someone who only sworn law enforcement officials should be in close proximity to the president who are armed. in this case, we did not follow the proper procedures. it's not a matter of necessarily changing policies but more of an indication that we need to do better training. and reshape some of the training that we're doing with our folks on the protection details. >> on that, what is your policy for determining when third parties may be armed while in the proximity of the president, or another protected individual? how do you go about determining that? >> sir the advance agent will ask, first, is anyone -- if there's local security at the site, is anyone armed. and then, needless to say, we also do records checks on everyone who's going to be in close proximity of the president. in this case, again, we failed our procedures in allowing this gentleman to operate the elevator armed. >> thank you very much.

my time has expired and i will now recognize the ranking member of the crime subcommittee the gentleman from virginia mr. scott for his questions. >> thank you. director clancy, thank you for being here. >> yes, sir. >> one of the problems we have around here frequently is that when we do budgets, we don't think tax cuts affect the budget, and that budget cuts don't affect your ability to provide services. can you describe a little bit about the budget ups and downs over the last three or four years? >> yes, sir. when i came back to the secret service and accepted this position, i identified three three main areas of concern. one was staffing. one was training. and obviously the morale, as well. staffing is -- it's a complicated issue. back in 2011, we were at a high point with our staffing. we had approximately 7,024 security personnel back in 2011.

2012 and 2011 -- i'm sorry, 2012 and 2013 we had a severe drop-off. there were some uncertain times from a budget standpoint and also we realized, from what i understand, is that that 7,024 number was unsustainable. we were not able to year after year continue to pay the pay of those employees. so our numbers dropped down. now in 2014 -- >> wait, director, did you need 7,024 people? >> yes, sir. >> okay, keep going. >> so in 2014 -- in 2014, with the help of congress, we were able to hire 238 new security professionals. which was a good help to us. but we were starting from scratch after not hiring very few people in 2012 and 2013. so we're starting to work our way back up, and needless to say, in 2015, that's a priority. right now we've got schedule 6 classes of uniformed officers,

and six classes of special agents prepared to go through training this year. >> now, you are understaffed. what does that do to people's vacation time, and overtime? >> yes, sir. it affects their vacation time. it affects overtime drastically. our uniform division works extremely hard, but very often they get their days canceled or their -- they have to extend their workday. and that has a severe effect on their morale. and it obviously has an effect on freining which is something we're going to correct moving forward. >> when you're understaffed what happens -- can you explain what happens to training? >> yes, sir. when we are understaffed it's difficult to get people out to their training assignments because of the operational needs of the service. so, one of the things we've done to alleviate that in the short-term is we've brought agents in from the field. to take some of these positions that uniform division has at the white house complex so that we can get people out to training. >> what happens when people are

not properly trained? >> when we're not properly trained, sir, we fail. >> now, we have coming up next year another round of sequester, 10% across the board cut. what would that do to your staffing morale and training? >> sir, that would have an effect on our staff, and on our training, and on our morale. we will continue to do our very best to fulfill the needs, and we will meet the needs of the protection of the white house, first family. we'll do whatever we need to do to make sure we meet those requirements. >> well, if you meet those requirements then something's got to give. what priorities will not be met if you need to transfer people on to the white house security? >> sir, sometimes we do have to reach out to our field offices, who are doing a tremendous job as the chairman had mentioned in his opening remarks. their investigative functions are sometimes, we take some of

those agents to support us in a protective mode. >> did the transfer -- do you know if the transfer from treasury to the homeland security had any effect on your ability to perform your mission. >> sir, i don't think i'm one to evaluate. i was manager when we were in the treasury department. certainly i've had good exposure and experience with the department of homeland security and we've used them, as i've been briefed from the most recent united nations. we used our other components within the department of homeland security to assist us in that united nations security plan. we used their hsi investigators to help us with post standing. we used their tsa agents to assist us with meg net-o-meters. we use the coast guard to assist us with our water sea support and air support. so we were able to use the components of the department of homeland security to assist us in a very critical mission.

>> just for the record, when the fence jumper incident occurred, where was the president and the first family? >> sir, when the fence jumper on september 19th occurred, the president had just left for camp david, and the first lady was out of the residence, as well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. clancy, good to have you with us this morning. >> thank you, sir. >> mr. clancy, if i were going to pursue an activity to direct attention to me, i believe i would find some exercise other than volunteering as a fence jumper at the white house. but that's me. maybe i'm in a minority in that role. >> yes, sir. >> but it's been reported that the service had multiple contacts with gonzalez prior to september 19th incident. will any review of that event include a review of how information regarding the

suspect prior to that date was handled, including information gathered by the secret service investigators following gonzalez's arrest on july 19th, 2014? >> yes, sir. that's correct, sir. do you want me to explain a little bit what happened? >> if you would do that. >> yes, sir. during that time, sir, when mr. gonzalez was arrested down in virginia, our roanoke office was advised of the arrest. there was consultation between the local authorities, and our agents, and at that time our agents did not interview mr. gonzalez. subsequent to that, when mr. gonzalez posted bond, our agents did interview mr. gonzalez, and we were aware of the weapons that he had in his vehicle. we were also aware of the map that he had in his possession. this is one of the most

difficult, decisions an agent has to make. make an assessment of someone they're interviewing with whether or not that individual has the potential or the motive to do harm to any of our protectees. and during that interview, mr. gonzalez did not exhibit any of those characteristics. he did not indicate in any way that he wanted to harm any of our protectees or indicate in any way that he wanted to harm any of our protectees of the president. subsequent to that, he did come to the white house for outside the white house perimeter. and as he was walking around the perimeter, one of our uniformed officers noticed he was -- he was a little suspicious the way he was walking, and there was a bulge in the back of his jacket. as i've been briefed here. and the officer approached him, and noticed that he had a hatchet in the back of his pants. as i was briefed. the hatchet, my understanding,

in d.c. is not in violation of the law, if it's considered to be used for camping-type activities. and that's what his individual indicated he had the hatchet for. the individual also allowed for -- gave a consent search of his vehicle. so he was very cooperative during the interview. when they searched his vehicle, there were no weapons found in the vehicle. there were other hatchets. there was other camping equipment to again to his story that he was involved in camping activities. so, again, he was released from our -- from the interview. then subsequently, on september 19th, he did return to the white house, and again three of the officers who were familiar with the hatchet interview recognized him. and to be candid, one of the things we've addressed since that incident, is that we've got to do a better job of communicating.

those officers who saw mr. gonzalez walking on the perimeter of the white house, we did not do a good enough job of communicating to everyone, including our joint operations center, that he was in the vicinity again. >> thank you, mr. clancy. the question before that red light illuminates. >> yes, sir. >> do you intend to review the white house's physical infrastructure or security risks? is it solely within the discretion of the service to update the physical security systems in place within the white house and surrounding grounds? and which other agencies or offices, if any, must approve any recommended improvements? >> yes, sir. that's a good question. thank you, sir. we are constantly evaluating all the security measures at the white house complex. in fact, the very first week, i walked the perimeter of the white house, as well as the interior of the white house, and looked at the security measures we have in place. now any adjustments we want to make, just as an example, the fence, we have to work with our partners, and we're happy to do

that. and we've gotten very good cooperation with our partners to include the national capital planning commission, the fine arts commission, the national park service, and we work with those agencies on the perimeter of the white house for any adjustments we want to make. >> i thank you for that, sir. >> yes, sir. thank you, sir. >> chairman, i yield back. >> thanks, the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from tennessee mr. hoen for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's a great honor to follow the gentleman from north carolina who has served this committee so ably for so many years and been a friend to me. and i appreciate that. >> thank you. >> the white house protection, does the secret service protection begin on the inside of the fence, or does secret service have personnel on the outside of the fence on 16? >> sir, we have a presence on the outside perimeter as well, yes, sir. >> do the d.c. police normally also provide some type of perimeter screening?

>> sir, d.c. police is also on the outside. but the actual perimeter, the protection of the white house complex, would be the responsibility of the secret service. and we do have people that are in several different -- several different job descriptions on the perimeter of the white house. >> on the day in question of september 19, 2014, how many agents were on the 16th street side, that's opposite andy jackson? lafayette square? how many folks were on the street beyond the white house perimeter? >> yes, sir. sir, typically we would have on the street two uniform division officers, but we also have some countersurveillance units that could be in that area by lafayette park. we also have posts that are right inside the gate -- >> but on the outside you have just a couple? none of them saw this man jump the fence? >> sir, they saw him prepping to

jump the fence. by that they can usually see the body language of individuals who, as you know, so many pedestrians come up to the fence, but our officers, and other security folks, they recognize when someone is threatening to maybe prep to climb the fence and they started to move in that direction. and as they started to make a move for the fence, they shouted verbal commands, sprinted to the -- to mr. gonzalez, and they were about an arm's length or two arm's lengths short of reaching him. >> and then what did they do then? did they jump over the fence, too? or were they incapable of doing that? >> no, sir. protocol there, sir is first to get on the radio and one of the officers did get on the radio to announce a fence jumper. then, their next role is to clear the fence line of all the guests and all the tourists that are on pennsylvania avenue. once that individual, in this case, gonzalez, had climbed over the fence, now it's the responsibility, primarily, of our emergency response team, and our other officers, that are

inside the fence. >> and it's easy to second-guess. i mean, i would do it every saturday watching football. but doesn't it seem like they should have tried, been able to leap the fence and chased him from behind and not just done what you said, come radio communication and clear other folks? they -- they didn't try to apprehend the person other than yell? >> no, sir. everyone has a specific position to hold. when an event like that happens. one of the reasons is because of the k-9. one of the tools that we have, it can affect how the k-9 react to that individual. i will say that as a result of september 19th, if you go by the white house you'll see that we have a biker out there now which we know is not going to prevent someone from jumping the fence but it will allow us a little more time to react to someone who may have designs on climbing the fence. that's been helpful. >> is that the only area we've

had any history of people trying to enter the white house from the outside? >> no, sir. we've had people jump fences -- the fence on other parts of our perimeter. i will see that north grounds is more prominent in people jumping, yes. >> would a moat -- >> moat? >> water, six feet around be kind of attractive and effective? >> sir, it may be. one of the things we balance is obviously the accessibility of the white house. we recognize the historic nature of the white house, and how the american people should have access to the white house. so, we are now in the process of working with our partners at the national park services to see if we can do something with the fence. that's our first step, so if we can do something that would still be appeasing to the eye and keep the historical nature of the white house, but, --

>> like a higher fence? >> maybe a higher fence, sir. or maybe some other -- >> because this guy got further in the white house than some of my republican colleagues have ever gotten. >> yes, sir. yes, sir, but you're right, sir, a higher fence would certainly help us, and we're looking for ways and options. in fact we hope within the next few months to have some renderings, some drawings, some options for people to look at. >> the incident november 11th, there's hardly anything we can do about somebody from a great distance with a rifle is there? >> well, it's very challenging, yes, sir, you're right. but what we have done as a result of that is we've pushed out our perimeter a little further to constitutional avenue, to again to monitor that area, as well. >> i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> chair thanks gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. thank you for being here. i have a great admiration for the secret service, back from the days when i was a judge in

texas. i had agents bring cases, they were well prepared, and they did very well, and well received by juries. and i think that's still the case today. >> thank you, sir. >> the secret service does a lot of things >> yes, sir. >> is your number one priority protecting the president and the president's family? >> yes, sir, absolutely. our number -- >> so that's number one. >> yes, sir. >> and everything else is below there and you're in charge of all that? >> absolutely, yes, sir. >> i think i believe that the united states because of who we are, it's really neat that the people can go to the white house where the president lives. >> yes, sir. >> you can't do that in any other countries. whether it's western countries, or third world countries. you can't go see who's in charge. you can't go to their house. you know. and we get to do that. american citizens get to do that.

i think that's a good thing. let's go back to the fence jumpers. there have been 16 fence jumpers of recent years, is that correct? >> yes, sir. and then october 22nd i think we add one to that -- >> 17. >> yes, sir. >> all right. jumping the fence, going on to the white house grounds without permission, and i guess that would include republicans, as well, going without permission, would be a -- is a federal offense, correct? >> yes, sir. >> of those 16, leave out gonzalez, what happened to those 16 other fence jumpers? >> sir, i -- >> were they prosecuted? were they told to not do it again? were they released at the time? what happened to those 16 fence jumpers who presumably violated federal law by jumping the white house fence? >> sir, i know charges were filed. i'll have to get back to you with the exact how that played out in court, sir. i don't have those figures in

front of me. >> i would appreciate it if you would take each one of those cases, date, and what -- whether they were prosecuted and then the rule of the prosecution. >> yes, sir. >> and send that to the chairman of the committee who will share it with the rest of us. >> yes, sir. will do, sir. >> but that is the priority of the secret service is protecting the president. >> it is, sir. >> it seems to me that the secret service cannot make a mistake. this is one area where, you know, you're protecting the president. the president's family. there can't be mistakes. and if there are mistakes, but for some other intervening reason, bad things are going to happen. i believe that that makes, you know, your job, as you now -- i mean as you know the secret service knows, very serious, and very important. there could be no mistakes. ever. this is no -- you cannot do a redo if there is a mistake of security of the president and the president's family.

at the white house there are not -- there's not just the secret service that is there. there's also the white house police, is that correct? >> sir, there's a uniformed division branch of the secret service that protects the white house. >> so they're still secret service? >> they're secret service. >> they're not white house police. >> they're not -- years ago they were called white house police many years ago, yes, sir. but now it's uniform division of the secret service. >> okay. so it's all secret service. >> it is,ier, sir. >> it is, yes, sir. >> are there -- are there protocols when people jump the fence? 16 people jump the fence to make sure that the president and the president's family, if that's the ultimate goal of fence jumper to get to them -- >> yes, sir. >> that will not happen? >> yes, sir, and obviously on september 19th we failed in the execution of that security plan, but we do have very specific assignments, responsibilities of

our all of our tactical units as well as our officers at the white house complex. and they've been successful in all cases. >> i have a couple more questions with a minute left. >> yes, sir. >> you're not trying to say this event occurred because of so-called budget problems, are you? >> no, sir. >> it has nothing to do with the budget? because that's your number one priority is protecting the president. all the other things the secret service do and do well is dekd dare? >> yes, sir, that's credit. >> clolombia, how many agents were involved in the scandal? >> i was not assigned at that time. >> i know you weren't in charge. do you know how many agents were involved? >> there were 13 and i believe 10 are no longer with us. >> you all fired ten of them or let them retire? >> yes, sir. >> something like that. all right. i thank you for your help today. good luck to you. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you, sir. >> chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentlewoman from washington. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you, director clancy for being with us today. >> thank you. i wanted to ask you regarding the september 19th incident in particular, can you explain further the radio communications challenges that were experienced? there were several officers unable to hear any quote comprehensible radio communications to notify them of the fence jumper, leading to, for example, a delay in deploying the canine unit. so is it concerning that some officers experienced unclear and muffled radio communications about the alarm break, and can you talk about what might have caused these communications challenges? whether it was people didn't know how to operate the equipment properly or whether there was actually problems with the communications infrastructure, the the underlying infrastructure? >> yes, thank you. we are very concerned with the radio communication.

for us to execute our security plan, we've got to have good communication. and that night we did not have communication we should have had. we -- i did read the report by the deputy secretary of homeland, and he highlighted that as one of our failings, the communication on that evening. we immediately went out and checked all of the radios at the white house complex as well as our joint operation center, and we did discover some areas at the joint operation center that the commander at the joint information center, when he put out word that there was a fence jumper, he was under the impression, and that his communication would override the hand held, but they did not. now we've corrected that. so when the joint operation center has to get a message out, that will override any hand held radio communication. there was also some reports of the muffling of radio

communication. sometimes that's in the heat of battle. people have to slow down, use radio discipline and explain exactly what happened. we did a review of any dead spots. were there any dead spots of radio communication? and we found there are no dead spots. but the command post was one area we had to correct. and that has been corrected. >> and given communication is critical to deploying resources in a situation like this. the the report recently issued by dhs suggests easing infrastructure may have contribul.l. so are there specific resources that may be preventing you from doing the best job you can? is there modernization to the infrastructure that is going to be important? and can can you give me any feedback on what you think will be more helpful in terms of the

tools available to your officers? >> yes, as i've been briefed, that is a main concern. sochl our equipment is aging. that is one of the areas we are looking at to try to enhance our radio communications. it's outdated, some of it. it's still operational. we are always looking to improve the assets that we have. >> and do you know specifically what it is that you would prefer to have or what would be helpful? >> i don't have anything specific. it's more technical that i would have faxed today. but we'll provide a report for you. >> thank you, thank you. i appreciate it. i think i'll yield back my time. ch thank you, mr. chair. >> chair thanks the gentlewoman and is pleased to recognize the gentleman from utah. also to congratulate him on the new assignment in the the new congress on chairman of the house oversight committee. >> i thank the chairman and director. i thank you for being here. the president made an

exceptional choice by putting you in this position in a difficult situation. i appreciate your service to this country and your role. you have an internal conduct. my understanding is it deals with false and misleading information. do you expect every person in the secret service to live under this code? >> we do, sir. yes. >> there's no exceptions as to who or should not live under this code about providing false information and the penalties there? >> that's correct, sir. no exceptions. >> and my understanding is that if it is found that you're providing this information, that would be a five-day suspension to removal, correct? >> yes, sir. >> secret service put out a statement on september 20th, 2014, after the fence jumping incident. t where they said, quote, physically apprehended after entering the white house north portico doors.

is that true or not true? >> that is not true, sir. >> it was further said that according to mr. donovan in an associated press article, that was posted on september 20th, 2014, at 1:24 a.m. eastern dlt time, donovan said -- ed donovan. what's his role in the secret service? >> here's our public affairs office. >> donovan said the man appeared unarmed to officers who spotted him climbing the fence, and a search of the suspect turned up no weapons. is that true or not true? >> sir, it's not true. can i elaborate on that, sir? >> let me keep going. >> yes, sir. >> how quickly after he was apprehended did you find the weapon on the suspect that had entered the white house? >> sir, i -- within minutes i would have to assume, sir. >> and somehow, mr. donovan evidently claimed that the

suspect turned up no weapon. this is then posted on the associated press. was there ever a correction given to the -- posted on the secret service website or given to the media that this was inaccurate? >> sir, i don't know the answer to that. >> so they just let that linger out there. let me go on. operation moonlight. mr. donovan is quoted as saying because there was no protective assets used during the checks, there was no impact on protective oerperations. do you believe that to be true or not true? >> sir, from the inspector general's report, everyone indicated it did not affect the protection of the president. >> so you have a prowler unit outside the white house. you have the president of the united states in the white house. and you don't believe that there's trouble by taking those protective assets and moving them close to an hour away from the president himself? >> sir, i've read the inspector general's report and we respect

his report, and we agree with the report that there was poor judgment in sending the prowler unit that distance in this case. >> the inspector general came to the conclusion that the prowler unit would have been unable to respond if there was an incident at the white house. >> that particular prowler unit, yes. that's correct, sir. any agent -- >> so did the president have more or less assets around him from the secret service by uses the prowler unit away? he had less, right? >> he did not have that unit, yes, sir. >> so there was less protection for the president as opposed to more protection from the president. >> >> well, it's a prowler unit. >> we don't know if there's going to be an incident on the president. how do you come to the conclusion that the prowler unit had no affect on the president's security. we were lucky there was no incident. what if there was an incident?

>> sir, we have agented assigned to watch the field office. when they are called to the white house -- >> sorry. i have the yellow light on. i need to ask the core question here. we cited at least two, i believe three incidents, where the public was misled. there was false information. it was not correct. was there any disciplinary action, and who is involved in that chain of command to review what the secret service is saying? because as a member of congress, as a united states citizen, the secret service misled us on purpose. was there any consequence to any personnel? did you follow the code, and did you suspend or remove people from their service? was there any penalty or consequence for providing false information? >> sir, i agree with you that i have the same outrage you have regarding the communication. >> we have to do a much better job of communicating in the internal.

>> did anybody face disciplinary action? you have a major morale problem. and this is why. there doesn't seem to be a consequence to doing something in obvious violation of your own internal codes. >> sir, this was nonan intentional violation of the code. we just haven't communicated as well. >> they just made a mistake. an innocent mistake? was there any consequence? >> no. there was no discipline administered. >> with all due respect, my time is expired. until you actually live by your own codes and you hold people responsible and accountable, you're going to continue to have this problem. there has to be consequences when people purposely and knowingly mislead the press and the congress. >> with respect, sir, again, from what i've heard, been briefed and have seen, i would

not say it's intentional. there's a difference between misconduct and operational errors. and i think there's a very clear distinction. >> did you not know immediately he was apprehended at the the doors or deep in the white house? >> time of the gentleman has expired. he will be permitted to answer the question. you can can answer that question. >> yes, sir, again. some people -- how that information was relaid, again, not being there i don't know how that information was relaid to our public affairs office, but it wasn't relayed in the proper manner. we gave bad information. it's something we cannot do. we have to slow down with our communication. we know it's critical to give accurate information. and that's what our goal is. but we failed on that day. i agree with you, sir. >> the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffries is recognizeded. >> thank you, mr. chair, and thank you, mr. clancy for your service to this country, to the secret service, and for your presence here today.

it's my understanding that the number of threats to this particular president, barack obama in the the white house, has increased significantly since the president first took office in january of 2009. is that correct? >> no, sir. i would say there are spikes. threats rise and lower depending on world events. >> and so how would you characterize from a comparative standpoint the number of threats that this white house or this president has faced as compared to modern presidents over the last 20 or so years? >> yes, sir. our protective intelligence department does metrics regarding just what you're referring to here. and we do compare it to previous administrations, previous presidents. and the last one i looked at, it does look as if the president's

threat level has gone up slightly. but that's not unnatural. it has gone up slightly. >> so the president's threat level has gone up to some degree. and at the same time over the last six years, we've seen security breach after security breach after security breach. i think that is a reason for us to be concerned, if not outrage ed as it relates to the state of the secret service right now. as it relateses to the concern cans that you've established upon your arrival, i think you mentioned three. staffing, training and morale. is that right? >> that's correct, sir. >> and is it fair to say the staffing issues you confront relate to the fact that you don't have the budgetary resources necessary to operate at an optimal level? >> sir, i think our staffing levels from a budget perspective are appropriate at this time.

one of things we need to do to build our staffing is to better our hiring process.ed in an opening statement, it takes about 12 months for us to get people hireding on. we have to do a better job of identifying good quality people early on in the process so we can streamline that process, maybe move that 12 months to 7 months, possibly shorter. # # # as we're experiencing now, first of all, there's still an incredible interest in the secret service. the last job announcement we had 45,000 applicants. only 72 made it through the process and were hired. >> now if i can hone in on that point in terms of interest 234 the secret service. connect it to the problem that you've identified and members of this panel and other members of congress have identified, you've got the elite presidential protection unit, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and that is generally viewed as sort of an optimal assignment within the secret service, is

that fair to say? >> in my view, yes it is, sir. >> you demonstrated yourself in that time. we thank you for that. as it relates to the uniformeded division, there's a general perception among many observers to the secret service that that is viewed as a less than desirable assignment or on a cash system perhaps some may say, as it relates to secret service hierarchy. is that fair? is that fair to say? >> for the uniformed division? >> yes. >> that's a very challenging position. yes, sir. those officers at the white house and in the foreign missions, they have a very challenging mission. i have great admiration for what they do when you consider, as was mentioned earlier, the the number of people in the white house. we have over 300,000 people screened coming through that white house every day. and these officers are confronted with a variety of issues and i have great admiration for the work they do there. >> what can you do to sort of

improve both the morale and the operational ability, the competence of the members of the uniform secret service division who play a very important role, and of course, with the most recent incident we saw in terms of if fence jumping episode, clearly did not perform at a level commensurate to what the american people, the president, and the first family deserve? >> yes, sir. our people are -- they desire more training. they have a passion to get out to our facility for more training. and we've got to get them out there for that additional training. that's one thing that may help their morale. additionally, i think we've got to do a better job of communicating and hearing their sures. and that's why we put more focus on the anonymity of the concerns sent. because these officers want to be heard. and it sits on my director's staff. so twice a week, when i meet with the director staff, they

will bring those issues to the table where i'm sitting. and as much as we want to allow people to communicate up, we have to communicate down as well. and that will help the morale of the uniformed officers, too. training and better communication will be a good start for helping the uniformed officers. >> thank you. yield back. >> thank you. >> chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. marino for his questions. >> thank you. director, it's a pleasure to talk with you today. it's nice to have a fellow pennsylvanian as director of the secret service. i worked for the secret service for 18 years as state and federal prosecutor. and i have nothing but praise for the secret service. you have the best of the best, and i have personal experience there, so i thank the agents for their service. the president made the right choice putting you in this position. i can tell instantly from the way you answered several of

these questions. the right choice of assigning u.s. director. you have your hands full. >> yes, sir. >> there are some changes that have to be made, but i have complete confidence in you that you will square these issues away, improve security, improve morale, et cetera. i do believe that i'm kind of old fashioned. i think secret service should be with treasury, not homeland security. i think there was a finer system of operation there. no disrespect to homeland security. they have their hands full in many other areas. and with that, i'm going to yield back, because many of my questions pertain to the second round. so thank you for being here. >> yes, sir, thank you, sir. >> thank the gentleman. if you'll bear with me, i'll recognize the the next person. mr. sicilini from rhode island.

excuse me. i'll recognize ranking member mr. conyers. >> thank you both. i apologize for my tardiness. and i too welcome mr. clancy. i wanted to raise a little discussion about the ten people that have successfully climbed over the white house fence. and is there any thought yet about how we're going to repair this problem that keeps happening? replacement or a different design, or what are your thoughts as you sit here before the judiciary committee, sir?

>> yes, sir. there's several levels to this, sir. the the first is from our own operational standpoint to address what happened on september 19th. we immediately instituted additional training and integrated training between the tactical units and our uniformed division officers, first with the four-hour block. classroom work. and then additionally six-hour block out of our training facility, where we would do the integrated training, so we could do a much better job and not allow what happened on september 19th to occur again. but additionally, there are some other things that we are looking at to include adjusting to either the height of the fence or some modification to that fence. and again, we've worked very well with our partners at national park services. we've met with them already regarding this concern. and we've also met with the -- we're meeting in the very near future with the national capital planning commission. and the fine arts commission. and with those meetings, we think we're going to do a --

we're going to find some solutions to make it more difficult for people to get over that fence. >> thank you. now the secret service performs two huge missions. one, protecting the president, vice president, their family and dignitary. but also of investigating crimes against our financial system. and some have raised a question whether secret service should maintain both missions and question whether the investigative mission reduces the effectiveness of the protective mission. have you examined these issues yet? >> yes, sir, thank you, sir. and let me just break it up. uniformed division the officers at the white house complex are strictly there for protection. on the agency side of the house, we do have a robust

investigative field office. field offices throughout the country. we think that is critical to our mission. our protective mission and overall mission. the work our agents do in the field allows them to build skills from working the streets, doing interviews, situational awareness, those skills carry over into the protective mode so you're much more attentive, you pay attention to your details. it helps you with your advance work. there's a direct correlation between the investigative side of the house. and to include with the cyber investigations, where we've had great success, we use a lot of those people in our critical protection systems division, which we use on protective movements. we used them significantly with our national special security events. so that we see the correlation between the physical security of our sites as well as the cyber

securit security. >> thank you. let me ask you about the september 19th incident. it revealed numerous problems with radio systems, alarm systems, officer training, physical attributes o f the white house grounds and officer performance. do coyou have any way of determining in your capacity as acting director whether we have facilities in training, to host wholescale drills, to test the equipment so that we can be confident that it will not fail us in the future? >> sir, just as an example, with the training that we've

instituted just recently, again, for retraining, we sent our officers out there. we built a mockup of the white house grounds. we have the proper distance from the north fence line to the north portico. but it's a mockup at our facility. ideally in the future, we would love to have a true replica of the white house. so that our dogs can feel comfortable working in the true environment of what the north grounds are like. so that would be a long-term goal to get a mock-up of the white house at our training facility. >> glad to hear you say that. i ask unanimous consent that my opening statement be in the record. >> without objection. i thank the gentleman from michigan. the chair will now recognize the je nan from north carolina, the the former united states attorney. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director clancy, thank you for being here. i think it's very good that someone with a long history in

the secret service is there to address these problems. like my friend, miss marina. i spent a long time working with the secret service and have nothing but respect. the secret service is always willing to jump into a task force and bring whatever resources they have to the table and how to multitask is always good. they bring a lot to the table and always pride themselves in having prepared cases and so forth. picking up where mr. mari in, a left off, it saddens me to hear the secret service is having such morale problems.

considering the elevated rate of statue in secret service and in talking to agents over the years, some think that the problems with mora wile started when secret service was taken out of treasury and lumped together with a lot of other law enforcement agencies, all great agencies, i'm not saying them. but you were in the the secret service when it was in the treasury department. take a moment and just reflect on that. do you think some of these problems started then, and if so, you know, what have you thought about ways to address morale problems that may have started when secret service left treasury? >> yes, sir, when i was a younger agent, a younger manager in the secret service, we were under treasury. but i didn't have a lot of

exposure to those decisions at that time. so my true management experience has been with the department of homeland security. and to be candid, sir. the issues that we've had as of late are really a reflection on some of the things that we've done. and i'm really focused on we've got to fix our own operational procedures, our conduct, and our morale. obviously concerned when i came back from the private sector and saw the reports on the morale issues, that was very concerning. so that's one of the areas, one of the top three areas, i think, we need to fix. and i'm committed to working oen ways to fix that morale. and as i said earlier, i think training is one thing we're going to have to build up the training. if we can get our folks trained, they're going to feel more confident in their actions every day. and the other is communication. our folks want to be heard. they can see how we can be

better. they've got good ideas out there. we want to hear their ideas. if it's an idea we cannot implement, we need to get word back to them and explain why we can't implement the idea that we have. the key is communication. people want to be heard. my first day on the job, i met with our senior staff and said that's one o f the priorities we've got to have. we've got to communicate with all of our people. all of our agents, our officers and protective staff. and make sure they're being heard and respected. >> good. one other follow-up question, and then i'll yield back. regarding the security guard who was armed and hadn't been cleared, were there any other security guards armed? >> sir, as i've been briefed, there were other armed security at the the cdc. they were not on the perimeter. they were on the outside of the inner perimeter. which is not uncommon on the the outside perimeter to have arms --

>> so there were armed security who had not been cleared on the outside of the perimeter. were there any on the inside of the perimeter, like the individual that we've noted? >> as i've been briefed, sir, not on the inside of the perimeter, other than the elevator operator who was armed. >> thank you, i yield back. >> thank the gentleman from north carolina. the chair will now recognize mr. cicilini. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you mr. clancy for be with us today. as you understand, the protection of the president is a critical national responsibility, and i know that we all recognize dm many ways the work of the secret service really, our able to defend our democracy is directly tied to our ability to protect the occupant of the white house, whoever he or she is at any time. so these issues are serious. and i think we all appreciate the seriousness with which you are approaching these new responsibilities and i thank you for being here to provide some testimony today. you made some reference to

staffing levels having declined over the last several years while the workload of the agency has not. and so i would like to hear from you whether or not, recognizing there are training and personnel and scheduling and communications issues for -- that relate to each of the incidents we're reviewing in particular, are there more general concerns that you have about resources, both at the staffing level and in terms of infrastructure, equipment, and the capacity that you have to integrate new equipment as it becomes available. >> yes, sir, first with the staffing levels, we think we are appropriately funded for the staffing levels at this point. our concern is getting people into our pipeline and getting them hired quicker. so we can build up our staff. from the infrastructure standpoint, there are some things that we will be looking for additional funding. we've talked about the the fence here today. once we get good renderings and get the approval, if we get the approval from our partners in the national region, that will be -- that will be required.

some additional funding for that. but also our communications we would like to update our communication systems. we saw that we had some failures on september 19th. so our communications need to be upgraded. and then, you know, the vice president's residence, we have a lot of facilities we protect. all of those are under constant review. we want to update our alarms and cameras, and that's the main focus. >> now, i was pleased to hearto additional training, to be sure that you have some expectations to make requests for additional facilities at your training facility. but in addition to that, it seems as if staffing policies also played a role in the incident, particularly in the incident on september 19th. and the agents being required to work overtime and many shifts in

a row, and that obviously contributes to a general weariness, and the way seniority plays a role. so can you speak to what you will be doing or have already done to address the staffing issues so that they are contributing to the kinds of experiences that we are -- >> yes, sir, you bring up an excellent point, sir. particularly at the white house. we are taking it and making a review of our staffing in terms of experience at the white house. we want to make sure we have a good mix of experience as well as newer agents at the white house complex. and that review is ongoing now. we've already completed that review at our other branches of the uniformed division. >> because it appears that sometimes the the least experienced officers are being assigned the most important responsibilities. isn't that what happens? >> we may have an overabundance of junior officers. to make sure we have good

experience and mentors for the junior agents who may be on duty at the same time. >> and that's an issue that you're examining? >> we are, sir. >> i should have started with this, and i'll end with this to say i have enormous respect for the men and women of the secret service. they have always really representeded the gold standard in many ways, and i'm very pleased you've undertaken the responsibility to address these deficiencies and help raise the morale of this agency. it's essential because of the important work that they do, and obviously i think this committee and this congress will look to be a partner and support you in any way you think is necessary to achieve that mission successfully. and with that i yield back. >> thank you, sir. >> thank the gentleman from rhode island. mr. director, i want to start by also thanking you for your service. i hold law enforcement in very high esteem. i would be bias towards law enforcement. i think they have been given unique powers in our culture. with those come correspondingly unique responsibilities.

it's a difficult job. and it takes a different kind of person to be able to do that job. when i hear reports about alcohol abuse while you're either on the job or about to go on the job, and when i hear reports of sexual harassment of female agents or solicitation of prostitution, with all due respect, that doesn't strike me as a training issue. that's a morale issue, that's a character issue. that's a recruitment issue. if you need to go to a seminar to learn at that stage of your career not to send sexually explicit texts to female agents, you have no business being in the secret service. there's a quote from the spokesperson. periodically we have isolated incidents of misconduct, just like every organization does. but the secret service is not like every organization.

that is not a defense to me. you guys are different. >> yes, sir. >> and so in from a recruitment standpoint, and we're going to get to jurisdiction in a second. but from a recruitment standpoint, are you getting the recruits you want or state and local law enforcement folks, men and women applying? are you getting folks with no experience? talk to me about recruitment. >> we're getting a wide rang of candidates in our recruitment. one of the things we feel in my short time here is through the usa jobs, we're getting a lot of applicants who may get moved on because they use the right words and the computer system. what we need to do is if any of our people know good quality people. people who served in the military. people who have law enforcement experience, good quality people, get them to our field offices. get them an interview and get them in the hiring process.

we have to get back to that. >> i'm going to refer to your experti expertise. i'll probably have a different perspective on whether or not yo jurisdiction should be as expansive as it is. way back when the earth cooled when i used to work with secret service, i never got the the connection between investigating counterfeit $100 bills that were created on an ink printer and protecting the life of the president or vice president or judge. i would rather have a state local law enforcement officer who used to do homicide cases or child sex assault cases. so, you know, i watched atf in the early 1990s kind of delve more towards title l 21 cases. they just found themselves matriculating towards drug cases. i just wonder if it would not be in the service's best interest to let the marshals or bureau or somebody else handle some of

these and focus on what really is incredibly important, which is protecting the life of our commander and chief and our judges and other important people. i mean, why is that not enough? >> sir, i appreciate your view. i would say additionally from my earlier statement that our field office, in addition to the investigations they do regarding counterfeiting, cyber crime and whatnot, they also do protective intelligence investigations. so if you're sitting in kansas city or texas, and there's a threat made to the president, those same field offices, agents go out and do the investigation. so they've got the skills, and they've got to make judgments on is this someone who could potentially threaten or harm any of our protectees. so they learn those skills as well. additionally, when our protectees travel to any city within the country, those same field offices, those agents who already built up rapport with the locals in the the county officers, that has already been

built through their investigations. and now we're going to rely on us to support them in a protective mission. in the middle perimeter, the outer perimeter. and so those relationships are very strong. and we use that from a protective standpoint. they start the advance work. when a president goes to kansas city, the beginning is done by a field agent. well, you're the expert, and clearly i'm not. but it's really tough for me to draw a connection between the investigation of financial crime and the investigation of counterfeiting and protecting the life of "x." there may be categories of crime where there's a more natural, seamless transition. i don't know. you're the boss. there may be books that do prepare your agents. i don't see that. i'll share with a colleague

outside. for whatever reason we tend to have the person who is not responsible before us. the person who you could argue was responsible is no longer in that position. i'm not going to spend my energy speaking. i do not understand not searching the white house when there is any evidence of a shooting. i cannot understand not doing that. but it's not fair to you for me to ask you about that. so, let the record reflect that i will on at least one occasion. i will recognize the gentle lady from texas, miss jackson lee. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. this is a very serious hearing. and i'm grateful to the judiciary committee for its concern, and i particularly want to thank you mr. gowdy for his words. i associate myself, as i imagine every single member of congress

does, and that is to recognize first of all, the storied history of the secret service. your name has certainly traveled through many presidents' careers and we thank you so much for your sacrifice. as well, i associate myself with that the most important responsibility, i believe, is the securing of the commander in chief. although, you haved a added additional duties. i think you've been engaged in the treasury before coming to homeland security and our founding fathers and mothers thought that was an appropriate role for you to be engaged. so the changes would require assessment and overhaul from many parties, including members of the yeets congress. but i did want to put on the record that i thought that no one doubted the respect that we have for the secret service.

and particularly for the important and crucial role that you have. as i recall, a former director pearson was brought onto address the scandal about the culture of the service, and an independent review panel will ensure a report in the near future. just for the record, is that report coming soon? >> yes, ma'am. that report has been completed. >> >> and i'm not talking about the one we received on homeland security. is there another report coming? >> the investigation on september 19th conducted by the deputy of homeland security. that's completed. >> right. >> now there's a blue ribbon panel. >> that's correct. >> by the secretary that was set up. my understanding is december 15th it will be completed. >> okay. >> that's what i'm asking. december 15th we can expect that. >> yes. >> that ties into the reason director pearson was appointed or besides the kpen tensy, but

the idea was issues need to be addressed before. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and so, we also know that every director has to address emerging threats and resolve staffing moral problems, et cetera. and so i'm hoping this report will address that question. just as a side, and i'm going to into the aspects of december 19th. but we know there are issues dealing with morale. i think you acknowledged that. >> yes, ma'am. and are you focused on trying to address those questions? >> absolutely. >> and i know that a recent order or notice came out for a female agent to wear their hair in a bun. as opposed to any other kind of hair style. can you tell me how that is relevant to caring for the principles that they have concern for. >> i'm not familiar with that directive. but i will certainly go back after this hearing. >> would you please check that?

i would appreciate a response back. and i would argue vigorously that is inappropriate and certainly contributed to low morale. who is responsible for overseeing the disciplinary processes? is a discipline consistent and appropriate across the workforce for similar violations? and has that -- so the base of my question is who is responsible, and is there an attempt to make sure there's even handed assessment of the sis plin? >> yes, yes ma'am. as a result of the events, the office of integrity was set up by director pearson, and so, the purpose of office integrity is to have one central location where all discipline willerred into. and there a decision is made whether or not it's a criminal violation or whether it's a misconduct violation. et cetera. but what we wanted to make sure is that there's a consistency

and a discipline that is affected. we have a table of penalties now that will ensure there's a kinsy as we are confronted with these operational errors or misconduct. >> let me go to two incidents and and say i have the greatest respect for the first amendment and the greatest respect for the media. but i do know sometimes we have to get to the facts. let me get two facts on the table. without any personal acknowledgment as to what is going to happen. on one instance in the breach, a gentleman was on the phone, on a personal phone. ear plug not in their ear, and they're walkie-talkie was in the locker room. second instance is the gentleman on the elevator who has the

story is told was certified and authorized to be there with a gun. and he was doing his job. he was a commander in chief after he got in the car. how does that trickle up to if you were at that time director. how does that trickle up? those are incidents that with the best mind you couldn't imagine that happening. and they were legitimately doing his job, certified and got star happy and took pictures? why don't i yield to you and find out, because i want to get to the point that we're not knocking off directors every five minutes because of incidents happened that should have been taken care of by the immediate manager? mr. clancy? >> yes, sir.

yes, ma'am. as far as the officer at the white house complex on the cell phone, that's been reported through the investigation deputy secretary of homeland security, we waited for that report to be concluded. and we forwarded the facts of that report onto our office of integrity. so that's under review now. for any discipline that may be affected. and in regards to -- >> that would be the responsibility of the special agent over that area, the white house? >> it's actually the responsibility of this specific central office of integrity. so that it's removed from the direct supervisor. >> but the actions were under the direct supervisor. >> in regards to the cdc events, that is -- that was fully investigated. it was actually self f reported. they saw the individual in the elevator was armed.

he self f reported that. immediately we had an interaction. we had a full inquiry. and those details were also sent to that office of integrity to determine what discipline, if any, should be administered. >> time of the gentlewoman has expired. >> thank you. >> i yield back, thank you. i'm going to be brief. two predecessors ago we had a scandal. it turned out that this committee, two other committees were never given the full facts. and we then had subsequent revelations time and time again. during each of these, committees of jurisdiction including my other committee oversight endeavored to work with your people and homeland security to

get the full facts, and in each case, we did not get the full truth. will you pledge today in all cases during your tenure to give us more, not less, and if there's something that may be relevant in even the most spurious way, at least make the staffs of the committees of jurisdiction aware that there is something else we may or may not want to pursue, and at least in an in camera format. because without that we're playing a game i don't want to play ever. certainly not publicly. i ask. you answer. i ask another to see if there's anything else. i don't want to ask publicly. i don't think the chairman wants to ask publicly or any of the rest of us what it is you're not telling us. >> yes, sir, you have that commitment. >> thank you. and i'll end this as quickly as i can.

the term law enforcement sensitive is one recently used, if you will, in the two versions of this report. and now our other committee got to look in camera at the sensitive material. do you know how fox got what we were only allowed to look at in camera to get it on the air, and in other words, it was on camera but we were looking at it in camera? >> no, sir, i'm not aware. >> will you pledge to see if you can find out, and if it came from the offices of the president or anyone else in the administration, would you at least report back to us so that we know that there's two standards, the standards for the press, when convenient, and the standards for congress, because i just have to share one thing with you. i have always felt that an in-camera review followed up with a discussion about what should be made available fully to the committee and under what

conditions is a reasonable middle ground. but if anything is withheld from congress and asked to look at in camera, by definition i think it is fair to say you have, in fact, asserted a form of privile privilege, so at least the potential for privilege or sensitivity or near classification, and that bars from the administration from willy nilly releasing it from the the press, in order to get, if you will, either a positive spin or get ahead of the story. i hope you appreciate the sensitivity. >> yes, sir. thank you, sir. >> so will you come back with any findings of how that got to fox before it got to chairman? >> i will, sir. this is the first i'm hearing about that, yes, sir. >> okay. our staff at oversight will be glad to share the detailed time line with your people. >> thank you. >> thank you. and i do yield back the balance of my time, mr. chairman. >> chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman

from florida, mr. desantes for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, director. and you've been frank about some of the incidents in response to the organization of the secret service. you said, look, these are just mistakes we made. that didn't necessarily attribute to that. and i appreciate it. and i think it's important that we in congress will conduct oversight on how the agencies operate. we have to conduct oversight on legislative processes that we've done. you look at the history and congress created a lot of problems as well in various different areas. and i think moving the secret service to dhs is something i've been thinking a lot about since these have become more public. and i think we need further inquiry. and you did mention when the united nations protective operation was undertaken there

was utilization at the coast guard and the u.n. i appreciate that. but you would still be able to liaison with other agencies, correct? >> yes, sir. that's correct. >> and so being a part of the bigger bureaucracy, does that make the secret service's mission -- is it conducted more efficiently as a result of that? or are there bureaucratic hurdles that the secret service has to deal with that they did not when they were a part of treasury? >> again, sir, it's difficulty me to compare the two because i was not in management role under treasury. i will say the department of homeland security is very inclusive. the secretary has had me up there several times to work with the other components and meet with the other components, and so there's a good sharing of information. >> what about in terms of, you mentioned the competition, or you wanted to hire and you're not doing that on the scale you

want. are you competing for more resources because you're in dhs? there are alled in that, and it seems like you have less competition. is that accurate? >> it would be hard for me to evaluate compared to the treasury. i know all the agencies have important missions. so we are all vying for those dollars. >> yes. >> and i know you said you were in a management position. but i have retired secret service agents in my district, and they've served in both capacities. pre-2003 and then after, and i think by and large, you know, i get negative feedback. but when you're talking with people, other agents who have lived through this, is it something you would say a substantial number have misgivings about? >> when we have failures,

they're really our failures. >> and i understand that. you've been frank. but we have to look at how are we, you know, we're legislating this stuff. we're funding these different agencies. and if we haven't done that in a way that best meets the needs of the american people, we have to go back and evaluate. so i'm just curious. i know there's morale issues with the secret service. you know, if you're just, you know, at over the water cooler with people, who have been in the secret service, is it something people will look back and say, man, that was a great thing the congress did. or are you likely to hear people say, man, i liked it better in treasury? >> certainly some people have said they liked our time in treasury, and they had good memories of that time frame. but again, i have too be focused on, you know, our agency and where our failures are, and working with our people, and that's really my focus. and others can determine whether or not we're situated properly

in the department of homeland security. but i'm focused on the operational needs. >> now i understand, and as you should be. but we need to always look at this stuff. and it just seemed to me, and again, i would like to do some more investigation into this. but with treasury, there's less bureaucracy. and actually for congress it's good because i think we conduct better oversight that way. dhs has been problematic for us in terms of oversight of other functions, other than the secret service. but anyways, i appreciate you stepping up to take this position. i know it's a tough job, and we wish you all the best, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding back the remainder of his time. we now go to the gentleman from east texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, director, for being here. you know, we've had different hearings, secretary of homeland security has been here a number of times. and you know, there seemed to be in the the past a feeling of

invulnerability of the white house. that the fences, you know, somehow there was bound to be more security there than you see. so it rattles folks when somebody can jump over the fence and get there. and somebody else was saying, oh, i think there's two rows of fences. isn't there just one row of fence around the white house? >> sir, as a result of september 19th on pennsylvania avenue on the sidewalk there, we've now put a bike rack in addition to the permanent fence. realizing that people can still get over the bike rack, but it gives us a little more time to react. so there is bike rack in front of the original fence. >> well, how tall is the fence there, and i'mclassify ied. >> 7'6". >> is there any talk about making it higher? has that been discussed? >> yes, sir, it's been discussed.

and we've been working closely with the narter i er ipartners . >> your time as acting director. but you remember late 2009 there was a christmas, christmas party crashers, the salahis that got in there, and they were not on the the list, and there was a hearing that it wasn't so much involved that there was a social secretary of the white house who is supposed to be there. and if somebody is not on the list, gives the ultimate yes or no. and she told someone she didn't care about having to be the one to say no, and it left the

secret service in a terrible bind. but what was obvious to those of us who would go over to the white house regularly is that it was all about appearances over the christmas party crashers, that even though it really wasn't so much the secret service's fault as a breakdown in the white house leadership, the secret service who wore plained clothes suits were made to start wearing uniforms so that it looked like there was a lot more security there. . and in fact, we went from just having one check point you had to go through there at the southeast corner to adding another there near the monument. and then adding another down on 15th street. and so, it pretty clearly was all about appearance to make it look like, gee, it was a secret service's fault and we've sure -- we've tripled those up, added a bunch of people there

when really it wasn't necessary that anymore nee to be done, other than just make sure white house gave proper direction. so my concern is that there's been too much about appearances and not as much about actual protection. has there been any thought to just eliminating the fence around the white white house t napolitano, maybe having a virtual fence or electronic fence? has that been discussed at all? >> sir, i'm not aware of any discussions in that regard. >> would you be in favor of removing the fence around the white house and having a virtual or electronic fence around it? >> sir, by knee-jerk reaction, that would be, no, sir. partly because of the number of tourists that come on pennsylvania avenue and come right up to that area.

and they take pictures and whatnot. >> secretary that pal ton notice said the fence was worthless. you put a ten-foot fence up, somebody is going to build a 12-foot ladder. so, i would think if the administration is going to be consistent, it's now time to remove the fence from around the white house because if it isn't good enough for our border, it isn't good enough for the white house. i would ask you to consider the consistency and also consider the fact that maybe there is real virtue in having a fence that slows people down. with that, i yield people back. >> i thank the gentleman. as originally scheduled, we'll take a short recess, maybe you have a short bite of lunch. is 1:30 okay to reconvene? >> yes, that will be okay. >> we'll have the room made right and be back in at 12:30. we stand in recess.

>> a number of key committee positions are beginning to take place. thank you for being with us. >> great to be with you.

bythe preferred candidate nancy pelosi lost. >> it was ready prestigious and had brought oversight over the consumer sector. moneymakerranteed for anyone trying to fill the campaign coffers. fight over which democrat should serve on the committee now that dingell and waxman are retiring. shue divided and cause bad blood between them all as they fought over who should be on top of the committee. ofimately, there was a vote 100-90 and it was a big blow to

nancy pelosi. ed argued she was the future for the caucus. she was only a few years younger than mrs. losey. it is hard to describe someone -- mrs. pelosi. someonerd to describe as the future when they are the president. a lot of money for democrats, comes out of california and members of the delegation have cloutined an oenought that it requires donors to give on their behalf. symbol --a pretty: arguoverd arguments

this. there is a question on whether members could vote by proxy. there is a long -- whether members could vote by proxy. tammy dealt worth -- duckworth asked to vote by proxy and she could not. the reason she was not allowed was because she voted for frank pallone. >> jon stewart weighed in and said it's time for nancy pelosi to step down. the -- he c example. the duckworth i think we are entering a time where democrats talk openly and

strategize among themselves at the way to chip away at pelosi and forces her to a point where she a knowledge is that other stuff up. cknowlegesed -- a that others step up. is ato the president, that figure that is going to be very hard for anyone to beat. no one has a fund-raising network like hers. writing on the wall and realizes it is time to have somebody step up. perhaps she was a little sworn in -- thwarted today. >> the republican shares of the committees include similar names. paul ryan moves to ways and

means. >> that was a long time goal and he got it, despite the challenge from brady. he has been the vice aesidential candidate and close confit not of the speaker joined the community. thornberry leading the armed services committee and you of theatural promotion next most senior or prominent .ember of the committee democrats and other groups are acknowledging that no women or children -- no women were chosen. the busiest time in the

congressional calendar is right now because they are responsible for reorganizing the house every two years. they are in charge of the office lottery and the orientation sessions. they are hoping to hire staff and get them on board. she has been responsible and will continue to be so. not too much drama on the republican side. >> we will look for your work. o'keefe, appreciate you being with us. >> the issue of immigration. we will hear from obama. later, the homeland security secretary on immigration and border security. on the next washington journal, neuhauserth daniel

about the republican leadership lehtinen.l cedric livengton journal begins at 7:00 eastern on c-span. fair is thisbook weekend. join us both days for live coverage and you will see best-selling authors talking about nonfiction books. we will take your calls, e-mails, and tweets. the miami book fair. live coverage on saturday and sunday on book tv. obama posted a short video promoting his speech on

immigration. here is the video. -- where, two years ago, i laid out principles for immigration reform. everyone agrees the system is broken. washington has allowed the problem to fester. i am laying out things i can do to make the system work better as i continue to work with congress and encourage them to get a comprehensive bill that can solve the entire problem. tune in tomorrow night at 8:00 to hear from the white house, where i will make this announcement. we will see you on friday.

thanks. >> the president addresses the nation on the topic of immigration. forill lay out his plan executive action on the issue. >> for more about what the president will say in his speech on immigration, we talked with jennifer epstein. this is five minutes. >> the white house has not said what the president wants to the press. they have the process of briefing advocates and others who are working closely with the administration on immigration over the last couple of years.

deportation has been out there includes 4d that million undocumented immigrants millionify and another new get it through other means. >> this is generating a lot of reaction. president actshe like a monarch and a spokesperson for boehner is calling him an emperor. >> that is the argument the white house and others have been making strongly this week. we know some of the talking points. supporters once to

executive actions that ronald reagan and george bush took on immigration. the white house argues they are in line with what the president is doing this week and we have the republicans saying that far withreaching too what he intends to do. that is the argument coming from the white house on this and, at clearme time, we see a direction they are going in and priebus callede this this afternoon. wrote on politico that

obama is acting like a monarch thing he would like to see is mitch mcconnell, when he takes the helm as the leader in january and announcing that the senate will not be confirming any of the president's nominees. president reverses course on executive action. congress,uggests that which will be fully in republican hands, chooses to and attachg bills theys that make it so that cannot enforce the orders the president puts through. it is about trying to restrict the president financially and to

various with the nominations. >> this came up in the daily briefing. thate white house worried this will, in the words of mcconnell, poison the well on actions with immigration ahead? >> the white house has been reluctant to agree with the arguments. they have pointed to the fact that there has not been any progress on immigration since the senate passed comprehensive reform. they are more in that direction than they are in the one that things.are attempting what can we expect tomorrow

and friday? the next piece of it is going to be the president speaking. it is not going to be on they major television networks. it will be on telemundo and univision. it will be online and aggressively live tweeted via political journalists and available through other means. that is the white house argument. it is about targeted outreach and spanish-language media. and, getting out to the strongest supporters. jennifer epstein is the white house reporter. think you for being with us. -- thank you for being with us.

>> we will hear from dick durbin. then, john cornyn. then, harry reid and mitch mcconnell. this is 35 minutes. importance the adoption. there was a moment in the civil war when president abraham lincoln said a message to generageneral mcclelland. he was in charge of the union troops but wouldn't use them. he set and camped, intense, preparing for battle and never going forward. and lincoln in his frustration understood that as he waited, the confederate forces were getting stronger and the opportunities were slipping away. and so lincoln sent a message to general mcclelland. his message was this: if you're not going to use your army, would you send it my way

so i could use it? i'm reminded of that story when i address this issue on the floor of the senate this morning. because the issue i'm going to address is the issue of immigration. madam president, i come to this issue with personal and family experience, as so many members of congress do when it comes to an issue. in this circumstance, my mother was an immigrant to this country. she was brought here at the age of 2 from lithuania. somehow my grandmother, with my and you and uncle, made it across the ocean to baltimore landing in 1911 and then catching a train heading for the land of opportunity, east st. louis, illinois, which is where many lithuanian families gathered and where my grandfather was waiting a. and that was the city of my birth. my mother grew up there, speaking lithuanian and english, an immigrant family that worked hard, struggled, and from just

family stories -- i know they had little or nothing in their lives, but the hope that the next generation, their children, would have a better life. that's my story, that's my family's story, but that's america's story, too. and if you chart immigration, as an issue, in the course of america, you'll find something very interesting: political parties that become anti-immigrant parties eventually wither and disappear. why? because they are denying the fundamentals of america. they are saying that we're going to close the doors and po pull p the ladder and we don't need anymore of those people. we do need more of "those" people because the immigrant families who come in this country bring more than just determination and strength and a work ethic. they bring a level of courage, which many families can't muster. these are families in different

parts of the world who say at some point, we're going to america. we may not speak the language, we may not even know what will happen to us once we alive, but we are going to america. and they do. and the vast majority of them come to this country, stay, and make a difference. they sack fishings they work night and -- they sacrifice, they work night and day. but they are moment comes -- their moment comes when they become part of america. proud of where they came from but even more proud of the fact that they're part of the united states of america. when any political party in history has decided to make anti-immigration their standard and their value, they have withered and disappeared, as they should. they are ignoring and turning their back on who we are, what america is all about. i was part of a group two years ago. we set down four democratic senators and four republican senators, and we worked for months to write a comprehensive

immigration reform bill. i'll tell you the names of the senators so you know there was no secret deal here. john mccain led the republicans, former republican candidate for president of the united states. by his side lindsey graham, republican from south carolina, not exactly viewed as a liberal state but in fact a very conservative one. marco rubio of florida, whose father and mother were immigrants to this country, refugees from cuba. and jeff flake of arizona, a conservative republican by every measure. that was the team on the republican side of the table. on our side of the table, we were led by chuck schumer, chairman of the immigration subcommittee of judiciary from the state of new york. i joined him as a member of the judiciary committee and as someone that's been involved in some of these issues for a long

time. and bob menendez -- bob menendez, the head of the democratic hispanic caucus, a caucus of one at this point, but himself the son of cuban refugees who came to the united states. and michael bennet of ko colora. the eight of us set down for months, literally for months, hours at a time, sometimes angry and ready to work oust room, other times cooperative. we wrote a bill, a 200-page tbhaibill tofix the immigration. then we took it to committee and the chairman of the senate) patrick lay here, allowed any amendment to be offered that anyone wished. then we brought it to the floor after it was reported from the committee and we again gave an opportunity for amendments to be offered. significant amendments were offered. senator corker of tennessee offered an amendment to even

strengthening what was a very strong border security section of this bill. the net result of that, of course, was we brought it to a vote. we brought it to a vote and i will tell you, it was an incredible day because on june 27 of 2013, we passed on the floor of the united states senate comprehensive immigration reform by a vote of 68-32. 14 republicans joined the democrats in a bipartisan effort to fix our broken immigration system. it was a proud moment. we had the support of the chamber of commerce, we had the support of organized labor, we had every major religious group in america supporting our efforts. we had the ultra-conservative grover norquist supporting this, and liberals as well, came together and said finally

we're going to do something about our broken immigration system. but under the law of the land, passing the senate is not enough. the measure was then sent over to the house of representatives. june 27, 2013. today, november 19, 2014, the republican-led house of representatives has not only failed to have a hearing on this bill, has refused to bring this bill to the floor, has refused to bring any immigration bill to the floor. they refuse to address the obvious. we have a broken immigration system, we need to come up with a fair solution to it, and they refuse to act. it is within their power to call that bill today as it has been every day since june 27, 2013. but for a year and a half, the

house republican leadership has refused to act. oh, they tempted us, they teased us, time and again we're thinking about it, we're going to put out a list of principles that we republicans believe in in the house of representatives, we're going to tell you that maybe we would support something like the dream act, maybe, we're going to tell you we want strong border enforcement which of course this bill already has. they've said all these things and have done nothing. i'm reminded of president lincoln saying to general mcclellan if you're not going to use your army, may i borrow it? the house republicans have refused to address the immigration issue almost entirely with one exception. they did call one immigration matter to the floor. it was one of the most hateful pieces of legislation which i have seen and here's what it said -- before they adjourned

in august, the republicans in the house of representatives passed a measure with only four of their members refusing to vote for it and here's what it said. we have created an opportunity for about two million children brought to this country who have lived good lives, finished school, have no problems with the law, and want to to become part of america, the president has created an executive order giving these children a chance to come forward, register with the government, pay their filing fee, and not be deported. 600,000 of them have taken advantage of that. this is called daca, the president's executive order, gives them a chance to live in america, to go to school in america, to get a job in america. to make this a better nation. 600,000 have done it. we believe 1.4 million more are

eligible. they have not signed up yet. so the republican house of representatives in august before they adjourned passed a measure which said the remaining 1.6 million who may be eligible for this protection cannot be allowed to be part of the daca program. these 1.6 million young people should be subject to deportation deportation. think about that for a moment. brought here at the age of two or three as infants, living in the united states their entire lives, standing up in the classrooms across america every morning pledging allegiance to the only flag they've ever known and the republicans voted with an overwhelming majority to deport them. to deport them. madam president, that's not bad enough. that overwhelming vote that they cast, that hateful vote that

they cast, they were so proud of themselves that after voting they stood up and applauded themselves. what a great moment in their minds for the house of representatives. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. durbin: i ask consent to speak for an additional five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: what a terrible moment in the history of this nation. now the president of the united states having waited for a year and a half, having heard all the promises of the house republicans that he -- that they would move forward and finally call this bill, having been promised privately and even publicly by many of these republicans that they were going to do something, now the president has said i'm going to use my authority, my authority under the law to try to fix at least some part of this broken immigration system. we're expecting any day now for

the president to announce his executive order. he will not be the first president to do this. past administrations, democratic and republican, have stopped the deportation of low-priority cases in our country. every president of the united states, madam president, every president of the united states since dwight david eisenhower has used his executive authority to improve our immigration system by executive order. every single one of them. president george h.w. bush issued a family fairness policy allowing 1.5 million people in america to apply for deferred action and work permits. it's clear the presidents have the authority to do this. and yet the republicans in the senate and house have threatened this president if you use your executive authority as every president since president eisenhower has done, we're going to hold it against you and you're going to pay a price, president obama. well, i hope the president pays

little or no attention to that kind of threat. what's at stake here is the future of millions of family members who are now subject to deportation. what's at stake sheer whether or not the republican party will come into the 21st century in this land of immigrants and join us in a bipartisan effort to fix this broken immigration system. what's at stake here are literally the futures of millions of families who just want a chance. that's all they're asking for. to earn their way into legal status in america. madam president, it's almost 13 years now since i introduced the dream act. the dream act, i've described earlier, gives people who -- young people brought to the united states at an early age who had no voice in what their families were going to do to come to this country and eventually find their way to

legal status. at one point, even the house republicans said they supported the so-called dream act. time and again we have faced filibusters stopping the dream act from passing in the senate but it was part of comprehensive immigration reform. this all started, this dream act all started with this young lady, teresa lee, korean, brought to the united states at the age of 2, group grew up in a poor family in chicago, and had an amazing musical talent, was accepted at the manhattan conservatory of music and the juilliard school of music and because she was undocumented had no place to go. her mother called hurt our office, her mother who incidentally worked night and day in a dry cleaning establishment in chicago and said what can we do? the law had no real answer other than to say to this then 18-year-old girl go back to where you came from for 10 years and try to come here legally. that was the law. i introduced the dream act, and

since then we've seen a growth in support for this because it is only fair. you cannot, should not hold children responsible for the decisions and wrongdoing of their parents. these kids deserve a chance. that's what the president's executive action is about. that's why the action by the house republicans was so reprehensible. teresa lee incidentally made it. she went to the manhattan conservatory of music, ended up not only getting a bachelor's degree, not receiving any government assistance, she had friends and sponsors who stepped in to pay for it, she played in carnegie hall, she is now working on her ph.d. in music, she is not an -- now an american citizen by virtue of the fact she married this american jazz musician and they are living in new york and recently had a baby. i couldn't be prouder of teresa lee and what she has done with her life. her dad has passed away, he had

a serious medical illness that coon be treated adequately because he doesn't qualify for government health insurance and they didn't have the money to provide him the care that he needed. but teresa lee's story is one that inspires me every day to come this floor and mind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle these are real human beings we're talking about. these are not political pawns. these are young people who deserve a chance to become part of the future of america. sometime soon i hope very soon, maybe even this friday the president of the united states is going to announce his executive order. he is going to say as he did with daca, the deferred action program, he is going to give more undocumented in this country a chance. it will be a narrow category, not as broad as we'd like it, at least some of us would like it, but it will be consistent with what every president of the united states has done since president eisenhower. it is fair, it is just, it recognizes our birthright as americans in a nation of immigrants and it says that we

are willing to stand up and fight for fairness. i would hope, i would just hope that a few, a few republican will stand up and acknowledge this. i hope a few of them will join us in a bipartisan recognition that our broken immigration system cannot be fixed if the congress of the united states, particularly the republican house, refuses to even call the bill for a year and a half. instead, the president is using his authority and doing the best he can to make this nation of immigrants proud again that we are welcoming a new generation of people who will make us even stronger in the future. madam president, i yield the floor. before i yield the floor, madam president, i have seven unanimous consent asks for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. with the approval of the majority and minority leaders, i ask the consent be agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the previous order be modified so the following nominations be added.

following executive calendar number 1056, clement 966 and 967 with all other previous provisions remaining in effect. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the republican whip. mr. cornyn: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: madam president, i'm glad i got to the floor to listen to my friend the senator from illinois, the majority whip, his remarks. it reminds me of his great passion and commitment to the dreamers and to the cause of repairing our broken immigration system and while he and i differ on the details, and the feasibility of passing comprehensive immigration reform, we've been trying to do this for -- laboring with this for at least the 10 or 11 years i've been here and we've been unsuccessful. so what does that tell you? it tells you we need to try something different.

we need to break this down into smaller pieces and the house, speaker boehner, i know has made this pledge to the president and others, i know senator mcconnell, the incoming majority leader, believes that immigration reform is important and we ought to use our best efforts to make progress. but, unfortunately, the message the president of the united states has sent, he is giving up and to listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who support this unprecedented executive action by the president that's going to be announced on friday, they've given up. they've given up. what the senator from illinois didn't say is even under the president's deferred action order involving these young people -- and, by the way, i support providing them an opportunity to become american citizens and productive members of society. i think we're all better off if

these young people who are not culpable -- they didn't commit any offense or crime. they came with their parents. and we're much better off. they're much better off. their families are much better off. our country is better off if we find a solution, which i'm confident we could do but the message is that the president has given and our democratic friends have given, is we give up. we're not going to do our job as legislators. we're going to let the president with the stroke of a pen provide an executive amnesty to millions of people and create an awful lot of harm in the process. you know, the tragedy of this is, we are a nation of immigrants. and proud of it. our rich, diverse heritage would not have been the same without the contribution of immigrants that have come from around the world.

contributions that have become a very -- part of the very fabric of our lives and our society. millions of foreign-born immigrants who have come to the united states legally have become successful, patriotic citizens of the united states, and we have been the beneficiary because of the opportunities that our nation provides that nowhere else on earth provides, and that is the opportunity to pursue the american dream. but part of what makes the american dream possible is the rule of law. it's our constitution. it's not presidents getting frustrated with congress and issuing an executive order and defying the constitution, ignoring his oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the united states. that undermines the american

dream. so i -- i listened to my colleague and friend from illinois saying this is somehow about -- this is a question about are immigrants good for america or not? i stipulate they're good for america. as a matter of fact, my ancestors weren't born here. we all came from somewhere else. this is really at bottom whether the president, when he put his hand on the bible and he took a sacred oath to uphold and defend the constitution and the laws of the united states, whether he really meant it or whether he had his fingers crossed behind his back. like many of my colleagues, i have had the privilege of participating in naturalization ceremonies all across my state where i have seen individuals

from vietnam, from india, from mexico, from countries all around the world take the oath of allegiance to the united states of america. it's an inspiring and heart-warming occasion, and of course many of them have taken that oath while wearing the uniform of the united states military where they have served with honor and dignity as they await the approval of their citizenship. one of the first bills that i passed when i came to the senate was with teddy kennedy from massachusetts, the liberal lion of the senate. what we did is we passed a simple piece of legislation that expedited the process whereby immigrants who serve in the military can become american citizens. that was one of the first bills that i was a part of that passed when i came to the senate