our troopers have helped us learn that there are few things of value that can be learned through any other car -- other course than through hard work. even hard work is only productive it is informed by study of the lessons of others and by 1's own experience. i encourage you to be a voracious reader and always thirst for more knowledge and understanding. to again draw on the words of teddy roosevelt, it is not the critic that counts. not a demand that points out how the strong man stumbles or where the do work of the deeds could have done better. the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marked by dust and sweat and blood who comes short again and again because there is

no effort without error and shortcoming, but who does actually strive to do the deeds, who knows the great enthusiasm, the greek devotions, who spends himself a worthy cause. and to have the worst if he fails, at least he fails enduring greatness of his way shall never be with those cold and timid souls who do not know victory or defeat. each of you graduating today is about to enter an arena. for some, including those who have served in the rotc program, it may be arguably the most unforgiving arena, helping to fight our nation's wars as leaders of our most precious resources -- sons and daughters in uniform. you should know that we look forward to our leadership of men and women as they undertake critical missions. or, it might be in our nation's intelligence community as one of

our creative science and technology officers, all in one way or another at the pointy end of the spear, fighting against terrorism. but the arena is big and the needs are many. those of you who will now turn to serving our nation are world in civilian capacities, whenever the pursuit, you, too, will very-much be in the arena. we look forward to your accomplishments as you take your new lead-earned a diploma and begin to work to find creative solutions to the challenges at home and abroad, helping our country down the path to further economic recovery and to preserve our freedoms. this morning is an occasion on which we say, well done and

congratulations for all that you've accomplished here in the course of earning become a diploma you will receive and a few moments. all of us here are celebrating the occasion and confident that the wonderful education you received, the great experiences that you had and the superb leadership skills you have gained in this institution will stand you in very good stead as the mark on the endeavors in life before you. may god bless your efforts as you grapple with the challenges of your time and work hard at what we all hope to be work that is truly worth doing. good luck, godspeed, go red devils, thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> and now more from this year's graduates of mount st. mary's university. it is located 70 miles outside of washington. >> tell us your name and your hometown. >> i am from south africa. >> what did you think of today's commencement? >> i am very grateful. it went over very well. thank you. >> what did you study? >> economics. and international politics. >> what are your plans? >> getting my master's in international economics relations.

>> where will you work? >> at the department of commerce. >> what, ultimately, would you like to do? >> of like to be an international economist -- i would like to be an international economist. >> my name is the julia. i'm from pennsylvania. >> what did you study? >> i studied biology and german. >> during your for -- tell us about that. >> i become a second lieutenant this friday. >> how did your time prepare you to go into the military? >> my faith is so key for military members. how prepared the leadership- wise. my professors taught me to have an eye towards how i could

better serve the world. through their teaching me, i will be better prepared. >> what did you think of the commencement? >> it was beautiful. so beautiful. there were great. absolutely excellent. >> what would you take away from what they said? >> one thing? i cannot take one thing. they were just incredible. everybody has so much to offer us. they try to help us along our journey. >> thank you for talking to us. >> thank you. >> we will show the cia's director speech in pennsylvania and again tonight along with first lady michelle obama's. that will be at 10:00 eastern.

>> taking a look at rolling thunder rolling by on this memorial them. there on the memorial bridge which spans virginia and washington, d.c. spectators lining the way. this year is the 25th anniversary rally.

they're trying to bring awareness to veterans' issues and soldiers missing in action.

some of the bikes and the bikers sharing the bridge today as they head to the vietnam veterans memorial day wall. we will have more live memorial day coverage tomorrow morning stan -- starting at 10:15 eastern -- kennecott 50 eastern -- 10:50 eastern.

a couple of hearings coming up on c-span. first, the secret service prostitution investigation with the service's director, mark sullivan testifying. and then to go to the senate banking committee, examining jpmorgan's $2 billion in trading losses. on wednesday, a secret service director, mark sullivan, testified before the senate homeland security committee. so far, 13 sickert's service officers and supervisors and a 12 military personnel have been investigated. 86 service members have lost their jobs. since the investigation, they have banned foreign nationals visiting the hotel rooms and expanded a ban on drinking alcohol before duty. this is two hours. >> the hearing will come to

order. good morning. thank you to those who were here, particularly mark sullivan with united states secret service agency and charles edwards, in general of common 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 liaison'' 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 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 -- 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 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 assume from everything that you have said that the seriousness of that behavior is not affected by the that that it occurred in the united states as opposed to outside and it occurred with young women who were not prostitutes. the behavior was not acceptable for secret service personnel. >> as i understand the allegation, it was under age individuals. that would bring into account the seriousness of the allegations. >> in utah, it was a crime. i am not asking you to opine that. >> i have not looked at the

case. we will cooperate fully with the i.g. >> just to clarify, we are focused on these matters because of what happened in colombia outside of the united states. i i correct to presume that if you found agents on assignments for bringing back women who were not foreign nationals, women they met somewhere, to their rooms while on assignment to protect someone? >> anything that is going to compromise our mission, we are going to be concerned with. we will investigate. we want our people to live up to the standards of our organization.

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

the secret service, and the general rules were government- wide for anybody seeking security a clearance. the security clearance rules, contact with a foreign national, if that creates the risk of foreign exploitation, against conduct, especially. vulnerable to exploitation or coercion, the government or country. etc pretty high standards. my question is, what becomes of these guidelines? and the general government-wide rules for people who have security clearance. in other words, were the agents required to study these guidelines? where they're trading sessions

in them -- training sessions in them? anybody faced with reality would know that what they're doing that night was outrageously unacceptable and irresponsible. assuming, for a moment, they were in their right mind, do you think they were adequately on notice of these rules of conduct, that this behavior was unacceptable? >> senator, i do. you have codes of conduct and then you have the security clearance issue. code of conduct starts at to the recruitment process. from the very beginning, when we hire somebody to come work for us, the first thing we talk about his character integrity. that is part of our background investigation.

that is part of the conversation we have. it is part of our polygraph. their first day on the job, their orientation, we talk about our codes of conduct. that is reinforced when they go through the federal law enforcement training center. it is reinforced again and again to our training facility. about one week or two before the agent or officer's graduation, i, myself, and the deputy director meet with each class for one hour and a half. the first thing we talk about his character. we tell these individuals that the thing that separated them from the others was their character and their integrity. when they go back into their field office, they have to annually certify that they have read our code of conduct, that they understand our code of conduct, and that is done with a supervisor. when they go to the organization through our various training 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. 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. kn