has one mentally challenged man. one man with mental illness, that you knew had mental illness. the secret service against one individual with mental illness. you had three chances, and he got it the green room. what happens when you have a sophisticated organization with nefarious intent and resources going up against the secret service? what happens then? time isentleman's expired. if the gentlelady has any answers to his questions, i would appreciate hearing them. >> let me be clear. united states secret service does not take any of these incidents highly. >> with all due respect, that is

my point. as a casual observer to what has happened here, i do not think the circular -- the secret service is taking their duty to protect the american president and her family at the white house -- i do not think you are taking it seriously. that is exactly my point. based on the evidence, and the series of lapses. unfortunately, that is the conclusion i arrive at, that you're not taking your job seriously. i am sorry. i hate to be critical. but we got a lot at stake here. i know people are dancing around this issue, but i got to call it like it is. inave very low confidence the secret service under your leadership. i have to say that. that is not an easy thing for me to say. but based on the evidence, that is how we have to call it here. based on the evidence, my confidence in you protecting the

american president right now at the white house, supposed to be one of the most secure buildings of the country, if not the world, a confidence in you doing that is very, very low right now. >> i thank the gentleman. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. n. thank you, mr. chairma you were pointed in 2014, is that correct? >> yes. >> what three things have you done to improve the culture since you got in there? briefly. what three things have you done to improve the culture, because that has been brought up, that there is a culture problem? >> we have instituted an office professional integrity, a new discipline process so discipline is done in a more transparent and consistent way, we have initiated training for supervisors, and work in file workforce. >> so you have done some training in new positions, because i'm concerned. when that question came up, i

watch people all the time, and no less than four people here with you today agree that you have a cultural problem, and you could tell from the responses that there is an issue within the agency. i also wanted to go back and give you a chance to correct your testimony. i thought i heard earlier that you said you were short 500 uniformed secret service people --e to secret station due to sequestration. >> across the organization, the secret service is down 550 personnel. >> with the gentleman yield per second. please stop the clock rate the amount of people in the u.s. see secret service, the day you were sworn in, and the day-to-day, because these numbers are full-time equivalents is. all of us have a right to understand what the impact is on the day you were sworn in. >> i do not have those specific

numbers for you today. representative chafe at brought up the fact that there had not been any training classes in fiscal year 2030. >-- 2013. >> that cannot be right. >> that is correct. >> let me tell you why it is confusing, because i am looking at your budget request the last year, and it says in here in your request that you planned to 376ce the staffing by full-time equivalents. why would you do that? in your budget request, why would you request 376 full-time equivalent reductions? i'm confused. wouldn't you be confused? in your budget request, you also said we need to be reducing the number of years of experience by five years over the next four

years. i'm confused. why would we want less experienced secret service agents, director? these are your numbers. do you have an answer? >> i do know we have provided a human capital strategy to the congress at their request, that outlines -- >> but these are your requests. it says the congressional committee is concern the budget request creates a page shortfall that will result in the reduction of at least 376 full-time equivalents and that this will fundamentally affected dual mission within the secret service. the committee was recognizing in this, not you. do you not think that creates a cultural problem when you are

seeking reductions and you are testifying today that you have too few people? do you see the high democracy in -- dohat's the hypocrisy you see the hypocrisy in that? >> i see the difficulty in running an agency in times of fiscal constraint. >> since you're talking about fiscal constraints, because i look at this quickly, we need to make sure that you change the culture and protect our president. i started looking at it. but i was concerned to find a whistleblower came to us and said that you spent over $1 million on an executive luxury suite. is that correct, on the eighth floor, on your eighth flow, over a million dollars spent on a luxury suite since you have come to power? >> i do not know what that is in

reference to -- >> did you spend a million dollars or more on a conference room outfitting it, a luxury suite, on the eighth floor, yes or no? >> no. what we have done is spend money to transform our director's crisis center -- >> which is on the ninth floor, now we have done it again on the eighth floor. we have locators on the 20 those floors. is that correct? that is what the whistleblowers tell me. >> the information he has talks about the integration of both the director's crisis center -- >> how do you know, because the whistleblower talked to us. i know what we have done in terms of installation in our office. >> do you have a locator on your eighth floor now? >> yes. is that a secure area? >> yes. >> is the eighth for a secure area where vendors do not have

classified -- can they go in and out if they do not have clearance, on the eighth floor? >> all vendors are either escorted or have clearance, in a locator is a is not a classified document. it tells you where the president and the vice president and all relative people are. it is a locator, right? >> it is a reference point for our management-- >> why would you need another one of these when he already had two? why would you need another one up one floor down in your luxury suite? isthe gentleman's time expired. the gentlelady may answer. >> we need to have instant information for us to make informed decisions to the management team, and having quick access and being able to leverage technology and look at camera views and information provided to us real time from

our protective missions is critically important to me. and critically important to my staff. this is an area where some of those key decisions are made and it is integrated with other systems throughout the building. >> ideal back. i think we need to explore this further, though. >> i thank the gentlemen, and for the direct, we are going to try to get more accurately the correct number, because i have got to tell you, from the dais, all us want to understand this 500. authorized0 uniformed officers, 1300 on hand, and we do not show that as an appreciable drop during your tenure as your budget has gone .p, with 2200 agents so we are trying to find where the 500 represents a shortfall in full-time equivalent other than a legacy of perhaps never filling the authorized slots. and i'm going to give the

additional time to the gentleman from virginia. if you answer one question, isn't it typical that although your budget are increasing that the 20s up going into 16th or a presidential cycle, and that is when you want to peak, and you have lesser requirements when you do not have presidential candidates and so on, because i'm concerned about coming before congress at a time when we are giving you more money than you are asking for an complaining about sequestration and limited resources. so be prepared to answer that. i will not take the time right now. it is the gentleman from , but thosetime questions will continue throughout the hearing, and we will follow up in writing afterwards. the gentleman from virginia, mr. conley, is recognize. >> thank you. son, in light of the facts that have come out and in light of your review thus far, had the first family been

in the family quarters or anywhere in the white house, would you conclude professionally that there was a threat to the first family? >> yes. i think mr. gonzales coming into the main floor of the mansion is a threat. i think it is important to i was a freshman in high school in november 1963, and all of us who lived at a time remembered where we i was n high school were when we heard the terrible news from dallas. that secretnd is service agent mr. hill who threw car thatn the speeding contained the president, the first lady, and used his body to shield her. mission theed

secret service has. it is not an easy mission. troubling to all americans that our duly elected president and his family were actually potentially in real jeopardy on the white house grounds itself. i wonder whether you would agree that when you look at every aspect of this, sadly, it represents a comprehensive failure. they add up one by one. i think there was a failure frankly to take the gonzales threat seriously after the information provided by the virginia state police. we knew he had a history of mental omelettes. we knew that -- mental illness. we knew that he was loaded up with guns. had a map ofhe

washington. you indicate that that map was described as just a tourist map looking at places he might go. that might make sense, except for the fact that he was loaded up with ammunition and weapons in his car at the time. utah hasriend from made headlines and made a statement here today that he believes your reaction should be one of maximum force. i guess we should read that to mean that he should be shot on fence,hen he crosses the when he goes over the fence. i am reluctant to join him in that kind of advice to the secret service because there is a first family at the white house. there are guests in the white house. it is a busy and bustling place, and the idea we are going to have a shootout on the white to begrounds seems to me

a last resort, not a first resort, and i'm not sure members of congress ought to be in the business of actually spelling out secret service protocols for you. our not sure that is response validity. having said that, one can still conclude that the reaction of wassecret service on site profoundly inadequate and actually intentionally put the first family in direct jeopardy, physical harm. and i do not sense from you, sense ofpierson, a outrage about that. a sense of mission that you want thisform and correct cascading set of mistakes that led to potentially a catastrophe for the united states. could you comment? >> i'm sorry you do not get but since for me. i've spent a career in the united states secret service for

taking presidents, their families, and the white house complex in addition to our other missions. there is nothing more sacred any secret service agent, uniformed division officer, or administrative technical rational employee than our response validity for mission success. we do not take it lightly. we do it under difficult and challenging conditions. there's not a lot we can do in managing individuals mental illness who do not commit a put themselves in a position where the secret service can take further actions against them. we are limited by the system that we have to work within, the laws of our country. do not doubtn, i for a minute your sincerity. what i said is i do not sense any sense of outrage about what happened. we are all outrage within the secret service and how this incident came to pass.

that is why i have asked for a full we are review. it is obvious, it is obvious that mistakes were made. it is self-evident that mistakes were made. we must identify what the facts are, learn from the facts, assess, and make changes to enhance training. the secret service has a product history of making sure that we go back and look and do after actions after every incident so we can apply better security measures to ensure the protection of those we are bound to protect. >> that is real important, and i think it is really important in this discussion and this hearing that we remember there are real human beings who safety and security is at stake. it just so happens one of those human beings was elected not once, but twice, by majority of this country to be its president. and that sacred responsibility has to be uppermost in our minds, even if that means that reputations fall, curis get

interrupted, demotions occur, or people get fired. and that of his family, is paramount concern, and that is what we need to be concerned about. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we now to a gentleman who served in fairly difficult conditions, both in vietnam and in iraq, and with all due respect, i think he will object your calling working at the white house a difficult environment. the gentleman from michigan is recognize. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you. there we go. thank you. , thank you very much for your server. the secret service, one of the premier law enforcement agencies an aspiration many years ago, from

investigating counterfeiters to protecting the president. you all for your dedicated service to the past. basham, in your introduction , you said, you went from -- wel l, we have an intruder that went into the white house, went 30 yards, was finally apprehended, and we have a hearing about that right now. and you said we would have a hearing as well had we shot him once he jumped the fence, and you are absolutely right. in you onlyained use as much force that is necessary to subdue or fix the problem, never any more unforced methods, which is a difficult challenge in that of itself, is a not? theave dogs patrolling white house, and you have forgotten about 10 other probably protocols you could

have used to subdue that person before they went into the white house, correct? >>. yes >> in the after action review, or any of those considered, and actions could they have taken to stop this intruder, before he entered the white house? >> clearly, as the director has stated, there were mistakes, failures. there were opportunities to take this individual down based upon the reactions of the officers that were in place at the time, and they clearly did not take those actions. that is why the director has -- and the staff has to determine why they made the decisions or lack of making those decisions and understand what was going through their minds, what was going on in the white house grounds of the time, what was the clutter situation. they need to have the time to do the investigation to determine

what circumstances were on the ground. had the opportunity to do in the big east against -- to do an investigation -- they found out that mr. gonzález had guns in his car, had a map to the white house. i would be asking a lot more questions other than just letting him go. i wasn't he brought in for further questioning by the secret service? just the map alone, if the lawyers call that preponderance of evidence, indicating that he had some intent in doing something wrong, illegal, jeopardizing the president of the united states and the white house. why was he not brought in for questioning? >> i believe the director stated that the individual was interviewed and that the agents made a determination, which is a very difficult determination to make as to whether the individual truly represents a threat to the president of united -- >> are we privy to those questions in that report, mr.

chairman? do we have access to that report? >> in an appropriate time, we will make that available. >> unless he is breaking the law, there is no power with the secret service has to taken into custody, and that is the difficulty that they face. with the agree representative that i do not want the secret service's first action on the white house grounds when someone climbs of the fence, 16 times in the last five years, that the secret service's verse reaction is to kill that person. that is in my mind not acceptable to me nor to the american people. >> but there is an element of -- there is responses that are well within the power of the secret service's first action on the white house grounds when someone protect the intruderto

when they jumped the fence, use of dogs, for instance, amas masf secret service agents to take down the individual, but at the same time with it could be a diverse and so there are a lot of things going on, when you have an intruder like that. i just have a -- >> in 1976 there was an individual who came over the fence them apparently was carrying some type of device that appeared to be a weapon, turned out to be a pipe, and they shot him. and there was criticism for that shooting in 1976. this is a difficult, difficult balance to strike. >> i understand. i am out of time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> protect the we now go to then from pennsylvania. , you served in

the secret service for 30 years. under both republican and democratic administrations. and so you know and you have stated publicly that this recent security reach was unacceptable, and whatever other adjectives here today from both sides of the dais, per family in adequate, checking -- shocking, disgraceful, outrageous. is there any one of those adjectives you disagree with? >> no. >> thank you. and there have been some discussion about what we knew about the person leading up to the incident, where he jumped the fence and crashed the white house. we actually had his medical records, did we not, before he jumped the fence? had received the

medical records and they were being reviewed prior to him jumping the fence. knew, weverything we stopped him, he had a carload of high-offensive ammunition and guns, and he had a map of the white house. wasknow, he just about wearing a hat saying i am the most dangerous person who could come to the white house, and yet all of these things happened. and not to put too fine a point there wereierson, numerous layers of security that he was able to flummox. a surveillance team outside the fence reportedly did not spot mr. gonzales quickly enough to give an early warning. and often stir station in the garden booth as well as a swat team on the north want to not react in time. a dog trained to intercept

intruders reportedly was not released. no officer reportedly was stationed outside the front entrance of the white house, and the door was left unlocked. just yesterday press accounts reported that mr. gonzales made it all the way to the east room and that the alarms had been silenced. to me, all of those adjectives apply. this was a stunning, outrageous, disgraceful breach, and i know you cannot discuss the specific details, and we are going to go into executive session so you can be more forthcoming about the tactics and procedures, but i want to start here with broader questions. the secretsumed that service has a specific protocol or multiple protocols for handling these types of breaches. that?orrect in

>> yes, sir >> and without getting to the protocols and provide any buddy at large a roadmap, and you tell us whether they were followed in this that? >> yes, sir case? >> no, they were not. >> and why were they not irson?ed, ms. perison >> i do not know, and that is one of the main issues i hope to resolve to the course of this investigation. well, i think we have said multiple times here that you have been on the job for about a year and a half now, and you are on the job to reestablish the credibility and the reputation of the secret service as the finest, most formidable protective force on the face of the earth. is that a fair statement? >> yes, sir. >> if someone wants to do us all of us tooves

remember that right now you are protecting the most threatened american president in our nation's history. it is kind of a bad time to have something like this happen, pierson? ms. >> it is never acceptable to have somebody preach the white house. whatuld you explain to me you have done since becoming the new director of the secret service to turn this agency around and prevent things like this from happening? >> from the start of my appointment, i have made it perfectly clear to the workforce my expectations for professionalism and accountability. how that was accomplished by the establishment of a new office of integrity, the establishment of new penalties for a discipline ross that is more transparent and consistent -- process that

more transparent and consistent. i have a zero-tolerance level when it comes to misconduct. in addition, trying to develop leaders is critically important. here we have established a log in-service training for the workforce. it is specialized training for our leadership. i have had personal engagement with supervisors and the workforce. when i became director i had supervisoryessional positions that were vacant. i made those promotions. i offered orientation to those new supervisors and have continued to make sure that there is no doubt that we are going to be held to the highest standard that the american public expects. i do understand when you start to bring change into an organization there is pushed back. we are going to continue to

improve. this incident is an operational incident. or side effect of other cultural problems. i looked at this as a strict tactical concern. we have a security procedure that was not followed. one week prior and individual had climbed the fence and was arrested within seconds. why did that same activity not happen on the night of september 19? i agree mistakes were made in the proper protocols were not followed. it is unacceptable. >> my time is up and i look forward to closer questioning in the executive session. i yield back. >> i think the witness and recognize the demo from florida. you saidor pierson, this was an operational failure. others talk about salary, number of personnel, budgets. this november 19 failure was in no way related to a lack of

funding or personnel, is that accurate to say? is accurate to say that the officers on duty that night failed to execute the security protocols that they should have. isbut you are not saying it 100% operational failure? you are not ruling out that this may be a resource issue, correct? >> i believe we need to look at our training protocols and our staffing protocols, so, yes, that would refer back to resourcing. >> and budgets that have been mentioned, the budget request for fiscal year 2014 the agency $822 million. there's a disconnect here, and i think that -- let me ask you this rating to this. -- relating to this. you have a guy, gonzáles, all

the agents know who is is by this time. he had been arrested in virginia. he had with him and white house map. he was able to leap defense cannot, get deep inside the white house. secret service agents stood between him and penetrating that first -- and getting in? were there not enough people there? how many people were there? isthe white house complex secured and the building is defended by the united states uniformed secret service division. >> how many -- >> i can provide you information in a different setting as to the location numbers of personnel. hearing,ce for this there was a request of the sergeant at arms for people to accompany you to this hearing, and i believe they are probably sitting behind you. how many people have accompanied

you to this hearing today, do you know? >> i would believe 12 of my senior management persons. >> we had a request for a team personnel. at least 12, maybe more, are accompanying you here for testimony which is important, but it kind of cuts against this idea that we are at a manpower shortage, especially in some of the numbers that we have been doing. let me ask you this, about the culture of the agency. now, there is a number of instances that have been raised. you have a celebrity crashing the white house dinner a few years back. the 2011 shooting incident, the agency's pours response. you had the 2013 may incidents at the hotel involving an agent. miami 2014, a car accident involving agents without all suspected. the netherlands, 2014, excessive drinking. some had to be sent home. what got the most obesity is the

2012 incident in columbia -- what got the most coverage is that 2012 incident in colombia. you do not say that the september 19 reach is a result of that culture. how do you assess that health of the culture in the secret service right now? >> since becoming director, we have established an office of integrity. onave made my position known the level of professionalism that is expected, accountability at all levels. i have met personally with every front-line supervisors and provided them had additional training to ensure that they know how to lead, that they know how to manage them and they know how to work with this dedicated workforce. at the same time, we are providing training for the workforce. we are it at the same time that we are meeting very difficult protective requirements and

requirements around the world. i believe we have started to make a pretty significant transition within the organization of recognizing we have made missteps and we need to learn from these incidents and improve. >> and you think the steps you have taken have resulted in discernible improvement in the culture? >> i think these steps along with the continuing to promote and support new management will help us in that process. >> thank you. >> i yield to the gentleman. let me ask a follow-up, because it gets back to this bunch question. under your direction, was there a reduction in the countersurveillance manpower under your directorship? i under my directorship, established a new permanent division -- >> was there a reduction, yes or no? >> i do not believe there was a

reduction. >> the whistleblower seem to indicate that there was a stuttering -- study that there hundred people per countersurveillance, and you made the decision to cut that by 1/3. is that a correct? >> the witness can answer, and the time has expired. will you answer, please? >> yes. i would like to review that study. i know that we have asked for a study in the past that related to countersurveillance and countersurveillance methodologies to be a ploy by the secret service in the con capitalthe national region, and we established a countersurveillance division and staffed it with what are appropriate resources for this time and will go back and look at the process and see how we need to continue to resource it as appropriate. thank the witness. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i have respect for the numbers of the secret service and cannot believe i am about to begin the fun of questioning is a member of congress, because it should have never gotten this point where i have to ask you these questions. i would like to touch on your aar process. do you conduct aar's? you mentioned you did, but do you? >> yes. findings atnduct all level, for example, following the herd and is shooting incident, -- the herd nandez shooting incident, maybe the next morning at the next shift change, and then all the way up to the region and director level, would you be a normal course of action? >> yes, it would. >> at the fact-finding sessions, once you discover something that

is deficient, and you then change a procedure based on what you learn in the fact-finding session? >> yes, we would. have you changed your procedures for when the white house comes under a shooting incident? if the shooting happened at 9:00 p.m. at night and it was too dark, i am not sure you have access to flashlights and spotlights to check the white house in the evening. it was too dark. do you now have a procedure for checking the entire building, including the third floor, grad night or the next day? is that not part of the new procedures? >> yes, it is, and that night, it is a three-story building, so oftentimes it would require lift trucks, but we have a better protocol to ensure that proper switch are done across the complex. >> it is the people's house. i think the american public

would begrudge a lift truck. do you have that procedure in place. there is a suspected shooting , and three or four days before we find the bulletin the side of the white house, because of the new procedures? >> yes, ma'am, lessons learned. mr. ortiz, the recent breach that just happened to him he was apprehended, and he had this story, was information of that apprehension or that discussion that the agents had with him, was that shared, would have been shared as part of fact-finding the next day? with pictures of him been shown to the officers coming on shift on the next shift? we stopped this guy, he had an ax and will he stand -- in his

waistband, what's up for him. was that ever done? understanding that he was observed by the countersurveillance division, so i am assuming and i would have to get back to the committee that that would be part of the protocol of the division as well as the uniformed vision officers that are frequenting these people to me along the south fence line. >> with that have been shared with all of the officers stationed along the south fence line who might have contact with passersby, this guy has been by a couple times, keep an eye out for him? is that a standard thing that would happen as far as standard for teachers every shift? >> i would assume it is discussed, but i do not know to what specificity it is physically reported among uniformed division. the information mr. gonzález had appeared on the south fence line, was interviewed, his car was searched and all that was it a written report provided and supplemented. >> what about any results of

fact-finding that goes to the lack of communication between agents who were safeguarding the first daughters being on a different frequency as the agents who were responding to the 2011 shooting incident? my understanding is the agent inside the not know because she did not hear traffic, that the theect he does -- that suspected shooting had happen and deny find out about it through a third-party, another agent, it had not been fixed. now are all agents listening to multiple frequencies? >> are protocol would require that all agents are notified regardless of their assignment for that type of incident on a shooting on the complex habits. i would say that information is now past to our joint operations systems. >> i am very concerned that we are not learning from lessons learned, that these things are happening whether or not the fact-finding sessions are

happening. this information is not disseminated in some way, and i would love to in the executive session touch more on how you are fixing and updating your protocols, because this seems pretty standard to me. i yield back. >> thank you, and i will recognize myself. pierson.director a lot of chest beating and beating up of the director today. i want to give you an opportunity to talk about not just what took place, but what we can do to make certain that the white house is safe, the first family is safe, and these incidents do not happen again. basically, two things that we deal with to do that, one would personnel,l, your and the second would be technology. wouldd believe those two resolve the problem in the

future. in sort of to clean up the mess, the problems with performance, the problems with morale, i will say you are the first director in 22 years to ever call me personally and ask for some assistance. before this incident took place, she actually called and said i want to improve the quality of our personnel. and she asked for actually two are stilld they pending before this committee, interestingly enough. i just checked. one was to improve the standards for the agents. i know there had been a lack of academy trading and not a lot of folks trained. but you were also and you a concerneaded h.r., about the agents, is that correct? ok, and also the ability to hire and fire. he saw in the v.a. scandal the

hands tired to hire and fire, and you asked to create to call the service and exempt service. is that correct? >> yes, sir. is referred to as accepted service. >> and will give you more ability to discipline. i asked the staff of the status of those, and it is still pending. it has been some ejection from the other side of the aisle, even to take them up. i thank you for stepping forward, and also recommending that. there are things like technology. 2011ere not director in when the bullets hit the white house, were you? >> no. >> you got beat up pretty good on that one today. it is interesting the white and they discovered some concrete or something that had been shipped -- checked out of a

balcony that was examine them in the service area of the white house is quite a it and you would not want to examine some of it. that was not on at 9:50 at night. the fact remains that a window was broken. that concerns me because at my house, i have a security system that if a window is breached >> when i left this morning, i did not want to disturb my wife, the security -- but the security alarm sort of notifies you that someone is coming in or going out. i do not have a very sophisticated system. but a window breaking in the white house in 2011 it seems -- and thereuld are two barriers. one is a bulletproof and the other is original or antique glass. that should have been taken care of. has that been taken care of, do you know? >> the windows have been replaced -- >> no, i'm talking about

security for breaching that. again, sybil thing. if someone opens a window or a window is broken at my house, i have an alarm. have you ever heard of these guys? it is not very costly. you can subscribe. that can be installed. it is a simple technology a privatecompany, system can do that. i do not think we can spend a lot of money. it can improve the quality and professionalism, you got to be able to hire and fire people. you have to put some technology in place. we do not have to put cement trucks and barriers in front of the white house. it is the people's house. do you know when the current seven-foot six inch fence was installed? >> 1965. >> i do not want to go through some outrageous things.

taxpayers have to fund this, but maybe we could raise that a little bit. editing is your part -- he lived in florida. we could put some vegetation barriers, simple things like how about spanish bayonet? you jump that fence and you get quite a greeting when you hit the ground, inexpensive invitation -- vegetation barriers. there are whole host of things we can do cost-effectively. i hope you consider some of them. dubbing the fence at the white house is not new. is that right -- jumping the fence of the white house is not new, is that right? >> correct. >> i understand the president and first family were not at the white house when this took ways, and sometimes the security personnel and secret service do get refocused to address where the president is, and he had just departed. is that correct? >> that is correct. governmentto the

reform and oversight committee. it is good to have you here today. thank you. chairman, can i make an inquiry. a reference that the director made two requests and there was objection from this side. could you expand on that? we are not aware of that. >> the two requests that were made. -- we contacted staff and we asked staff to look at it. i asked the staff just now, what is the status of that, and they said -- i said, have we move forward? they said no. i said why. they said some of the members on the other side of the aisle objected to that. i mean, you can object to it -- >> that is my point. we are not aware of that. >> staff has taken steps to improve performance -- >> we understand-- >> and the status of one of the

most respected law enforcement services in the world, not just -- >> we appreciate that. is. got to tell it like it >> [indiscernible] >> that is the facts. >> she testified under the oath that it was contacted in that regard. i asked -- >> will the chairman yield for a moment? i want to make something very, very clear. on this side of the aisle, we will do everything in our power to make sure that the secret service has everything it needs -- >> there are two -- >> everything it needs to protect the family, the president, the vice president, and our former presidents. this is extremely important to us, and i do not want this hearing from anybody to get the apression that we are not

million percent supportive of making sure that the secret service has what it needs, legislatively or financially. thank the gentleman, and i know he will work with us to accommodate the requests of the director. >> will the chairman yield? irhaps to clear the record, think the entire committee needs to be aware that there have been personnelo have standings of exempt changed in some cases to make them easier to terminate. that is a debate we can certainly have. i do believe today that although that is something the committee should consider him and i am supportive of at this level people being subject to disciplinary action if they are unable to fulfill their mission easier, i do not believe today

that is the basis under which these areas failures occurred. i am happy to have a discussion later on the details of the personnel changes. that was the limit, and again for the director, i did receive that. i did not, because we cannot immediately act on it unilaterally, but i do not believe it has anything to do with today -- the number of failures. it may have something to do with low morale. if you make people easier to fire, that also sometimes leads to low more. stating respectfully, my point on this, i think the director has taken on the responsibility of improving the performance, and very key to that is the educational qualifications which she has and the ability to hire and fire people. i think they're relevant because when you do not have discipline, you do not have good performance, and when the director does not have the tools to a cobblers that, then we --

to accomplish that, then we do not get that. i recognize the gentleman from nevada. chairman issahank and the ranking member mr. cummings for holding this extremely important hearing. director pierson, let me be frank, i believe you have done a disservice to the president of the united states. not only have you compromised his safety and security, you have compromised the safety and security of his family and the staff of the white house. xhe pattern of la security and follow basic circles indicate a culture at the secret service that needs to change. bele the president may not in a position to publicly criticize this failure to adequately protect his needs, i will. this president has far too much to worry about them up both here

and around the world. he should have not to also have to be concerned with his personal safety and security and that have his family. is,y question, director, why should we have confidence in the secret service's ability to protect the president and the first family when there has been such a pattern of lax security? >> i believe the incident on september 19 is not representative of a pattern. as i have stated, there have been others have attempted to gain access to the property that were immediately arrested. my biggest concern is that security plan, that effective security plan, was not properly executed on the night of the 19th. >> beyond september 19, the most recent incident, the fact that we are just now learning from

the washington post that ran a story about the 2011 shooting where a person fired at the white house, it took four days for the secret service to realize that bullets actually had the white house residence, and that only occurred after a housekeeper and usher identified concern because of a broken window. can a broken window be observed physically from both the inside of the white house as well as the outside? >> in this case, the location of the broken window, up against themansion the sod along truman balcony, it was not visible from the exterior. >> from the exterior. what about the interior? >> the interior, the private residence of the president and the first lady, there were indications that the ballistic last had a dimple or damage to

the ballistic glass. that was not recognized by the housekeeping staff until the curtains had been told in preparation for the first -- for the president's and first lady's return. >> how was it that the secret service personnel prior to the that,eeper finding they did not do the proper assessments, inspection of that location in order to identify that until four days later? >> i will be happy to have a discussion with you in a private session, but typically the private residence of the president and the first lady is that, their private residence. >> i understand you are not able to discuss the exact details of some of the security protocols in this open hearing, and i look forward to asking you more detailed step i step questions about the exact protocols that failed, the missteps by

individual agents, and that's and breadth of this review of the investigation of this incident covers. has there been any disciplinary action pursuit against any of the personnel who failed to follow proper protocol to date? >> that is pending, based upon the conclusion of the investigation to determine , andly what the facts are appropriately, enhancements will be made at propria action will be taken. >> that is where i tend to differ and little bit. of lax of this pattern security, not just from the most recent incident, but from prior incidents, someone should be held accountable. the security of the president of the united states is serious,

and his family is serious, and we do not need a long, lengthy review for someone to be held accountable. so i look forward to getting more facts about this in our executive briefing, but ultimately, director, we need to make sure that people are held accountable. there are men and women in the secret service that doing great job and they are to be commended for that job. but when an individual fails to do their job properly, they need to be held accountable. >> i agree with that statement. people make mistakes. they need to be held accountable. >> thank you. for all members as we near the end of this hearing, we will be going into executive session upstairs at the subcommittee room immediately following this. gentlelady from new mexico is next. mr. chairman, thank you very

much. couple of things. i want to go back to many of the statements that have been made today, and i want to fast-forward to the situation that we are all dealing with, and then i have a very specific question about a protocol that i not in executive session you can answer. we are trying to figure out what we can do in this hearing to understand this incredible breach, but that the same time recognize that this is the people's house, a public building, and to work on this now wants this. you have heard many members be concerned about the thought that sort of camacho should go first, and i think about earlier. this year we had a toddler breach the fence. for me at least, it is clear that that is too far and would create an environment where we all feel that there is a public

safety aspect here. but i think in your earlier testimony, you said that we have had 60 individuals try to preach -- 16 individuals try to breach the fence. >> 16 over five years. 16 this year. >> we know that folks, whether it is a mental illness issue or that,ing in addition to we know we have an issue. i also heard you earlier in your testimony talked about your career in the secret service, that you were at one point in time working on some of the i.t. issues. is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> i want to go back to the 2011 incident, and i want to read you what "the washington post" said about that incident. and we have said this several times there's repeating. key people in charge of the

safety of the president's family were not aware a shooting had occurred. because officers guarding the white house grounds communicate on a different radio frequency from the ones used by agents who protect the first family. the agent assigned learned of the shooting a few minutes later from an officer posted nearby. and radiounications dispatch in and of themselves may not be narrowly construed as i.t., i construe communications efforts and particularly in the context of interoperability to be definitely inside that realm. since 2011, have you resolved those two mitigation issues? >> yes, and as a result of the the incident, we have ensured

that the same information is passed, the emergency information is passed to all people who have a need to know. >> all of the radio frequencies communicating are . they are all interoperable. all those committees and techniques are working collector of -- collectively, and so are the alarms? the radio systems are operating with commonality, and that is controlled through our joint operations center. agencies are allowed to operate on the same frequencies based on their work. the alarm systems are now becoming more integrated with some of our radio systems, but we are still in a transition phase. all of the other issues, i'm really struggling with the communications and the for anyal effort

personnel to decide not to have .n alarm if you are doing this continuous improvement, training, investments, and making sure that this deal eat for tech of force is, in fact, just that, state-of-the-art and effective medication could occur without anyone having any idea, for me, it's gross neglect. how does that occur? that levelone at interfere with the protocol established by secret service? -- how does someone at that level interfere with the protocol established by secret service? concern was when these alarms for putting the place that the proximity to other activities within the white house, it could be an interference, such as the tour lines or other public events. >> so interference, and i said that i think you need to be able to address the balances of the public visiting, utilizing,

meeting at the white house. that woulding to me trump your own protocols for making sure you have alarms, aose purpose is to trigger threat so that you can have an effective global within the secret service, interior and exterior, protocol to deal with that. i know i'm out of time. >> getting into a classified session will help. the chair would announce that we now have two members that have been waived on that will ask their questions. that will complete the full round. with the indulgence of the ranking member, will have an additional five minutes per side , divided by whoever mr. cummings would like to recognize

, and myself, and then we will go into executive session. five minutes per side for our two guest members. and then five minutes aside from a which will include closing. roughly 20 minutes from now we , for any staff who want to make sure their members are available upstairs. and with that, the gentleman from missouri, mr. long. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director pearson, are your agents that are charged with guarding the white house and guarding the occupants of the white house, are they allowed to use white -- use smart phones while on duty? and i'm talking about personal smartphones, texting, tweeting, playing games. are they allowed to use personal smartphones while on duty? >> no, they would not be. >> and that is strictly enforced a? you're confident? access to aey have blackberry, which is part of the tools that we give our officers

and agents to receive information and pass information. but that is an official phone to -- >> that isthey an official phone to me, something they need. i'm talking about personal smartphones usage. you say they are not allowed to do that while on duty guarding the white house and its occupants. >> it is possible that some employees have a personal cell phone for emergency contact by their family, but they are discouraged from using any kind theychnology -- nine >> are discouraged from using. ok, a week before someone was caught jumping the fence, a week later, someone was not, correct? >> yes, sir. >> were you at the white house picnic this year? >> no, i was not. >> i'm sure you are familiar with it. do you know when it was? i will answer that. it was two days before the event. picnic, ite house was senators, congressmen, republicans and democrats.

everyone is invited. our families were invited. we took our families. we get docked at the street and we have to -- we get stopped at the street and we have to show an id, members of congress, senators and their families. they are checking the books and making sure everything is in order. there is still another 70 yards, just down the sidewalk a tiny ways, and then they check our id again. we need to check your id again before you go on to the premises of the white house. so we go into the picnic, several hundred people there, 200, 300, 400. what it was, the president and the first lady are normally there. on the 17th of september of this year, the first lady was out-of-state. the president was there at that event. we have had four assassinations in this country. we've had about two dozen , including the shooting of theodore roosevelt and ronald reagan. we just heard my friend, miss earlier in her

questioning saying that this president has received approximately three times the number of threats on his life than any other president. i was surprised to hear that. the president of the united states was there that night ,mong 300 people, let's say 400, whatever it was. . shudder to think he went behind a rope. those old enough to remember clotheslines, a three or four inch was his protection that evening from 300 or 400 people. i shudder to think if this gentleman had come 48 hours earlier and jumped the fence .hat night the president of the united states was behind a clothesline rope that night. lettingictures of him people take selfies with him, holding babies, and it's a great gesture. we want to be able to talk to him, reach out to him. but if you don't take anything else away from this hearing today, take that picture in your

mind. you are not there, but 48 hours earlier, we could have been having a whole different conversation. and that is very, very upsetting to me. i love first responders. i have a great deal of admiration and respect for first whetherrs, police, local police, sheriff, highway patrol, secret service, fbi -- all of the people that protect us. let me ask you another question. are there people with automatic weapons patrolling the white house grounds standing there with their finger on a trigger of an automatic weapon? in plain sight? it might be a deterrent. have a number of tactical assets that are deployed at the white house routinely. >> are they in plain sight with an automatic weapon with their finger on the trigger? like they are outside this

building next door at the capitol. i was driving earlier and there was a capitol hill policeman with an automatic weapon, finger on the trigger. we were stopped at a stop sign and i said, i wonder if they have an extra threat today or something, because this guy is really on point. but i think if we had something like that and i'm thinking about jumping the fence, whether i have my full mental faculties or not, and i see someone like that with their finger on the trigger of an automatic weapon, do you think i would think twice? icl of the people around with automatic weapons, safeguarding -- i see all of these people around with automatic weapons, safeguarding their lives. i shudder to think what would have happened 48 hours earlier if that guy decided to shut -- jump the fence with the president waiting behind the clothesline rope. i appreciate you being here. with that, i yield back. >> i think the gentleman -- i would second his point that i have seen senators wait two

hours after the salon he -- , waiting in the heat to get into the white house. but someone can just jump the fence and be inside in a matter of seconds. that is what this hearing is all about. i thank the gentleman. the gentlelady from texas, miss sheila jackson lee. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much for your courtesy, and the ranking member, mr. cummings. thank you for acknowledging that homeland security and this committee have worked together on a number of issues. before i start i want to put into the record by reading it the words expressed by mr. obama, our president, just last as, madam director, you made it very clear that the

general assembly you protected not only the president, but 140 heads of state. and the president said, the secret service does a great job. i'm grateful for all of the sacrifices they make on my behalf and all my family's behalf. i wanted to just add that, because the president has confidence. i also want to it knowledge that your storied history equates to thethe storied history of secret service starting in 1865. that it has continued in that service. our hope with this hearing, as my colleagues have said, between the publicans and democrats, that we would alter this headline that i hold up that says "the secret service opens door to ridicule." i disagree with that and i say, it opens the door to restructuring and revamping. because i think you have been very honest with us today. hold, since it was

mentioned, documents that i would ask if i'm able to put into the record with unanimous consent. >> without objection. but thank you. the list of assassinated -- >> thank you. the list of assassinated president. attempted --six four dead and six attempted. that is too many. headlinesare three that i will read from the general report. points.hree policies and procedures for proposing and issuing discipline are insufficient. the united states secret service is not only in compliance with disciplinary rules, internal controls are insufficient to ensure discipline is aligned with agency. you will probably say that a lot of this has been corrected. i look forward to those. let me go specifically to my

concern. on july 19, the state virginia police found a man that had any number of indictable things. when i say that, sawed-off shotguns, rifles, a number of items that are not the normal course, even though he is under the second amendment. and then on august 25, our officers stopped this gentleman. i will say to the american president hasthis documented -- maybe because he is different, maybe because of he had more -- that threats than others. maybe his family should have reported him, the dome and that jump the fence. others should have known. but it was unacceptable that he was stopped on august 25 with an formation and there could not have in some basis upon which this shaman could have been referred to an institutional gentleman could

have been referred to an institutional hold to address the question. my question to you is, why was who jumped on september the 19th stopped on august 25 with a background of enormous amount of guns and other threatening items, why wasn't he taken into custody --o let's not say the lot taken into custody? let's not say the law doesn't allow us. he could have been held. his family could have been called. kenexa officer of the military could not have been called? officer -- an e x-officer of the military could not have been called? the other thing that i find particularly egregious is in 2011, it was supposed that it a carcar back --

backfiring or gang fights. i've never heard of gang fights outside the white house. the most egregious that i can ever think is that the individuals serving the white house on that date failed to stop him. one,here is a picture of two, 3, 4, 5, 6 uniformed officers. i wonder if there is a fitness problem here. they are chasing the settlement and all six of them pictured could not capture him. my question is, what in the open from gettingd them him before he jumped the fence? this is on september 19. what stops them from getting him when he jumped over the fence with six or more officers chasing him, uniformed officers? the 2011 event, why did you think that was a gang fight instead of a more serious investigation into the fact that there was gunfire?

>> we are looking into why mr. gonzalez was not stopped when he came over the fence. i have stated publicly and i will continue to work with my workforce to understand why he was allowed to make access to the mansion and why he wasn't detained earlier as soon as he jumped the fence. i need you to understand why he was not recognized earlier in the day, and further surveillance put on him as to further analysis why he was there and why he had returned to the white house. i cannot explain those questions today. with regard to the shooting in adviser, 2011, all i can is that in collaboration with the metropolitan police department and the secret service, a conflicting witness statement said there was confusion about whether there was shot at the white house or from car to car. it appears to me those are also

documented in police reports. i regret the incursion that occurred three years ago. we have learned from that incident and the secret service would react differently today than it did three years ago. but let me conclude by saying, sil withight of iso--- i direct commitment to attacking the united states, and maybe the president, i think this hearing highlights the serious need for revamping and restructuring that is so key will we are all working together for the ultimate goal would -- the ultimate good of protecting the first family's life. i hope you would agree with me. >> yes, ma'am. >> i yield back. >> pursuant to agreement, chairman and ranking member will divide five minutes equally. i will yield four of those minutes to the gentleman from utah, mr. chafee is. >> i think the chairman.

-- i thank the chairman. director, anytime there is a or theof protocol president's personal security or then jeopardized, white house security permit or has been breached, is there an internal review? >> yes. >> and can you assure the committee that you are informed anytime those things happen? >> i am expected to be informed, yes. >> is the president of the united states informed? >> i would assume that the president of the united states is informed. i don't know. >> you are the head of the secret service. explain to me why you would not know that. >> your question was objective

as to whether or not i would know. >> do you brief the president or no? >> if your question is when there are incidents that involve the president of the united states or the first family in security concerns, yes. >> then you do brief the president. >> yes. >> do you brief the president if there has been improvement or breach -- has been a premature breach at the white house echo >> i have conversations with the president. ifdo you brief the president his own personal security has in any way been jeopardized? >> i have confidential conversations with the president. those would be the topic that we would cover in addition to other things. >> what percentage of the time do you inform the president whether his personal security has been breached? i would say in proximity to the incident. >> i asked you what percentage

of the time do you inform the president if his personal security is in any way, shape, or form been breached? i advise thee time president. >> you advise the president. >> yes. >> in calendar year 2014, how many times has that happened? --i have not briefed him with the exception of one occasion, the september 19 occasion, incident. thelen time you have briefed the president on perimeter security, the president's personal security, the first family security, has been one time in 2014. >> that is correct. we kind ofrman, as wrap up here, i think there is a bipartisan call for change. i would like to ask for an independent review. i think there needs to be a top-down review of not only security, but also the culture.

refer my colleagues to this. madame director, i don't understand why special agent basic classes, in 2012, there were zero. and in 2013 there was one. in the uniform division basic classes, and 2012 there was one ended 2013 there was one. i don't understand that. go back to the inspector general's report. i think there is a serious problem here. let me read some questions about how the secret service agents themselves responded. "if a senior manager engages in illegal conduct or activity, he or she is less -- is held responsible. -- held responsible. less than half of the respondents said that was true. again, secret service agents themselves in a confidential , "if theen asked

secret service disciplinary process is fair," only 43% said yes -- 40.3% said yes. disciplinary actions within the secret service are at the appropriate level of severity given the offense, only 36.6. this demands an independent investigation and review team by the fbi, the military, whatever it takes. they need to look at the management, the leadership, the culture, and the security. >> i thank the gentleman. the entire ig report will be included in the supplemental of the hearing. i'm going to reserve that last-minute and yield to the ranking member. --miss pierson, i just director pierson, i just want to follow-up on some of miss .ackson lee's questions youg back to mr. gonzalez,

can confirm that the secret service did an extensive interview of him. is that right? >> yes, sir. >> and i believe you testified that you requested is that profile, which documented his mental illness. and he agreed that you could have them both up is that what you told us? >> our procedures are in consultation with the individual, mr. gonzalez, which included the comprehensive medical records, and he complied, yes. >> you have access to his medical files. is that right? >> yes, as part of the investigation. >> federal law prohibits certain people with mental illnesses from possessing firearms. usc, 922 g.ute 18, those who have been adjudicated as mentally defective or who have been

committed to an institution for mental illness. are you aware of that sanction? >> yes, i am. >> according to press reports, he presents with mental illness. with severeosed mental illnesses. and his family confirmed the same thing. what steps did the secret service take to her this individual from possessing i've -- possessing firearms when he was arrested in july after he was interviewed. -- interviewed? >> he was interviewed by the virginia state police, who , alcohol, andco firearms. many federal agencies have been in contact with mr. gonzalez. >> you consulted with the atf? >> the atf were the initial investigators that first responded to the virginia state police over the weapons.

>> didn't his family also said that he had mental illness and needed help? >> the family concurred that he exhibited signs of the tsc. -- of ptsd. though to think the statute someone who isr a danger to himself or others, don't you think that applies here? >> it would appear to, yes. >> the question has come up, and every time i step out in the hall for just a minute, i have reporters coming up to me and asking me, do you think that director pierson can correct this situation? and what i have said is that the jury is still out. and let me tell you why i say that. you were talking about internal review a little bit earlier.

and again, i go back to that whole culture question. if you're secret service members don't feel comfortable sharing information, i don't know how you get the information that you need to address the kinds of concerns that you might have, because you won't even have the information. and then it hit knee as i was thinking about this whole thing -- it hit me as i was thinking about this whole thing, if i have secret service agents who are more willing to the whistleblowers and come before congress, what that tells me that they don't trust each other. there is a problem of trust within an agency -- and correct me if i'm wrong on this point -- that really needs to have trust within it. is that right? wouldn't you agree with that he's? >> yes, we do need to have

confidence and trust with each other, correct. >> i think she answered to the negative of your question. i will restore the time. >> do you believe there is a lack of trust? >> no, i do believe the employees trust each other. >> them please help me with this. i think you have the greatest of intent. you have given us 30 years. and i appreciate it. pasthard for me to get that whole issue of folks not -- members of the secret service are coming to members of this committee, not to me, but to others, telling them things and they don't even seem to be discussing it with you all. it goes back to the agent back

she was apparently afraid, or thought no one would listen to her. that?ll you deal with >> ranking member comings, i have made a number of chamber -- changes in our management and leadership team. i will continue to make changes in the leadership team. we are promoting individuals and helping them become leaders and supervisors. we are holding them accountable and hold in the workforce accountable and providing more opportunities for training. we are spending time during engagement sessions with the workforces to figure out what the inherent problems are. >> you said earlier you would support new leadership. your possibly bringing in new are constantlyou bringing in new leadership, is that right? >> when i took this position, we had 70 supervisory positions will stop those have now been filled. >> thank you. i look forward to talking with you in the classified briefing.

>> i thank the judge -- the gentleman. one minute to mr. meadows. want to come back, because in testimony here you have been very specific. you said 500 to hot -- to 550 employees. chairman issa asked you that again and you continue to stay with that. i will ask what you are requesting this year. you should have a copy of that. and give that to the staff right there. how is it if you are down 550 full-time employees that you are only asking for 61 more? by would you not ask for 500? again, these are your numbers. find -- youing to know, in all of this, it's about trust and integrity, and some of your testimony doesn't seem to line up with the facts. is challenging when you start

to talk about operational positions. >> it's challenging from the standpoint of oversight to get to the truth, and that is what we are doing is giving you this opportunity. >> thank you, if you would. in thatrepresent 50% first year they would be hired. the challenge of what we have had an part of what i presented to the committee and asked for support on was from the chair -- both from the chair and ranking member was the authority for the secret service to pursue excepted service legislation. hiring is a challenge for me and trying to hire in a process that is cumbersome is more difficult. uniformed individuals require a robust background investigation. they require a lot of back security clearance. >> why don't you request the funds to do that? >> i have requested legislation to support me and to identify new efficiencies in hiring progress -- process. vacancy and special

we received 45,000 applications. and because of the cumbersome processes i have to comply with, we've only been able to onboard 72 this year. >> how long will it be before the president is safe? under your scenario, you've got to wait for an act of congress. that doesn't make sense. to identifyying every efficiency that we possibly can to assist us in being able to bring on this personnel that weekly -- we critically need. >> is the press -- the president safe today? >> the president is safe today. and we will monitor our resources to make sure that the president come his family, and those others that we can -- we protect our safe. >> i yield back. >> as promised, we will now recess and go into executive session. briefly before we do, i want to make sure that the director in understand, as do the witnesses that we will dismiss at this time, it is the considered view of the chair,

and i believe in concurrence with the ranking member, that an internal investigation by the secret service is not sufficient -- i repeat, is not sufficient to provide the kind of confidence back to the american people. working on a letter to center the department of homeland security asking for a more aggressive and greater independent investigation to bring back the kind of confidence the american people and the president deserved. we stand in recess and we will reconvene in this location. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> and wrapping up our coverage of this rational hearing looking into secret service protection of the president and first family. if you missed any of this, it will be available online shortly. to watch again, go to thec-span.org and search c-span video library. we would like to know your thoughts. there have been plenty of tweets already, as you've seen at the bottom of the screen. we would like to join the conversation. do you trust the secret service to protect the president? log onto the c-span facebook page to leave your comments, or you can tweet us. here is what john has to say on facebook. and this from rob phillips. atin, leave your comments facebook.com/c-span.

likely to come up during today's white house briefing. we just got the two-minute warning about two minutes ago, so it should begin momentarily. this is live on c-span.

>> at afternoon, everybody. nice to see you all. i apologize for the delayed start. we were delayed by that spray. before we get to your questions, let me do a piece of news at the top. in an e-mail that some of you may have seen, and it was sent to the white house e-mail list early this afternoon, senior adviser dan pfeiffer announced that the president will deliver remarks are stay at northwestern university's kellogg school of management. the speech will make a forceful case for american strength and leadership at home. the president will highlight the progress we have made building a

new foundation for the american economy, recovering faster than almost any other advanced nation, and underscored this -- and will underscore the steps we need to take to continue progress to ensure that more middle-class families feel that progress in their own lives. the president will continue to discuss these urgent priorities in the days and weeks ahead, and i can announce here that the president will travel to millennium steel in princeton, indiana, this friday as part of a nationwide manufacturing day to highlight this broader strategy. some interesting events to look forward to at the end of this week. jim, let's start with some questions. >> i'm surprised you are not wearing a chiefs or royals tie. >> i support the royals with my blue-and-white tie today. it's a very exciting day in kansas city. i will be staying up late to watch it. >> i wanted to ask you about the secret service. does the president believe that

the secret service misled the by notand congress officially revealing how far the intruder got that friday night? the responsibly of the secret service to conduct an investigation into what exactly happened on the night of the incident in question. as has been republic -- publicly reported, mr. gonzalez jumped the fence and entered the white house. subject that the secret service has been reviewing since the night this occurred. it is their response ability to make decisions about what information is collected, what information has been locked can, and what information be properly revealed to the public. obviously, there is sensitive information that comes up in the context of this review that relates directly to security measures in place here at the

white house and around the president. not all of the details can be discussed publicly, but there it is is a responsive -- but it is their responsibility to determine as their investigation is ongoing what can and should be revealed to the public. let me say two more things about that. the first is, it is my view that it is in the advent -- the interest of the agency in question, and all of you for the information to be accurate and released as soon as possible. there is legitimate public , becausein this matter it relates to the safety and security of the commander-in-chief. separately, the second thing i would point out is that the director of the u.s. secret service testified before congress today on live television relating what she knew to be the case based on her current understanding of what occurred. much of the information was hadn from a review that

been ongoing for 10 days or more now. that is the status as things hit now. but there is an ongoing investigation it is still underway. and while you heard some additional details from director pearson today, i am confident that as investigators continue to do their work, there will likely be more information that they are able to lock down. that is why once this investigation has been completed, it will be easier to discuss the facts about what exactly occurred. it will also be the responsibility of the secret the results ofef that review that can be released. highlytalking about sensitive information, in some cases classified, because it relates to the security protocols in place to protect

the president in the white house. but there are results of this review that can be released to the public. and we would expect them to do so. have described the president's reaction as obviously concerned. i'm wondering when he realized how far gonzalez got into the building, whether his reaction was a little bit beyond concerned. >> i would not do any more than characterize -- anymore to characterize the reaction of the president then i artie have. based on the shore conversation i had with him more than a week ago, he did relay he was obviously concerned about the situation. as a parent, and as a father who is raising two young women here in this building. but that said, the president does continue to have confidence in the men and women of the secret service to hurt -- to perform their task with

professionalism and dedication you would expect. [inaudible] off-duty secret service officer. can you confirm that? >> i'm not at liberty to confirm those kind of details. the circumstances of his apprehension are part of the investigation. in athe secret service is position to release more information about that, at the conclusion of the investigation, i would expect it would do so. >> do you know the economics of ?ach the president's approval rating is low. does the president think that by talking about it he can change opinion? thethis is essentially opinion of closing arguments with the campaign? >> i would characterize the president's remarks primarily as an effort to highlight what his priorities are.

the president has talked a lot, particularly in recent weeks, there is no more responsibility as the president and -- and commander-in-chief than to protect our interests around the globe. his top domestic priority is to put in place policies that will strengthen the economy for middle-class families, and to ensure that middle-class families are positioned to enjoy the benefit of the progress in the worst downturn in recent history. heart of his speech will include the tremendous progress we've made so far in coming back from the worst economic downturn since the great depression. in hispfeiffer noted e-mail earlier today, the united states and our economy is recovering faster than almost any other nation in the world.

that is a testament to the president's leadership. it is a testament to the president's courage that he has demonstrated in putting together policies that in the short-term are unpopular, but in the long term have created an environment for this strong economic recovery to take place. at the same time, the president is very aware that too many americans in the middle class are not feeling the benefits of the economic recovery. and we need to have a discussion about what that recovery has -- looked like and what additional policies we can put in place to ensure that we are doing the kinds of things that will grow our economy from the middle out. the president believes that is the only sustainable way we can that our economy does not grow from the top down, but from the most sustained fashion we are investing in the class and

growing from the middle out. answeredather long your question. the president will have something more articulate to say in his beach on thursday. i would encourage you to tune in then. roberto. ?> -- roberta >> [inaudible] >> the president will be delivering his remarks at the university of northwestern kellogg school of management. venue for aropriate serious speech about america's economy. >> when did the president find out how far the intruder got into the white house? most of us found out yesterday. did he know ahead of that time? and if so, how far ahead to? >> the president has gotten a couple of briefings on this matter, beginning shortly after the incident occurred about 10 days ago or so. i will not be in a position to detail the contents of those of individual briefings or updates

that the president has had on this topic. did receive an update at the weekend after this incident occurred. and you will recall that he asked the director to come to the white house and give him an in the oval office on this briefing and in-person at the oval office on this matter. as to the conversations come i won't get into that from the podium. >> what is the timeline that they have given to the white house for review? >> adam have a timeline to share with you, but i were would -- i will refer you to the secret service, who may be able to provide additional information about that. to me just state what i said jim earlier. we do believe there is a common interest that exists between all of you, those of us here at the white house that work directly for the president, and the officials at the secret service

to provide accurate information as soon as possible to the american public. there is a legitimate public interest in this matter. and that is why officials at the secret service are conducting this investigation with a sense of urgency. >> in the "washington post" report yesterday, they said that the white house had been muted or turned off the request for usher. president obama or any member of the first family asked the usher about this. >> this relates to the security protocols at the white house to protect the president and the first family, and the white house itself. the security protocols that have been in place and were in place the night of this incident, those of the subject of this review. -- those are the subject of this review. i'm confident that what is found in this review is that some of

the reforms to these protocols need to be implement it. and that they will recommend doing so. and that the president has confidence in senior officials of the secret service to implement the reforms necessary to ensure the safety and security of the president and first family. today during director pearson's testimony on capitol hill, there was a call for an independent review of the matter. i wonder if there is any talk within the administration to bring in another agency like the fbi to look at the secret service. is there any question about the leadership and their ability to do this? >> the director herself testified under wrote before congress just 10 days after this occurred. that indicates leadership on the part of the secret service membership to get to the bottom of what happened and to try to mitigate clearly with the

american public about what occurred. the other thing that is notable to me as i was watching some of the testimony, is that she took response ability both for what happened and for ensuring that it never happens again. testament to her leadership and her commitment to this job. service is cooperating with this congressional review of the matter. and i have an indication of their commitment to consider perspectives from even outside the building for reforming the secret service in a way that strengthens security around the white house. but as it relates to any sort of separate investigation by don't have anything on that for you. >> one last thing. this occurred shortly after the president left for camp david.

we know that some members of the first family went with the president to camp david commanded was immediately before the un's summit. did the president lead -- meet with any senior staff or congressional members at camp david? >> not that i know of, no. >> [indiscernible] how do you think that would be shaped after this agreement? this new president that is replacing karzai will take part in talks? >> first, let me congratulate kabul on a bilateral: agreement. work ontwo years of

both sides. the river cents -- it represents a strengthened relationship between afghanistan and the u.s. over the past 13 years. it provides the legal framework to carry out to separate critical nations at the end of this year. the first mission is targeting the remnants of al qaeda. and the second is training, advising planned and assisting the afghan national security forces. the signing of the agreement also reflects the implementation of the partnership agreement signedr two governments in 2012 in may. and afghan and nato officials also signs the status of forces agreement, giving ally countries the legal protections necessary to carry out nato operation resolute support when isaf comes to an end later this year. these agreements follow an historic afghan election in which the afghan people exercised their right to vote and ushered in the first

peaceful democratic transfer of power in their nation's history. it reflects our continued support meant -- support and we look forward to working with the strengthening sovereignty, unity, stability, and prosperity, and contribute into our shared goals of fighting al qaeda and its affiliates. we value the strong working relationship that the united states has with the people of afghanistan and their elected government. but ultimately, the kinds of decisions about the policies they will pursue will be the responsibility of the elected leaders of that country. >> the president continues to have confidence in the men and women of the secret service. does that extend to director pearson? >> absolutely. >> y echo >> for a couple of reasons. we saw a willingness that she demonstrated to testify before

congress under wrote on my television today. we saw a commitment to leading in agency with a very difficult mission. she took responsibility for the incident that occurred about 10 days ago. she also took responsibility for ensuring that the necessary reforms were implemented to ensure that it never happens again. that is a sign of leadership. at the same time, it's important to recognize how, located the mission of the secret service is. while they are responsible for protecting the first family and the president, they are also response before protecting the 18 acre complex that constitutes the white house. and they have to do that on the doorstep of lafayette park, which is an historical place where individuals express their first amendment rights pretty freely. this is also a facility that is visited by hundreds of people a day, and you work your on a daily basis. me and my colleagues come

through the white house gates everyday. you and your colleagues come through the white house gates every day. and there is a responsibility the the men and women of secret service have to allow you regular access to the building, while at the same time trying to keep you and the building safe. they also have the responsibility for allowing the american public to have access to the building. just today, thousands of people toward this building. heree seat of government in the nation's capital, and as the residence of the american president. it is not just a matter of trying to figure out how we can harden the white house to deter attacks, but also a matter of ensuring that the public can continue to have access to a building that we probably would refer to as the people's house. or -- >> probably a question suggested that regal force be -- lethal force be used regularly for anyone trying to jump the

fence. restraint was showed, and the director said she would investigate that, but did not appear to question the restraint. where does the white house come floors --at type of force should be applied to catch ended -- and to deter? >> there is a specific policy in place that gives discretion to law enforcement officers to use lethal force where necessary within the confines of the law to roof -- to perform their responsibilities. that is the discretion given to secret service personnel. >> [indiscernible] >> absolutely not. that -- >> you did for you defer that entirely to the secret service. >> these officers need to be able to exercise their own discretion. these are professionals.

that means having the authority within the confines of the logic used legal force whenever necessary to do so. servicehe secret truthful about its initial declaration that the man was captured inside the doors? given by the director of the secret service today at the congressional hearing is an indication of their commitment to -- and i correct that came after things were disclosed that they did not -- >> that came after things were disclosed that they did not reveal. of thed on my reading initial news report of this matter that was published yesterday afternoon, the information gleaned from that story was provided by officers, or by officials at the secret service, to congressional sources in advance of the independent oversight hearing conducted earlier today. is a commitment, or demonstration of a commitment,

by the secret service to work with legitimate congressional oversight to be transparent about what exactly occurred, and to be forthright with the american public because of the legitimate public interest that they have in understanding security threats to the president and the white house. appears that its intruder had some kind of interaction, ,ossibly of a violent nature with one federal agent inside the executive mansion. that is my understanding, and is a chargeable offense. one question instantly arises from that. if that charge was not filed to keep from the public just how far this intruder got, because inevitably if those charges were filed, everyone would have asked what happened inside the executive mansion. are you comfortable in a scenario in which a charge is not filed, but appears to be valid? and one expiration for that

would be to cover up exactly what happened inside the mansion? -- one explanation for that would be to cover up exactly what happened inside the mansion? >> i am confident in the ability .o prosecute this individual and the decision about, about the charges with with -- the decisions about which charges to file about this individual are made by prosecutors. i have confidence in the ability of those career prosecutors to bring those individuals to justice. >> is the president distracted or worried about his safety and the safety of those in the white house? >> i think i related to you that the president articulated his concerns 10 days ago. at the same time, he maintains full confidence in the men and women of the secret service to do important work which