find yourselves in harm's way. but you will also face a new test, and that's what i want to talk to you about today. four years ago, you arrived here at a time of extraordinary challenge for our nation. our forces were engaged in two wars. al qaeda, which had attacked us on 9/11, was 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 that questioned whether the united states still had the capacity for global leadership.

today, you step forward into a different world. you are the first class in nine years that will 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 who did their part -- osama bin laden is no longer a threat to our country. [applause] path put al qaeda on the to defeat. and you are the first graduates since 9/11 who can clearly see how we'll end the war in afghanistan. so what does all this mean? when you came here four years ago, there were some 180,000 american troops in iraq and afghanistan.

we've now cut that number by more than half. and 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 and that is defeating al qaeda and denying them safe haven. so we aren't just ending these wars, we are doing so in a way that makes us safer and stronger. today we pay tribute to all our extraordinary men and women in uniform for their bravery, for their dedication. those who gave their lives in iraq and afghanistan to make this progress possible -- including 16 graduates of this academy -- we honor them. we will always honor them. for a decade, we have labored under the dark cloud of war.

and now, we can see a light -- the light of a new day on the horizon. so the end of these wars will shape your service and it will make our military stronger. ten years of continuous military operations have stretched our forces and strained their families. going forward, you'll face fewer deployments. train have more time to and stay ready. that means you'll be better prepared for the full range of missions you face. and ending these wars will also ensure that the burden of our security no longer falls so heavily on the shoulders of our men and women in uniform. as good as you are, you can't be expected to do it alone. there are many sources of

american power -- diplomatic, economic and the power of our ideals. and we've got to use them all. and 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're setting the agenda in the region that will shape our long-term security and prosperity like no other -- the asia pacific. we're leading on global security -- reducing our nuclear arsenal with russia, 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 the world to put the strongest sanctions ever on iran and north korea, which cannot be allowed to threaten the world with nuclear weapons. we are leading economically -- forging trade pacts to create

new markets for our goods; boosting our exports, stamped with three proud words -- made in america. [applause] we're expanding exchanges and collaborations in areas that people often admire most about america -- our innovation, our science, our technology. we're leading on behalf of human dignity and on behalf of freedom -- standing with the people of the middle east and north africa as they seek their rights; preventing a massacre in libya with an international mission in which the united states -- and our air force -- led from the front. [applause] we're leading global efforts against hunger and disease. and we've shown our compassion,

as so many airmen did in delivering relief to our neighbors in haiti when they were in need and to our japanese allies after the earthquake and tsunami. because of this progress, around the world there is a new feeling about america. i see it everywhere i go, from london and prague, to tokyo and seoul, to rio and jakarta. there's a new confidence in our leadership. and when people around the world are asked, which country do you most admire, one nation comes out on top -- the united states of america. [applause] of course, the world stage is not a popularity contest. as a nation, we have vital interests, and we will do what is necessary always to defend this country we love -- even if it's unpopular. but make no mistake, how we're

viewed in the world has consequences -- for our national security and for your lives. see, when other countries and people see us as partners, they're more willing to work with us. it's why more countries joined us in afghanistan and libya. it's why nations like australia are welcoming our forces who stand side by side with allies and partners in the south pacific. it's why uganda and its african neighbors have welcomed our trainers to help defeat a brutal army that slaughters its citizens. i think of the japanese man in the disaster zone who, upon seeing our airmen delivering relief, said, "i never imagined they could help us so much." i think of the libyans who protected our airman when he ejected over their town,

because they knew america was there to protect them. and in a region where we've seen burning of american flags, i 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, because even as we've done the work of ending these wars, we've laid the foundation for a new era of american leadership. and now, cadets, we have to build it. we have to build on it. you have to build on it. let's start by putting aside the tired notion that says our influence has waned or that america is in decline. we've heard that talk before. during the great depression, when millions were unemployed and some believed that other economic models offered a better way, there were those who predicted the end of american capitalism. guess what, they were wrong. we fought our way back. we created the largest middle class in history and the most

prosperous economy the world has ever known. after pearl harbor some said, the united states has been reduced to a third-rate power. well, we rallied. we flew over the hump and took island after island. we stormed the beaches and liberated nations. and we emerged from that war as the strongest power on the face of the earth. after vietnam and the energy crisis of the 1970s, some said america had passed its high point. but the very next decade, because of our fidelity to the values we stand for, the berlin wall came tumbling down and liberty prevailed over the tyranny of the cold war. [applause] as recently as the 1980s with the rise of japan and the asian tigers, there were those who

said we had lost our economic edge. but we retooled. we invested in new technologies. we launched an information revolution that changed the world. after all this, you would think folks understand a basic truth -- never bet against the united states of america. [applause] and one of the reasons is that the united states has been, and will always be, the one indispensable nation in world affairs. it's one of the many examples of why america is exceptional. it's why i firmly 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 american century. that's the future i see. that's the future you can build.

[applause] i see an american century because we have the resilience to make it through these tough economic times. we're going to put america back to work by investing in the things that keep us competitive -- education and high-tech manufacturing, science and innovation. we'll pay down our deficits, reform our tax code and keep reducing our dependence on foreign oil. we need to get on with nation- building here at home. and i know we can, because we're still the largest, most dynamic, most innovative economy in the world. and no matter what challenges we may face, we wouldn't trade places with any other nation on earth. i see an american century because you are part of the

finest, most capable military the world has ever known. no other nation even comes close. yes, as today's wars end, our military -- and our air force -- will be leaner. but as commander-in-chief, i will not allow us to make the mistakes of the past. we still face very serious threats. as we've seen in recent weeks, with al qaeda in yemen, there are still terrorists who seek to kill our citizens. so we need you to be ready for the full range of threats. from the conventional to the unconventional, from nations seeking weapons of mass destruction to the cell of terrorists planning the next attack, from the old danger of piracy to the new threat of cyber, we must be vigilant. and so, guided by our new defense strategy, we'll keep our military -- and our air force -- fast and flexible and versatile. we will maintain our military superiority in all areas -- air, land, sea, space and cyber. and we will keep faith with our

forces and our military families. and as our newest veterans rejoin civilian life, we will never stop working to give them the benefits and opportunities that they have earned -- because our veterans have the skills to help us rebuild america, and we have to serve them as well as they have served us. [applause] i see an american century because we have the strongest alliances of any nation. from europe to asia, our alliances are the foundation of global security. in libya, all 28 nato allies played a role and we were joined by partners in the air from sweden to the gulf states. in afghanistan, we're in a coalition of 50 allies and partners. today, air force personnel are

serving in 135 nations -- partnering, training, building their capacity. this is how peace and security will be upheld in the 21st century -- more nations bearing the costs and responsibilities of leadership. and that's good for america. it's good for the world. and we're at the hub of it, making it happen. i see an american century because no other nation seeks the role that we play in global affairs, and no other nation can play the role that we play in global affairs. that includes shaping the global institutions of the 20th century to meet the challenges of the 21st. as president, i've made it clear the united states does not fear the rise of peaceful, responsible emerging powers --

we welcome them. because when more nations step up and contribute to peace and security, that doesn't undermine american power, it enhances it. and when other people in other countries see that we're rooting for their success, it builds trust and partnerships that can advance our interests for generations. it makes it easier to meet common challenges, from preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to combating climate change. and so we seek an international order where the rights and responsibilities of all nations and peoples are upheld, and where counties thrive by meeting their obligations and they face consequences when they don't. i see an american century because more and more people are reaching toward the freedoms and values that we share. no other nation has sacrificed more -- in treasure, in the lives of our sons and daughters -- so that these freedoms could

take root and flourish around the world. and no other nation has made the advancement of human rights and dignity so central to its foreign policy. and that's because it's central to who we are, as americans. it's also in our self-interest, because democracies become our closest allies and partners. sure, there will always be some governments that try to resist the tide of democracy, who claim theirs is a better way. but around the world, people know the difference between us. we welcome freedom -- to speak, to assemble, to worship, to choose your leaders. they don't. we welcome the chance to compete for jobs and markets freely and fairly. they don't. when fundamental human rights are threatened around the world, we stand up and speak

out. and they don't. we know that the sovereignty of nations cannot strangle the liberty of individuals. and so we stand with the student in the street who demands a life of dignity and opportunity. we stand with women everywhere who deserve the same rights as men. we stand with the activists unbowed in their prison cells, and the leaders in parliament who's moving her country towards democracy. we stand with the dissident who seeks the freedom to say what he pleases, and the entrepreneur who wants to start a business without paying a bribe, and all those who strive for justice and dignity. 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 -- that we have it 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 too great, no mission is too hard. it's the spirit that guides your class: "never falter, never fail." [applause] that is the essence of america, and there's nothing else like it anywhere in the world. it's what's inspired the oppressed in every corner of the world to demand the same freedoms for themselves. it's what's inspired generations to come to our shores, renewing us with their energy and their hopes. and that includes a fellow cadet, a cadet graduating today, who grew up in venezuela, got on a plane with a one-way ticket to america, and today is closer to his dream of becoming

an air force pilot -- edward camacho. [applause] edward said what we all know to be true: "i'm convinced that america is the land of opportunity." you're right, edward. that is who we are. that's the america we love. always young, always looking ahead to that light of a new day on the horizon. and, cadets, as i look into your eyes -- as you join that long blue line -- i know you will carry us even farther, and even higher. and with your proud service, i'm absolutely confident that the united states of america

will meet the tests of our time. we will remain the land of opportunity. and we will stay strong as the greatest force for freedom and human dignity that the world has ever known. may god bless you. may god bless the class of 2012. and may god bless the united states of america. [applause] >> gop presidential candidate mitt romney speak to the latino coalition economic summit about education. in 30 minutes, the head of the secret service testifies on capitol hill about the incident involving agents and prostitutes in colombia. then, we will reach air president obama's commencement speech at the air force academy. on washington journal tomorrow morning, democratic senator mark

begich of alaska. the founder and editor of "the american spectator" will take questions about his book, "the death of liberalism." we will be joined by the author of "the stories -- letters to the president." washington journal every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. >> this memorial day, american history tv on c-span3. actors from "band of brothers." >> you have given me everything in the platoon but justice. he said we are jumping around. i said, well, ok. what does that have to do with me? he said let me tell you

something -- how much do you weigh? i said 138 pounds. how tall are you? .g".id 5'4 we do not want to go looking for you in spain. >> sunday night at 9:30, woodrow wilson, teddy roosevelt, william taft, and eugene debs -- the legacy of the 1912 presidential election. monday night at 9:00 -- >> december 7, 1941, at a date that will live in infamy. >> tore the pearl harbour center with daniel martinez, chief historian at the national monument. three days of american history tv this holiday weekend on c- span3.

>> republican presidential candidate mitt romney says education is the greatest civil- rights issue of our oil era. he spoke to the latino coalition economic summit in washington, d.c. this is about 40 minutes. >> thank you for that warm welcome. thank you. [applause] please. you are very kind. i hate to stand between you and your lunch, but there are a number of topics we need to discuss today. how to replace obamacare, energy policy for the country, how to tackle our budget deficit -- a lot of things i would like to

talk about, but i have a topic of significance for the entire nation. first i want to thank the chamber of commerce for hosting all of us today. this year marks the 100th anniversary of standing up for american enterprise by the chamber. i do not think many organizations have a record like this. few have fought harder for the principles of economic freedom than the chamber of commerce. your voice is more important than ever. i am grateful to the latino coalition for the invitation. in recent days, we import a lot about business from the president. if you feel like you deserve protection under the endangered species -- endangered species act, i do not blame you. [laughter] [applause] this is a time when everybody in this administration should be doing everything in their power to support you.

if everyone of our small businesses added two employees, americans could pay more mortgages, buy more groceries, and fill their gas tanks. instead, sadly, president obama has decided to attack success. it is no wonder many of his own supporters are calling on him to stop this war on job creators. make no mistake, when i am president, you will not wake up every day and wonder if the president is on your side. [applause] starting from the day one, i will be there to help you make success, to make it, to make ends meet, to be able to hire people, to be able to pay good wages. if by some chance you are successful beyond your wildest dreams, i will be there to celebrate your success because i

know your prosperity means better opportunities for you, for your families, for your employees, for your communities, and for the nation. that is what the american dream is all about -- getting the entire nation the dream of the american people. i have seen a few of my own dreams come true -- come true. i have run and started businesses. i helped guide the olympics and had the opportunity to lead a great state. i learned early on the only way to succeed in tough situations is to bring people together in a common purpose. that is how you achieve greatness. that is how you accomplish any bowl. dividing people and putting one side against the other produces nothing but failure and mediocrity. unfortunately, we have seen way too much of that from this administration. that is in part why we are facing the slowest economic

recovery since the great depression. it is widespread that and his party have failed to address the most serious problems facing the country. it is not time to divide. it is time to come together and remain one nation under god. [applause] when the president took office, he faced a jobs crisis. it has barely improved. he faced a spending crisis. he has made that worse. he faced an education crisis. i would love to be able to stand here and tell you we are celebrating the end of our education crisis. would it not be great if we could look back on the last four years with confidence that the crisis has been confronted and we have turned the corner toward a brighter future? sadly, that has not happened. the tragedy is not just a matter of -- matter of test

scores and international rankings. is the frustration of a sixth grader who wants to learn more, but is stock in a class that is hardly moving at all. it is the embarrassment of a 10th grader who knows he cannot read the books he has been assigned. it is the shame of a 12th grader who is supposed to be aired -- be ready to graduate, but he has not master the skills he or she needs to succeed. in this country, every child has something to contribute no matter what the circumstances they were born into. every child has a dream about where they can go or what they can become whether that dream is to invent something or to start something or to build something or create something, it all starts with basic skills and confidence that comes from a good education. yet today, way too many dreams

are never realized because of our failing education system. more than 150 years ago, our nation pioneered public education. now we have fallen behind. among the developed countries of the world, the united states comes in 13 out of 34 in reading. 70 out of 34 in science. 26 out of 34 in math. our public education system is supposed to ensure that every child gets a strong start in life, yet one in four students in this country fails to get a high-school degree. think of that -- one in four. what are they going to do? in our major cities, half of our kids do not graduate. imagine that. imagine if your enterprise had a 25%-50% failure rate. you would make changes fast.

if you did not, you would be out of business in a hurry. ut america's publication -- public education establishment shows no diversity. they keep things just the way they are. here we are in the most prosperous nation on earth, but millions of our kids are getting a third world education and america's minority children suffer the most this is the civil rights issue of our era and it is the greatest challenge of our time. [applause] last week i spoke about the prairie fire of death that is spreading across our country. today i want to talk to you about the crisis in education. with all of our economic troubles, there is a temptation to put off the task of fixing our schools are some other time.

but the jobs and housing failures of the past few years only make the task of education and its promise to improve the future more important. let's not kid ourselves -- we are in the midst of a national education emergency. the only reason we do not hear more about it is because our economic troubles have taken the national attention away from the classroom, but if unemployment was where it should be and home values were going up, there is no question the crisis in american education would be the great cause of this campaign. of course, the jobs and housing failures only make the need for education and improvement that much more critical. i will be blunt -- i do not like the direction of american education. as president, i will do everything in my power to get education on track for the kids in this great land.

[applause] you have business careers. i have found that you cannot expect dramatically different results unless you are open to dramatically different options. as president, i will pursue a very bold policy of a change that will restore the promise of our national education system. let me tell you what i will do. first, i will expand parental choice in an unprecedented way. [applause] to many of our kids are trapped in schools that are failing or simply do not meet their needs. far too long, we have merely talk about the virtues of school choice without doing something about it. as president, i will give the parents of every low-income and

special-needs student a chance to choose where their child goes to school. for the first time in history, federal education funds will be linked to the student so that parents can send their child to any public or charter school of their choice. [applause] in addition, i will make that choice meaningful by ensuring there are sufficient options are parents to be able to exercise it. in order to receive the full complement of federal education dollars, states are going to have to provide students with an ample school choice opportunity. in addition, digital learning options must not be prohibited in a state. charter schools and similar education choices have to be scaled up to meet demand. instead of eliminating the d.c.

opportunity at a scholarship program, as president obama has proposed, i will expand it to offer more students a chance -- [applause] it will become a model for parental choice for school systems across the nation. parental choice will hold schools responsible for results, but parents can only exercise that choice effectively if they have good information about which schools are succeeding and which are failing. no child left behind -- it helped our nation take a big leap towards bridging the information gap, but the law is not without weaknesses. as president, i will break the political logjam that has prevented successful reform of that law. i will redouble efforts to make sure schools are held responsible for their results. for example, parents should not have to navigate a complicated and cryptic evaluation system to find out how well their kid's

schools are doing. states will have to provide a simple to read and widely available public report card that evaluates each and every school. these report cards will provide accurate, easy to understand information about student performance and school success. states will continue to design their own standards and test, but this information will be provided so that parents can make l.a. -- can make an informed choice. we will make bold steps to make sure our system welcomes and rewards the best people into the teaching profession. i will make it my goal to ensure that every classroom has a quality teacher. did you know there are currently 82 federal programs in 10 different federal agencies that spend $4 billion a year on peter quality? as president, i will consolidate those programs, block-grant them to the states so they can adopt innovative

policies, such as states will be rewarded if they regularly evaluate teachers for their effectiveness and if they compensate the best teachers are teaching success in the classroom. [applause] pekingeses cake a highly-valued profession it has to attract the best -- teaching is a highly- valued profession. make schools responsible for results by giving parents access to clear an instructive information and attracting and rewarding our best teachers. these changes can help ensure that every parent has a choice and every child has a chance. [applause] let me note parenthetically -- we live in a 21st century that

increasingly demands a college education. improvements cannot stop at high school. students have to have access to a wide variety of options that give them the skills they need our successful careers. we have to stop skyrocketing tuition prices that put education out of the reach of so many of our kids and leave others with crushing debt. these are bold initiatives that will produce better outcomes are our parents, teachers, and students. accomplishing real change is not going to be easy. efforts to truly reform our schools always meet with strong resistance and entrenched interest. the teachers' unions are the clearest example of a group that has lost their way. whenever anyone dares to offer new ideas, the union's protest. their attitude was memorably expressed by a longtime president of the american

federation of teachers who said, "when schoolchildren start paying union dues, that is when i will start representing the interest of children per "the teacher -- of children." the teacher unions do not fight for children. that is our job. annually, many teachers are forced to pay almost $1,000 a year in union dues. the two major teachers' unions take in $600 million a year. that is more revenue than both of the political parties combined. in 2008, the national education association spent more money on campaigns than any other organization in the country. 90% of their money went to the democratic party. education is one issue where it

should be easy to find a common purpose and common solutions. i believe the president must be troubled by the lack of progress since he took office. most likely, he would have liked to do more, but the teachers' unions are one of the democrats biggest donors and one of the president's biggest campaign supporters. president obama has been unable to stand up to union bosses and unwilling to stand up for our kids. the most recent example is the opportunity scholarship program. since 2004, it has allowed thousands of children in the district of columbia to escape one of the worst school systems in the nation and get a world- class education scholarships of up to $7,500 each. students are corrupt -- enrolled in private schools. 99% of the students were hispanic or african-american. after only three months, those students could already read at

levels 19 months ahead of the public school -- of their public school peers. parents were happy. for every spot in the program, there were four kids hoping to get in. then senator durbin, democrat -- democrat from illinois, had certain provisions to end the program. the white house offered no resistance. the president has proposed ending all funding for opportunity scholarships. it must have gone against his better instincts, but the unions wanted it. in the opportunity scholarships, the democrats found the one single program they are willing to cut. why? because success anywhere in our public schools is a rebuke to failure everywhere else. that is why the unions oppose even the most common sense reforms. in detroit -- another example -- students in the city's failing public schools or offered a lifeline by a philanthropist.

he opportunity dollars million to create 15 charter schools for the city. the teachers' union fought to get the state legislature to turn that gift down, and they did. can you imagine that? in connecticut, they tried to pass parents trigger legislation so they could take over and transformed failing schools. a national teachers' union effort moved aggressively to stop that. of course, some union leaders will tell you their objectives are misunderstood. they will argue the issues are very complicated. but they are really simple. it comes down to this -- when your costs in life is preventing parents from having a meaningful choice or children from having a real chance, you are on the wrong side. you might even be in the wrong vocation because good teachers put the interest of children first. [applause]

the same is true of a good president. in a speech, president obama likes to tell us we cannot wait. if only he would say that and mean that about education reform. millions of kids are waiting for change and so many are missing the chance. the president cannot have it both ways. he cannot talk up reform while indulging the group's -- indulging the groups that are blocking reform. he cannot be the voice of disadvantaged public school kids and protector of the special interest. president obama has made his choice and i have made mine. as president, i will be a champion of real education reform in this country and i will not let any special interests get in the way. we have to stop putting campaign cash ahead of our kids.

[applause] this is a battle we can win and a battle we must win. while a lot of this needs fixing, we are getting some of the most important things right. we have good teachers, like the ones leading new york city's democracy prep. because of these teachers, kids from the city's pour to community are outperforming children from the wealthiest communities. think of that. these teachers took over the worst elementary school in harlem rather than let it shut down. democracy pratt is a testament to good people who refused to give up on our kids or leave our cities without a fight. and leadership -- leadership is making a difference as well. when jeb bush became governor of florida, her reading scores among hispanic students in that

state's school system were awful. some of the worst in the entire nation. he brought focused innovation and passionate leadership and, today, those scores have risen dramatically. but too often, new ideas, good teachers, and dedicated parents do not find a welcoming partner and a true champion like governor bush. instead, they are met with resistance and or resentment from the teachers' union. i know what is it is like to be a government fighting to do things different, by the way. as president, i will stand shoulder to shoulder with the reformers and the innovators, the parents, the teachers, and the kids. when i became governor of my state, we were in the midst of instituting bipartisan education reform. it included a requirement that to graduate from high school you had to pass a graduation exam.

that principle of the exam came under attack from the unions. they spent $600,000 in advertising to stop it from being applied. we also decided to offer our best students a four year-year scholarship to the state college of their choice. think of that. the top quarter of children who took the exam got a scholarship. i called the john and abigail adams scholarship. every year, i would ask a school principal to invite the students who had scored in the top corner on that exam to come to a special assembly. the kids did not know why and they were coming together. they did not know they were in the top quarter. i began speaking to them and ask them to reach under the chair and remove an envelope that we had taped there.

i would watch as each of them would open the letter. every year of the stand in front of the room and the same scene would unfold. at first, you could hear a pin drop. and each student's eyes would get big and broad smiles would creep across the faces as they found they were in the top quarter of those who had taken the exam. then they would be the part in the letter were they learned that they have in adams scholarship. their smiles turned to cheers and the sound was often deafening. i got more hugs on adams scholarship day that on christmas. kids would give me their cell phones to tell the parents the news. the prince would tell me that the scholarship has made the difference -- parents would tell me that the scholarship has made such a difference. we must transform how we teach and train and educate. we already have good teachers and engage parents and big ideas, but what we need now is

strong political leadership and political will. it was for every parent needs a chance for every child. that can be more than our who, it can be our future. it can begin this year in the choice that you may. [cheers and applause] let me say that again. you guys are great.

let me say that again. this can be more than our hope, it can be our future. it can begin this november in the choice that you make. i am asking for your help. i need you to go out and get people across the community to tell them how important this issue is. i care about a lot of things. i will get the economy going. i will make sure that we help people in need. i will open up new markets for american goods and products. i will also the education working for the good people of america to ensure that our kids have an even better future than we have enjoyed. i need your help.

together we will take back america and keep it hope of the earth. thank you very much. thank you. god bless america. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, governor. thank you for sharing such an important message for our community. please be seated. the governor has agreed to take a few questions from our members. we have already received these questions. i really appreciate taking a few extra minutes to do this. governor, we are addressing an economic crisis in our country. how do you see education tying into these broader concerns? >> education is obviously an investment that has a dramatic impact over time in our future. one of the things that troubles american families today is that they think of the country and there is the sense of foreboding that the future will

not be as good for the kids as the life we have enjoyed. people who came here at the recently for a long time ago came here to this country for opportunities. if they are concerned that opportunity is being snuffed out by special interests are politicians who will not lead, then they wonder about the future of america and their decision to invest in america and to stay here and to bring family members here is called into question. when you think about where you will buy a home, what are the questions that you ask? how are the schools? that is what you always want to know. how are the schools? that is the question that to ask because if you have good schools, that means it you have good people and the values will go up.

it and we have schools that are failing, the people of the will not want to come here with the best and brightest. and we will not have the kids who have the skills to fill in the jobs of tomorrow. education is one of the founding blocks of what makes our economy work. it goes on with principles and values taught by our communities and churches and our culture. . our schools are failing. we have known it year after year. they are feeling the minority communities who need it the most. we keep talking about this year after year and doing nothing about it, yet there are places where we see success. let's take that success and apply it nationally so we can help our kids and get our economy going again. [cheers and applause]

>> thank you, governor. one of our latino coalition members asked this -- governor, we hear all the time that small businesses do not have an environment to start and grow their businesses. they do not have an opportunity for long-term success. as president faugh and as a former successful business leader and governor, -- as president, and as a former successful business leader and governor, what would you do to remedy this? >> big topic. there is not one little switch the u-turn and somehow everything is great for business again. my objective is very different than the current administration. the objective is to make america the best place in the world for small business, middle-sized business, and big business. i want more jobs here. i want people to find good work and have rising incomes. if i do that, i will make this a good place for business.

my liberal friends want to have a strong economy, but they do not let business. [laughter] -- do not like business. [laughter] but an economy is made up of businesses. i do not know how many of you have businesses that are taxed at the corporate tax rate. my guess is, not a lot. most smaller businesses are taxed at the end of the rate. president obama has suggested raising the individual tax rate, the marginal rate from 35% to 40%, he will kill jobs. you will be able to keep less capital in your business and that means less investment and less people.

i want to lower the marginal tax rate across the board. i will pay for that by reducing some of the reductions and exemptions. i want to make it easier for small businesses to grow and expand. i want more jobs and rising incomes. for me, this all comes back to helping the great majority of americans that depend on small enterprises to have a good job. that is one piece. the second piece, i will take away the specter of obamacare. it is during a lot of businesses. we do not want it and we do not need it. [applause] let me mention another. president obama's energy policy is to drive up the costs of oil so it is closer price to wind and solar. i let wind and solar, but i like to keep the costs of our energy down to the businesses that use energy find this the most attractive place to invest and grow.

we need an energy policy that helps business. that is good for the american people. i will go on. regulation, you need to have regulation. you cannot have a free economy work if there is no regulation to make sure that people are not cheating. that is the key. regulators and regulations have to see their jobs as not solely stopping the bad guys. it is important, but they need to see their job as encouraging the good guys as well. the epa is making it difficult to add on 4000 square feet to a shopping facility and it is taking years and years to get approval. this is not good. it is owned and construction

jobs. it is slowing down jobs. he need to have regulators have an entirely different mindset. sometimes i think the guys in washington do not like you very much. i love you. i love your effort. [applause] i love your effort to create enterprises that not only reward you and your families, but there were the peoples that you are able to hire and your customers and suppliers. that is how america works. whether it is regulation, trade, our energy -- let me mention trade. agreed and productive nation benefits by trading with other nations. we have a huge trading partner right next door in latin america. we are all interested in what is happening in china and that is important, but right next door,

we have massive opportunity. we should be aggressively pursuing bilateral trade agreements and opening avenues for free trade with latin american countries. it is good for us and for them. an agreement that was made between president bush and columbia, that agreement was stalled for three years because organize unions did not want it. we had to have an entirely different mindset. we had to have government see part of their job of encouraging enterprise. how can have people in this room scared to death that the government might impose unions on your employees' if those employees do not want them? those kinds of policies kill jobs. everything i will do is designed to make america more attractive place for job creators and small businesses and big businesses and employees and rising wages.

i will get the job done. [applause] >> excellent, governor. i had to tell you, you hit on one of the most important and popular subjects for a lot of people in this room. i have to tell you, we have a delegation here from colombia and bolivia. we have senators from there. you already answered this, but the idea behind this question is that we often do ignore our neighbor to the south, latin america. is there anything else you want to add to that on what we can do? it seems like every time there is a major disaster around the world, we take our attention off of latin america and we think it is important to have a central relationship with mexico and central america and latin america. >> it is natural that when there is a threat, you focus on the threat and try to do with it.

there have been various things over the last decade that have frightened us and threatened us and we focused on those areas. but we ought to focus on our opportunities as well and opportunities in latin america are really quite extraordinary. not that just because of our proximity and approximate time zones, but because of the shared cultures and values that we have in the u.s. with these other nations of latin america and north america and south america. we have extraordinary economic opportunity. what castro is doing, we should be actively involved in communicating and promoting our values. we should be advocating human rights throughout latin america. i am concerned about what is happening in the middle east and china, but i care about what is happening in latin america.

we need a president who is focused on opportunities and the needs in our neighborhood as to do in the rest of the world. i am increasingly optimistic about the future of this country and our economic future and prosperity for our kids. one, an enormous market in latin america that we have an advantage in being able to access. two, innovative and creative people.

3, massive energy resources that are suddenly becoming available at very low costs. natural gas, for instance. it will be manufacturing back to this country. the opportunity for a leader who understands what it takes to get this economy going. you will see it completes re- direction in america posted economy. people will be shocked at how much we have increased in america. thank you. [applause] ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

♪ [playing "born free" by kid rock]

♪ ♪

>> and a little more than two hours, oppressive as a speech at the air force committee. then we will reach air met

ronnie was a speech on education to the economic summit. several live events to tell you about tomorrow morning. the discussion on religious freedom. it will include the unveiling of a plan to launch this. this is here on c-span. then you will see a senate banking committee hearing on home mortgage refinancing. when mrs. include heads of the national association of realtors and with them alone. let someone to take a look around year ending not about everyone has been aware they are going. the girl behind you could be a feature president of the united states or even better than that.

he could be a future ignoble laurinoble lauria. >> the head of the secret service apologized for agents with prostitution. he said this was more than an isolated incident. he was there for a little more than two hours. >> the hearing will come to

order. good morning. thanks to those who are here, part of the other lay the united states secret service agency. over its nearly 150 year history, 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 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 2, 3, 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 the secret service, the inspector general, and we must do everything we can to learn the truth as best we can. 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, in 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. today's "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 a foreign national, and 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 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, there should have been warnings. 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 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. 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 contrast to the misconduct that 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 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 and 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 liaisons' with these foreign nationals used to blackmail them, therefore compromising their effectiveness and potentially jeopardizing 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, 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 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 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 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 facts 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 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 findings to 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 co-chairs 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 privileges 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 testify before you, the men and women of this organization are protecting world leaders, 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, by 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. >> thank you, director >> kamal earnin >> 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

responsibility, also -- 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. 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 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? it says, "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 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 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. >> were the secret service personnel asked whether they considered their conduct

unacceptable? >> this is a question we 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 risky, irresponsible behavior would be carried out by secret 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, whether prostitution was 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 they're

with on those occasions. >> absolutely. there's no excuse for that type of behavior from a conduct 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 happened in cartagena and therefore potentially noteworthy. the allegations involving allegations or undocumented contact with a foreign national. one allegation of contact with a prostitute. and one 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 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 that 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 long 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 a 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's 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 registered the women, they followed 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 possess people to exhibit this type of behavior? i will tell you i don't think 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, 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

clear, but wasn't your adjudication guidelines, 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 a -- we make decisions every single day. our employees makes 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 responsibility, to have a good relationship with the inspector general, because when those individuals, which are a 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 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 -- 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. you have 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 higher paid people -- gs14 or gs15, 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. if we have to put gs15's on this particular trip, that's what we are going to do.. 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. the gs15's 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 polygraph? >> unless 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. >> how 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. 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. >> you meant to say el salvador? >> yes, i meant el salvador. we spent thousands of dollars to send those people down there. we interviewed 28 to 30 people. 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. you 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. i'm also sad to say i agree with senator collins that 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 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. we want to 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 level of esprit de corps, 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 the incident that is the subject 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 about, it 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 did do, 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. that is the goal of this 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 carper. >> 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. and he 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 caused harm to their reputation and harmed the

reputation of a wonderful agency. how many are serving? >> just under 7000. >> 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 found in the ig case files 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.gov/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 are going to investigate and take the appropriate disciplinary action. >> 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. conversation we have.