>> next, newsmakers. men -- tjehen joseph clancy -- host: our guest this week is representative adam schiff of california. he is the top democrat on the house intelligence committee which also become part of the gang of eight, the top house and senate leaders who get the most secret intelligence briefings. he is also serving on the select committee on the benghazi investigation. thank you for being here. adam schiff: it's a pleasure.

host: let me introduce our two reporters who will be asking the questions this week. chris strohm is with bloomberg news, he is a national security reporter. and josh gerstein, politico's chief investigator, working on a lot of these issues. josh, you are first. josh gerstein: congressman thank you for being here. i wanted to start out by talking about the attack on tunisia on the tourists visiting the museum there. what does that tell us, the fact that about 20 people were killed there, now isil is claiming responsibility. do you think that they actually are responsible and have we accurately estimated a threat that they pose and how badly they have spread out across the region? adam schiff: it is too early for me to say definitively whether that claim is accurate. but they are an enormous threat, they are perforating more countries around the world. they are pointing their flag, in some cases it is local groups that want to associate with them because they are the hot terrorist group that tracks resources and foreign fighters or domestic fighters.

they have real operational control. then, it is others that may have an affiliation, but the control is not yet established. it is very worrisome, very strategic in the case of tunisia and the attack. trying to go after the tourism industry, trying to further destabilize the government. tunisia was already a concern, because you have so many people leaving tunisia to join the fight. this is one of the problems in the spread of isil and that is it is now much easier to join the fight, in their own neighborhood or in other own -- in their own country. there are a lot of challenges on our hands. chris strohm: congressman what is your idea of the iranian influence in the region and isil's activities and also what is your assessment of their ability to reach out and attack the united states, inside the united states?

what more should the u.s. government be doing? congressman adam schiff: let me start with the latter. we are fortunate, always have been with our oceans, but we are fortunate. we have had americans leave to join the fight. it is a fairly countable number, it is not like our european partners are facing where they have hundreds of people leaving to join the fight. so, it is a manageable number for us to keep track of. still difficult, something that we worry about all the time. but at this point, i do not think that they have the capacity for any major attack on the nine states. -- on the united states. we are probably more concerned with people who are self radicalized, going online inspired by isil's message. isil, in contrast to al qaeda, they are not looking necessarily for the spectacular attack. anyone that they can get to claim the mantle of isil and

carry out a low tech attack adds prestige to the organization. in paris, we saw attacks that were not very sophisticated in terms of weaponry, but nonetheless, devastating. i think they would be happy to encourage that kind of thing in the u.s. and that is something that we try to guard against. in the wake of what is happened in europe, we have taken a third, fourth, look at the people who were a concern to us to begin with. because as we have seen in paris, belgium, and elsewhere, it is often people you know about who are already on your radar screen that you need to be sure that you take another look at. in terms of iran, and their influence in their own region and beyond, i am very concerned about their role in iraq, to the degree to which iraqis a very -- are very public about it. they have billboards, open supportive statements by the iraqi government. the iraqi government wants to reclaim their cities and they want to do it sooner rather than later.

while a understand that impulse, at the same time, if they go rushing in two places like misoul and they want to substitute real readiness in the form of an iraqi armed forces that has strong sunni complement as well as shia, they may well end up trying to win the battle but lose the war. if you have iranian militias going into sunni towns, and after the battle is won, ethnically cleansing them, hauling people out and shooting them as we have allegations in places like diala, they will drive the sunni tribes further toward isil. that would be a terrible course of events, so i worry about in terms of defeating isil and i worry about the long-term situation in iraq, if iraq becomes a satellite of iran. i think a lot of what is happening turned the expectations on their head that

many had before the iraq war when people thought that these are traditional enemies, they have iraqis and persians and they don't speak the same language, they are not part of the same ethnic group. nonetheless, we can see how dominant iran has become. and that is a grave concern. host: before we leave the isil question, an interesting development recently with an anonymous hacking group joining forces with other groups, which is unusual for them to do, and putting a list on twitter of organizations that they say are linked to terrorist recruiting. pressuring twitter to release these accounts, i am wondering what you think about this and whether you think it is better for us to be able to seat and monitor activity, or force them off-line into other places?

congressman adam schiff: we are seeing all kinds of alliances growing up on both sides. i think it is very positive that we can try to take isil off of twitter, to the degree that is possible. to the degree that we can interfere with their propaganda and recruitment online, which has been very powerfully used by them, i think it helps push them back. it helps defeat some of their goals of expanding the ranks and radicalizing people here. so i applaud those efforts and i hope they continue. there are times where we will know of a terrorist group or someone using a specific platform or technology where we may not want to shut it down because to do so discloses that we know what they are up to and how they are communicating. i don't think that is the case with isil, particularly where they are using platforms like twitter to recruit people to get out there and make videos. i think it is a mitigated

benefit in shutting down. josh gerstein: do you think it is possible to force entities like twitter to shut down, shut these things down, because he talked about recruiting videos. fox news posted on their website one of the most gruesome videos that isil put out. how do you attack the social media problem without attacking news media decisions about what they should broadcast in terms of news? congressman adam schiff: i don't think that you can force them. i think you have to encourage them to be good actors and, i come from a part of the country that has been involved in a debate for a long time, i represent hollywood, burbank, a lot of the entertainment industry and there has been a long struggle over internet service providers, tech companies, that may allow their facilities to be used for intellectual property theft. so i am familiar with the challenges, obviously that is a very different issue and environment, but the challenge of getting some of these tech

players to do what is in public interest without a mandate is a continuing challenge. i am pleased to see twitter taking action and i think we want to encourage that and facilitate that. it is telling that you have isil threatening one of the cofounders of twitter, because they are concerned about this and they would it be if twitter -- they would not be if twitter wasn't having an impact. i think the goal of the government ought to be to enhance the technology company's ability to do this, to join efforts in that, where we can. but i am not sure that there is a way of compelling it without stepping on first amendment freedoms. chris strohm: another thing that has been intense with isil is their use of social media and being able to radicalize people online. what additional resources or activities do you think the u.s. government should be doing?

i know that you just mentioned that you can't force these technology companies to take action, there can't be a mandate on them, but at the same time you mentioned working with them, law-enforcement can work with these companies, in which way? congressman adam schiff: well, these companies, if they have the capability, they could shut down all of isil to medications, -- iso -- isil's communications, but the challenges, how do we encourage companies to be good for print citizens, to take on these things on their own. to use it reasonable efforts to do that. we cannot ask them to devote all their resources in a way that might occupy a huge amount of their workforce and policing the internet. that is not practical or doable. but within the confines of what is economically feasible for them, i think we can, and it may take help supply member -- help supplying them

information, so that we alert them, these accounts, these users are bad actors. it may be also trying to protect them, because as they take action against some of these bad actors, they may be facing reprisals. it would have to be a public and private partnership. i think that these companies they do not want these organizations using their technologies. companies don't want their products being advertised on sites that are posting gruesome videos and yet, it does happen. and i think calling attention to it, working with the private sector to make sure that there is a mechanism, technologically for them to find and remove these postings -- i mean if i were a major american business and i saw these organizations advertised on a site being used to put up these videos, it would disturb me.

so, it will have to be a partnership. i do not think it'll be an issue of compulsion. josh gerstein: congressman, can i ask you about another aspect of the fight against isil, which is how will the u.s. government be setting up for this campaign, it is obviously going to go on. you have been a proponent for revising or coming up with a new authorization for the use of military force to address isil and the evolving threat of al qaeda. we are now at about 14 years after the september 11 attacks you encourage the minister should afford a proposal, they did so, but now it seems that congress has bogged down. what is your assessment if there is any possibility of reaching a consensus on this new proposal? congressman adam schiff: as you point out, the administration did put out a proposal. what they did is, look, it would be nice if they put something forward, but it is our constitutional responsibility to declare war or to decide not to declare war. we are the ones who stand to lose, on whether the imagers and -- whether the administration

acts or not. now that they have acted and now that they have done what a lot of folks have clamored for, are we going to sit on our hands? there is no excuse anymore. i think what has to happen is the committees of jurisdiction need to take this up. i don't imagine that it would pass in the form that the administration put forth, but if not, they ought to take it up and what form they can get a majority of their members to put it out. i have concerns with the administration's proposal and probably paramount among those is that it does not repeal the old 2001 authorization of we -- that we passed in the days after september 11. in the absence of that, when the new authority goes out of existence, maybe three years from now, next to ministration , the next administration can go back on reliance on the old one. and they can use the same argument that this president has used. it gives them the authority they

need. i hope they will take this up and i am certainly going to do everything i can to encourage colleagues to move for, even if it is a bill that does not have my support. hopefully, we will see one it can to something i introduced last year. if we establish the precedent here to go to war, without congress and without our approval, it will be up -- it will be a terrible thing for the future. future presidents will look at this as a way to go ahead without congress and we will have certainly hurt our checks and balances system. host: let's move forward to israel. i wonder about netanyahu and his victory in the elections, how do you think that he and our president can't repair relations -- can repair relations?

kindest man -- congressman adam schiff: i hope that we can repair the relationship. i am concerned about some of the things that netanyahu said during his campaign, walking away from a two state resolution. if that is more than a campaign pledge, it means there will be a serious breach between the u.s. and israel on policy, in terms of a second state. that, in addition to the iranian nuclear issue, he holds out for a very serious disagreement between two allies. i think that we will get cents probably in the near future, was this a pledge that he intends to

follow, or something he said in the heat of battle. i will be concerned if that reflects new israeli policy. chris strohm: wanted to ask you about the hacking attacks on mps, sony, target. i know that you are working on legislation, what is the status of the legislation that you are putting together and what will it accomplish? i know it is focused on information sharing, but beyond that, what additional things should the u.s. government do to help companies that are being attacked? congressman adam schiff: we are very close to having a cyber bill, it could be introduced next week. the senate has already put out a bill. i think that both products will be similar. good news is, last year we were

far apart on key issues and concerns, in the privacy community, that is the need to have a civilian portal be the intake in which a cyber threat information is shared. and the requirement that personal information be stripped out for being shared with the government. on those point, there has been a convergence between house and senate, republicans and democrats. so we are ahead and it gives me confidence that we can move forward on a bill. hopefully, we have a market as soon as next week and we will be conferencing with the senate and talking together with committees , judiciary and homeland security, to make sure that ducks are lined up and we can move forward. we would like to see, when a company is attacked and they find out from us, more than we

find out from them, we would like to be able to get that information, so that we can share it with others who could be attacked in the same way. we want to share information with companies saying hey, this attack is coming, this is what you need to do to protect against it. we do not want this to be a surveillance authority, this is not a surveillance program. when you hear, information sharing, it sounds like -- what kind of information is this? we are not interested and sharing people's information, we are interested and the methods of attack. we are optimistic about where we are. i think the vast majority of the privacy issues that have been raised have been met and we will still have a product that is effective to counter these

attacks. chris strohm: companies are also struggling with what they can do to fight back, how to take offensive action against hackers. what you think about companies taking offensive action, or is it the government, they should be doing more? congressman adam schiff: i think it is natural for these companies to want to strike back. if you do not strike back in a sophisticated way, you could end up checking back on parties that had nothing to do with the attack. some companies could have had their computers used, without even knowing. so, that is not something we want to see companies take on themselves. i do think the government has a lot of work to do, and outlining

offensive capabilities and strategy, so that we can provide a deterrent to those who are not only stealing or attacking us. that is a technical question, we need to make sure we have capabilities of doing collateral damage, going after these organizations attacking us, but also that we have the right policies in place. what are the redlined going to be and what is the proportion of response in a cyber attack? it might be a cyber equivalent or in something outside the cyber realm. i do not think we can have a cookie-cutter approach, because a lot depends on the nature of the attack and attack her. in the case of north korea on sony, for example, we could devastate north korea, if we chose to. we have superior capabilities but we are extremely vulnerable, because even an unsophisticated

attack from korea would do a lot more harm. the reason why it is an open question of speculation, to turn the lights out on north korea, is that the lights are out all the time. they are so primitive, they have a lot more to lose than we do. you cannot say the reaction on north korea should be the same as on others. we will have to treat each case on its own, in some cases, there may be economic repercussions or cyber repercussions. josh gerstein: you served on the house committee of benghazi, which has for better or worse found itself at the heart of the clinton e-mail investigation.

she disclosed that she deleted or destroyed something on the order of 32,000 e-mails that her lawyers determined were private what was your reaction when you heard that and what do you make of the suggestions that some parties have said, someone should be brought in and everything should be handed over? congressman adam schiff: in terms of getting rid of personal e-mails, i think she has a right. the government has no right to her. -- private e-mails. in terms of whether we should ask for, demand, or subpoena her server, i think we need to treat this like other investigations in the past and not use a different standard because she is a candidate -- a likely candidate for president.

when a similar issue came up in the last administer to when karl rove and other high bush officials were using a committee server to send out work e-mails we did not demand that the republican national committee turn over their server. that would have been an overreach. instead, we worked with them and said these are the documents we need, this is when we need them, satisfy us that you are sending the right documents. we do not need to establish a different standard. the reality is, the way that the system works the employees from the secretary of state on down they make the decision on what is it personal and private. if secretary clinton had used two different blackberries people would have still said how do we know that her private

blackberry she wasn't using for official purposes? so we would have the same issue. i think we should handle this the same way we haven't handled others. josh gerstein: you'll think the fact that she returned these e-mails month after -- months after service, does it make a difference that it was so long, going back later? congressman adam schiff: i think we should follow the model the other committees have accused. the issue really is the effect of this on the presidential race. governor bush waited seven years to turn over a lot of his e-mails and we still don't know whether he turned over all of them because they have come out in different ways. i think it is hard for us to

criticize senator clinton. chris strohm: a senate seat opening up in california what kind of conditions are you looking at in the race? punishment adam schiff: -- congressman adam schiff: i would like to see a strong candidate from southern california. it is something i will continue to export and talk to supporters about and hope to make a decision by the end of may. host: you said that your decision may be affected in this, how so? punishment -- congressman adam schiff: i think there should be a candidate with security experience, in times

like this. i think that would be an asset. host: thank you for being our guest. we are back with josh and chris. we had an interesting conversation with congressman adam schiff. let me focus on congress. let's look at the debates in congress. chris strohm: the congressman talked about congress been bogged down, not been able to talk about certain parts on whether there will be a geographical restraint on it, the authorizations they will provide. at this point it doesn't seem to have a way forward. the menstruation -- the

administration gets to continue on this path without congress weighing in. josh gerstein: i think this is why they were reluctant to bring something to congress, because there was not a consensus. it was unclear if the people in the middle represented majority. i think they want to see action on a --, should address the 2001 amf, a decade and a half after that, too far gone. should we let any president do he -- what he or she wants with future groups. there's a seems to be no, no consensus. chris strohm: i think the

dynamic that could force congress into doing something would be the continued spread of isil and the advanced attacks they carry out. the congressman mentioned looking at tunisia as a point of hope in the region and now he is seen -- seeing the setbacks coming into play. so if isil gains expansion and that might tip congress toward stepping in to do something. host: we will ask about the iran negotiations and the rejection of those on capitol hill. the congressman used strong language to describe i ran and its influence. how does that affect the gop

leaders? josh gerstein: -- josh gerstein: the letter what -- that was sent to ayatollahs it garnered strong statements. clinton had a strong opinion on it. for the moment, criticism from democrats who might be specter -- typical of what the administration is doing has been dampened a little bit because of the tactic of the republicans it was so over the line that it was crushed -- brushed back. chris strohm: if the issue was not already polarizing, that letter made a greater wedge

between republicans and democrats. republicans try to separate these issues by talking about the iranian nuclear negotiations versus the iranian influence in the region and what that means for iraq. especially democrats will try to say, let the administration continue to negotiate with iran and look at that as being a credible form of activity, but then they will criticize what iran is doing in the region. the compass meant talked about -- the congressman talked about the repercussions that beckoned lead to. host: finally on the benghazi investigation committee, he said that gop is playing politics with the clinton campaign and the e-mails. there are things leaking out, we have heard that the national archives have not set up a

system and is concerned about having all records appropriately, where do you see this going next with the committee? josh gerstein: i think there will be continued efforts. john boehner said that through committees they will continue to press the issue. i do not think it will go away soon, unless secretary clinton agrees to maybe a neutral arbiter to go through records. i do not think that that will calm to a conclusion. there will be all kinds of questions about going back, i repeat of what we saw with the irs saga with people trying to find servers and backup tapes. it will not be an issue that goes away easily. there is no way for her to dig herself out at this point. host: thank you to both of you

for being here. >> on this morning the associated press is announcing that senator ted cruz is planning on announcing tomorrow that he is running for president. the 44-year-old cruz will be the first high-profile candidate to formally launch a white house bid. coming up next, secret service director joseph clancy will testify before a subcommittee. >> you cannot undo decades of soviet era stuff with eight

years, especially where you taught them on a model where they will have u.s. advisors. afghanistan, according to president's announcement, we will have troops there, but we will draw it down to 5000 next year. i will warn that we will see a similar result that we saw in iraq that army will be shaky without u.s. help. >> tonight on q & a, what we should have done to philly and iraq. >> members of the house appropriations committee question joseph clancy about secret service agencies -- agent

who allegedly job their car junk into a white house barricade. rep. carter: today we welcome joe clancy. the recently appointed director of the u.s. secret service. this is his first appearance before our subcommittee. director clancy, welcome. thank you for your willingness to serve dhs and our nation. fiscal year 2016 budget of the secret service is $1.9 billion. an increase of $273 million from fiscal year 2015. this increase is due in large part to the preparations for the upcoming presidential campaign cycle, deployment of obama detail, and additional funds

based on recommendations of mission panel -- the mission panel that reported out of december on the need for significant reform and service. director, we look forward to the discussion of these increases with you, learning whether you plan to adjust the recommendations today with various reviews of your service that have occurred over the past few months. i want to address an instance that was news last week. according to reports, two senior secret agents arrived at the white house public checkpoint in a government car after allegedly consuming alcohol. have agents proceeded through -- as the agents proceeded through the checkpoint and drove to the scene of an active investigation. the violation of behavior was not reported to headquarters until days later.

for an agency tried to restore its reputation three years after well-publicized scandal, this brings embarrassment and renewed scrutiny to the secret service. simply put, this conduct should not to be tolerated. congress is disappointed to see it on display again. director, i look forward to hearing your comments. first, i would like to recognize our new distinguished ranking member. representative: congratulations on your appointment as director. i hope you will find us to be tough but fair partners in efforts to make the secret service the best it can be. the agency has in do it significant criticism over the last several months, indeed over the last few years. unfortunately, most of it has

been justified. i and others on the committee were disappointed with conduct. this time it included senior personnel, a member of the president's protective detail who drove a government vehicle through a barricade at the white house after allegedly consuming alcohol. perhaps more disturbing, if true, it is an allegation that a supervisor overruled an initial decision by officers on duty to conduct a sobriety test. i applied your quick notification of the inspector general in this case, but hope you won't wait for the conclusion of the ig investigation to start addressing what went wrong. if the allegations of this conduct are accurate, i worry that they may be indicative of a larger, cultural problem at the secret service.

we will be discussing that incident this morning. i don't want to overshadow the good work that the vast majority of secret service officers and agents are doing every day. i saw that work firsthand when i visited your los angeles field office last week. i was impressed by the quality of a staff briefing in which u.s.s. personnel were discussing the final security plans for the president's visit to los angeles the next day. in interest of time, i won't elaborate on everything i saw. i want to highlight one program the los angeles field office is implementing in an impressive way. the los angeles electronic crimes task force. they are a strategic alliance of the private sector, academic, and law enforcement

investigating and deterring cyber crimes. it is a roundtable concept comprised of local, state, and federal law enforcement partners. they facilitate collaborative investigation through common strategies. i'm proud to say they were selected out of 80 nominations to receive the 2015 award for excellence in investigations from the peace officers association of the los angeles county. director clancy, we want to help the secret service on behalf of our country. thank you for joining us this morning. i look forward to discussing your proposed budget for the coming year, as well as your plans to point the secret service in the right direction. rep. carter: now i would like to recognize the chairman of the appropriations committee, mr. rogers for any comments.

mr. rogers: thank you for being with us this morning. this constitutes the first hearing of this subcommittee. i'm immensely pleased that we finally managed to pass a full year spending bill for the department to support our men and women on the front lines and bolster critical agencies and fund the joint anti-terrorism and law enforcement efforts on our home turf. unquestionably, your organization is a vital piece of this puzzle. the secret service carries out a unique dual mission of protection and investigation. the investigative component of your charge is essential for the financial infrastructure of the country. your mission is to protect our president, his family, and other

dignitaries from a host of potential threats. that requires discipline and dexterity, unparalleled skill, and professionalism. unfortunately, service has been beleaguered by a series of embarrassing and unacceptable lapses in security and other missteps. this will not stand. just when we think we have assessed the problems associated with september's white house incident and developed a plan to close existing gaps in security moving forward, news broke that two agents drove around a security barricade at the home where the president lives during an active bomb investigation drunk. you have personally committed to

me and others and leveraging your lifetime of service to this organization to restore the service to its once stored -- storied reputation. i want to take you up at your word. give you every chance to achieve that goal. incidents like these demonstrate just how far you have got to go. and how short of a time you have got to do it. we will find the adequate funding for your agency. it will be on a short string and we expect results. your fiscal year budget request includes $1.9 billion dollars. which constitutes a 273 million dollar increase. in addition to the presidential protective service, the supports the services network of 42 domestic field offices, 60 resident offices and president

agent offices and 24 offices abroad. notably, this request includes a significant increase to accommodate the responsibilities leading up to the '16 election and when president obama transitions out of office. $87 million is included pursuant to the recommendations of the protective mission panel. mr. director, we look forward to hearing how you intend to use this money, right the ship, so the secret service can focus. thank you for taking on this chore. we look forward to your answers. rep. carter: thank you. now the distinction ranking member of the appropriations committee. representative: thank you very

much for holding this important hearing today. welcome, director clancy. thank you for joining us. the secret service has had a long and storied history of professionalism. recent incidents have diminished its reputation over the last few years and raised serious questions about its ability to protect the president. clearly we have a lot to discuss. last july through a report accompanying the house funding bill, and this committee expressly stated that it was "deeply disappointed of recurring allegations and misconduct within the secret service." you withheld a substantial amount of headquarters funding in the fy-15 appropriations bill until new guidelines were submitted.

it is hard to believe here we are again. not only were we rocked i the -- by the white house fence jumper last september, but now we are confronted by yet another unfortunate incident that appears to entail significant misconduct. on march 4, two intoxicated agents drove a government car through an active investigation. that is possibly, because according to news reports, knows her brierley tests -- sobriety tests were administered. the agents were not arrested. they were allowed to leave the scene. the president's budget request nearly $87 million for protective mission enhancement in the wake of recent secret service missteps. i agree more resources are necessary for security enhancements. hiring, training, and funding

alone won't be enough to solve the secret service problems. this latest episode seems to be more evidence of a cultural issue that has not been adequately addressed by changes in senior management. director clancy, you recently assumed your position, but you have been with agency for an impressive 30 years. we want to work with you to restore the public's confidence in the secret service. we want to support you with the resources that you need, but the responsibility is ultimately yours. you must provide the leadership and insist on the accountability that is necessary. i look forward to a productive discussion this morning. thank you, mr. chairman. rep. carter: director clancy -- is this on?

we recognize you for your opening statement. i will ask you to keep it to five minutes. director clancy: thank you. good morning chairman carter ranking members, and distinguish members of this committee. i'm pleased to appear before you to discuss the president's 20 16 budget for the secret service. as the newly appointed director, i'm honored to lead the men and women of this important agency through this challenging time despite allegations of misconduct involving two agents, i have been impressed by the selfless dedication of the workforce as a whole and our people's willingness to take on necessary reforms in the betterment of the mission. with respect to these recent allegations, the secret service has turned over the investigation to the department of homeland security office of inspector general to ensure a thorough and independent review of this incident.

i have committed full cooperation and eagerly await the oig's findings. turning to the budget, i want to thank all members for your work on the 2015 department of homeland security appropriations act. for a second year in a row, this subcommittee worked diligently to provide the secret service with additional resources to support our staffing, training and operational needs. in addition, the 2015 bill includes $25 million to begin the necessary enhancements associated with the protective panels recommendations that were included in a report to secretary johnson on december 14 2014. the recommendations brought focus to training and leadership deficiencies. however, the secret service mission -- i'm committed to

determine the full extent of our operational requirements. the 2016 budget builds on -- my statements provide an overview. i would like to highlight a few areas. $86.7 million requested to adjust specific -- could be broken down into four categories. first, personnel initiatives. training center improvements. white house security infrastructure improvements. protective technology upgrades. my priorities are to staff the agency at a level commiserate with the demands of the mission. this includes critical and service training for agents and ethics and leadership development. one of the biggest missions

demands will be associated with the campaign protection to less than two years remaining before president obama's term in office comes to a close. the secret service is preparing for campaign protection requirements. during every campaign, the secret service's budget temporarily grows to accommodate the surge in protection requirements. of the money requested in 2016 for campaign protection and related items simply reflects anticipated time special agents will work in protection hours in support of the campaign. when people ask how it is the secret service can protect multiple candidates traveling between different cities and states in a matter of hours, i point to special agents who serve in the field offices around the country. without the support of highly trained special agents have experience with investigations and protections, the secret

service would be unable to handle the surges associated with presidential campaigns and other major events. securing the two nominating conventions is one of the most expensive and challenging aspects of campaign protection. these typically last three to four days and attract thousands of participants each. the secret service began to work months in advance to plan comprehensive security operations to identify and mitigate threats. those threats could cause harm to those attending these events. to mitigate the risk of cyber attack on critical distance a -- critical systems and key infrastructure that could affect the security plans, special agents have trade in the -- have trained in critical protections responsible for

protecting venues that are automated and interconnected. the secret service recruits from within the agency's electronic crimes special agents program. the computer forensics responder disciplines. special agents trained in these areas are responsible for the successful investigations into many of the largest known data breaches in recent memory. last month, secret service services led in the arrest of a russian national who will face charges as he allegedly conspired in the largest hacking and data breach scheme in that u.s. superior performance by men and women on the front lines needs superior leadership. i have worked open the lines of communication between the rank-and-file and their supervisors. i made significant changes in top leadership positions across the secret service to inspire a renewed focus on staffing, training, protective operations, investigations, and professional responsibility. i'm in the process of

restructuring the secret service executive leadership to better leverage the expense of civilian professionals while allowing law enforcement arsenal to focus on their core areas of expertise. with the support of the department and congress over the next several years, i'm confident you can put the secret service on a path to success for many decades to come. chairman carter, ranking members, this concludes my testimony. i welcome any questions you may have this time. rep. carter: thank you for that report. let's start with the 800 pound gorilla in the room. what happened the other night at the white house? i was in ukraine with a subcommittee of this body when we learned of this back home. i called directly to my staff to

find out what happened, because it knocked me out of my chair. considering the discussions we have had -- first of all, give us a picture of what you think happened. i think what was reported in the foreign press, it sounded like they crashed through a barrier so my first thought was a gate ignoring a crime scene tape due to intoxication. it requires -- it may not be that picture. give us a picture of what happened. then i would like to talk about protocols that may or may not have been violated and what protocols are in place to cover the situation here. alcohol is part of a stressful world a lot of people live in. in my cart -- in my courtroom,

there was a cartoon on the wall. the judge is addressing a young trial lawyer. the most important due diligence of the law relative to trial work is caffeine by day, alcohol by night. it was meant to be a joke. it is a tragic truth. in stressful jobs, those two become a major part of how people get through the day. but alcohol as we all know messes up your judgment. and there has to be protocols that address this. we have to deal with it. sometimes it is part of the life we have. we are protecting the face of -- the most important position on the face of the earth. it is your job whoever sits in the white house, he or she is the most important person on earth politically in this world. more power than anybody else. therefore, more enemies.

so, talk to me about what happened. let's talk about protocols. director clancy: yes, mr. chairman. on march 4, 2015, our understanding is two senior-level special agents came to the white house. the initial report -- i did not hear this incident until monday -- on monday i found out. once i found out monday, the initial report was from an anonymous report. two senior-level agents had crashed into the white house. they were inebriated. i had not heard about that. i asked my staff if they had heard about that. they hadn't. i asked them to get as much information about it. i decided to send it over to the department of homeland security

office of the inspector general. i thought it was important we have an independent investigation. that there would be no perception that we were involved. we wouldn't do any interviews. we would give that case of the investigation to the oig. i will also say that i brought my staff in on monday. we discussed why i did not know prior to monday of this event. we had a good, stern talk about that. i instructed his staff to go after their management to ensure that these events, any event of misconduct or operational hours, have to be relayed up to the -- up the chain. i will say that it will take time to change maybe some of

this culture. there is no excuse for this information not to come up the chain. that is going to take time. i will have to build trust with our workforce. the best way for me to earn that trust with our workforce is by my actions. i know, i'm eager to hear the results of this investigation. i don't know how long it will take. i'm committed to due process. i have removed those two senior-level agents to nonsupervisory positions. they're not working at the white house. they're outside at the offices. we will leave the findings of -- to the oig. rep. carter: on the issue of drinking, are the protocols set up to discuss the fact that everyone of your people are carrying a weapon?

and, this is purely hearsay someone told me that the person they knew -- if you know you are going to a place where alcohol is going to be consumed and it is a retirement party where more than one drink might be consumed, they expect their agents to report that to their superiors to leave their weapons at home and tell their superiors that they will no longer be available on call. because they may not be in a condition to be available for call. i don't know if that is true or not. that is something that was told to me. this was a retirement party for a member of your group. it was a party. people were expecting there would be drinking at the party. do you have any protocols like that in the secret service?

>> we do have a 10 hour rule. you are not permitted to consume alcohol 10 hours prior to your duty assignment. off-hours, we don't have protocols for going to party or reception or what have you. our protocols for driving a government vehicle. you cannot be under the influence. you cannot be exhibiting any indication that you are under the influence of alcohol and driving a government vehicle. that will be looked into with the office of inspector general. i saw a short video footage of the incident that evening. i saw the vehicle the agents traveled in. they drove it at a low speed.