manage this workforce, how to ensure that we are performing at the highest levels in everything that we do. that we are operationally ready, that we are training. that we are evaluating each other and that we are constantly looking at our mission to make sure that we speak for what has happened in the past. as we move into the future, and while i am director, i will not tolerate personnel missteps, were people fail to act or do not support the workforce, or do not work in unison. i would say that there are many people who are still pushing back, and i will continue to lead forward. >> the problem is that that officer, she was right. and that was the morning after the shooting. yet it took four days for the housekeepers to discover that the bullets had struck the

building. isn't that right? in other words, the officer was right. >> yes. ultimately, the officer was right. >> "the washington post" story says this agent subsequently reported her concerns to investigators. was there an after-accident report about the 2011 shooting? did it include recommendations related to agents reporting their concerns without fear of being criticized? do you know? >> i don't know. i would say that the officer's statement to our interviews, that occurred with secret service employees, are different than the officer's statements to the fbi and officers conducting the investigation. i have asked them to go back and have a robust conversation with that employee to make sure she

feels supported, knows that we want her to come forward with information, and that we understand what some of the impediments may be with the management team where we feel like we can make improvements to make sure that never happens again. >> let me say this, and then i will close. former director sullivan invited me a few years ago -- you may have been there -- to speak before top agents after the colombia situation, with the prostitutes. one of the things that i said to them back then -- i expressed my tremendous respect and appreciation. but i also told them that i don't want anyone to imagine, imagine, imagining that they can pierce the protective veil of the secret service, period,

because i firmly believe that the reputation is so very, very, very important. and i just -- again, that culture thing is an issue. i'm sure that others will question you about that. thank you for your testimony. i yield back. >> thank you. i will recognize myself. following up on raking member cummings, i sent you a letter, director, specifically asking for details about the situation on 2011. i ask unanimous consent and into records of it all members can see it, the unclassified spot report on the incident in november of 2011. director, why is it that when i look at this report, there isn't even a mention of officer carrie johnson? and yet "the washington post" reports her detailing this to

headquarters. why isn't her name is mentioned in the spot report? >> the report reflects the active information. i don't know what information you have relatives officer johnson's reporting. >> you gave us this report. this is minute by minute. it is minute by minute, what happened in the situation. are you telling me that "the washington post" is wrong, that she didn't call in to headquarters? >> i'm confused by your statement about calling to headquarters. >> she reported that she was opening a box, getting out a shotgun, all those details. >> that is the confusion that i have with "the washington post" article. typically, when there is an emergency happening around the white house or alerts are made, much like shots being fired on november 11, i would expect officers to react according to

their security protocols. >> she says she called in to headquarters. there is no mention of that. other officers are mentioned, but it is not acceptable to not even mention the action she took in "the washington post" could get that, but congress couldn't. let's go back to the fence jumping situation. state police had detained a person who had a map in the car, all the weapons that congressman cummings had talked about, suspicious behavior. my understanding is three officers spotted him that day and did not report it. i want to know if that is true as we go along. the fence failed, officers that chased him didn't catch him, the sniper was in position, no shots were fired. dogs were out there, weren't released. countersurveillance is understaffed. nobody shot anything. there was nobody who was intercepted. the doors were unlocked. an officer was overwhelmed. the crash box was evidently

silenced. yet the secret service put out a statement saying they offered tremendous restraint and discipline. my question to you, do those officers have your authority to use lethal force to prevent somebody from entering the white house? >> those officers do have the authority to use independent judgment to leverage lethal force when appropriate. >> is that true when someone is getting at the president? >> that is always true. they are law enforcement officers. >> so it is always true when some but he is trying to penetrate the white house that they can use lethal force. >> as appropriate within the confines of the law. >> explain the details of that. if somebody is approaching the white house, has penetrated the security, making a run for the

white house, no apparent weapon, can they take that person down? >> the law requires that law-enforcement officers ensure that they are in imminent danger or others are in imminent danger before they can leverage lethal force. >> if the person is running at the white house with no apparent weapon, they can or cannot use lethal force? >> those will be independent decisions made by officer based on the totality of the circumstances. >> how does the officer know if they have an improvised explosive? should they assume that this person has ill intention? >> law enforcement officers are trained in observation skills. i would assess they are constantly looking at people for ill intentions. >> i think it is confusing. this is part of what they have to deal with. there making split-second decisions.

i want it to be crystal clear. you make a dash at the white house, we are going to take you down. i want overwhelming force. would you disagree with me? >> i do want officers and agents to exercise appropriate force for anyone attempting to challenge the white house. >> we have to explore this further. the secret service put out a statement, they talked to the associated press. they reported on september 20, 1:24 a.m., ed donovan said the man appeared to be unarmed to officers, who spotted him climbing the fence. a search of the subject turned up no weapon. why would he say there was no weapon? >> i will have to ask mr. donovan that question. >> you haven't done that? >> i know when mr. gonzalez was

placed into custody, he was found to have a folded knife in his right front pants pocket. >> do you consider that a weapon? >> that is a weapon. >> why would the secret service say to the associated press -- did you correct the associated press? did you call them back and say got that wrong? >> i have no knowledge of that. >> so you just let it linger out there that there was no weapon. that was wrong. that was inaccurate. correct? >> i do know there has been a lot of information in this case. that is why we are doing a robust review. i can't speak for conversations that i was not part of. or the press's interest in this. >> did you read the press release before it went out? >> i read the press release before it went out. >> do you agree that officers showed tremendous restraint and discipline? >> i do think, based on the totality of the circumstances,

and from mr. gonzalez's arrest, these officers did use her strained in making a difficult decision as whether to employ lethal force or subdue and arrest him. >> do think they responded appropriately? >> i think the security plan was not appropriate executed. i am conducting a review of what happened, so i have all the facts, and so i can make a decision about what the facts and decisions were on the night. >> thank you, i've gone well past my time at. i recognize the gentleman from the district of columbia. >> representative mr. horsford. >> thank you. i want to thank director pierson

for her 30 years of service at the secret service, for rising through the ranks to become the first woman director. i'm aware of what she has inherited and of her many accomplishments. director pierson, i want to ask you about the rumors that have been out there about what the secret service may do. when pennsylvania avenue was closed down after oklahoma city, there was an example of how public access can remain. i was heartbroken. both sides of the white house were closed down. i worked with the clinton administration to open e street. on the backside of the white house. not only for its vista, but because it is a major thoroughfare. it affected the entire region. that was summarily closed down.

as mr. basham testified, in front of the white house, though cars can no longer go there, people can go there. essentially, it was made a park, a walkway. none of my constituents, no one says it should be reopened. because that would mean cars, not people. my concern is whether or not people will continue to have access around the white house. i walked to the white house yesterday. i was pleased to find not only tourists, but protesters as usual there. i ask you, i noticed you testified 16 jumpers in only five years. there has been an increase in fence jumpers. i want to know whether you have

considered before today simply asking that a higher fence be built, one that for example could curve, still be historic, the curves going outward, so maybe you would damage a body part if you try to get over it, or even, and these are off the top of my head, multilayered glass behind the fence that could resist blasts from guns or bombs. since there have been 16 in five years, at least i think many more over the years, have you considered such common-sense devices is that so that the public would still have access, but the president of the united

states and his family would be protected? have you ever recommended that? >> we do want to work in partnership to ensure that the people have access in proximity to the white house and the historic nature and the national significance of lafayette park and the white house, so i do look forward to continuing to work with you and the administration, and the department, to look at what additional security features can be put in place not only for white house fence jumpers, but for the other challenges that face us in securing public areas. >> i recognize that most of these are harmless.

i am worried about multiple fence jumpers and whether you have the resources and staff heard there were six of them to come across the fence. by my calculations, you are down more than 250 agents in the uniformed services in the last year or two, since the sequester and the cuts. is that the case? >> yes. the secret service has had a reduction in its staffing as a result of sequestration and other fiscal constraints. we are close to 550 employees below our optimal level. >> i understand the staff has had to be brought in from other units, who may not have been as familiar with the white house because of the shortage of staff. is that the case? >> earlier this summer, based upon the work requirement the secret service's faced with in

the month of september, i made the decision to bring in special agents from around the country to support some of the uniformed division posting assignments in proximity to the white house tours. that has provided some relief for our uniformed division to take some annual leave. >> i realize my time is gone. i do think that congress has to take some responsibility for the sequester, when it went across the board, including police agencies like the secret service. thank you. >> i recognize the gentleman from south carolina. >> director, i am a fan of law enforcement. i don't take any delight in asking the questions i'm going to ask you. law enforcement are given unique powers, and with that comes unique response ability. i cannot think of any resort to believe greater than guarding the safety of our president and his family.

several agents believe there were shots fired, a supervisor concluded it was a vehicle backfiring. even if that were true, even given the very small investment of resources, why not investigate shots fired? >> representative, i think that is where some of the confusion starts to come out of the story is in "the washington post" -- >> i'm not asking you about a "washington post" story, i'm asking you about why a housekeeper, who doesn't spend 14 weeks in training, who doesn't have 18 weeks of training thereafter, found glass and your agents did not. they didn't come from "the washington post." is that true? did a housekeeper find evidence of the shooting and your agents did not? >> the housekeeper was able to locate fragments of glass on the truman balcony, which is not an area that is frequented by security personnel. >> i didn't ask you who was frequented. i asked you -- there was a

spontaneous conclusion that shots were fired. there were officers who believed they smelled gunpowder. your officers drew their weapons. that is how seriously they took it. i'm not interested in cursory searches. when did your agency find evidence of the shooting? >> i believe it was on the 15th or 14th of november. >> which was how many days after the shooting? >> three to four days later. >> you have officers taking cover because they believed shots were fired. you have officers at the white house drawing their weapons because they believed shots were fired. give me all the evidence to support a vehicle backfiring. >> representative, i'm sure you are familiar with law enforcement in downtown areas. there is sound attenuation.

oftentimes -- >> i have never heard a car backfire 6 to 8 times. ever. have you? >> i've heard car backfires -- >> 6 to 8 times. a housekeeper found the evidence of the shooting, and your agency did not. i will give you credit, it was brought up by a colleague. i have colleagues who are obsessed with sequestration. we can't have any hearing without it coming up. but you were not going to sit there and tell us that sequestration is the reason your agency did not find evidence of the shooting, are you? >> no, i am not. >> i give you credit for that. i was stunned that one of my colleagues would try to conflate sequestration with the fact that

a law enforcement agency waited four or five days to find evidence of a shooting in the housekeeper found. give me all the evidence to back the vehicle backfiring narrative. we already know all the other evidence. give me all the evidence that made your department so sure that it was a vehicle backfire that you didn't even search the white house. >> the secret service was actively engaged with the united states park police in an effort to determine where and in what direction shots were fired on constitution avenue. >> madame director, you reached the conclusion that it was a vehicle backfiring as opposed to shots fired. this is the third time i have asked. give me all the evidence to support that supervisor's conclusion that it was not shots fired, despite all the contemporaneous claims that it was and despite all of the reaction of your agents that it was -- give me all the evidence to support the theory that it

was a vehicle backfire. and then, tell me why not invest the very minimal resources required to exhaustively search the white house. >> representative, oftentimes in these cases there are a number of different people that make different statements. what i can tell you is the uniformed division officers on constitution avenue heard gunfire and reported gunfire. i can't speak to the specificity of the individual you are talking about the reported it -- >> can you speak to why a housekeeper found it and your department did not? >> housekeepers routinely work in the private residence of the president and first family. >> so even when there is overwhelming -- let's just say suspicion. we want the overwhelming evidence, that would require you to search the residence. you don't go through every inch of that residence? i want you to imagine a

prosecutor is in front of a jury, because this is where these cases wind up sometimes. you explain to the jury why a housekeeper found evidence of the shooting and your agency did not. >> representative, again, this case has been prosecuted in federal court. those explanation were made in front of a federal prosecutor. >> thank the lord the evidence was sufficient for a jury. i want you to make them sufficient for congress. >> it was difficult to see at night. officers heard the shots, officers reacted, picked up security positions, swept the area, looking for any type of injury or intruder. it was not known until days later that the shots and -- had actually struck the

upper level, the third floor level of the white house. >> i will end, i'm out of time. why not search every inch of the white house, given the very small investment of resources? i went on your website, and i saw you have training for psychology, you have training for survival skills, none of which i minimize, all of which i'm sure is important. this is just processing a crime scene, director. this is not high math. it is processing a crime scene. you actually don't need 18 weeks of training to be able to do that. you just need to walk around. so why wasn't it done? >> it was my understanding that a perimeter sweep was done. was it as thorough as it needed to be, evidently not.

>> i recognize the gentleman. >> i thank all the witnesses here this morning. let's talk about preventions. if you look back in july, several months before the incidents, when the promoter was breached, it's our understanding was stopped by virginia state police. they found at least 11 weapons and a map with a line drawn directly to the white house. is that your understanding? >> it was a regional map with a line pointed to the memorial area of the mall, including the white house and the other historic monuments. >> our reports are that the virginia state police and the atf then referred that matter to the secret service, because -- presumably because of that line. >> that is correct. >> secret service had an interview with mr. gonzalez at that time. is that correct? >> yes. the case was later referred to the secret service for an interview of mr. gonzalez. >> how thorough without interview have been, according

to your protocols? how deeply they have gone into their examination of mr. gonzalez and his history? >> they had a very thorough initial interview with mr. gonzalez. they initiated contact with his family members, his mental health history, and the police reports. >> so they determined he had a mental health history? >> he acknowledged he had a mental health history as a veteran suffering from ptsd. >> do protocols allow you to obtain his records? >> if the individual consents to the release of their medical records, we do pursue that. in this case, mr. gonzalez consented the release of his military medical records. >> you had all of his medical records to review. i presume you did review them? >> they were obtained over a period of time, and they have been reviewed. >> and despite all that, what happened? you didn't take any action, you

didn't have him arrested. >> representative, it is a very difficult thing for people dealing with disabilities and people dealing with mental illness when they don't exhibit any unusual direction of interest. mr. gonzalez, at the time, denied any interest or any intent to harm anyone. he indicated that his information relative to the map at his car was given to him by another individual who had recommended places in washington d.c. to sightsee and that he intended to go to go on camping trips. he wanted to go to the valley forge, pennsylvania, area. >> was the individual ever questioned? >> not to my knowledge. >> how does that conform with protocol? >> i know investigators are as thorough as they can possibly be an investigation like this to

make sure that we have a good understanding -- >> the individual wasn't available? >> i do not know the specifics. >> that would be an indication if they were as thorough as they should have been. notwithstanding that, there was a second incident before the perimeter was breached by mr. gonzalez, where he was found walking in front of the white house with a hatchet in his belt. is that correct? >> mr. gonzalez was observed on august 25 on the south fence line. >> he was interviewed again by secret service agents? >> he was interviewed by uniformed division officers of the secret service and special agents of the secret service. >> his name was run against the database? >> yes. >> the database indicated the earlier incident, right? >> yes, the database provided information of the original contact with mr. gonzalez. >> at that time, they knew he had been arrested in virginia, had a map pointing towards the

area of the white house, had ammunition in his car, walking with a hatchet, we knew had mental health problems. what happened then? >> officers and agents made contact with mr. gonzalez. asked him about the hatchet he was carrying. he indicated he had been camping in the area of lake prince william county around quantico. the agents and officers had asked him for consent search of his vehicle. he agreed. he was going to return the hatchet to the vehicle. they went back, they looked through the vehicle. mr. gonzalez was extreme the cooperative. this dispelled any concerns the officers had. he had camping gear and camping equipment in his car. he appeared to be living out of his car. >> so they just let him go. >> mr. gonzalez had not violated

any laws. he had to be released. >> did they have any follow-up? did anyone talk to any other agencies in the washington area about observing this individual, making sure somebody knew what his behavior was after that second incident? >> the second incident was also passed into our analysis desk so it could be analyzed. >> what happened at the end of that evaluation? >> he had not committed any violations, nothing -- he was under mental health evaluations by the military v.a. and no further action could be taken by the secret service other than to continue to monitor his behavior through his family. >> is that the only way they could monitor it through his family? there was no other agency that could monitor his activity? >> he was on bond pending charges from the state police. the incident that brought them to our attention -- there was criminal contact on the state level and he was returning to that area. the case was still under

evaluation as to what mr. gonzalez's mental history was, and whether or not he was going to come to our attention again. >> it was your understanding that you thought it was particularly appropriate that the secret service did nothing else and regards to making sure this individual was monitored in his behavior? >> it is very difficult for the secret service, when these individuals come to our attention. as many as 300 year, or a day, are being evaluated by our office of protective intelligence. >> 300 all in history have been twice being picked up with weapons, heading to the white house? >> no, but many of them are brought to our attention by making a direct threat. they are mentally ill. they have a long mental health past. some are more cooperative than others. in the specific case of mr.

gonzalez, he was being very cooperative. his family had been contacted by investigators. the family members indicated that he was cooperative, that he did not have a violent past. his mental health records, to my understanding, did not reflect that any of his mental health contacts indicated he was a danger to himself or others. >> i thank the gentleman. it is my understanding that people and told us there were three different officers that had seen him, recognized him the day that the incident happened. but did not report it. is that true? >> it is my understanding, based on how i have been briefed, that two of the officers recognize

mr. gonzalez. in the area of the white house, on september 19, and observed him for some time. they remembered him from the contact they had had with him on august 5 when he was on the south fence line. they observed him for some time, he wasn't acting inappropriately, he didn't violate any laws. >> they did not report that, and they did not approach him, correct? >> they noted that, but did not approach him. >> they did not approach, report him? >> not to my knowledge. >> i think there are several concerns, and i think one of the things i agree wholeheartedly with the ranking member about, this is something that we are talking about the white house. it is a world icon. you think of america, you think of the white house. one of the concerns i have, and we have been mentioning many of the issues here recently, different events, is the issue is not the protocols that have been put in place now. it's the issues of why are there so many instances on a

foundational level. why there doesn't seem to be a willingness to report. why there doesn't seem to be a willingness to exercise -- a willingness to say this is something i have noticed -- as the officer said she didn't feel she could report it. if there are issues where the instances overseas and other places, there seems to be a foundational issue we have to address. not only from your perspective, but from here. you made a statement of moment a moment ago, you said we get 300 suspicious people a year, and 300 a day in the same sentence. which is it? >> talking to protective intelligence, as of yesterday, they were directly overseeing 327 investigations. >> in totality, 327.

it is very visual. there has already been a new police line perimeter put in place. is that correct? >> we put up a temporary rack to provide us a standoff area while this investigation is underway. >> i thank you for the long answer to yes. i have several things i want to ask. you have made several comments that we are doing an investigation, we are saying why these protocols were breached. but yet you also said we don't want to rush, we don't want to change things, but we have already started with putting a perimeter fence, or at least a barrier now, back from the fence currently. i'm wondering here if the problem doesn't seem to be the fence. the problem seems to be the fact

that someone jumped the fence, ran 70 yards, got into the white house with nobody's stopping them. you made a comment, my father is in law enforcement. this is hard for me to look at this. you made an analogy that i'm not sure is accurate. you talked about discretion and restraint. police officers do this all the time it. they do so on the side of the road when they have made a stop. you are talking about officers who are protecting a national icon. when they jumped the fence, there should be an immediate understanding that this person should not be here and there should be an immediate understanding that there is not a restraint factor here. this is not the nice, cuddly secret service. someone running -- i'm having trouble how you correlate restraint and discretion in a traffic situation, which is way it came across, to someone actually going after the president's home. >> representative, i have stated that they did not properly execute the security protocols

that were appropriate to respond -- >> you believe that was because of the information or guidance they have gotten from the top of that they were not sure what to do? have they been told to exercise restraint in these measures? have they been told exercise protection? >> those officers have the authority to take legal law enforcement action as individuals. i'm conducting an investigation to find out the decisions that were made, what are the facts in the totality of the circumstances that those officers saw. >> i want to give ms. pierson a break. this issue of putting the fence line in front, or at least a police barrier, and looking at this area -- we are trying to make ourselves appear better as we are working on it. as hard as that is to say, this president and his family deserve to be protected. it is concerning to me they were

not told about the shooting until many days later. that is just mind-boggling to me, especially when their daughter was actually in the residence that night. >> i do have a question. explain to me, is putting the fence -- is this the only fix? help me out here. is there a better way to go about this? >> from my perspective, protecting u.s. embassies around the world, it is a concentric ring of security. the fence typically is one of the last things. typically, fences are meant to keep good people out. bad people find ways over fences. you can't simply rely on the fence to be your last resort. >> i think the issue that has come as we go forward here is the protection of this world icon. and the threat environment we are in, it's very concerning.

we get half-truths to start with, more truth is leaking out. there is a group that wants to say what is the issue, why are we not doing it the proper way? putting up a visual, we are doing something, that is not right. the foundation has to be laid. that is your bigger issue, along with protocols not being followed. i yield. >> i just want to make sure one thing was clear. director, the failure to apprehend mr. gonzalez before he got well into the white house -- the change of further setback or fence, since you successfully stopped 16 jumpers in the last five years, was there any reason you couldn't have stopped to 17? you are taking the american people's space with this additional fence and the proposal for a setback that would include pennsylvania and lafayette being restricted. and yet you have made no case

here today that you couldn't have had 17 out of 17 apprehensions if not for outright human error and procedural failures. isn't that true? >> the placement of the bike rack to provide a buffer zone is to allow us time to do this analysis to make sure that personnel and procedures are going to be effective with the time constraints that individuals have to make an effective tactical response to runners or fence jumpers. >> i get it. you are not up to snuff to the level you would like to be. until you are sure you are, you want to have that extra time. i sort of get that. that is a little concerning. >> thank you. i thank the witnesses. i want to go over the prior contacts between mr. gonzalez and the secret service. as my colleague noted, there was

a prior contact with mr. gonzalez back in july of 2014. he had been pulled over. he had a small arsenal of weapons in the car. i want to explore when does the red flag come up for the secret service. the secret service was informed that he had 11 weapons in the car. i want to go over that i have the evidence list from the state police that was provided to the secret service. mr. gonzalez had a mossberg maverick model 88 12 gauge pump shotgun in the car. he had a winchester with a scope.

he had an adler italy jaeger with a scope in the car. he had a 12 gauge shotgun. he had an ar-15, a pretty sophisticated weapon, with a flashlight and scope. he had a weatherby vanguard bolt action rifle with a scope. he had a smith & wesson 380 caliber automatic black handgun. he had a glock 45 in the car with an empty magazine, although later we found he had 800 rounds of ammunition. he had a magnum 357 revolver as well. he had another 45 caliber, and he also had a map. this is the evidence list. you seem to be minimizing all this stuff. one map of washington, d.c., with writing and a line drawn to

the white house. that is what we have with our introduction to mr. gonzalez. subsequent to that, we know he has a history of mental illness. he shows up at the white house in august of 2014. he has a hatchet in his belt. no red flags, we let him go. then there is the day he jumps the fence and runs into the white house. i want to talk about that. you say he came into the front gate. he went through the front door of the portico. and was wrestled to the ground, to the carpet, wrestled down to the rug near the green room. i want to remind you the distance from the front of the white house to the green room is about 80 feet. the width of this room right here is 60 feet.

>> 70 yards. 80 yards. >> 70 yards, 30 yards inside the house. i have been there many, many times. to talk about somebody transversing the white house for to the american public, that would be half of one white house tour. that isn't just getting inside, that's half of a white house tour to the american public. you keep minimizing this. i'm just wondering when do the red flags go up?

i know you got a lot of wonderful people over there. but this is not their best work. we have a serious, serious issue here about protecting the president and his family. this is disgraceful. this is absolutely disgraceful. i'm not even going to mention the fact that it took us four days to figure out that somebody had shot seven rounds into the white house. this is beyond the pale. i have listened to your testimony very deliberately. i wish to god you protected the white house like you are protecting your reputation here today. i wish you spent that time and that effort to protect the american president and his family like i am hearing people covering for the lapses of the secret service on these several occasions. i really do.

what are we going to do -- look, this whole thing is -- the united states secret service versus one mentally challenged man. one man with mental illness, that you knew had mental illness. this is the secret service against one individual with mental illness. and you lost. you lost. you had three shots at this guy. three chances, and he got to 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? >> the gentleman's time is expired. if the gentlelady has any

answers to his questions, i would appreciate hearing them. >> let me be clear. the united states secret service does not take any of these incidents lightly. >> with all due respect, that is my point. as a casual observer to what has happened here, i do not think the secret service is taking their duty to protect the american president and his 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 that 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. we have a lot at stake here. i know people are dancing around this issue, but i got to call it like it is. i have very low confidence in 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 in the country, if not the world, my confidence in you doing that is very, very low right now. >> i thank the gentleman. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director pierson, you were appointed in 2014, is that correct? >> yes. >> so 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 and some 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 agreed 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 due to sequestration. i cannot believe that would be accurate. so what i will give you a chance to correct that. >> across the organization, the secret service is down 550 personnel. >> with the gentleman yield a second? would you stop the clock. the amount of people in the u.s. secret service, the day you were

sworn in, the people there today, because these numbers are full-time equivalencies. 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 chaffetz brought up the fact that there had not been any training classes in fiscal years 2012 and 2013. >> you're talking about the number of people. 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 reduce the staffing by 376 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. let me tell you what is more confusing, it says the congressional committee is concern the president's budget request creates an agent shortfall that will result in the reduction of at least 376 full-time equivalents and that

this will fundamentally affect the dual mission within the secret service. the committee was recognizing this, not you. do you not think that creates a cultural problem when you are seeking reductions and you are here testifying today that you have too few people? do you see the hypocrisy in that? >> i do see the difficulty in trying to operate an agency in times of fiscal constraint. >> since you're talking about fiscal constraints, because i looked 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 floor, 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 each of those floors. is that correct? that is what the whistleblowers tell me. >> the information 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 the eighth floor now? >> yes. >> is that a secure area? >> yes. >> is it 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, the locator is not a classified document. >> but 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 ou already had two? why would you need another one up one floor down in your luxury suite? >> the gentleman's time is expired. the gentlelady may answer. >> i am -- we need to have instant information for us to

make informed decisions as a 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. >> i yield back. i think we need to explore this further, though. >> i thank the gentlemen, and for the director, 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. we show 1420 authorized uniformed officers, 1300 on hand, and we do not show that as an appreciable drop during your tenure as your budget has gone up, 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 will answer one question, isn't it typical that although your budgets are increasing that you plus up going into the 2016 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 virginia's time, but those questions will continue throughout the hearing, and we will follow up in writing afterwards. the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, is recognized. >> thank you.

director pierson, in light of the facts that have come out and in light of your own 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. gonzalez coming into the main floor of the mansion is a threat. >> i think it is important to remember -- i was a freshman in high school on november 22, 1963, and all of us who lived at a time remembered where we were when we heard the terrible news from dallas. but in my mind is that secret service agent mr. hill who threw

himself on the speeding car that contained the president, the first lady, and used his body to shield her. it is a sacred mission the secret service has. it is not an easy mission. but it is very 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 gonzalez threat seriously after the information provided by the virginia state police. we knew he had a history of mental illness. we knew that he was loaded up with guns. we knew that he had a map of 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. now, my friend from utah has 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 sight when he crosses the fence, when he goes over the fence. i am very 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 house grounds seems to me to be 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. i am not sure that is our competence. having said that, one can still conclude that the reaction of the secret service on site was profoundly inadequate and actually potentially put the first family in direct jeopardy, physical harm. and i do not sense from you, director pierson, a sense of outrage about that, a sense of mission that you want to reform and correct this cascading set of mistakes that led to potentially a catastrophe for

the united states. could you comment? >> i'm sorry you do not get that sense from me. i've spent a career in the united states secret service protecting presidents, their families, and the white house complex in addition to our other missions. there is nothing more sacred to any secret service agent, uniformed division officer, or administrative technical professional employee than our responsibility 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 with mental illness who do not commit a crime or do not 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. >> ms. pierson, i do not doubt for a minute your sincerity. what i said is i do not sense any sense of outrage about what

happened. >> we are all outraged within the secret service of how this incident came to pass. that is why i have asked for a full 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 proud 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 whose 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, careers get interrupted, demotions occur, or people get fired. his safety and that of his family is paramount concern, and that is what we need to be concerned about. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we now go 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 recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you. there we go. thank you. ms. pierson, thank you very much for your service.

the secret service, one of the premier law enforcement agencies in my opinion, an aspiration many years ago, from investigating counterfeiters to protecting the president. i commend you all for your dedicated service to the past. mr. basham, in your introduction, you said, you went from -- well, 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 had a hearing as well had we shot him once he jumped the fence, and you are absolutely right. but i was trained in you only use as much force that is necessary to subdue or fix the problem, never any more unforced

methods, which is a difficult challenge in and of itself, is it not? we have dogs patrolling the 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, were any of those considered, and what other 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 to 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. >> they had the opportunity to do in the investigation -- they found out that mr. gonzalez 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. why wasn't he brought in for further questioning by the secret service? just the map alone -- 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 be taken into custody, and that is the difficulty that they face. i totally agree with the representative that i do not believe that we 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 first 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 to protect the intruder when they jump the fence -- use of dogs, for instance, a mass of secret service agents to take -- >> in an update, a grand jury indicted 42-year-old omar gonzalez for unlawfully entering the white house well armed. leave this to briefing. you can see the rest of it in about an hour. we are leaving it for remarks from house judiciary chairman at thedlatte, speaking heritage foundation about president obama's use of executive powers as president.

thee are also taking opportunity to reintroduce and have a second edition of the heritage guide to the constitution. in 2000 five this edition adds 10 years of court cases and other citations. many may find it of reticular interest and during our preserve the constitution series, we are offering it at a $20 fee for anyone who would like to purchase it. they will be available. initial speaker is elizabeth slattery, our senior legal policy analyst. it she researches on issues such as the scope of the constitution's commerce clause, federal preemption, and election laws. she also studies and writes about the supreme court, judicial confirmations, the

proper role of the courts and methods of judicial interpretation. these join me in welcoming elizabeth slattery. [applause] >> the constitution grants enumerated lawmaking powers to congress and assigns to the president the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. the president does not have the power to make or sit and the law. time and again that is precisely what president obama has done. when his laws fail in congress, he imposes law i executive fiat. when he finds it politically expedient not to prosecute the law, he makes dubious claims. to making sham recess to implementing the dream act with the stroke of a pen, president obama has routinely bypassed congress and violated the separation of powers enshrined in our constitution.

president obama says where they will not act, i will. he has a pen and a phone and he knows how to use them. we are joined by congressman bob goodlatte. he represents the sixth district of virginia in the united states house of representatives. he has been an active member of the house judiciary committee since arriving in congress in 19 93. he also served on the agriculture committee, is the chairman of the house agricultural committee working group and the chairman of the international anti-piracy congress. he has been at the forefront of shining a light on president obama's executive overreach, as well as conducting oversight on the administration's targeting of conservative tea party onanizations and assaults liberty. please join me in welcoming

congressman bob goodlatte. [applause] elizabeth, thank you for that very kind introduction and setting the right note about what this symposium is about today. it is a pleasure to be here at heritage foundation today. it is a remarkable foundation that does a tremendous amount of good work. i am honored to be here. i have prepared remarks. i must warn you. recently i spoke to a high school class. at the end of it, i asked students if they had one hour left to live what they would like to do. a lot of them had interesting ideas. finally one young lady raised her hand and said, congressman, if i had one hour left to live, i would want to spend it listening to you speak. [laughter] you laugh, but i was flattered. i said, you would like to listen to me speak?

she said, oh, yes, because each moment seems like an eternity. [laughter] unless you feel like you are going to live forever, let me fromtarted with a quote abraham lincoln. he is often paraphrased as saying the best way to get a bad law repealed is to strictly enforce it. that paraphrase summarizes the gist of what lincoln was saying. the full text is worth repeating. in his eight, early career, abraham lincoln thevered an address to young men's lyceum of springfield illinois. it was entitled the perpetuation of our political institutions. in it, he said, let every american, every lover of liberty, every will wish her to wisher swear never

to violate the laws of the country and never to tolerate their violation by others. as the patriots of the 76 good to the support of the declaration of independence, so, to these support of the constitution and laws, let every american pledges life, liberty, and sacred honor. let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father and to tear at the character of his own and children's liberty. let reverence for the lobby breathed by every american mother to be lisping babe that prattles on her lap. let it be taught in schools, seminaries, colleges. let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. he went on to say, when i so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws come out let me not be misunderstood as saying there are no bad laws.

but i mean to say that although bad laws if they exist should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed. refers toedin religiously observed -- while religiouslyrs to observing the law, his example refers to the american republic itself as an example to the world. without enforcing the law, there cannot be accountability under the law and political accountability is essential to a functioning democracy. we and the house of representatives to face reelection every two years under the constitution are perhaps reminded of that more often than others. while there is at least one political branch willing to enforce the law, we cannot fail to act through whatever means we cant to successfully avail ourselves off. article two, section three of the constitution requires the

president to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. this clause, known as the take care clause, requires the president to enforce all constitutionally valid acts of congress, despite his own administration's view of the wisdom. it does not confer a discretionary power. the take care clause is a limit on the vesting clauses grant to be president of the executive power. united states court of appeals for the d c circuit in an opinion handed down just last year, striking down the president's assertion of authority to disregard a federal statute divided aces sink description of the president's obligation under the take care clause as follows. under article two of the constitution and relevant supreme court precedent, the president must follow statutory

mandate so long as there is appropriated money available and the president has no constitutional objection to the too, he president must abide by statutory prohibitions unless the president has a constitutional objection to be prohibition. if the president has a constitutional objection to a statutory mandate or prohibition, the president may decline to follow the law, unless and until a final court order to its otherwise. president may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections. of course, if congress appropriates no money for a statutorily mandated program, the executive obviously cannot move forward, but absent of lacked of funds or claim of unconstitutionality has not been rejected by final court order, the executive must abide by

statutory mandates and prohibitions. so says the d.c. circuit court. ton the president fails perform his constitutional duty, the congress has appropriations and other powers over the thoseent, but none of powers can be exercised if a senate, controlled by the partyent's own little refuses to exercise them, nor would the exercise of those powers solve the problem at hand, because they would not actually require the president to faithfully execute the laws. -- and of course, the most powerful way of solving the problem at hand is to vote out of office the of users of power, which i hope the american people will do in november. in the meantime, however, the need to pursue the establishment of clear principles of political accountability is obvious in its. as lincoln said, let reverence

for the laws be enforced in courts of justice. duty, too,ourts' two old reference for the law, and it is the court's duty to call foul when the lines of the separation of power have been breached. lawsuit by the house of representatives would grant no additional powers to the judicial ranch over legislation. indeed, what a statute does or does not say would remain unaffected. but it would be the appropriate task of the federal court to determine whether or not whatever a statute says, a president can ignore it under the constitution. and let's be clear. such ar the result of lawsuit, this president and in all likelihood future presidents will continue to nullify congress's legislative power in the absence of our seeking now the establishment in court of a

clear principle to the contrary. in action are high. the lawsuit will challenge the president's failure to enforce key provisions of the law that in thee to bear his name popular mind and was largely drafted in the white house, unlike any other piece of major federal legislation enacted in at least 100 years, including the federal reserve act, the national labor relations act, the civil rights act, the voting rights act, the national environmental policy act, the tax reform act, and all other major federal legislation over the last century. the obamacare law did not garner significant bipartisan support. indeed and uniquely, it had none. there was no bipartisan political compromise. the provisions of obamacare that have been enforced have not proved popular and the

provisions the president has beened to enforce have delayed until at least after the next federal elections. how convenient for the president . yet how devastating to accountability and our republic. imagine the future if this new unconstitutional power of the president is left to stand. presidents today and in the future would be able to treat the entire united states code as mere guidelines and pick and choose which provisions to enforce and which to ignore. the current president has even created entirely new categories of businesses to which is unilaterally imposed exemptions would apply. in that future, if a bill the president signed into law was later considered to be bad policy and potentially harmful to the president's political party if enforced, accountability for signing that policy into law could be avoided delaying enforcement until a more politically opportune time, if at all.

would presidential candidates running for reelection have to stand on their records because their records could be edited at will. at sign one bill into law, enforce another version of it in practice. rinse and repeat until the accumulation of power in the presidency is complete. at whatever the odds of preventing that nightmarish future through the reaffirming of constitutional principles in court, it would be our duty to .ursue it earlier this year i joined with representative trey gowdy to 4138, to put a procedure in place to include expedited court procedures to initiate litigation against the executive branch for its failure to faithfully prosecute the laws. while that legislation passed the house with bipartisan support, the senate has failed

to consider it. -- tonate considered a restore accountability and enforce the rule of law. the supreme court has squarely rejected the authority of the president to refuse to enforce constitutional laws. 1803rly as the court's decision in marbury versus visited the court specific duties on officials by law, as well as the court's corresponding obligation to execute the congressional directive. the supreme court articulated this principle again in 1838 case, kindle versus the united states, involving a president's refusal to comply with an act of congress. implies a power to forbid their execution is a novel construction of the constitution and entirely inadmissible.

the court further noted that permitting executive branch noncompliance with a statute would "the vesting in the ,resident a dispensing power which has no countenance for its support and any part of the constitution and is asserting a principal, which if carried out in its results to all cases following within it, would be closing the president with the power to control the legislation of congress and paralyze the administration of justice." later in what has become the seminal case on executive power, youngstown company versus sawyer, the court reasoned as follows -- in the framework of our constitution, the resident's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea he is to be a lawmaker. the constitution limits his options in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. neithertitution is

silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws who the president is to execute. the constitution does not power ofs lawmaking congress to presidential supervision or control. the founders of this nation and trusted the lawmaking power to the congress alone in both good and bad times. stated justourt this past term in the case of utility air regulatory group versus epa, the power of executing the laws does not include a power to revise clear statutory terms that turn out not to work in practice. constitutional -- can be murky, one thing is clear. the supreme court has never close the door to the house of representatives as an institution. it has had the time -- it has

had the opportunity to do so many times in the past and each time it has refused. numbers of congress often have times of establishing injury -- have difficulty establishing standing in terms of injury. but it does not stand for the proposition that congress can never assert its institutional interests in court. indeed, as another federal district court judge recently pointed out, the supreme court's decision in raines was prefaced on part in the fact that the legislators in that case did not initiate their lawsuit on behalf of of their respective legislative bodies. in fact the supreme court noted that it attached some importance to the fact that plaintiffs had not been authorized to represent their respective houses of congress in this action and indeed those houses actively opposed their suits. in other words, the supreme

court's decision in raines was premised on part in the fact that the members of the case did not initiate the lawsuit on the part of their respective house of congress. further, courts routinely hear lawsuits regarding enforcement of subpoenas by federal legislative bodies. they do so because the subpoena power derives from legislative powers under article one of the constitution. if congress is to have the power to legislate, it must have the power to collect the information necessary to inform that legislative power. in the executive branch refuses to give a king gretchen no body the information it requests, it in pc legislative power, and the federal courts hear those cases. today the president is not only impeding the legislative power, and he is negating it by failing to enforce clear, central provisions of major domestic legislation and if the federal whichcan hear pieces in

congress from legislative power is hampered by the failure to comply with the peanut, surely they should be able -- with subpoena, surely they should be able to hear cases in which just laid a power is completely nullified. finally, there is nothing unusual or inappropriate about federal courts weighing in on separations of powers disputes. as the supreme court has stated, our system of government requires that federal courts on occasion interpret the constitution in a manner at very it's with the construction, given the document. can not justify avoiding constitutional responsibility. the court has also stated that deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the constitution to another branch of government or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has

been committed is itself a exercise-- a delicate and constitutional him for quotation -- interpretation and is the duty of this courts. the federal courts have a long history of resolving cases involving the allocation of power between the political branches and addressing important separations of powers concerns. versusases include outer cynara, regarding the execution java, laws, i inez versus regarding the legislative veto, myers versus united states regarding the removal of appointed officials, and the case in which the supreme court just last term unanimously rejected the president's recess appointments that occurred when the senate had announced it was in session. the house of representatives, the branch of our federal

government closest to the people has voted many times to repeal obamacare, which are mains is unpopular is ever. but the senate and the president dislikeored americans' for the law. they have gotten away with ignoring it so far because the of verse of the paraphrase of lincoln that the best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce andtrictly is true as well aptly summarizes the current danger to democratic government posed by the current administration. that is, the best way to keep a bad law on the books is to allow selective enforcement. the house of representatives will do everything it can to get valid laws off the books. we ask for your support in those efforts. thank you. [applause] have a few ground rules for questions.

please wait for the microphone to come to you. please identify yourself. question. ask a don't give a speech. hi, my name is julia and i am from sayre. i was wondering how the president has announced he has to do an executive amnesty right before the holidays and the government funding runs out on there any plan to use that as an opportunity to make sure he doesn't? began tohis issue build up during the course of this year and i in the judiciary ine been very active advocating for an aggressive use of the courts to pursue the literally dozens of different areas, different federal statutes if you will, that we

think the president has either rewritten the law or refuse to -- immigration matters. including the current deferred nor -- we have by means committed ourselves by choosing this one action as an appropriate place to start. i have spoken out repeatedly about the abuse we think the president has taken with the prosecution of constitutional discretion, which is what he puts forward for the deferred childhood arrival row gram, and taking it further, granting work authorization and other benefits to people using an exception to

the law -- a good exception for those really hard, tough races for where a prosecutor might not want to prosecute, and that is to swallow the law is self. if the president were to increase that by 10 fold or more using that same theory of the would be very it important for the congress to undertake a challenge to that. i would hope we would go to seek anry quickly injunction from allowing the administration to grant those types of work authorizations. to the very point made by abraham lincoln and hundred 70 years ago, this

is the very problem with president acting on their own. those people believe we need to have immigration reform. there is a great deal of disagreement about what immigration reform should be. when you're trying to bring legislative bodies together, the largest legislative body in the united states, 100 members in the senate -- and you have to work together, work out the difficult -- the differences, and the president says, this is my list of things. like all presidents bring to the state of the union address, and then at the end he says, if you don't do it, i will, those who agree with the president's policies and say, well, i do not need to enter into tough negotiations about what needs to the law orenforce reform the law, and instead i will just wait for the president to act.

and in those circumstances they say why would i enter into negotiations to change the law when i cannot trust the enforce the laws that currently exist? not only is it a good way to get bev laws changed to enforce those laws, but it is also a ourlly important visible of separation of powers. the president does not have the authority to act. we should challenge. >> [indiscernible] first iswer of the already on the table as well. and we have on numerous occasions attempted to use that. sometimes successfully, but generally with smaller matters. when you have one legislative body that is going to act on the other that is not, many of the

powers and the separation of they arectrine, effectively nullified by the failure of the senate to act. will that change with a new senate? possibly so, and i would hope that would be the case. would hope that we would uphold the constitution of the united states, both branches of congress and i would argue that would be the case no matter which party is in control of each branch of congress. when the president made the statements that he made and members of his party stood up ovation,him a standing that was a terrible moment for our republic, when people stood and said with his pen and cell phone he was going to take away their powers, the powers they were elected by the people they represent to take to washington dc and exercise and they were happy to exceed those

powers to the executive. any executive in the future of either party, any party to take those steps up further and the meaningful nature of truly having a representative democracy would truly be lost. congressmen, i apologize -- >> congressman, i apologize. this has to do with the defense of marriage act. believe claim that they that was unconstitutional and that is why they decided to not to try to defend it. in your view, do you believe this was justifiable not to defend it in court, in do you believe that this could lead into the legal profession and create a certain culture if the head of a law firm says, you, lawyer on this case. do not worry about giving this guy a vigorous defense because he is probably guilty, so what does it matter question mark and bade setting that --

precedents. i am a lawyer, i do not need to worry about defending this land too well because he is no good. that is obviously not something you need to worry about with any individual family, business, law firm. the code of ethics for attorneys is to represent their clients zealously. would hope our societal ethics would continue to demand that. with regards to the actions iken by the administration -- fell be defense of marriage act was constitutional but as you know, the supreme court has -- if the president believes a law is

unconstitutional, that is not a basis for enforcing the law. i think that the president needs to examine that very, very carefully. president acting for more political reasons and what we felt was a cherished view of what the constitution provides for. were loud standing in that case because of the fact that the administration refused -- we were loud standing in that case because of the fact that the menstruation refused. having lost the case is, first of all, very disappointing, but it is also i think part of the problem we have with the staydent being able to behind it. the congress as part of its oversight powers, one of its checks against the abuse of power is to step in and bring ares or defend suits that

involving laws that we believe are constitutional and that the president is not upholding. that brings us right about we areto the lawsuit getting ready to file now, and that is there has been no allegation whatsoever by the president that this particular action use taking under this law is in any way unconstitutional. .hat is the challenge have tended to not utilize the courts as aggressively as i think we should. no guarantee a court will agree with us, but it is an opportunity to involve another branch of government in trying opinion, what, in my is a very shaky status of the separation of powers doctrine. if we do not get the courts to it is verye a

concerning where we may be headed in terms of abuse of power by this president and future presidents. >> i think we have time for maybe one more question? >> i saw one of these briefs that your colleagues -- and i wanted to ask you coming back to the dream act issue, doesn't your objection run into a lot of the president's power to grant art and's, which was my understanding, cannot be circumscribed by legislation. it is an absolute power. what is to stop them? everybody.rdon or pardon 6 million illegal aliens. -- happens to your >> there are two different things. the president did not do that

first of all. the president basically used a provision in the law to say it gave him the authority to broad distinctions. pushed thatsume you aside, and ok, that did not work, so we are going to pardon everybody. everybody pardons them for the commission of a crime. it does not confer upon them any kind of lawful status in the united states. it does not make them a citizen. it does not give them authority to work. all of the other things that the statutory law says should be of thed under the laws land and we think the president is obligated to do. have a very broad pardon power, but it is very what itin terms of would do for people looking for not just, let me stay here, but let me work, let me do other things, give me a legal status. that is a power that is only conferred upon congress.

i will take another one -- one more. sure. >> i am a very strong supporter of what you're trying to do and i wish you every success. note, however, that most of the emphasis seems to be on the health care law. .here are numerous other areas one i happen to be interested in where environmental area, there are some very strange things going on. you i am wondering how

put yourere to priorities? >> that is a very good question. there are a number of other areas. we already mentioned immigration law, environmental law, drug enforcement policies where the attorney general has obstructed the united states attorneys -- has instructed the united states not to disclose the amount of drugs to juries, the mandatoryting sentencing laws. there are many, many areas we could choose to take action. a look at areas where it will be less likely in individual would bring the nawsuit tased on -- based o their own. of a privates individual has a cause of action, as many do and many of the environmental areas,

lawsuits are being brought to challenge the interpretation, if you will, of the obama course, ition, and of have filed briefs in some of those cases. not to pick every single one and bring scores of lawsuits, but rather to take this and a step-by-step rose has, including the getting with establishing that in this area, a single body of the congress theld have the standard and court should recognize it and then they should make a determination on what -- on whether the president has abused his authority and not. will it happen? the bill i have with trey gowdy.

sometimes they expedite things like that. they may also have this dragon out so it runs out beyond the president's remainder of his term. the principle is the main thing we are trying to establish. once we establish that, we can do additional work in this area. having said that, if there are immediate and major abuses of aner that come out for immediate response, and one of those would call for the dramatic expansion of immigration legalization's, unilateral legalization's art college, that are not in my opinion a loud, that would prompt that response. -- that are not in my opinion that would prompt that response. there are different opinions, but i am definitely content with the one that we are moving forward on, because clearly the president does not have the authority to accept -- except

or youck of resources cannot get something going in an appropriate amount of time -- -- forkh of resources you cannotources or get something going into appropriate amount of time. you cannot do this now? that has nothing to do with lack of government resources. it has to do with a political policy decision made by the administration and we should challenge that. thank you very much. [applause] now we will be hearing from two experts to continue our discussion of the president's failure to faithfully execute the law. first up, we will hear from a member of a firm where he

concentrates on complex civil and criminal fraud cases, antitrust cases. privatentering practice, stewart was the head of the justice department's's civil division and became active -- acting attorney general at the beginning of the clinton administration. he also served as the debate duringor george h w bush the 1980 presidential election. tois a frequent contributor cnbc and many other stations. next week will hear from nicolas rosenkrantz, who is a professor of law at the georgetown university law law center where he teaches constitutional law and federal courts.

he has advised the federal court in a variety of capacities. he clerked for judge easterbrook and justice anthony kennedy at the supreme court. it is served at the department of justice during the bush administration and he has testified before congress numerous times, most recently before congressman goodlatte's hearing on the ability of the president to faithfully execute the laws. with that, i will turn it over to stewart. >> thank you, liz. i love the introductions. they have all of the benefits of a wake without the one detriment. [laughter] ago, an independent poll was conducted by university asking which of the 12 president since world war ii were the best and the worst. heritage will be glad to know, if it does not know already, the winner on the best side was

president reagan, but by a large , held, 33% of the vote that president obama was the worst president since world war ii. one question immediately came to my mind, which is, and they really forgotten the jimmy carter administration? but the second question was this . this contempt about the obama administration, the product of a belief he has exceeded his powers, that he abrogated powers that did not belong to the executive, or is it that he is just not very good at being an executive? i think probably the bulk is for the latter, that may be the more important question is the former, and that is what we are talking about today. asked to compare this president with all of the rest of the presidents. i'm not going to go through one by one, but let me say looking back over the history of the

presidency, and in fairness to president obama, i think it is fallso say, obama likely within a large middle, even with respect to congressional and separation of powers relationships. president has issues about war powers. i am less eager to have courts decide cases like this than the congress because i know we are one vote away from a various bad supreme court -- from a very bad to bring court and i do not like judges to abrogate power to themselves. said, every president has had a problem in this area. non-has lost it. has lost it. that is not what we're talking about here. we're talking about a narrow range of issues. if you want to talk about all the presidents, our greatest

president arguably, abram lincoln, served as a virtual dictator. even thomas jefferson, who opposed the federalist and remarkableook unilateral discretion in negotiating the louisiana purchase, for which he received great criticism of the time, having previously refused to .xpend funds for warships i will come back to and comment in a moment. the definitive lesson i think we comes, in my view, from looking at him pound the cases. the expansion of the administrative state, made it virtually impossible for any the law and control ensure what is nominally in the

executive branch is taking care of. so you would have to give president franklin roosevelt for the erosion there. and president truman's short-lived seizure of the steel industry as the congressman pointed out received perhaps the greatest and strongest lap ever administered to a president by the supreme court. coming close, the impound the case as the president nixon. i do not think president obama can be named the leading volume offender. but in examining the take care clans, but for me i like the other name of it better. at the faithful execution clause, describes me that what we should be demanding of our chief executive. in terms of that, there is a difference. i have read a lot of professor rosenkrantz's writings on the subject. he is, i think, the leading

scholar in this field. i note that the take cares or faithful execution clause is rarely wrench and in supreme court decisions and when it has, it is generally in the context of assuring that the president has sufficient resources to .xecute the law professor rosenkrantz and i believe there ought to be greater reference to the faithful execution clause, and while i am a strong lever -- believer in the faithful execution clause, i believe that it is an avenue to at least a limited range of cases in which the legislature might regain some of the power that has withered away over the last century. it is an important area. professor rosenkrantz will speak more precisely about it. let me tell you just briefly the obamas i think

administration runs particularly a file of the take care/faithful execution clause. .roposition one in order to take care that a law be faithfully executed, there must be a lot to execute. that would seem to make logical sense. if you want to look for evidence of that fact, look at these thel seizure case in which court held -- and a lot of opinions in that case. the is rarelypinion cited. the concurrence opinion by justice jackson is more often cited. but the heart of it, the president asked the authority to act in the absence of an article to authorization or statutory authority conferred by congress. president obama ran afoul of this with respect to the dream

act another unilateral activities related to immigration in an unprecedented way. congress had refused to pass such a law. that is a real difference. if you are worried about how a relatively unimportant president -- and i can argue at length why that is the case with president obama, whose allah sees will be long forgotten in 50 years, including most of what constitutes obamacare -- -- whose policies will be long forgotten in 50 years, including most of what constitutes obamacare. that represent something new. a theition two tom president may exercise a certain amount of discretion, but he may not contradict the stated objective of the legislature. kinds of all discretionary things and administration can do. prosecutorial discretion is one of them.

i was show you in a second there is a limit to it. indeed, that second has arrived. the supreme -- or court rather held that the president cannot frustrate the will of congress by killing the program -- in that case through impoundment. that would be an unconstitutional veto. that is where it ends. the example -- the gentleman --ed a question about earlier. the answer that congressman goodlatte gave is correct. but i could foresee a limitation if you view a conflict within the constitution between the pardon power and the take care power. where would it apply? if the pardon power was used universally to avoid some other congressional mandate completely. i think that is the lesson of the train case and i think that that is right. an example though of where there

has been such a unilateral extension is the aca employer the mandate was employers andt for individuals was not. essentially rewriting obamacare. the third proposition i would argue about or propose is in the event the executive is to act without reference to the execution of a law, it must be in conformity with an enumerated power. i take out of that mix war powers, although i look with a jaundiced eye at the arguments i have made in the past, that they thisan ally with administration and bruce ackerman of yale who is arguing that prison obama has exceeded his war powers authority by committing airplanes to bomb the hell out of isis. i hope they continue to do that.

don't expect any case will reach the supreme court or any other court on that particular subject. example of an obama offense to the proposition we have just laid out are the recess appointments where innocence there is no law out administration decided it would do fine for congress when congress is in recess. that is again an unprecedented case. thing about that. the know can encase and most of the other cases cited here have been brought by individual human beings. people with on doubted standing. he was an employer. labor relations, policies. definitely had standing. there are cases challenging obamacare now brought by people

who have standing. the one exception to that, the one place where if i were a supreme court justice and thinking of not applying the political question doctrine because i do not want to aggregate to myself legislative , i want to fight those things out and not reach what justice jackson called the loggerheads where the supreme court would hear a case -- and from time to time the supreme court does your a case involving disputes i political branches. the one case where i would yield of these cases related to immigration and amnesty. because i do not know of any human being u.s. standing to challenge it. as anit would seem individual legislator is really being frustrated in turns of all is the and likely would have standing. let >> thank you. i'm delighted to be here and i

will try to be brief. know you have been promised an open bar after i'm done. what has th a lot of been said but let me try to put bring us back to constitutional text. i always try to ring as much i can out of the actual words. let's start with a clause we are the presidenthere shall take care that the laws executed.ully i will draw a few things to your attention about that clause. first, the congressman referenced this. duty, a t is a requireme requirement. the president is obliged to do this. not a grant of power. he shall take care. that is point one. duty is ote that the person personal. the personal obligation of the president. the president shall take care that the law be faithfully execution of al the laws is