>> 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.

that is something the oig will have an investigate. rep. carter: going forward, when you look into protocols that affect the situation like this? director clancy: yes. anytime we have an incident of this level, we have to look at protocols, policies. are they sufficient? they will have to be addressed. even after having one beer or one glass of wine, that is something we will have to address. rep. carter: dui laws are pretty rough. director clancy: yes, sir. rep. carter: it breaks my heart to think that one of the

agencies that has been a legend among the american people in the last six years has just come downhill substantially. it's a crime. our people need heroes. you are an agency that was considered heroes that protected every president matter what party they're in and did it in an effective and efficient job. this is heartbreaking to have this continued misconduct. i know you are new, but i told you, you have a big job. you'll have to make heads roll. if there's a place to send people, the mojave desert, so they know their behavior is unacceptable. think about all that.

the chairman has got plenty of hearings to attend. rep. rogers: why did you not learn of this incident immediately? director clancy: that is what we are trying to find out. rep. rogers: you are in charge. this is an administrative problem you have got. why did you not get word from your subordinates about this incident for five or six days? director clancy: yes, sir. not knowing all the facts -- first of all, you are right.

i should have still been informed of what transpired that evening. when a senior detail has allegedly come through a secure area, i should have been informed. we are following up on that. there will be accountability. our workforce is listening today. they're waiting to see how people are going to be held accountable. this is my first test. we will wait for these facts to come out. we will go back to the reports that were written that evening and the oig will interview these supervisors and going up the chain. you are absolutely correct. this goes through a culture of trust. do you have the trust in your leadership that you can bring

this to your leadership's attention? i've got to work to earn that trust and i will do that to my actions. rep. rogers: your actions should be punishment. termination. firing people who have subordinated their command you cannot run an agency like this for god sakes, or any agency. you need discipline in the ranks. this is a breakdown, to put it mildly, of discipline within the ranks of your agency. that is a cancer. it will consume you. were these people given a sobriety test? director clancy: they were not from my understanding. rep. rogers: who said to do that? director clancy: i cannot answer. i do not have the facts of that e-mail.

typically an event like that there would be some chatter. there would be discussion if it occurred the way it had been described. rep. rogers: who was the agent in charge at the time? director clancy: a watch commander. they would have been in charge of the white house complex at that time, certainly during the incident. rep. rogers: who is that? director clancy: by name? rep. rogers: bronson? director clancy: brawn. i believe the staff can correct me if i am wrong. rep. rogers: he was in charge at that time? is that correct? director clancy: yes, sir.

rep. rogers: did he report any of this activity to anyone else? director clancy: no, sir. rep. rogers: have you talked to him? director clancy: i haven't. it is frustrating to me to have to wait to do this. rep. rogers: why do you have to weigh? director clancy: i don't want to interfere with this investigation. in the past when we sought investigations were different people interviewed witnesses stories were perceived differently. i don't want to have any impact on that investigation. rep. rogers: have you asked around on what happened? director clancy: i have asked to see the report and i have seen nothing that indicates any written report indicating that this event as described had occurred. rep. rogers: what kind of their kid was it that they broke -- what kind of barricade was it that they broke? director clancy: an orange type

barrier. on 15th street and e street, this orange barrier didn't allow the vehicle to go through. they nudged this barrel out of the way. it didn't fall over. they moved up to a checkpoint when officer typically would be positioned. it appeared they were showing their badges to go through the checkpoint. that is the extent of the video we saw. rep. rogers: why were they there? director clancy: my understanding is the passenger in the vehicle was returning to

get his vehicle. they had been at a reception. they left together. the passenger had his vehicle parked at the white house complex. rep. rogers: needless to say you want to get to the bottom of this right away. you haven't raise your own vigorous, tough investigation. the agents appeared to be inebriated. to say you are not investigating and one the inspector general to investigate is hogwash. what do you think?

director clancy: sir, based on my limited experience and i came back, i read the report on 2011. the shooting on constitution avenue, one of the officers -- this individual was interviewed three different times by our agency, by the oig, by the federal bureau of investigation. my recollection is each of those interviews was different. if distorted the facts. what were the facts? what did that officer truly see and hear? i didn't want any perception that -- it can be intimidating if someone from my staff goes to one of these officers and what to do here and see? what happened? they may tell me and my staff one thing and another to the oig

and they may have a different perception of the spoken word. i'm frustrated. i'm very frustrated that we didn't know about this. frustrated that i cannot act until we get all the facts. i don't want to act improperly too soon. the president's family is safe. we have moved these individuals to non-supervisor positions. we can still get work out of them. rep. rogers: they are still getting paid. director clancy: yes. rep. rogers: no penalties,

financial or otherwise, right? director clancy: no financial penalties. sir, i would say i'm sure they're paying a penalty right now. rep. rogers: unfortunately, this is the last in a long line of episodes somewhat similar -- drinking, on and off duty, that this agency has suffered these last few years. it is not working right. we have got to have some changes. you have got to be the one that makes those changes. i don't sense at this moment that you have the determination to make that happen. am i wrong? director clancy: sir, i would disagree with you with all respect. there is an element within our agency that does cope with the

stresses that many of you have mentioned today by using alcohol. there's no question we have that element. you also have other element's in our agency that go a different route. some exercise. some go to the family. some go to religion to cope. we do have a section that goes to alcohol. we kicked off an initiative of work life to look at the stresses that our people are under. they are considerable. there is no excuse for these actions. there needs to be self accountability. we have got to find a way to help some of these people who are going towards alcohol to solve their coping mechanism. rep. rogers: i'm concerned about their health as well get a more concerned about the health of the president of the united states and who is protecting him from harm. if we have got special agents on the grounds at night in the

white house ramming a barricade drunk -- it seems to me that the only discipline that you could exert would be caused by the ability of you and your staff to terminate so that every other agent knows, i don't want to go there. that director will fire me. that is what makes the mind work. what do you think about that? director clancy: i agree. i think deep down within our agency and others, people want to see discipline. people want to be disciplined. people want to be held accountable. i want to respect the due processes as frustrating as it is. the let my actions speak for how we're going to move forward. rep. rogers: we will be watching and waiting. director clancy: yes, sir.

rep. lowey: thank you. there are so many hearings today. i want to follow up weekly. with all due respect, i'm shocked by your testimony. first of all, you said it wouldn't have been reported to you other than a whistleblower. there was an someone in the chain of command that reported it to you. and you said what really shocks me is it will take time to change the culture? i don't understand this one bit. it seems to me it should take time to help people who think this is the culture to go get another job. how can we as members of congress have respect for an agency that feels it is ok? we're not talking about someone drinking and partying.

we're talking about a respected member of the secret service who was absolutely drunk. how many people do you know, how many friends do you know who go to a party and then take a car and ran it into a fence or some other barricade? i find this testimony shocking. following up on my colleague, i don't understand it. i would think it would take five minutes to change the culture before you even know the facts. based on allegations, if you are not aware of this kind of activity is inappropriate for a member of the secret service you better get it now and go find another job. i cannot believe you said it would take time to change the culture. can you explain to me why it is ok remember the secret service

to get so inebriated that they can take a car and run it into a barricade? director clancy: if those are the facts and they may come out exactly as you stated them, then you are correct. we have a table penalties of how they can be disciplined. when i said the culture will take time to be changed, specifically i'm talking about if there was an event as described. why wasn't that reported? why wasn't that reported to my office? i think that is a long-standing process possibly where people don't want to relay that information. we have to prevent that. to your point, we are right that my actions will determine how that culture is changed.

i don't have the ability to just fire people at will. my understanding is you cannot do that. it doesn't mean -- rep. lowey: maybe my statement is not clear. i understand due process. but think of the inappropriate -- but do you think it would be appropriate that this sending out a message that this kind of behavior is inappropriate, can you do that? director clancy: we have reference that. we put out a statement saying there is accountability. this activity is not tolerated. we have got to shape the future of the service. rep. lowey: i guess i don't understand. and my time in congress, which is 26 years, i have had enormous

respect for the secret service protecting so many of our people in public life, including members of congress. i don't understand even off-duty how a respected member of the secret service could get so inebriated that may would take this kind of action going into a fence and knocking down a barricade. i don't to get why it would take time to change the culture. i hope it is clear that if they are off on a thursday and not on duty, they can get so inebriated that they can go into a fence when they are on duty, they understand this behavior is unacceptable. i don't want a member of the secret service frankly who is capable of getting so inebriated that this kind of action can be accepted. it can be expected when off duty, but not on duty.

this is why i'm puzzled. there is no doubt that this action took place. is that correct? director clancy: correct. rep. lowey: is it clear now that it will not take time to change the culture? do you understand why that doesn't make sense to someone like myself has respect for secret service? we don't want this person in the secret service. whether on duty or off duty. you don't want them behaving this way at any time. that is not the person you want in the secret service. they can find another job frankly. can the culture change immediately? or do you still believe it will take time to change the culture? director clancy: i cannot terminate people this afternoon. rep. lowey: i understand, can there be a clear directive that

if you are a distinguished member of the secret service whether on duty or off, you cannot get so inebriated that you are taking a car and going into a fence and possibly killing someone on the street. these are people with guns. director clancy: i agree with everything you are saying. the workforce is hearing a message loud and clear today. we have been stressing this through training, mentoring, coaching. this discipline we put in one year ago. people know the rules. it is up to individuals to conduct himself in a professional manner. rep. lowey: i hope you send a message and make it clear that

it should be business as usual even if they are off duty because i know to go get so inebriated that you are going to take a car and go into a fence you need to be pretty inebriated out there. i understand you cannot accuse anyone until an investigation is complete, but you can make it clear whether under their off, this kind of behavior is unacceptable for distinguished member of the -- whether on or off, this kind of behavior is unacceptable for a distinguished members of the secret service. representative: i have to say

i'm equally concerned by some of the responses you have given today. i hope i miss understood you in terms of use saying that you needed to wait for the ig report to take action. it seems to me there are many things that can be done now and actions that you can take now before that ig report. it is quite obvious there are lots of problems within the secret service that the incidents at the white house and other incidents are indicative of those problems. i want to give you an opportunity to elaborate a little bit on your opening statements. i think it is important that we in the public hear loud and clear that you not only acknowledge that there are problems in the secret service

but that you are actually implementing an effective plan in turning things around, things you can do now. right now you can demand a discipline that you are immediately notified of any other incidents. hopefully there won't be such an incident. there are things that you can do now. as your answering that question, ask what you'll be doing over the next weeks or months to reassure the secret service personnel, white house congress, and the public that you are moving in the right direction. if you could also talk about what you are doing in terms of sending a message of discipline, in general, that certain things are not acceptable and that

there will be consequences. as reported in the paper, if true that the incident at the white house, those involved, were given a less stringent approach, then the service has taken in the past -- if that is true, why? i want to give you an opportunity to respond to that as well. director clancy: consistency is very important. i'm not aware of how the discipline or action that taken so far will differ from the past. i have been briefed on some recent incidents. i talked to our legal counsel. to see what options we have in the first steps in regards to this incident. i will tell you in general we are going through a restructuring within our organizational chart.

that will be a subject may be later during this hearing. the idea of discipline -- before every trip, every agent on that trip is given a briefing on ethics and what is expected of them before our personnel meetings in any city. agents working that visit our briefed on professionalism as well as operational aspect of the visit. these topics are constantly brought up. unfortunately, we have an element and i would argue it is a smaller element. we have an element that is causing the agency great distress. i can tell you those agents and officers and our personnel who go home to their families, go to their church, exercise, or as

distressed about this as all of you. it is the reputation. they worked 8-10-12 hour days under great stress. it is a stressful environment. then you go home. you see the immediate reports that we are alcoholics. that is something that -- we have a work life initiative that we kick off a few weeks ago to try to adjust the stresses and how to handle people that go in the wrong direction. ultimately goes back to what actions do i take? what actions does agency take? rep. roybal-allard: that was my question, director clancy. what are your plans now to address these issues? separate and apart from the incident? how are you getting that message across? i want to highlight what chairman rogers said.

the best way to make sure these things don't happen and to weed out those who are the bad actors is a hard and swift disciplinary action. it could mean immediate dismissal. what is it that you are doing now to start addressing the problems within the secret service? specifically, what are you doing now? director clancy: some of these measures were put in place prior to my arriving. for example, the office of integrity reports directly to the director. rather than in the old days, if there's an issue of misconduct in a local field office, there may be inconsistencies on the way discipline was handed out. just over a year ago, this

office of integrity stood up to ensure consistency. within that office of integrity is a table of penalties. it is modeled after other agencies so we are not stand alone. we're looking at the best practices in the industry. rep. roybal-allard: can i stop you right there? obviously whatever has been done a year ago is not working. things are not working. the question is, what is it that you are planning to do to make whatever the systems that are in place? to reevaluate them to make sure they are working so we don't have incidents like this so the message is loud and clear? the secret service agents drinks or whatever the violation is that there will be immediate and

quick disciplinary action. something like you are dismissed. period. whatever has been put in place it is not working. i guess my question if you're not able to answer it now, for the record, what are the plans that you are considering or putting into place that will make the system work and send the right message to the secret service so they know there will be a harsh penalty if they violate whatever the rules are? that is my question. whatever was done in the past obviously is not working. director clancy: i agree. it is not working. i prefer to put together a

document spelling out what we are legally able to do and what we cannot do and where we would move forward and try to -- rep. roybal-allard: legally, can or can't do, are you saying when someone violates rules, is drunk, whatever, you don't have the authority to dismiss them? director clancy: i don't have the authority to dismiss them on the spot. rep. roybal-allard: on the spot. there are rules in place. director clancy: there are. there is a process in place we you can make a proposal. the individual has a chance to appeal that proposal. it is a somewhat drawn out process. rep. roybal-allard: maybe you need to look at that as well.

representative stewart: thank you for coming here. it's kind of a tough hearing. i'm going to jump on and i hope you forgive me for that. i recognize you and most of the agents who serve under you are honorable, they are driven by love for country but leadership is taking care of not the good people in some cases, it's taking care of the problems. you have the enormous problems ahead of you in my opinion. as a former military guy, i'm stunned by this environment and this culture and i will elaborate on that in just a minute will stop i think there are two problems here. we have this behavior of drinking and driving and carousing and there's lots of examples of it. i have three pages here i could go through. i understand that a little bit.

that happens and it is troubling. we have to deal with it, but i think a greater problem to me is the fact that there's an officer who was aware of this or many officers, at least one aware of this and took -- and took steps to protect their friends rather than hold them accountable. if anyone is aware of this and did not tell you, they have lost your trust. how could you ever trust them again to mark you may not be able to fire them, but you should assign them to the furthest tip of the aleutian islands because they have lost your trust and the trust of the american people. they have shown loyalty to their friends and coworkers rather than loyalty to their responsibilities. i don't know how you say it any differently than that. i was a military member for many years and i hear you say people are coping with stress. i've got to say i go please, oh

please, because lots of people experience stress. there are lots of stressful jobs in the world. military members experience acute stress and would never protect or sanction a behavior such as this. i can give you many examples from young airman to knew you'd -- new lieutenants to senior colonels and generals who are caught dui on base and they were just gone. they were dismissed. and we knew that. and the military was better because we knew that was the rule. we knew we would be held accountable and the american people were better and our nation was better protected because we have a culture we simply do not entertain this. for someone to have done it and then have one of their peers or supervisors or text them, it's hard for me to imagine that would happen.

in our cases, we were dealing with top-secret information, many of us, as are you and your agents. the most highly classified information in this nation, they have access to. accountability is not measuring up to the responsibility they have. i would ask you to respond to that but i don't know what else you can say other than what you have already said here, except for this idea of changing the culture, you said mr. director, and i understand what you are trying to do, but when you say i have to set the example and earn their trust, dude, you don't have to earn their trust. the way you earn their trust is hold them accountable. the others who are not driving through barricades and laying drunk and corridors of hotels in overseas locations, those guys know they are going to be held accountable.

that is how trust is developed in my opinion. i have gone on for a while, and i'm not berating you. i'm derating this culture. if you would like to respond please do. -- i'm not berating -- i am berating this culture. director clancy: thank you. we have had this culture in the past and after due process, they have moved these people off the job. carnahan yeah is an example -- cardin yeah is an example. there is an example, a history where we will discipline people but again, i cannot do this on day one. i'm frustrated the agency is taking this hit and rightfully so, but i have to allow this due process to take place and that will be our first test and first indication of are we serious

about holding people accountable? as bad as it may be to say this, as good as it may be early that it happened in my tenure so we can set a tone moving forward. i can't say anymore than that. rep. sewart: i appreciate that. it is an irony that it happened in your tenure because you have an opportunity now to truly lead and truly show what your expectations are of these agents. in my last few seconds, let me just say that i recognize most of these agents are good people who are trying to do a difficult job and do it well. but the ability and willingness of some of them food -- to protect one another incident being loyal to the oath they have taken, it's hard for me to respond to that. it is so foreign to my experience. director clancy: and i honor

that. the workforce is listening to this testimony today and the message is being broadcast loud and clear that it is not acceptable. rep. sewart: thank you director. representative: director, you are in a very difficult situation. i feel for you and i understand and thank you for taking this job in the first place. put yourself in our shoes will stop we have heard other directors say we are going to take care of it. what are you going to do that's going to be different because we've heard this before and with all due respect, how do you convince us that what you are going to do is going to be different? director clancy: i can't compare myself to the previous directors and what they did, but my focus is first, accountability. this will be our first test.

also, listening and me indicating with the workforce. i know that sounds like 101 leadership, listening and communicator -- communicate with the workforce will stop our people want to be heard and that's why there's some of this frustration out there that we have not done a good job listening to our people and showing them the respect -- we have to see what the facts are for this case, but, in general if a young officer or young agent sees something that's wrong, he's got to feel that when he gives that information of the chain that it will be respected. as we move forward, i have to ensure those mid-managers listen to those younger agents and officers and act upon them. i think too often information is passed up and nothing is done

about it. younger agents and younger officers assume nothing is going to be done. if i resonate something up to upper level and middle management, nothing is going to be done. we have to correct that. there are circumstances, just yesterday in fact, where i took an action where an individual was not being heard. a young officer. i walk my the white house every day and a young officer was not being heard on some recommendations he wanted to make. i brought in upper management we immediately responded to that officer in writing as well as sat down and went through egypt his concerns. -- went through each of his concerns will stop i don't know if it has been done that way in the past. representative: basic management in this organization -- i understand you have to look at

the morale of the employees, but at the same time, you have to provide discipline when you provide discipline. i hope you can find that val that -- find that balance quickly. i want to be supportive of that, the committee was to be supportive, but i have other concerns. one concern is the pope loss visit when he comes down will coincide with the united nations general assembly, which is a busy time for you all. how will the pope's visit impact the attendees of the u.n. general assembly? my second question is a little different -- you want to build an $8 million white house replica for training? i have concerns about that i have concerns about $8 million for a replica white house. talk to me about the pope first.

director clancy: the pope is confirmed to come to philadelphia for the world meeting of families. we are also planning for new york and washington. in philadelphia alone, we expect upwards of 2.1 million people to attend those events. at the same time in september of 2015, we anticipate the united nations general assembly and we expect 170 heads of state to come to that event because it is the 70th anniversary of the u.n. it would not surprise us if some of those heads of state travel to philadelphia to view those events, so it is going to be very taxing to our agency. but we have already started meeting. the local field office in philadelphia, as well, have been working with our local partners and the vatican and other federal agencies to put together a good plan.

philadelphia has been designated and an fsd. there has been funded -- funding for philadelphia we will use some of the money left over for fiscal year 15 to use us for -- to use for the pope loss visit. we will be repaired. a lot of those are 12 hour days for our agents and officers and we will reach out to the department of homeland security partners tsa ice and the coast guard for support, but we are well on our way to a good one for the pope's visit. rep. cuellar: the other question, we will do it in my second round, because my time is up. representative: director, thank you for being here today. you have talked about this thorough review needs to be done

and a process needs to go through to let people go. what are the steps? how long does this take. it seems if you don't have swift action, it builds more to this low morale of complacency we hear about. if it is not swift, what's the point? when was the last time the secret service did fire somebody because of their actions? director clancy: in the netherlands, there was someone drinking on the trip, and he was removed. rep. young: how long did that take? i'm surprised these officers who drove drunk through a barricade haven't stood up and said we are resigning. what do you do with them? if you

don't let them go, do you trust them? where would you put them? director clancy: as it is now they are in nonsupervisory positions outside their original office. one assigned to the president detail has been removed, the other working the washington field office has been removed. both have desk jobs, nonsupervisory. once the process goes through we will have options toward removing their security clearance, if we remove their security clearance then termination would be a factor. rep. young: it seems like such a yet -- such a long and drawnout process. i know if we have problems with a staffer on the hill, we have the ability to immediately let them go. i'm wondering where all of this comes from?

we will find out, i'm sure through the committee with the processes, but just amazing to me. the low morale issue we hear about -- i understand stress jobs and maybe you are just not hearing your officers, but it's got to go deeper than that. how is that affecting staffing needs and people wanting to work for the secret service? director clancy: you are exactly right. staffing is our primary concern because we don't have the proper staffing, although we are working -- and thank you for the funding -- we are building up our staffing quickly. we have added additional personnel in our hr department we have brought in contractors so we can build up staffing and we are anticipating overreaching

our goals in terms of hiring for fiscal year 15. that will have a direct impact on morale because the quality of life will be better, they won't have to have as many days canceled, work as much overtime, travel will be cut back because there will be more people we can use, but the most important thing with the staffing is the training. when we get more standing cut -- we get more staff, we can get more training. since the 19th, we have taken a big step from where we are. better quality of life, more training, i think that is going to help morale, as well as accountability. when these types of events occur, accountability is critical. this is not unique to the secret service. the way we are handling this particular incident, i don't believe other agencies under title v, they cannot terminate people at will either.

i may be corrected on that. rep. young: thank you very much. i want to see you succeed. i really do. we here at the committee want to do what we can to be helpful but we can only do so much by making sure we provide the necessary funds and exercises you need in training and that kind of thing. it has to come from within. you have to dig down and find the root of this problem and i hope you succeed. the secret service has an immensely incredible, important jobs, one of the most important jobs. we are here for you as well, but we do demand some account ability. rep. rogers: mr. young, our employees are at will employees and their employees are not at will employees will stop rep. young: -- at will employees.

rep. young: thank you, mr. chairman. representative: thank you for your distinguished career in the secret service and for stepping up and taking over this agency at such a difficult time. when i was a young boy i always looked up -- the secret service, that was it. think about protecting the president and the important mission you all have and i share the sentiments with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. we want you to succeed. this is something that is important for our country and is a difficult time. we have heard about the different problems individual agencies have had. i just -- after listening to some of the comments, i want to ask you this -- at the fundamental base of any profession when someone is going to training, we heard from one

of our colleagues in the military, i was trained in the profession of law, as was our great chairman. there are certain fundamentals important -- and parted in the recruitment and training process. you have inherited this. i guess my question for you is how do we impart the values, a good inherent values of the secret service to the recruits and bring that through the training process so that when an agent comes to the point of becoming an agent, these issues are something he or she would stand up and say no to? that seems to be one of the fundamental problems we have inherited. director clancy: you are exactly right. in terms of our hiring and recruiting process, it is a 7-9-month process. everyone gets a thorough check out. what we get them into training they're given classes on ethics

professionalism, and it is driven home. somewhere after that training is where we lose them. i think that is because of my leadership, our leadership, that somewhere, we lose them where they forget those lessons learned. i think the only way we get that back is by accountability that we drive home so that people realize there are consequences to individual behavior. rep. fleischmann: i harken back to the different professions. there are -- there is continuing training is professionals annual or semiannual as what is expected of them. will that be part of the process? director clancy: we do five-year updates to make sure they are good citizens and so on and we continuously do training throughout their careers. but in many ways, it comes to individual accountability. if you see someone in your

presence not performing properly, we have to step up individually and correct it as well as the supervisors have to do it. as an agency, we have just got to work together to get through this. rep. fleischmann: when can the committee expects your report on the standards as required by the conference report in fiscal 2015 homeland security appropriations act? as a follow-up, do you intend in that report to address the concerns that have been raised on both sides of the dice today? -- on the dais today? director clancy: i don't have the date, but we will give you more definitive dates once we conclude this hearing. rep. fleischmann: thank you director clancy. i do wish you every success in your endeavor. i yield back.

rep. rogers: i've been looking at some numbers here. in my estimate, you have about 4600 people who either carry a weapon or are eligible to carry a weapon will stop mr. stewart made a good example of stop you are not in the army, you are not in the military, but you have an armed force under your command 4600 armed men and women. that is a huge responsibility. it's the kind of responsibility the chiefs of police in major cities have, where they have that responsibility. they command has to be rigid and maintain what is necessary to handle a -- to handle an armed force. it's a dangerous mission and a dangerous group of people. whether the houston police department or your force.

the concern that we here is -- let me say something. on the ig, i think i know why you did this because you wanted to major with a clean investigation to start. i'm not criticizing any ig's here. it's also a place to put something where it can go away for a while before it becomes a current event again in washington dc and a lot of things can calm down in that time. i have experience in our veterans administration some of the ig investigations and some of the results of this investigation. they can be disappointing. i don't want this to be a policy of well, we've got a problem punted to the ig and by the time they did done, everyone will have forgotten about it.

i'm not going to forget about the problem and i don't think anyone appears going to forget about the problem. i hope the ig has been told they better build a fire under themselves and get a response very promptly as to what's going on here. in reality you are the head. you have people above you in the chain, but you are in charge of these armed people. there has to be a strict chain of command. the managers of those people should be all over them today. if these two people were senior management, you should be all over them today. i realize you've got union contracts, you've got civil service issues and all of those issues to protect the worker, sometimes to the detriment of the agency. it is a weakness i find appalling. if i could wave a magic wand to

fix it in washington, i think the ability not to terminate someone for dangerous or bad behavior immediately, quite honestly i think is unacceptable. but that's not your fault. that is the way it is and i recognize that. but in turn, you are in command. you have division under your command and you have to make sure everyone in your command and control structure our meeting that obligation. that they are not just sitting around watching us talk on television figuring out what it is. i can choose their -- i can chew their ass also, but that's not my job. i think it is a barrel pump and tape rake, but you are both holding badges. get out of your car, walk the

crime scene and say what's going on instead of being so arrogant as to think you can intrude into a crime scene? that's another issue if they were stone sober, that's an issue you have to ask them. are you such a big shot in his agency that you think you can drive through one of my crime scenes? that should be something they get called on for if they were stone sober, they were arrogant. part of this isn't you can have an agency like you have, it's not like they don't put their one leg -- but their pants on one leg at a time. they cannot act like superman. that's what we are talking about. your job right now -- some of these outside reports told the president not to hire inside the agency, so you've got a big responsibility because you have

30 years of friends. that's your job. when i met you, i believe you were the guy who can do it and i still believe you're the guy who can do it but recognize what your authority is, exercise that authority. that's not a question. i just wanted to say that because i think sometimes we get so off acting like bureaucrats that we forget you are a dangerous bunch of people. as dangerous people, you have to be in a set chain of command from top to bottom. or something dangerous is going to happen. that is what we are all worried about a peer. we don't want anybody under your to lunch to allow someone they are supposed to be protecting whether it's the president, the pope, people at the u.n. or

whatever. those are big responsibilities and i think the chain of command is haywire. work on that. director clancy: yes, sir. representative: let me just associate myself with the comments made by the chairman. i do believe you are up to the task and can do it. the protective mission panel made a number of recommendations for staffing, training leadership and protective enhancements at the white house complex. i have a few questions related to that. what can you tell us about your schedule for filling those recommendations, particularly with regards to the improvement of the replacement of the white house fence and is the budget request sufficient to allow you to fulfill all the panels recommendations expeditiously as possible? director clancy:

director clancy: the budget request is definitely a good step forward. the recommendations from the blue-ribbon panel, the ones we can do short have been completed such as adding additional -- we are in the process of the new structure to protect the complex. with national park service, we make a decision on where to go with that. even after we pick and choose that option, we go into a design stage. that is six months. then, a procurement stage, then the construction phase. it will take 1.5 years to complete the project. however we have been testing at , our facility some interim measure for the fence. putting something on top of the

fence that will deter people from climbing. we recognize that is a long time to wait. we are looking at an interim measure to go and place this summer if we can get the proper approvals. rep. roybal-allard: the mission panel also recommended that the next director, which will be you, conduct an honest top to bottom reassessment of the agency and that he move the service afford into an era and -- forward into an era and drive change in the organization. what are you putting into place to help you look more broadly at the agencies practices processes, activities to identify places where improvements are needed so that the initial training of new agents isn't lost and senior members help to reinforce the ethics and training that young agents get rather than whatever is happening today?

director clancy: we have begun a restructuring of the executive staff. first of all with bringing in new staff members, with new ideas and reinvigorating some things we want to do, but additionally, we are empowering and elevating our civilian professional subject matter experts. just as an example traditionally, the secret service has had a director and a deputy director. we now have a vacancy announcement for a chief operating officer who would be on the same level of the deputy director. that chief operating officer will ensure the business is run correctly, efficiently. we have put under this chief operating officer of visions -- positions that traditionally been agent held positions. traditionally, the chief financial officer has as a to an agent.

yet elevated that position so we do a better job in the budget world. the same with our technology. typically, that director was run by an agent. we have moved our engineer to run that directory. same with a nationwide search for a civilian private sector cio. chief information officer. we want to leverage their experiences, their professionalism, their subject matter expertise in our agency. additionally, on the operations side, you mentioned the training piece. previous to me being named director, hr and training director was one director. i have split them to provide focus on training and the hiring process. specifically, the training. now we are spending a lot of time in sharing --ensuring people get the training they need. since september 19, training has

been increased 110%. agent training has increased 78%. we have to sustain that and that is why we have this new director for training to sustain that level of training that our people -- that they need. so, in general, we are restructuring the management of the agency. rep. roybal-allard: i see my time is up. mr. chairman. director clancy: -- chairman carter: thank you. mr. cuellar? rep. cuellar: thank you, mr. chairman. the department of homeland inspector general and i think the professional reinforcement working group have come up with different recommendations. i know you up lamented some of them but have you unlimited all -- implemented all of them or are there still some missing? what still needs to be done on

those recommendations? director clancy: the longer-term projects. for example, you mentioned earlier the training facility. the mock white house, we feel that is important. right now, we use, we train on a parking lot. we put up a makeshift fence and walk off the distance between the fence of the white house and the house itself. we don't have enough parking lot, the bushes, the fountains we don't get a realistic look at the white house. we think it is important to have a true replica of what the white house is so we can do a better job of integrated training. i think special forces before they go out to do an operation. typically, they have a model

first and that is where we would like to be. we would like a mock up where we can train efficiently. rep. cuellar: when you look at the secret service, you look at the employees there and the employees that will be there. that is hopefully a diverse hiring process. how are you focused on the folks -- and i know you have gone over this, but just summarize it, on the employees that are there and on the new hires that will be coming in? to make sure you don't compound the problem? director clancy: there is continual training. the problem we have had recently? yes, sir. four years. we have continuous training. we had it hard and our first -- on their seven months of first training when they are first hired as well as

the background check. we look for any deficiencies in their background and the polygraph. we lose a considerable number of candidates because of the polygraph. we are looking for those people with the best character. then we go through the background check is that we think we are hiring very good people. then we go through the seven-month training with ethics and professionalism stressed as well as the operational piece of our job. although we continue to train and give classes on ethics and professionalism throughout their career, i think as much as anything, it is how we react to these mishaps -- misconduct. how do we hold people accountable? that is the piece that may be missing. that is my responsibility to ensure we hold people accountable. we lose a lot of people by attrition. more recently, i would say because of their quality of life. when you are working 12 hours a

day and you think you have the next day off and it is canceled, the amount of travel they do. the stress we are under. people don't want to hear us talk about -- rep. cuellar: do you lose them to other agencies or to the private sector? director clancy: we lose them to other agencies but what i have done since i have come here is i have encouraged and assisted that these uniformed division officers who want to roll over to special agent positions, we have to make that happen. we cannot do it all at once but we have to make more of an effort to let them become agents because they want to experience that side of our agency. if we don't, we have invested a lot of money in them. they will go to other federal agencies or the private sector. we don't want to lose them after all of the investment you have supported. rep. cuellar: in the hiring process -- do you work with

historically black universities or hispanic institutions to expand the pool? because you can have a small pool, and you lose a lot. but if you expand the pool, do you work with those universities to help expand to look for potential recruits? director clancy: part of this will have to go on memory. i know we did. over the last two years, our hiring process has been limited. now, we are back on track and we will go out to those colleges. this fiscal year we have asked for additional money so we can have these hiring fairs at these universities and in the military as well to get a good, diverse group of people. rep. cuellar: quickly, the secret service has a tradition. lately, it has taken a black eye. how do you expect to turn this around quickly?

we have heard other people exactly where you are at. how do we take your new initiative to say this will be different this time? director clancy: it has to start with building the trust. part of that is how we will hold people accountable. people's views matter. we are listening to whether you are a brand-new agent, officer professional, we are listening to your concerns and we have to act on them. if we don't, they are going to lose interest and we will have these discipline problems. we have to do a better job of communicating, mentoring teaching, and each of us whether you are a supervisor or not, have to take the sensibility to ensure these types of events don't happen. rep. cuellar: i wish you the best. director clancy: thank you.

chairman carter: director clinton, you mentioned zero based budgeting. one of the recommendations is a need for a new budget structure that is zero-based or mission-based as subject matter. how is this different from the budget from fiscal year 2016? what type of budget reform is being considered and how would it be implement it? -- implemented? how might a new type of budget drive future funding needs? have you are the identified gaps -- already identified gaps in funding based on initial reviews of the budget? i can go back over those again. director clancy: thank you, mr. chairman. this budget is one that i inherited. i think it is a good budget. it is definitely a step forward in a positive direction. we are in the process now of identifying from top to bottom

where our deficiencies are. that zero-based budgeting, which are cfo has experience and, -- in we are , going director by director to see what those needs are so we can best have our people trained, staffed and give them the proper equipment. we are compiling a list of those priorities, things we really need. chairman carter: my friend, mr. cuellar has , told me how they do things in the great state of texas. when you are defining what it will cost to do a certain mission, we can see where the failures are in each mission and we can budget and make changes accordingly. isn't that what you have been pushing me with? that's -- that's what you seem

to be proposing, which i quite honestly, gives us a clear picture of how the agency's functioning. i like the idea. i hope you do well. director clancy: thank you. we are constantly looking at emerging threats. as we talked before about what we need to address. that is all part of this. representative roybal-allard: just quickly, i would like to follow up on the zero-based i did. can you tell me what the time line is for completing this type of analysis? director clancy: initially, we hoped we would get -- my cfo just gave me an answer. in 2017, you can expect a mission driven program identified budget. by 2017, we will be well on our

way to a zero-based budgeting. rep. roybal-allard: great. what are the central recommendations of the protective panel to hire an additional 200 officers and increase the number of protection agents by 85. the panel described this new hiring as an interim step while the agency does the necessary analysis to match personnel requirements with needs. i'm aware the secret service has struggled in recent years to keep attrition from outpacing hiring, and you have recently taken steps to address that. are you satisfied that you have overcome the shortcomings in the hiring process and you -- do you anticipate you will be able to meet the hiring goals for fiscal year 2016? director clancy: in short, yes. in regards to the panel and the recommendation that agents come 85 to be presidents detail.

we have 30 that have been reassigned to the president's. -- president's detail. thanks to your good work, we can transfer more people to washington so we can fulfill that 85 number requirement. in uniformed division, we are working with your staff to look for retention measures that may allow us to keep some of these people that are closer to retirement or maybe looking at other opportunities. the retention piece is important because we will surpass our goals in hiring. initially, we planned to have six classes of agents. now, we anticipate nine agent classes. and eight uniformed divisions. rep. roybal-allard: ok. my time is up. chairman carter: mr. cuellar. rep. cuellar: no further questions. we want to work with the director. thank you.

rep. roybal-allard: the budget proposes to eliminate $8.4 million for exploited children investigations, including funding that has supported activities at the national center for missing and exploited children. the justification -- for missing and exploded children will continue to be provided to the agency's field offices. the secret service has a long-standing partnership with the national center for missing and exploited children going back decades. while we understand there may be a need to prioritize funding for activities within the agency, it seems we should be wary of weakening that partnership.

what would be the specific impacts on the national center if we were to appropriate no funding for the support program in fy 16 and what are the benefits to the secret service for the existing partnership? director clancy: we understand this is a pass-through grant through the department of justice. this is a very important mission to us. it has so many good things. it is such an important job. we offer a lot to our local law enforcement partners with the forensics we can do, the polygraphs we can do for them. and just a relationship -- just relationship holding, as well. we can bring a lot to the table to try to help with this very important mission and we are very thankful to be able to do this. rep. roybal-allard: ok. chairman carter: if no one else has any questions then i guess

we will end this hearing. i want to say this has been a tough way for you. -- date for you. but it is all a learning process. once again, we are part of that director clancy: yes, sir. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator ted cruz plans to announce tomorrow that he is running for president. he would be the first high-profile candidate to launch a white house bid. although several gop contenders are expected to enter the race in the coming weeks. we plan to have live coverage tomorrow morning starting at 10:00 eastern on our companion network, c-span2. this weekend, the c-span cities tour has partnered -- to learn about the literary life of columbia, georgia. >> this is the css jackson.

in ironclad that was built here in columbus during the war. the oval shapes you see our exley the gun ports of the jackson -- actually -- -- actually the gun ports of the jackson. the rifle that we are firing today is one of the guns built specifically for the jackson. it was cast at the selma naval works in selma alabama. and completed in january of 1865. the real claim to fame is strictly connected to the fact that there are only four ironclads from the civil war that we can study right now. the jackson is right here. and this is why this facility is here. it is first and foremost to tell the story of this particular ironclad. and to show people that there were more than just one or two ironclads. >> watch all of our events from columbus today at 2:00 p.m. eastern on "american history tv

." on wednesday, the house budget committee held a markup of its 2016 federal spending plan. the proposal aims to cut $5.5 trillion and balance the budget in 10 years. cuts to domestic programs, and a repeal of federal health care laws. it would replace medicare for future retirees 56 years and younger with about a like system. no major tax changes were proposed, with the exception of repealing the alternative minimum tax. in particular sticking point for the public and's was the spending for defense. this portion of the session is just over an hour. [indistinct chatter]

>> good. and the gentleman is recognized or six minutes. representative: thank you, mr. chairman. as i said in my opening statement, we have seen a pattern emerging for decades now of increasing worker productivity. in other words, people are working harder than ever. they have been more productive than ever. but the gains from worker productivity have not translated

into real wages for most workers. they have gone disproportionately to folks at the top men -- top and of the income scale. what this relates to is trying to use incentives to encourage higher pay for employees. and also provide a fair shake for people in the middle and people who are working their way into the middle. now, if you look at our tax code. we spent about $1.4 trillion every year on tax expenditures. these are credits deductions and the tax code. that is more than we spend each year on social security, on medicare. and if you look at our tax code, you will find that it actually tilts -- it favors people who make unearned income -- not my term, it is in the tax code --

over people who make earned income. as warren buffett has pointed out, our tax code is tilted towards people who make money off of money. and not in support of people who make money off of hard work. so this amendment tries to get this issue in two ways. first of all, it recognizes that we try to use our tax code for lots of things. some things are good. we try to encourage savings. it also provide force special provides for special deductions for jets, deductions for resources. so it seems for me we should use our tax code to encourage higher pay for people who are working hard. and i would like to put up a slide now. as i mentioned, worker pay has been pretty flat. most people, flat pay. but the income gains of that increased worker productivity have gone to the top.

as you can see, ceo compensation has skyrocketed over that. of time. in fact, it has gone about 300 times average worker pay. and they get a lot of the so-called bonuses and so-called performance pay. what this legislation would do is say listen, you are a corporation. go ahead and pay your ceos and executives whatever bonus they want. but to the extent you are providing compensation over $1 million in the form of bonuses and performance pay? you don't get a text. deduction for it unless you are making sure your workers are also getting a pay increase that reflects their productivity and reflects the cost of living. taxpayers should not be subsidizing ceo bonuses and executive bonuses over $1 million. if they are laying off workers or cutting their pay. after all, we use the tax code

for these other things that i mentioned. surely, we can use it in a positive way to help workers. that is one thing. this would also create a policy that says we should encourage apprenticeship programs and job programs so that businesses that develop those kind of programs where people can earn while they learn -- and often translates into more pay overtime -- that they can get a deduction for that. it also says that folks in the middle class of people working hard to get to the middle class should have a tax code that works for them. not just for people at the very top. and it recognizes -- can we go to the next slide? that our current tax code provides tech -- tax expenditures that go to the top 1%. the top 1% of income earners get

70% of the value of tax credits and deductions. so what this amendment says is that is not right. we should not have a tax code that rewards unearned income off of earned income, which is a big part of why that chart looks like it does. and we should give middle-class taxpayers and people working their way to the middle class a fair shake, whether it is for improved childcare, tax deductions, like the president's plan -- providing them the opportunity to have matched savings. if you put a little bit more toward your savings. and like a paycheck bonus tax credit, which says that we should reward work as well as a tax code that rewards money off of money. i would encourage my colleagues to support this. i don't know if ms. lee wanted to say a few words, as well. representative: very much.

i want to thank our ranking member for this amendment. income inequality in our nation has reached, quite frankly, a constable heights. ceos are paid nearly 300 times more than their workers. today, corporations are giving tax breaks -- given tax breaks while working families and people working hard to find a job, they are paying much more to pay their bills and to put food on their tables. much, much harder for these people. -- has increased by 935%. chairman: the gentleman well have time to close. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for seven minutes in opposition. representative: thank you, mr. chairman. the republican budget, it calls for revenue neutral tax reform.

it doesn't specify the tax rights. it doesn't specify reductions or credits. i agree with the gentleman that our tax code, as it exists, is complete with loopholes and -- some of them are no longer effective. some of them promote activity that we no longer want to promote anymore. the best way to raise median household income, i believe, is to increase the competitiveness of this country and to bring american jobs back to america. the slide that you see on the screen now is a graph of oecd tax breaks. if you notice, the one on the far right over 35%, the one in red, is the united states. the average is 25%. our tax code -- when you read about in versions, if you look at this chart, you will understand why. we are basically forcing our

businesses overseas, forcing them to take american jobs overseas, and that has a detrimental effect on middle-class income. next slide, please. this is a slide from gallup. this is startups versus business is closing in america. you will notice that in about 2008 two 2009, for the first time in 50 years, the number of businesses closing in america has exceeded the number of businesses starting in america. again, a representation of the fact that our tax code makes us noncompetitive and is forcing american jobs overseas. our -- yes, i will yield. chairman: whose tax code was we -- were reliving under in 2008 echo representative rice: we are living -- 2008?

representative rice: our tax code was designed probably in the 1950's and 1960's. our tax code, we are no longer competitive. which is why you see -- if you would go to the next slide please. this is a slide of gallup. this is small business owners. the people who create jobs in this country. the people who are responsible for pay raises. and if you will look in the top 10 concerns that they have, government regulation is number three. health care, obamacare is number four. taxes is, what, number eight. if you at all those up. that is by far the number one thing that concerns small business owners today. next slide, please. you can see the results. this is largely because of taxes and regulation, that our current system is having on our economic

growth. three years ago cbo projected our growth would be 2.9% over the next 10 years. laughter, they said 2.5%. this year, they said 2.3%. we need to do something different. next slide, please. this is a chart i have shown before. the dark blue line is median household income. and you can see, it it has declined since 2007 by 8.7%. the other lines, the redline, the purple line, the green line, our charts of health care costs food costs, and energy costs. you can see under the current system, while median household incomes are declining, all these expenses are rising. and we are squeezing the middle class. our proposal for tax -- revenue neutral tax reform would simply make disk -- this country more

competitive. the laws for supply and demand would cause wages to -- and we don't want to assume the responsibility of the ways and means committee in writing the tax code with provisions like those proposed in this amendment. we would prefer to leave that to the discretion of the ways and means committee, which is within their purview. with that, i will recognize my good friend from georgia, mr. woodall. representative: i think my friend for yielding. would you put that slide back up that tom just had on the screen? he is talking about issues that everybody cares about. if you put back up the slide that tom just had, it is a strikingly similar slide that the ranking member put up.

we care every bit as much about the decline in income in this country, though i would say to you that freeing the american entrepreneur, freeing job creators from the burdens of our current tax code, the 1986 tax code which was in the neck and 54 -- which was in the 1954 tax code. but i was a this to my friend. where we part ways is when we leave worrying about american families and restructuring to dictate behavior to american businesses. any shareholder in this room has the opportunity to dictate ceo compensation. we have seen some of those efforts. you have seen some of those efforts succeed, and you have seen some of those efforts fail. the very gdp decline, south carolina pointed out, from 3% four years ago to 2.5% to 2.3%

-- trying to tell business leaders how to run business. i can't put families to work in my district is -- if businesses are locating there. if folks are not risking their capital. i want that risk-taking to continue. and then i want to see wages go up as that demand for labor in our district grows. while i encourage folks to vote against the gentleman's agenda a we can work together to make a difference in income and wages for our families. with that, i yield back. representative: i yield. chairman: the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, is recognized for one minute. representative van hollen: they were talking about the middle class squeezing -- this does not

dictate to any corporation what pay they can give to their ceos. it just says you don't get a taxpayer deduction if you are a corporation. you don't get a deduction for bonuses over $1 million if you're not giving your employees a fair shake at the same time. between 2007 2010, corporations took $66 billion in deductions for ceo and executive pay. why should taxpayers subsidize that? look the big difference here is the proposal republicans are putting forward green lights the romney-ryan tax plan. the idea is you cut tax rates for millionaires. and somehow, miraculously, the economy is going to grow. didn't happen. what this does is focus tax relief on the middle class. and people joining -- working to join the middle class. this is what it is all about.

chairman: the gentleman's time has expired. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say, no. the no's have appeared the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. garrett? mr. garrett, no. mr. -- ? mr., no. mr.:? mr. cole, no. mr. mcclintock? mr. mcclintock, no. ms. block? ms. block, no. mr. woodall? wrister woodall, no. ms. blackburn? missed by car, no. mr. wright? mr. wright, no. mr. -- ? mr. -- , no. mr. sanford? mr. sanford, no. mr. womack? mr. womack, no. mr. brett?

mr. brett, no. mr. mooney? mr. modi, no. mr. glassman -- mr. palmer? mr. palmer, no. mr. molinari? mr. molinari, no. mr. westermann? mr. westermann, no. mr. buchanan? mr. buchanan, no. mr. van hollen echo -- van hollen? mr. van hollen, aye. mr. llamas? mr. llamas, aye. mr. ryan? mr. ryan aye. ms. moore? ms. moore aye. ms. castor? ms. castor, aye. mr. mcdermott? is to mcdermott, aye. ms. lee? ms. lee, aye.

ms. lujan grisham? miss lujan grisham aye. mr. lou? mr. lou, aye. mr. norcross? mr. norcross aye. mr. molson? mr. molson, aye. mr. chairman? mr. chairman no. [laughter] chairman: does any member or to change their vote to echo if not, the clerk shall report. >> mr. chairman, on that vote, the aye's are 13 and the no's are 22. chairman: the next amendment is by the gentleman from wisconsin. i'm sorry, the amendment's amendment number two.

the clerk will designate the amendment and the staff will distribute the copies. >> expressing the sense of the house relating to the class taxes. chairman: the gentleman is recognized for six minutes. representative: i am reading the seven sentences we have about tax reform and the general description we talked about. including lower rates for individuals and families, as well as small businesses. what was the tax rates implied by what we put together that we are putting on? chairman: you have six minutes. you can bring that information out in the questioning if you would like. representative pocan: ok, that is what aspect of your. chairman: on your time? representative pocan: yes. chairman: could you repeat the question? representative pocan: what are the tax rates implied? chairman: this is not the committee's jurisdiction on taxes.

which had come up with a program of tax reform that gets this economy rolling again. representative pocan: so we don't have the rich we had two years ago? chairman: they are not included in this document, no. representative pocan: thank you mr. chairman. i thought we got rid of don't ask, don't tell in this country. but in this budget, we don't really tell people what the rates will be, but we tell people that we will lower the rates. and i'm looking at specifically the language around tax reform. with the exception of 50 words identical, page after page, is what we had two years ago in front of us. exactly what paul ryan had in here. the only words that seem to have been taken out his tax reform should be revenue neutral and should not be an excuse to raise taxes on the american people. i don't know why we would take that out. and then we took out with the goal of achieving a top individual rate of 25%.

we talked about reducing the corporate rate to 25%. otherwise, language -- the language is identical. what you're trying to do is get down to 25%. mr. rice even mention 25% in the last amendment. the problem is what we learned two years ago, which is probably why you excluded those 50 years -- words. i don't blame you for wanting to take that limits out, the problem is you kept the pages and pages and pages of other limits that all refer to it. so we pretty much know why -- where you want to go. if i can just keep going through, i have such a limited time. what we wanted to do is mix or we have a little more meat to this. right now, the meat that is left to this, you could put out a cocktail back in. we don't have taxpayers, but we don't have any specificity whatsoever.

hard-working families should not have to pay more so that the top 1% or 2% could pay less. if we go down to a rate of 25% like i said, two years ago it came out very clear. no one must see that happen. at least, i assume no one wants to see that happen. this amendment says -- this resolution explicitly opposes any effort to raise taxes on middle-class taxpayers with a jump to gross incomes below $200,000. since we have this kind of not conform of what we're going to do about tax relief, the one thing we could put in their would be to protect those -- there would be to protect those earning less than $250,000. i think that is something we can all agree on. if we can't at least agree, we are going to protect the middle class. then we have a bigger problem as this goes for.

i know that the language, again is very, very clear. pages of language, with the exception of those 50 words, is identical to what this committee has seen before. and we have seen before in the ryan budget. so we know where this is all going to we heard that other conversation with the 25% rate. all the more important if we are going to do this, we should be, at every turn, protecting those middle-class taxpayers. if we could put slide 16 up, please? this is where we are right now the disconnect between productivity being the blue line and hourly compensation. wages are flat right now in this country. the last thing, someone trying to work hard, buy a home, sent their kids to college, the next -- last thing we want to do is give them a tax increase. if you could go to the next slide, i believe slide 15? this is showing specifically

where the economy is. that we are getting jobs, but wages are dead flat. they are just not where we need to get them. while i know that next week will introduce a budget proposal that introduces some very specific, concrete examples, i think the one thing we could try to agree to, at least on this committee to have some specific language would be to at least honor a commitment that this should not provide a tax increase to hard-working americans. as i said, and probably why those 50 words aren't there, it is very clear, having a target iq have with all this language plus the 50 words -- like you have with all this language, plus these 50 words -- otherwise we are giving a green light to that increase. paul ryan, we share county in wisconsin.

i can exactly what the secret is. you will have a 25% tax rate. it will meet tax increases for hard-working americans. this amendment to tax those folks on that. with that, mr. chairman, i would be glad to yield the time back. chairman: the gentleman from georgia is recognized in opposition for seven minutes. representative: i think the chairman. chairman: i appreciate the gentleman yielding. i'm just going to mention that the reason there is no numbers and there is that we exit hold up hope that democrats will join us in progrowth tax reform. paul ryan has been working on that. we actually think that there is a possibility that you are going to jump on board and help us with reform this year. i yield back. representative: i think the chairman -- thank the chairman for his faith and his optimism. this language is not specific about what tax reform looks like. if you are a fair tax supporter

it is important. with folks have a conversation about what type of tax reform we should lay out your, i was opposed to restricting that decision. people talk about tax breaks for the rich. they want to take out every tax break across the board. people talk about tax breaks for corporations. that is the only one in congress that eliminates everyone across the board. we talk about income taxes for the middle class, but my friends on the other side know as well as i do that 80% of american families pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. you have to do with the payroll tax burden that is crushing them from the very first paycheck they receive at the age of 16. there is only one bill in congress that does that. i am glad we are going to have that debate, mr. chairman. and i look forward to making the case. i wish this amendment, mr. chairman, -- i would have been

right there with you. but the presumption in rejecting tax increases on the middle class is other text pieces. not only that this economy can withstand, but we look for to imposing. i want to look at -- around at the eyes of my republican colleagues, you won't find a one that supports increasing taxes on middle-class families. not one. in fact, they don't believe that we need increasing taxes period. our tax problem is our tax code is broken. it is not taking -- we talk about protecting the middle class. for pete's sake, my middle-class families have lost a job, their health care plan, they have lost faith in this congress doing what it said it was going to do. if i pull up piltifact.com --

politifact.com -- i am going to see a promise broken. that's with the said last time or went on that road. we are better than that. we are better than adding burdens to the middle class families. i would encourage the vote against the gentleman to amendment. -- gentleman's amendment. but i would encourage strong support on both sides of the aisle. tax reform that really will put american families back to work. with that, i would like to yield to my friend from south carolina. representative rice: thank you. if you look at the president's budget, you will find plenty of tax increases. if you look at ours, you will find any. we don't know what form tax reform will take. we can put a slide back up that shows that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world

and set we are not competitive. go back one slide, please? the best thing we can do to help the middle class is not give them another tax duction is to give them a job. we have the highest -- the highest number of adult, working age adult that are not participating in the work force in decades. we've got middle, median household incomes declining. guess what, it is not working. we read about inversions every month. we got to make ourselves competitive. if we took a poll of the democratic members of congress, i bet 75% of them would agree that we need taxes. -- we need tax reform. this bill does not specify the form of a tax reform. this is not up to this committee. that is up to ways and means. they are tasked with finding tax reform that will make this

country more competitive. that will help middle-class families and every other family. i will would join the gentleman -- would join the gentleman from georgia in opposing this amendment. representative: i think my friend from south carolina. my chairman told the memories of this committee, have fun, it is budget a. wondering if it is really going to be fun on budget day. but the truth is, i hear it in the words of my friend from rail and, -- from maryland, there is so much we agree on that would matter to folks back home. they said, rob the one thing i need -- give me certainty. this product that we are putting together today, we haven't opportunity to go and conference it with the senate and provide certainty for the first time in my three terms in congress. i am excited about it, mr. chairman. i do hope we work together to

achieve the very goals that we all agree on. i yield back. chairman rice: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for one million -- minute to close. representative pocan: if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. if you have page after page identical to what we had two years ago to take the rate down to 25%, and all we are missing is 50 words, that is what is going to happen. that is the goal of what you are trying to do. we will go to the ways and the meat committee. that means a $2000 tax increase on middle-class families. if it doesn't, let's put this amendment. but if we don't put the amendment on we are telling them what we know from two years ago, all the words are there but 50, we are going to put a $50 tax increase.

i think we at least over the taxpayers that. i hope you will support the amendment. i hope you will support the middle class. the hard-working folks who do not have their wages going up. chairman rice: the gentleman's time has expired. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say, no. the no's have it. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. akita? mr. akita? mr. garrett? mr. garrett, no. -- mr. -- ? mr. cole? mr. cole, no. mr. mcclintock? mr. mcclintock, no. ms. block? ms. block, no. mr. woodall? mr. woodall, no. ms. blackburn? this blackburn, no. mr. wright? mr. rice, no.

mr. -- ? mr. -- , no. mr. sanford? mr. sanford, no. mr. brett? mr. brett, no. mr. blunt? mr. blood, no. mr. modi? ester moiety, no. -- mr. moody, no. mr. palmer? mr. palmer, no. mr. westermann? mr. westermann, no. mr. buchanan? mr. buchanan, no. mr. van hollen? mr. van holick aye. mr. jan the stucco mr. llamas, -- mr. llamas? mr. llamas -- ms. moore? lismore, aye -- ms. moore aye. mr. mcdermott?

mr. mcdermott, aye. ms. lee? ms. lee aye. mr. poe can? mr. pocan aye. mr. know folk? -- mr. know folk -- norcross? mr. norcross, aye. mr. chairman? mr. chairman, no. chairman rice: have all members voted? any members wish to change their vote? if not, -- > the -- >> the -- chairman rice: the amendment is not adopted. we are proceeding to amendment three. excuse me. this is amendment number three. the clerk will designate the

amendment. >> amendment number three, offered by mr. norcross related to defense and nondefense spending. chairman rice: mr. norcross is recognized for six minutes. representative: thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member. what my amendment does is to eliminate self-inflicted wounds of sequestration. the simple amendment achieves what many in this body always -- already agreed to. this amendment would allow for proper and transparent budgeting that all agencies and departments have publicly and privately asked for in order to fill their responsibilities to the american people. i wasn't here when congress voted for the sequestration, but i did see and i did hear about the effects it had back in new jersey. since sequestration went into effect, i have continually heard from businesses large and small

about how this policy was never designed to take effect. and has created economic uncertainty. in new jersey, uncertainty has hindered business. their abilities to invest in new technologies. looking to grow the company, in many cases, the just couldn't do it. they couldn't at the jobs. since businesses told me, though, that they would like to make these investments, they didn't. it is the uncertainty in the economy. our job in this committee and in congress the certainty through the proper budgeting process. not sending signals of uncertainty that would move through our economy. whether they did business with the federal government or not these companies depend on us, this committee to provide certainty and transparency in the way we budget so they can make their decisions. the republican budget in front of us today extends that

uncertainty by continuing to sequester -- by using a budgetary gimmick. and that takes our responsibility -- and fails to adequately fund critical investments here at home. the budget in front of us cut nondefense spending by $36.1 billion in defense funding by 38.3 billion for 2016 in order to stay within sequestration. yet it adds another $36 billion in the overseas contingency operations account. this gimmick is an attempt to circumvent the same sequestration loss -- laws at the level we all know it needs to be. when you get past the gimmicks both my colleagues and myself are proposing it at the same level. the difference is transparency and accountability to proper budgeting something to the fence

department has asked for. i sat with some people in this very room and listen to the secretary of defense carter tell us the house proposal doesn't work. because they have to have the defense. we need the strategy that we laid out. we need the budget we have laid out. not just this year, but for years to come. for years to come. that is so important because what we are doing here. giving that certainty that those -- to those who need it most. without proper budgeting, we are creating a hollow fence. new equipment, training, under way of thinking. i hear about the threats to server security, threats from ice -- isil and the threats

from our military commanders without proper funding, we degrade our readiness. the ability has made us exceptional. it is not technology that makes us special, it is that we are equipped with training to back it up. this is a hollow force that sequestration leads to, and it is not ready to meet the needs. last month, 70 members of the republican party wrote the speaker saying that $561 billion, including the presidents budget, represents the jagged edge of what can occur around the world. instead of feeding the calls the members are choosing the support of budget that we all agree upon doesn't adequately fund our national security. instead of making the difficult

choices, we need to manage our priorities and tackle our debt. the republicans budget uses this to hide the extra defense spending in funds. the reason for this has nothing to do with budgetary, nothing to do with defense. it has to do with internal republican politics. in the past, we have been able to meet and exceed those who seek to do harm to the u.s.. and our citizens way of life. shining example of american exceptionalism. but with the new security challenges we face, this will be tested once again. these are just some of the reasons i have proposed to raise the caps on in defense spending. i think all of my colleagues would agree with me that we need a strong defense.