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 and it is delegatable

is impossible to execute all the himself but the duty to ake care they be faithfully executed is not delegable. he has to do that personally. third, to be fair, notice this is not the duty to take care be completely executed, couldn't be because that would be impossible. would require infinite resources. required thatt is they be faithfully executed and interpretive ep problem. what does the word "faithfully mean"? does that entail? one other observation i will ake as an historical observation bear in mind the historical context for this learn kings had -- english kings will claimed suspend laws uni

unilaterally. rejectmers were going to that practice and require the executive take care that the are faithfully executed. that is some text and historical context. mind we will circle back to a few examples that have been discussed already. first exactly is the obama care suspension that you heard discussed. crystal clear. on july 2, 2013, just before the long weekend the obama dministration announces via blog post that the president ould unilaterally suspend the employer mandate of obama care notwithstanding the unambiguous command of the law and again i to say the statute is perfectly clear. filling in about gaps. this is not about resolving ambiguities. statute provide they become effective january 1, 2014. clear as a statute can get and the blog post is

under the breezy orwellian title "continuing to a.c.a. in a e careful, thoughtful manner." mention of the statutory mandate. say that t to faithfully poses some deep .nterpretive problems it is a deeply difficult constitutional interpretation problem. but whatever in might mean it executeean declining to a law at all and that is what is happening. so it is supposed to kick in on date and the president says i won't enforce it on that date. hat is the clearest possible case as far as i'm concerned. as if that suspension is not commentshe president's about this, i think, add constitutional insult to injury. the president said that the normal thing that he would seek a change to the hrlaw.

he wishes that he could "simply call up the speaker of the house request a change to the law." that is the normal thing that he to do, president obama said. but the truth as the president full well he wouldn't have had to pick up the phone because a house had already passed bill that would do that exact thing. hat is, suspend this provision of the employer mandate provision for the amount of time he president wanted to suspend t, yet far from embracing this legislative change he threatened to veto it. startling.kind of this is the president almost the written flout law rather than get the legislative change that would achieved the policy result that he wanted. t is kind of a shocking example, i think, in a way. my second example is the

immigration story. discussed before so i won't say too much more about it. startling is this is almost a mirror of the obama example. here is the president actually a piece of legislation meticulously. one nly problem is this didn't become law. it was not a law. context weobama care have a law the president is not enforcing and here we have which ng that is not law the president is treating as though it is law. congress repeatedly considered dream act and declined to pass it. president simply nnounces in 2012 he won't enforce the i.n.a. against exact aliens in the dream act but he would brave as though were law.act so, once again i want to say the

president's broad prosecutorial a lot of gives him discretion but it can't be discretion to enforce things law. are not to put it another way and bring us back to constitutional text, shall take care that the laws, capital l be executed, not those bills that failed to become law. many e a law on the books segregation naturalization act and something that failed to become law, the dream act. the president prefers to unacted the supreme law of the land and the president himself on this question 20 months "america the nation of as the h means i president am obligated. notion that i can suspend deportations through executive order is not the case on the there are laws books congress has passed and enough laws that are clear in

we have to enforce our immigration system thattor me to simply through executive ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with y appropriate law as president." that is president obama. you are going to hear that quiet over and over again considers ident further immigration decisions. i will give you two minutes on one other example. don't haoften hear this example in this context but the fits within ing this constitutional discussion as well. this.eason is again take care at that time laws be faithfully executed. mean?oes faithfully i want to say at its core what nondiscriminatorily. that may be the most important idea here for faithful execution. the president can say you know, i can't enforce this law against

bank robbers because i don't have enough resources so i will the pwebig bank robbers, the violent bank robbers, repeat bank robbers. i think the president does get to say that. but he can't say i will only against the catholic bank robbers. he is not allowed to say that. that example ink would horrify the framers, the dea of discriminating on the basis of religion in the enforcement of the law. but i want to say there's an would lohorrify the and that re than that is discriminating on the basis of politics in the enforcement law.he i won't enforce this bank robbers statute against the bank robbers or democratic bank robbers. the reason is this. the president can, through discriminatory enforcement of the aw put a thumb on political scale, the scale of he casts ral process,

doubt on everything. ofhe can suppress the voices those who disagree by selective and it ent of the law will cast on everything that follows. i will say the single most orrosive thing that can happen in a democracy is the incumbent power to stifle critics and entrench themselves and if that i.r.s. this story of targeting is admittedly there is no evidence that president obama himself personally gave there order but i want to remind you duty ain this duty is the to take care that the laws be faithfully executed is personal supervisory. take care. o, in a sense what the president knew and when he knew it is kind of beside the point. have int is he should known. he should have been supervising his i.r.s.

three examples. this is a very tough clause to there the bottom of but are a few clean lines. it is a broad grant of you can't suspend laws altogether. that has to be rule one. favor unenacted bills enacted laws and can't discriminate on the base of politics in the enforcement of law. that has to be rule three. i think this president has lines. all three >> i would note one thing you particularly strong grounds when you talk about selective prosecution because spoken to court has that. we know that is the law that rosecutorial discretion is generally held unreviewable with the one exception being discrimination. an old case. in addition, the court also held government has to keep its word. so in the plea bargaining

this is a tearness -- argument. >> you point out in the lerner hardest job for my president because humphries cited earlier and chevron oblem it and and the like of that creates for a president because agencies power that it is ifficult for a president to truly take care that agencies effectively administering the law. in e that has to occur is the appointment process but also here i have litigated this before. well.e removal as and the law is equivocal on the remove t's power to certain kinds of appointees. citing ought -- we are

the same examples so we tend to agree. will make one additional point. professor osenkrantz said in my view finds supreme court vindication he impoundment case. court goes e the through the history of impoundment. jefferson. with roosevelt did in a lot, using discretion to time the appropriated f moneys. and that is not why nixon lost the impoundment case. lost it because what russell e.p.a. he secretary of was attempting to do was vitiate effort by the state of ew york to wipe out a legislative mandate completely. we know that that's the law.

so, while i tkdon't tend to fav brought by s legislators because i don't want he court making legislative decisions in most cases, i think -- and my experience as a hit that you can generally find human beings who kind of ted by there thing, not to say that congressmen around but individual private citizens who standing and it doesn't take a legislator to a position under the ake care of faithful execution clause. so, to be clear, the constitutional question of hether the president is behaving consistently with there clause is quite different from the question of whether a court intervene, a court should answer. i'm speaking to the pure constitutional question. the question of standing and whether the congressman's awsuit is a good idea are likely to be sustained in court is a different question.

think stuart and i are more skeptical of that. >> before we open for questions from the audience i have one. we have identified the problem. but what is the solution? do you think this lawsuit we've been talking about, will it help restore the balance between the congress and administration? will tell you, i'm skeptical of this lawsuit and keptical of its prospects for succe success. for a courts your remedy president that is violating the ake care clause is primarily electoral and this should actually be an election issue. that heritage is a very useful thing by having this panel and the hearings. this is a thing on which people campaign. it was aptly described, we

have met the enemy and he is us. a more responsible electorate. we agree. that in the limited range of cases which can be brought that are different from status quo and the first one i will tell you isn't different. has professor rosenkrantz advocated in his writings -- and sufficient intellectual force that it ought the courts d -- ought to pay more attention to the take care clause. referenced.arely you almost never see it. sheet and tube is such a case. it gets watered down a lot. that youngstown sheet and tube was a 6-3 decision, and five opinions in the case. cited is e that gets opinion, stice black

was so upset by that that justice black, who senate and knew truman socially, decided to have to bring his house the administration back in harmony with the court. time. a different and truman showed up at the black asked tice him are things better now and truman said i'm still angry at court but the bourbon is good. place to s that is a go. >> let's see if we have a few questions. this question is from one of our online viewers. it was for representative goodlatte but we didn't get a him.ce to ask if the president has failed to execute duty under the onstitution why is no one talking seriously about impeachment? >> i don't know the answer to

that. misdemeanors is an elusive term. answer.y don't know the we are close to an election. virtually ever president was with impeachment at one time or another. i would say this. don't view the obama dministration as particularly consequenti consequential. if we are going to have this discussion 50 years from now i hink president obama will be remembered as the first president of his race, i think that is appropriate. is a good thing. is singular production and members of his administration would say so is the affordable care act. affordable care act doesn't solve two of the three major problems with respect to of american healthcare. it is a program that will evolve nd won't look anything like it does today. irrespective of who gets

elected. done dministration hasn't that much. in the forward moving sense. in terms of b execution of the foreign affairs .ower, commander in chief power mistakes all over the place. bad policies, terrible appointments. it is the most introspective president i can think of and i a fair amount about many of the presidents. in dog years,live it is close to an election cycle. here are plenty of people on both sides lining up and the answer may lie in that. misdemeanors and is and should be a very high standard. is i would want to see oftern, some kind of pattern lawlessness and some evidence of willfulness. so a willful pattern of violation of law and i think high standard. i think that is the legal reason that many en't heard

people talking about impeachment. i think the political reason is on either side of the aisle wants to see a president biden. >> any other questions? >> how about over here? i'm a member of the federation for american reform board and advisors and i guess the have for you, d is what you have described this an example of majeste? for example, one of the bills of is objected to agreement he sort of

enacted by policy. just before the ofction, and the general run the pundits' consensus is that won him more votes than it lost him. how would you propose to use, to parlay a political to an abuse of power that seems to have won him votes rather than losing him votes? > constitutional law is not majority majorityian. if someone can satisfy article 3 and as i said earlier it is difficult in these

cases and it may be that congressional standing is the answer. will and should be applied irrespective of how fare at the ht polls. that is true up and down the constitution. that is the answer. >> it doesn't matter political and constitutional rhetoric. the important thing for us to do is to separate the questions and policy may like this result but you cannot approve of this method of achieving that result result. and the way to drive that home that don't agree with you about policy is offer turn. offer them president cruz suspend being the estate tax or that will trigger the instinct of the folks on the ther side and explain what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. > please join me in thanking our panel.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> after serving 14 years as the longest r tenure rick perry is retiring at the end of his current term. democratic state senator wendy davis and republican state attorney general greg abbott are running to replace him. they debate tonight 9:00 p.m. on c-span.e right now a look at some of the race.ign ads from that >> a guy in a wheel clear can somefaster than traffic on roads in texas. i'm greg abbott and my plan is

billions for road construction without raising teams paying for it by ensuring money dedicated will be spent on roads and no more taking it to pay for pet projects. elect me and i will get texas moving. >> in a texas courtroom greg case against our children. he fought for $5 billion in cuts education made by his insider bud chris and now he is -- he is proposing standardizing tests to 4-year-olds. davis will reduce the number of standardized tests and bureaucratic waste and build hard working all texans. >> wendy davis is embroiled in scandal again. as a state senator davis used er influence to win lucrative

taxpayer furnished contracts and voted on bills that helped her own law firm. profited from her day job by voting and twisting arms in the senate. cost from potential to real conflicts of interest. work is part of an open f.b.i. investigation. unethical behavior, unfit to be governor. > he was a texas surgeon performing operations while reportedly using cocaine. were tients died, others paralyzed. the rs spoke out but hospital did nothing. families and victims sued the hospital. quarter er accepting a million dollar campaign from the ospital chairman greg abbott got his office to go to court against the victims. insider not nother working for you. texas governor debate between democratic wendy davis and republican greg abbott

tonight 9:00 eastern on c-span. just before that, at 8:00 p.m. on c-span 2 the 3 1/2 with house oversight the secret service director testifying. right now we will show you some 0 minutes of that hearing starting with questions for the secret service director from man jason chafetz. told us there were three different officers that recognized him the day the incident land but didn't report it. true?t true or not >> it is my understanding based briefed two been of the officers recognized mr. gonzalez in the area of the on september 19 and observed him for some time. remembered him from the contact they had with him on

when was on the south fence line. they observed him for some time. acting ot inappropriately. he didn't violate any laws. report that and didn't not approach him, correct? >> i think they noted it but approach him. >> and they didn't report it? knowledge.my >> i recognize the gentleman from georgia for five minutes. thank you, phrfrpl. i think that there are several concerns and one thing i agree whole heartedly with, with the ranking member, there is both the republicans and democrats we are talking about the white house. icon.world everyone you think of america you think of the white house. and f the concerns i have we have been mentioning many of on just s recently different events is the issue is that have beenls put in place and how they were not done. therethe issue of why are

seemingly so many issues on a foundational level because if we is a know why there willingness to report, or a a lingness to exercise willingness to say this is something i have noticed. the officer said she didn't feel she could report. you ere are issues where are having the incidents jeff cease and other places there foundational issue we've got to address in these, not only from your perspective from -- there are several things i want to address. you made a statement a moment you said in one sentence we 300 people a year around 300 a day in the same sentence. which is it? >> talking to our protective intelligence division as of they were directly overseeing 327 investigations. >> so, in totality we are looking at 327.

is, you saidi have you are still making a review but it is our understanding it reported and visual as our colleague from district of there's a inted out new perimeter or police line perimeter put in front of the white house. is that correct? >> we have put up a temporary -- >> yes or no. us withstand after area to the fence while this investigation is under way. >> mrs. pierson i thank you to long answer but i have several things because they are important. you made several comments that investigation and saying why the protocols were not briefed and how they we there but yet you said don't want to rush to change or change things but yet we have putting up ted with a perimeter fence or a barrier now back from the fence currently. i'm wondering here, the problem the fence.m to be it seems to be the fact that justin jumped the fence and

ran 70 yards into the white stopping them.dy my father was in law enforcement so this is hard for me in there but you made an analogy that i'm not sure should be accurate. and alk about discretion restraint. discretion and restraint the way you encompass it is police do there all the time. they do so on the side of the road with a stop. talking about officers that are protecting a national icon. when this he jump the fence should be an immediate understanding this person shouldn't be here and there should be an immediate not a anding there is refactor. there is not the nice cuddly secret service. move you back off. someone running i'm having rouble how you correlate restraint and discretion in a way ic situation wigs the it came across to somebody going after the president's home. >> representative, i have stated

they did not properly execute the security protocols that are appropriate to respond -- you believe that is because of information or guidance they have gotten from the top they what to do?e have they been told to exercise estraint in these measures or exercise protection? >> those officers have the legal law o take enforcement action as individuals. conducting an investigation to find out what were the decisions that were made, what facts in the totality of the circumstances those officers saw. to give mrs. pierson a break because this issue of front the fence line in or a barrier and looking at this to makein we are trying ourselves appear better as aware working on it. as hard as that is to say this

president and his family deserve protected. it is concerning they were not told about the shooting until florida is mind boggle -- later. especiallyd boggling when their daughter was in residence that night. >> i have a question. putting the fence, is this the only fix here? we have not heard from anybody else. me, is there a better way to go about this? perspective protecting u.s. embassies around the world as mr. basham pointed is a con centric laring. typically fences are meant it keep good people out. find ways over fences. so, you can't simply rely on a be your last resort. has think the issue that come as we go forward is the protection of this not just a icon but a world icon and the threatened environment we re in it is concerning

get half truth to start and more thats when this is a group wants to say what is the issue and why are we not doing it the putting up a visual we are doing something is not right. the foundation has to be laid last few years the secret service has a foundational problem and that is with gger issue along protocols not being followed. thingant to make sure one feels clear -- was clear. irector, the failure to apprehend mr. gonzalez before he ot well into the white house, the change of further setback or fence, since you successfully 16 jumpers in the last five years, you said that in the opening testimony, was there any you couldn't have stopped 17? in other words, you are taking american peoples space with this additional fence and proposal for a setback that include pennsylvania and yet ette being restricted,

you have made no case here today that you couldn't have will 17 if not 7 apprehensions for outright human error and failures. isn't that true? > the placing of the pwaoeubgt ra make sure s to personnel and procedures will be effective with the time individualsthat the have to be able to effect an response to tical runners or fence jumpers. >> so i guess you are not up to level you would like to be and until you are extra time.t the i get that but that is a little concerning. mr. lynch. >> thank you, mr. chairman. witnesses.e madam director, i want to go prior contacts between mr. gonzalez and secret service.

colleague noted there was a prior contact with in july of back 2014. he had been pulled over and he arsenal of weapons in the car. i just want to try to explore, the red flag come up for the secret service? was informed vice that he had 11 weapons in the car. go over -- i have the evidence list from the state olice that was provided to secret service. r. tkpwopz will a maverick model 8812-gauge pump service shotgun in the car. springfield armory 308 in chester with a scope and bipod. jagger 885 with a red dot car.ope in the he had a tri-star 12-gauge

in the car. .r.-15 a pretty sophisticated weapon with a flashlight and scope. vanguard 270 erby caliber bolt action rifle with a bipod.nd smith and wesson 380 caliber automatic black handgun. he had a glock 45 in the car ith an empty magazine although later we found he had 800 rounds of ammunition. revolver, gnum another 45 caliber. this is thea map -- evidence list and you seem to be this.zing all of one map of washington, d.c. with writing and a line drawn to the white house. that is what we have with our

mr. gonzalez.o then in august of 2014 -- and that we know he has a history of mental illness. up at the white house in august of 2014 and he's got a belt.t in his no red flags. you let him go. the day he jumps the fence and runs into the white house and i want to talk for a minute. you say he came in through the went through the front door at the portico, and -- orestled to the ground to the carpet actually you said nearestled down to the rug the green room. i just want to remind you that of distance from the front the white house where he came in to the green room is about 80 feet. this is only 60 feet. he width of this room is 60

feet. yard. wouldn't be 80 70 yards of the lawn. it is 30 yards inside the house. many, many there times. talk about somebody transver the white house foyer the full length of the room, down to the green room to the american public that be half of a white house to tour. would be.t that that's not just getting inside the portico. white house of a tour to the american public. minimizing this stuff. i'm wondering when does the red up for the secret service? i know you have got a lot of there.ul people over

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

so, what are we going to do -- thing is this whole the united states secret service one mentally challenged m man. one man with mental illness that illness.had mental this is the secret service against one individual with illness. and you lost. you lost. you had three shots at this guy, three chances and he got to the in the white house. what happens when you have a with ticated organization resources ntent and going up against the secret service? what happens then? >> the gentleman's time is

expired. gentlelady has any answers to any of has questions hearing them.iate >> let me be clear, the united states secret service does not any of these incidents lightly. they are all -- respect, that is my point. as a casual observer to what and here i don't think the secret service is taking their duty to protect the american and his family at the white house, i don't think you are taking it seriously. point.s exactly my based on the evidence. based on the evidence and the lapses, unfortunately that is the conclusion that i arrive at. job you are not taking your seriously. i'm sorry, i late to be a lot at but we've got stake here. i know people are dancing around , but i have to call it like it is. leconfidence -- low

servicece in the secret under your leadership. and that is not easy for me to say. evidence that e is how we have to call it here. my d on the evidence confidence in you protecting the american president right now at the white house, supposed to be most secure buildings in the country if not the world, in you doing that is very low right now. >> i thank the gentleman. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. pierson i want to come back. march of ppointed in 2013. is that correct? >> yes, that is correct. >> so, what three things have to improve the culture since you have gotten there, very briefly? limited time. what three things have you done to improve the culture because hat has been brought up that there is a culture problem. >> we have instituted an office professional integrity, established a new discipline process so it is done in a more

and consistent we have. we have initiated development training for supervisors and work involvement work force. > so you have done some training and new positions because i'm concern when that people came up i watch and no less than for people that are here with you today agreed you have a cultural problem and you could tell from their issue es that there's an within the agency. ut i also want to go back and give you a chance to correct your testimony. i thought i heard earlier that short 500hat you were uniformed secret service people sequestration. i can't believe that would be -- ate so i will divisive give you a chance to correct that. >> across the organization the down 550 vice is personnel. >> would the gentleman yield a second. a ld you stop the clock for second? the amount of people in the u.s.

you were vice the day sworn in and amount that are there today if you would please ecause these numbers are full-time equivalents and so on and i think all of us on the dais have a right to understand impact is from the day you were sworn in. well, i don't have those specific numbers for you today. chafetz did bring much no basic re training classs in 2012 and 2013. >> we are talking about number saying 500nd you are fewer people. that cannot be right, director. correct, sir, over the last two years. >> i will tell you why it is confusing. looking at your budget request for last year and it request ere in your that you plan to reduce the 376 full-time equivalents. why would you do that? whyou are already short 500 would you, in your budget full-time quest 376

equivalent reductions? i'm confused. wouldn't you be confused. need to be d we reducing the number of years of five years over the next four years. confused why would we want less experienced secret service agents, director? these are your numbers. do you have an answer? >> i do know that we have rovided a human capital strategy to the congress at their request that outlines -- your requests. and let me tell you what is more confusing. i will go further. it says the committee, the congressional committee, is president's t the budget request creates a pay shortfall that will result in reduction of at least 376 this ime equivalents and

will fundamental ly affect the mission within the secret service. the committee was recognizing not you. do you not think that creates a you are problem when seeking reductions and you are testifying today that you have few people? --you see the lie pock si in in that? >> i see the difficulty in trying to operate a critical federal agency in times of fiscal constraint. >> since you are talking about fiscal constraints, because i tarted looking quickly because i agree with mr. lynch, we need theo all we can to give you tools to make sure you can change the culture and protect our president. it. started looking at but i was concerned to find a histle blower came to us and said you spent over $1 million suite.executive luxury

is that correct? on the eighth floor? eighth floor over $1 luxury suite on a since you have come to power. >> i don't know what that is in to.erence >> did you spend $1 million or ore on a conference room outfitting it, a luxury suite on floor?ghth yes or no. >> no. what we have done is spent money director's our crisis center. >> the director's crisis center ninth floor.he now we have done it again on the eighth floor and we have floor.s on each is that correct? -- >> the information he has talks of t the integration director's crisis center -- >> how do you know? because the whistle brother to us. >> i know what we have done in the way of installations.

locator on the -- do you have a locator on the eighth loor, geneva multiple -- >> do you have one on the eighth floor? >> yes. >> is that a secure area is it yes. >> is the eighth floor a secure area where vendors that don't classified, can they go in and out if they don't have clearance, on the eighth floor? all of our vendors are escorted or have clearance and not a ator itself is classified document. >> so, but it does tell you president and vice president and all relative people are. right? locator, > it is a reference point for our management -- >> why would you need another one when you had two? need another one one floor down in your luxury suite? >> the gentleman's time has expired. may answer.dy >> we need to have instant

toormation for us to be able make informed decisions as a management team and having quick access and being able to leverage technology and look at camera views and information to us real-time from our protective missions is critically important to me. critically important to my staff. this is where the area where key and it is re played integrated with other systems throughout the building. back.. chairman, i yield i think we need to explore there further though. the gentleman. for the director, during the hearing we are going to try to more accurately the correct number because i have to tell you from the dais i think all of us want to understand this 500. authorized 0 uniformed officers, 1,300 on and we don't show that is an appreciable drop during your -- tenure as the budget has

gone up with 2,200 agents. where the ng to see 500 shortfall is full-time other than the legacy of never filling the authorized slots. additionalo give the time to the gentleman from virginia. but if you will answer just one it typical that although your budgets are ncreasing you plus-up going into the 2016 or a presidential cycle and that is when you want have lesser ou do requirements when you don't have presidential candidates and so on? i'm very concerned about the coming before congress at a time we are giving you more than you are asking for and complaining about sequestration and limited resources. so, be prepared to answer that. i'm not going to take the time now now. questions will continue in there hearing and we will follow up in writing.

gentleman from virginia mr. connolly is recognized. >> thank you, mr. president. pierson in light of the facts that have come out and thrust far, had the first family been in the anywhere in rs or the white house with you onclude professionally that there was a threat to the first family? > yes, i think mr. gonzalez coming into the main floor threat.is a >> i think it is really remember, you know, i was a freshman in high school 22, 1963.r at that f us who lived time remember where and when we when wherd the terrible news from dallas. mind is that secret service agent mr. hill who threw

himself on the speeding car that the president and first lady and used his body to .hield her it is a sacred mission the secret service has. it is not an easy mission. but it is very troubling to all our duly elected were ent and his family actually potentially in real jeopardy on the white house .rounds itself i wonder whether you would agree that we you look at every aspect of this, sadly, it represents a .omprehensive failure they add up one by one. i think there was a failure to

threat gonzalez seriously after the information provided by the virginia state police. we knew he had a history of mental illness. up new that he was loaded with guns. is he had a map of washington. you indicate that map was tourist map just a looking at places he might go. the might make sense except fact he was loaded with ammunition and weapons in his car at the time. has my friend from utah made headlines and made a statement here today he believes reaction should be one of maximum force. i guess we should read that to he should be shot on sig fence, he crosses the when he goes over the fence. i'm very reluctant to join him kind of advice to the secret service because there is

family in the white house, there are guests in the white house. bustling place and the idea that we're going to have a shootout on the white grounds seems to me a last resort, not a first resort. and i'm not sure members of congress ought to be in the spelling out secret service protocols for you. i'm not sure that is our competence. having said that, one can still the reaction of site was service on profound profoundly inadequate and put the potentially first family in direct jeopardy, harm.cal and i don't sense from you, sense of ierson, a outrage about that. a sense of mission that you want to reform and correct this that ing set of mistakes

led to potentially a catastrophe states. united could you comment? get that ry you don't sense from me. i have spent a career in the secret service protecting presidents, their families in the white house in addition to other missions. there is nothing more sacred to agent, ret service uniform division officer or professional employee than our responsibilities for mission success. we don't take it lightly. but we do it under very ifficult and challenging conditions. there is not a lot we can do in managing individuals with mental illness who do not commit a crime or do not put themselves position where the secret service can take further actions against them. the system ed by that we have to work within. the laws of our country. >> mrs. pierson, i don't doubt sincerity.te your

what i said is i don't sense any sense of outrage about what happened. >> we all are outraged in the secret service of how this pass.ent came to that is why i have asked for a full review. obvious, it is obvious, that mistakes were made. it is self-evident they were made. e must identify the facts, learn from them, make changes, nlands training to ensure -- enhance training to make sure it doesn't happen again. we have a proud history of going back to do actions after every incident to apply better to ensure the es protection of those we are bound to protect. is really that important and i think it is really important in this hearing thatd this we remember there are real human and securitysafety is at stake and it just so happens one of those human

elected not once but twice by a majority of this and ry to be its president that sacred responsibility has to be upper most in our minds. if that means that eputations fall, careers get interrupted, demotions occur or people get fired. that of his d family is the paramount concern here and that is what we all be concerned about. thank you, mr. chairman. my time is up. who now go to gentleman served in what i think fairly is called difficult conditions both in iraq.m and and with all due respect i think e will object to your calling working at the white house a difficult environment. he gentleman from michigan mr. bentivolio is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mrs. pierson thank

service.our the secret service one of the offices and from to stigating counterfeiters protecting the united states. i commend you all for your the past.service in but mr. basham -- did i that right? >> basham. >> thank you very much. went r introduction you intrueupinnetrudeave an are that got into the white house and we have a hearing about that and you said we will as well had away shot him once he jumped the fence and you are absolutely right. but i was trained you only use much force as absolutely necessary to subdue or fix the

undue , never any more force and that is a difficult challenge in itself, is it not? but we have dogs patrolling the white house and you seemed to 10 other tten about probably protocols you could person d to subdue that before they went into the white house. correct? >> yes, sir. after-action review were any of those considered and action could they have taken to stop the intruder white he entered the house? >> clearly ars the director stated -- clearly, as the director stated there much mistakes, failures, opportunities to take this individual down. reactions of the officers that were in place at the time. and they clearly did not take actions. that is why the director has to and staff, has to determine why they made those making s or lack of

those decisions and understand what was going through their on on on the going white house grounds. clutter situation. they need time to do the investigation to determine what circumstances were on the ground. >> thread the opportunity to do an -- they had an opportunity to do an investigation when -- out there was d mr. gonzalez had guns in his white house. the i would have been asking a lot more questions other than just go.ting him why wasn't he brought in for further questions by the secret especially? >> just the map alone i think that wyers call preponderance of evidence indicating he will some intent doing something wrong, illegal. jeopardizing the president of united states and the white house. why wasn't he brought in for questioning then? director did he was that the individual

interviewed and agents made a determination, which is a very make,ult determination to as to whether the individual to theepresents a threat president of the united states. >> are we privy to those questions and that report, mr. chairman? do we have access to that report? >> in an appropriate setting we make them available. >> even subsequent to that, when hey interviewed him we he was unless he is breaking the law, there is no power that the secret service has. that is the difficulty they have. i agree with the representative. i do not believe we want the , when somebody fence, theirhe

first reaction is to kill somebody. that is not acceptable. >> it is well within the power to use the dogs. at the same time, it could be a diversion. there are a lot of things going on. >> in 1976 there was an individual who came over the fence, 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. >> we now go to the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> ms. pierson, 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 breach was unacceptable, and whatever other adjectives here today from both sides of the dais, inadequate, shocking, disgraceful, outrageous. is there any one of those adjectives you disagree with? >> no. >> thank you. >> 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 goo unlawfullyzalez

injured the white house while armed. you can see the entire hearing on our companion network at 8:00 p.m. eastern. on the next washington journal, recent security breaches at the white house and what the white -- secret service should be doing to protect the first family. then a report on the primary season. laurie abraham talks about her recent interview with supreme court justice ginsburg. calls, facebook, and tweets.

washington journal is live every morning. >> here are a few of the comments we have received from our viewers. >> ima c-span viewer. viewer.a c-span when you allow republican representatives are senators, you need to be more demanding of honesty. and do notere address the issues. they demagogue and filibuster. i wish you guys would say to the caller asked you a specific question. would you please answer it? see theld like to c-span morning call and have a line set up specially when there

, thatepresentative on line be set up for the people in the representative's district. so they can call and directly to that person and ask questions. i thought that would be a good idea and a good way for the representative to be accountable to your from their constituents. themyou have them on, let be questioned or commented by their constituents. >> i think c-span is a great show. when you have a republican on or democrat, it -- should be both. if a republican is on, we need a democrat on read -- we need a democrat on. i figured is a disservice when you put a democrat on and let him spew what he wants to spew. and then a republican or vice versa.

i think that format would be better for the american people. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs. call us. e-mail us. send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. cam-span's student competition is underway. this come addition for middle school students and high school students will award prizes totaling $100,000. 5-7 minute documentary about the cream ranches and you -- about the three branches and you. go to student cam.org for more information. grab a camera and get started today. >> coming up in a couple of minutes, the head of the white

house national economic council will talk about the health of the u.s. and global economy. campaign 2014 coverage continues in one hour. we will be live from texas for a governor's debate. the current governor, rick perry, is not running for reelection. here are some of the ads running in that race. a guy in a wheelchair can move faster than some roads in texas. newlan adds billions for road construction without raising taxes, fees, or tolls. we pay for it by assuring money will be spent totally on roads. no more taking highway funds to pay for pet projects. elect me and i will get texas moving. >> in