ken thomas, let me follow up. one of your lines of questioning was will be candidate come out stronger or weaker. we saw that with mitt romney the problems he faced after the nomination. kenneth: we talked about immigration earlier. that was one of the problems for mitt romney. he was pulled a bit too far to the right. i think that is the key question here and both of these states. it has become a divisive process. is the eventual nominee someone who will have trouble getting to the center in a race that at this point looks like it will be against hillary clinton. steven: we were talking the straw poll now in wound, iowa. will this be relevant? will it make a difference? caitlin: if jeb bush and scott walker decides not really play in that early ballot, that i think will be telling. we saw last time michele bachmann was the winner of the

straw poll and got out pretty early on in the race. it is a big fundraising opportunity and the chairman talked about the importance of having it. it was interesting to hear him say that is not necessarily the direction -- it's not necessarily going to give us direction as to who will come out on top. steven: finally, to both of you if you look at february, iowa, new hampshire, nevada, it is conceivable that you have four different winners in each of those states. caitlin: i think there are a few different lanes that these candidates are competing for. i think to your point about how long this will go on for, i think it will go on for a while as they are competing for several lanes within the party here. kenneth: it also raises questions on the super pac and.

it will be a long race and he will need resources to last several months. steven: ken thomas of "associated press" and caitlin huey-burns of "real clear politics." figure for joining us. we appreciate it. >> tonight on "q&a" -- eric larson and his new book, "dead weight." mr. larson: the question gets complicated when the question arises what ultimately happened to the lusitania? why was the lusitania allowed to enter the irish sea without any detailed warning that could have been provided to the captain that was not. this has led to some very interesting speculation about was that ship essentially set up for an attack by churchill for someone -- or someone in the

admiral. it's interesting. i found no smoking memo. i would have found the smoking memo if it existed. there is nothing from churchill to jackie fisher or someone else saying, let's let the lusitania go into the irish sea. nothing like that exist. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific. >> former chair ben bernanke speaks tomorrow. he will discuss the u.s. economy and efforts to achieve full employment in the labor market. that is tomorrow at 930 a.m. eastern on c-span two. later that morning, a conversation with transportation secretary and epa administrator. they sit down with politico's mike allen.

that is live tomorrow on c-span 2 beginning at 11:45 a.m. eastern. next, secret service director joseph clancy testified before the house oversight committee about the agency's current operations. he was asked specifically about an event earlier this month at the white house that involved two secret service agents, allegedly jiving into a barricade while drunk. director clancy has been in charge of the secret service since october, after the former head resigned. there's hearing is three and a half hours.

rep. chaffertz: the committee on oversight and government reforma will come to order. without objection the chair authorizes to declare recess at any time. appreciate everybody being here. reforming the united states secret service is not a partisan issue. ranking member cummings and i have presented a united front on this issue and i look forward to continuing this important work with him on both sides of the aisle. the most important mission for the secret service is protecting the president and his family however a litany of recent

mishaps raise major concerns. in 2011 nobody recognized shots were fired at the white house until bullets were discovered by maintenance staff. it has been well publicized the secret service agents engaged in misconduct and cartagena amsterdam and miami. , in september last year a security contractor with an arrest record, wrote in an elevator with the president, armed with a gun completely and announced to the president's detail. now, on march 4, the second in command of the president's detail, drove his car through a crime scene involving a bomb threat when the president was in the white house. this has to stop. the secret service has a zero failed mission to protect the president and his family. this is especially true for the president's protective detail, or what is often referred to as the ppd. we need to understand why these incidents keep happening. this committee requested the

special agent in charge of the ppd, robert buster, i tend closed-door briefing regarding the incident. director clancy said no. the committee requested the supervisors on duty before and during the incident in march to testify today but director clancy said no. we asked director clancy to turn over video footage of the incident and again the director said no. in a closed-door briefing last week director clancy was unable to adequately answer questions about the events of march 4. instead he asserted by referring the matter to the inspector general he was unable to ask any questions of his own but congress is also doing an investigation. to not do an investigation would be malpractice on our part. congress has a role. we have a duty, we have our responsibility to conduct our

own investigation. by refusing to allow the witnesses we invited to testify with first-hand knowledge of the incident director clancy is , keeping congress and the american people in the dark. on top of that the secret , service has missed every deadline to verify this committee with information with no legitimate explanation as to why. it is unclear why director clancy is choosing at the start of his tenure to be so unhelpful to congress. i was hopeful director clancy would assist congress in understanding how we can restrict agency to its prior stature. this does not appear to be the case. the march 4 incident is concerning on three major points. number one the interference of crime scenes, seen by secret service personnel. number two allegations involving decisions, communications and dispositions of senior secret service personnel and number three the agency's apparent botched response to a bomb threat while the president was in the white house.

although the secret service has refused to provide video footage of the incident the metropolitan d.c. police department has. initially, i indicated that i was frustrated about the lack of response by the metropolitan police department based on , information given to us by the secret service. i was critical of the chief and suggested chief lanier was going to get a nasty-gram from congress, which we sent. i can tell you i have nothing for praise and thankfulness for her in her department and agency for swiftly and completely responding to congress's request. we appreciate her, the men and women who work at the metropolitan police department and their swift response to our , request. it certainly stands in great contrast to what we have seen from the secret service. now we are going to show part of , a video that was provided to us by the metropolitan police police department but a few things before you see this.

on at 10:24 p.m. a woman drove march 4, her vehicle to a security gate outside the white house fence line on 15th street and left a package she claimed to be a bomb. secret service agents and officers at the scene confronted the suspect but were unable to apprehend her. the package sat unattended as traffic drove by for a long period of time. it took 11 minutes for the secret service to call the metropolitan police department bomb squad. for 17 minutes traffic intended -- continued through the intersection of several pedestrians walk within feet of the potential bomb. i don't understand how that happens. when the secret service finally did call they fail to mention to the metro police department that it was an actual bomb threat rather than just a suspicious , package and it's been explained to us there's a difference. there's a difference in the response time and the approach

that they take. you can understand how around the perimeter of the white white house there are oftentimes items that are left unattended but it's a wholly different situation when somebody comes up and places at the perimeter of the white house a package that they claim to be an actual bomb. let me show this video and i will try the best i can, we have -- we will put this up on our youtube channel to try to describe what's happening. it's roughly 10:20 p.m. at night, there is a car, it pulls up. you can start to see the person who is dropped off and then you will see an officer come out and try to apprehend the person but he has already been charged now with a variety of different crimes. the potential bomb sits next to that building right there and again we are doing time-lapse

video. you can see cars have been driving by and whatnot. then we are assuming in here and -- zooming in here and you can , see the agents that were in question about what they were doing, this is a full 30 minutes after the initial would-be bomb was placed there. you can see there are some big cones and big barrels that are put out. again, we have a crime scenes at this point. the assault on the officer and , then you have within just a couple of feet, you can see they're bumping into that barricade there. that is not much of a barricade in my personal opinion but driving right within a couple of feet of this would-be bomb which begs a lot of additional questions. it takes the secret service and the metropolitan police department about an hour and 20 minutes to finally come to the conclusion that this is not a bomb and the scene is then rendered safe. an officer followed the suspect in her car. we get to another part of the story which begs a lot of questions.

he drives up, drops off a would-be bomb and then the secret service gets an officer behind this person that they were mistakenly called off the pursuit when the secret service identified the wrong car at the suspects. right behind, i can only imagine this officer saying, i have this person in my set, but instead of pulling this person over, instead of may be going that extra step to check, it is waived off. they pursue another car which is not actively the suspect. 30 minutes -- 30 minutes after the woman fled the scene, the secret service finally issued a bolo, a be on the lookout for a vehicle to local law enforcement. metropolitan police department didn't know for 30 minutes what vehicle they were to be looking for -- 30 minutes.

the suspect was finally arrested three days later n 90 miles away, by a jeff: different police agency on an unrelated charge. the day before she was arrested she was interviewed by the secret service agent at the secret service claimed they were unable to arrest her and instead canceled the lookout for the women. back at the white house on march 4, two senior secret service agents including marc connolly the president's second in command of protective details disrupted the crime scene. these agents placed themselves on their colleagues in the president and family and potential danger by driving their government vehicle through a barricade within feet of a potential bomb. i just a good service policy, video footage of the incident should have been retained, however, most of the footage evidently, according to the secret service has mysteriously gone missing. i find this highly suspicious. in a briefing last week, director clancy and deputy secretary marcus played the tape

of the incidents that showed the same incident from different angles. just a few seconds of an incident that lasted more than an hour and 20 minutes. there were eight minutes members there. three committee chairman several ranking members, for democrats, four republicans. the limited image showed the police moving the barricade aside from the car. i want to set aside for a second they concerned that the secret service is only maintaining video footage for one of the most important buildings and our country for 72 hours. that makes no sense on any level to me. because there are issues related to national security the , prosecution of the actual event and the basic ability to , learn from past instances as we are having to deal with now. based on the secret service policy video footage of this , incident should never the less been retained.

we had to crime scenes that should have immediately been highlighted. yet an agency spokesperson told "cnn" quote in the event of an operational security incident the white house complex specific video footage is maintained for investigative and protective intelligence purposes. that would seem to make sense but that is not what has , happened here. yet director clancy and deputy , secretary mayorkas only show to very limited views of the incident. does a potential bomb at the white house not qualified as an operational security incident end quote. if the potential bomb doesn't qualify them what does? these tapes should've been retained in this committee intends to find out why they were not. we were only shown seconds of a video for an incident that lasted for more than an hour. director clancy, today we expect , answers and we expect you to know them. we are nearly three weeks after the incident. to help you prepare for the hearing today my staff reached out to your congressional

affairs office to let you know what subjects we would be covering today. the staff was fully briefed on what we expect you to know and i want to let you know that the i -- i don't know strategy is not going to sit well with our committee. we look forward to you answering the questions and providing clarity on what happened march 4 and we do appreciate you being here. i can tell you that you have been personally very accessible and i greatly personally very much appreciate that. so, with that, let me now recognize ranking member mr. cummings. rep cummings: thank you very much, mr. chairman and i thank , you for calling this hearing today. director clancy, welcome again and let me start off by saying director that there are moments in life that are and should be transformative moments. in other words there are moments , in all of our lives where something happens and it may

very well be negative than it usually is and then we have to pause for a moment and learn from it and correct it. if we do not correct it at that moment, in my 64 years on earth i have discovered that it usually gets worse. i am here to tell you that we are at such a moment. the sad part about it is that these moments seem to keep coming. usually in life it's one moment or two that but they seem to just keep coming and coming and i'll tell you i have great concerns and i am glad this is about a partisan effort because -- bipartisan effort, because this is bigger than us. this is bigger than the secret service. this is about the security of the most powerful person in the

world. i know this will not get down to a partisan battle. it will not get down to a gotcha but this is about us trying to , do our job. your job and the great men and women of the secret service's job is to guard the president's family, our former president and other protectees. our job is to make sure you do your job and make sure that you and the agents are accountable. now i must tell you that i was , disappointed to find out that we will not hear from the other secret service witnesses the committee invited to testify here today. director clancy i have the , greatest respect for you and your service to our country.

your job is crucial. your reputation is exceptional and sound. your desired to object to your -- protect your agents and officers against unwarranted intrusion is admirable but as i have said to you before if we are going to air, let us err on the side of the safety and security of the president of the united states of america. so we wanted to speak with these witnesses for a very simple reason. according to your own testimony you did not know about this incident until five days after it happened. you yourself have said that is unacceptable. again, as i said, we have those transformative moments and that is one symptom of the problem

saying that we need to do some transforming. your predecessor in my , conversations with her, one of the things that she said was that quite often she did not get information, she did not get complete information. she got inaccurate information and in some instances got no , information. something is wrong with that picture and it is wrong with that one and obviously there's something wrong here. with all due respect i have to , say how disappointed i was with your initial letter on friday. eight simply announced -- it simply announced that you would be the only witness today without providing any reason for other witnesses not testifying. no other committee is doing more on this issue than ours. we are trying to conduct their work in a responsible i partisan

-- bipartisan manner. we really have no room for error and if we're going to err, we will err on the side of the safety of the president. when we receive and response think is no explanation at all, it is difficult to view that response as respectful which i know is not your intent. i understand that. for these reasons i was heartened to receive your letter yesterday in which he outlined your specific concerns with the public testimony of agencies charged with protecting the president. i also appreciate your offer to work with this committee to examine other ways to provide us with the information we need to fulfill our constitutional oversight responsibilities. of course we all understand , there is an ongoing inspector general investigation of this

incident. we respect that. the ig has informed us that he will be moving quickly and should be able to answer key questions in weeks, not months. we recognize the inspector general's investigation could result in recommendations for disciplinary action. the last thing we want to do is interfere with that process but keep in mind what i said. if we are going to aierror, we must err on the side of the safety and security of the president. that is why the chairman and i have committed to consulting with the ig directly before taking any significant action that could impact this work. director clancy, my most significant concern has always been and remains today that you did not know about this incident and that nobody in the entire agency told you about it. there's something awfully wrong

with that. five days. five days. five days. five days went by while you were in the dark. laster, when the former director of the secret service appeared and sat in the same chair which you are now sitting in, i warned her that she was not getting the information she needed to do her job. i alerted her that officers and agents believe they were better off staying silent instead of raising their concerns up the chain. i informed her that there were agents that felt more comfortable coming to members of the congress of the united states than talking to people who were the higher-ups in the secret service. there's something wrong with the picture. an environment of secret service that would allow these deficiencies to continue yet that appears to be exactly what happened here.

i believe that when the chain of command is broken, when the chain of command is broken there , is no command. it's like a body without a head. and when there is no command there is vulnerability. again, that vulnerability goes to the safety of the president of the united states of america. so let me make something very clear. this is not business as usual. this is not just another oversight hearing about just another agency. i admire this president greatly. i admire him for his challenges, the challenges he has overcome to be president. the confidence he has achieved since then, the principles he stands for on behalf of our country and the world and the contribution he has made to our nation's history. i also admire the people of

-- arour former presidents and their families. i want to make sure and all of us want to make sure they are protected so i don't want you to take this personally. this is about us doing our job. you have to be accountable to us but your job is of course to , guard the president. so i do not want anything to , happen to him, not under my watch, not under this watch so this will not be about politics. it cannot be. it cannot be about headlines or unnecessary disputes that contribute nothing to the solution. we must come together in a nonpartisan way to take concrete steps both publicly and privately to turn his agency -- this agency around. again this is a transformative , moment. if we fail to do that in this moment, it can only get worse. the agents and officers of the secret service risk their lives

on behalf of this great nation. they are great human beings, great public servants and they deserve an agency that they can be proud of. one of the things that concern s me greatly is the anonymous e-mail that you got to us. would somebody put this up? this e-mail, you are familiar with it are you not? , this e-mail concerns me. it says since last wednesday , night the uniform division established a crime scene on special post 15 at the white house after package was thrown at an office or the office was told the package was a bomb so they taped off the air and made -- area and made it a crime scene. at some point, add sack from wfo ppd, drove through the crime scene tape. duty officers on the scene said they were both extremely intoxicated. they were coming home from a

retirement dinner. they apparently flipped on the lights of their government vehicles to go around the roadblocks. then they nudged the post with , their government vehicles. then, they were waving their white house badges around. confused as to why the post was evacuated. the officers were going to arrest both of them but the watch commander said not to. apparently the whole incident , was captured on video from inside the jail scene. what i don't understand is this. a lot of people got this e-mail. a lot of them got it but you didn't. that is a problem. but you know what really bothers me? i kept reading this e-mail this morning over and over and over and do you know what i concluded? it appears that we have an

agency at war against itself. the idea that an organization like this that somebody would create this kind of document to bring this kind of disruption when they are supposed to be guarding the president of the united states of america. we are better than not. -- better than that. in some kind of way we have to , take advantage of this informative moment. if we don't, it can only get worse. with that i yield back. rep. chaffertz: i now recognize mr. desantis of florida the chairman of the subcommittee on national security. rep desantis: thank you, mr. chairman.

notwithstanding a statement the secret service has been falling short of that standard and i think the chairman did a good job of enumerating some of the problems we have seen in recent years. we are here to examine this most recent incident and i've got to most recent incident and i've got to say i join the chairman in expressing my disappointment for the lack of cooperation. we wanted to speak with witnesses. we wanted to have information sooner and i think that is not the way that this is going to be productive. this is a very important role that the agency plays not only in protecting our leaders against threats foreign and the mess the, -- domestic, but that's part of a larger mission to protect the integrity of our government to make sure that elections are honored and the people who are elected to those high positions are safe. i think to do that effectively you have got to have a system that has robust accountability. i think that is what the questions are we are looking at

today, where's the accountability in the agency? it just seems throughout the whole saga with different problems that there is not swift accountability. i think that's going to make a -- it more difficult to get the agency where we all wanted to be. i do commend the chairman mr. chaffetz ranking member coming -- cummings, my colleague on the national security subcommittee mr. lynch for their diligence in ensuring those who carry out this important mission are given the tools they need to carry out their responsibilities. we want high standards and we want accountability. the american people want nothing less than i look forward to director clancy's testimony and i yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman and want to thank ranking member cummings for his work on this as well as chairman desantis' greatly appreciate the fact that we are working together on this. this hearing is to examine the

continuing lapses in security involving the u.s. service and i would like to thank director clancy for being here to test -- testify this morning. but i have to agree with the chairman mr. chaffetz in the ranking member -- and the ranking member and mr. desantis that the fact that you were not notified of this incident for five days concerning your two agents is totally unacceptable and it shows a deep deep problem within the organization that we have to deal with. at the outset i would like to note that the purpose we are having this hearing today is not to disparage our dedicated workforce but rather this bipartisan investigation into recent security incidents at the white house and other secret service protected locations and events founded in our genuine concern over the safety of the president his wife and his daughters his mother-in-law and white house personnel read

regrettably systemic challenges antiquated security protocols and entrenched agency culture have given rise to glaring gaps in the security in the critical protection mission of the secret service demands we make every effort to address them. on the heels of the white house fence jumping incident that occurred on september, in september of 2014 and reported gunshots near the delaware residence of vice president in january of 2015 we have now learned about 2 security incidents that occurred on the white house grounds on the night of march 4 that call into question the effectiveness of existing security protocols, security technology, information sharing and post-incident review of the secret service. in a briefing this committee on march 17 the alleged and the agents -- of two secret service agents with a live bomb threat investigation at the white house the secret service played us to brief and seemingly incomplete

video clips of a slow-moving vehicle bumping gently into a plastic barrier. those videos were taken from almost identical angles and contained absolutely no audio. in response to a member request that he provide us with additional videos of the incident, director clancy revealed the secret service routinely over rights footage after 72 hours. director clancy informed us he did not receive notification of the alleged altercation until five days later on march 9. the security footage in question was reportedly purged two full days before the director found out about the security incident. that is unacceptable and tells me we need a stem to stern review of our security technology policy at the white house. director you invited us over and the members of the committee to review the command post for the surveillance of the white house. i know for a fact we have full spectrum review and surveillance over that area.

we probably have five or six cameras at least that would have given us useful information regarding this incident. as the chairman pointed out we have overlapping incidents that we have a bomb threat, an act of -- active bomb threat while the president is in the white house and his family is in the white house. we have an active bomb threat and then we have an interference by these two agents during a bomb threat during that incident and we purged the tapes. we purged the tapes. that active bomb threat against the white house was something that should have raised red flags with personnel from the secret service. it should've been on everyone's mind and i know multiple e-mails went out to supervisory personnel. everyone knew this was a bomb threat and yet we went ahead, at least that is what i'm hearing

so far that we went ahead and purged the tapes surrounding that -- we destroyed the evidence and that is just mind-boggling that we might do something like that. now i have a lot of questions and i know the members of the committee do as well but as a frame of reference indicating an adequacy of the 72 hour video retention policy, i would note that my own state of massachusetts requires state municipal agencies to retain their video and that is why agencies ranging from the massachusetts transportation authority to the boston housing authority have a one-month video storage policy in place. in addition under its current memorandum of agreement with the federal transportation security administration regarding the use of consolidated camera surveillance systems at logan

international airport has expressly agreed to retain and capture images for 30 days. that's at the request of a federal agency. we retain it for 30 days. moreover local educational institutions such as tufts university university of massachusetts have also implemented a 30-day retention policy for the campus security cameras. in addition i have a number of kindergartens in my district that retain because of the security interests of those children. they have a 30-day policy could -- and i have to tell you and i have said this before you know my local store 24 has a better surveillance system than we have at the white house. that's a sad statement of affairs and that has been because of a number of directors going back beyond your own service. there are a lot of questions to be answered here and i'm going to let the rest of my statement

go. i appreciate the chairman's indulgence and i yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman. i will hold the record open for five days for members who would like to submit a written statement. we welcome the honorable joseph p. clancy director of the united states secret service. before we go forward though let me say the members of this committee do not believe the presence of mr. clancy alone is sufficient to achieve the goals of this hearing today. we would prefer to have done this a different way. the secret service has refused our ability to do that. the people involved in this should know they will be invited by this committee and both sides will be present as we conduct this further. the secret service refuses to let other invited witnesses testify. our committee has questions or we issued these letters of

invitations for these individuals to appear, did they received those invitations? or was the secret service prompted and at home and -- did the homeland security become involved? we have a lot of questions about why those individuals who asked to appear are not sitting here today. we do expect to close the loop on these witnesses in the future whether that be a follow-up hearing but it is the intention that we will most likely deuced -- do transcribed interviews to -- through this process. with that said mr. clancy we do appreciate you being here are a pursuant to committee rules all witnesses are to be sworn before they testify. you will please rise and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? director clancy: i do.

>> thank you. let the record reflect the witness answered in the affirmative. mr. clancy we will recognize you for your opening statement and please know that your entire written statement will be part of the record but we are pretty lenient on the time. please share with this committee your thoughts and perspectives. mr. clancy. director clancy: good morning chairman chaffetz's ranking member cummings and distinguished members of the committee to thank you for the opportunity to be here to discuss the recent allegation of misconduct on march 4 of 2015 and agencies progress in fulfilling recommendations of independent u.s. secret service protective mission panel. as director i'm honored to lead the men and women of this import agency through this challenging time. with respect to the recent allegations i personally became aware of the incident on march 9 when i received a phonecall from a former agent informing me of an anonymous e-mail that was circulating. on that same date, i determined the allegation should be referred to the department of homeland security's office of the inspector general.

i made this decision because allegations of misconduct involving employees at the gs-15 and higher level must be referred to the oig in accordance with departmental policy. i trust the oig's investigation will be thorough. i have committed the full cooperation to the oig and eagerly await the findings of their investigation. the fact that i did not learn of this allegation until five days after it is said to have occurred infuriated me. this is unacceptable. i called my senior staff together the week before last. i made clear my expectation for prompt notification of allegations of misconduct that could impact our mission and violate the agency standard of conduct. if it is determined that any of our employees failed to report information about this alleged incident, they will be held accountable. our mission is too important for

this to happen. it undermines my leadership and i won't stand for it. i am resolved to holding people accountable for their actions , but i want to make clear i do not have the ability to simply terminate employees based solely on allegations of misconduct. this is not because i'm being lenient but because the agency's ability to take action is controlled by title v of united states code which provides federal employees with certain statutory due process rights. i must respect these rights in -- and the procedures congress has put in place to preserve them. as it stands the next step in this process is to wait for the issuance of the oig report at which point we will determine the appropriate disciplinary actions consistent with our established table of penalties. once again, if the oig report --

held accountable. held accountable to that person reviewed footage from evening of march 4 with members of this committee said that initial report of a vehicle crash were inaccurate. there was not crash. the video shows a vehicle entering the white house complex at a slow speed pushing aside a plastic barrel. there was no damage to the vehicle however many people have expressed serious concerns the available footage does not provide a full picture relative to the alleged misconduct. while the primary function of the camera systems at the white house complex is for operational security specific video footage is routinely maintained for investigative and protective intelligence purposes. i share the concerns of this committee that more video footage from the night of march 4 was not preserved. after receiving content from the oig the secret service has contacted the manufactures of additional storage unit

and have contacted capabilities and cyberforensics to make every attempt to recover additional video footage from that night. although it predates my appointment as director secret service practice has been to retain footage from cammer -- camera systems at the white house for period of 72 hours. this practice concerns me. therefore, i have directed the video footage storage be increased to seven days effective immediately. i've also directed my staff to exploit the feasibility of expanding this timeframe while being mindful of concerns related to security and privacy. turning to fulfilling recommendations made by the independent protective mission panel that will touch briefly in each of these three areas and identify the report. first training of personnel, second technology perimeter security and operations and third leadership. regarding training and personnel i've consistently held the -- that a primary focus of mine has been to increase critical staffing in the secret service to meet the demands of the mission and to incorporate

regular and consistent training to sharpen skills and preparedness at all times. the secret service is expected to exceed its hiring goals for this fiscal year and maintain this pace for fiscal year 2016. we have also fully completed integrated training for officers and specialty teams within the white house branch and made improvements with respect to the amount of training received during fourth shifts by age and some protective details. with respect to technology and perimeter security recommendations the secret service is in the midst of the multiphase project to replace the current fence around the white house. the goal of this project is to mitigate security concerns identified by the panel including the laying -- delaying potential intruders to give secret service personnel more time to react. the final selection of the final fence optionally followed by design procurement and construction phase it is discussed in the classified briefings provided to this

committee the secret services acknowledges the need for interim measures during this process process and is conducted initial testing research and development to that end. finally with respect to leadership i am moving to rebuild, restructure, and reinvigorate the secret service including elevating and empowering those with specialized professional skills within our civilian force by ensuring our people have the necessary resources by developing budgets from the ground up and utilizing a mission-based. in closing i would like to make clear i'm proud of our workforce and would be remiss if i did not recognize the vast majority of these men and women perform their duties with honor and distinction. they deserve strong leadership clear and consistent policies and appropriate resources to support the important work they do every day. it is my life's work to ensure they get it. i thank the committee for this opportunity and welcome any questions you have at this time. >> thank you.

now recognize the gentleman from south carolina mr. gowdy for five minutes. (202) 748-8001 for -- >> thank you mr.chairman. director clancy duguid of ours has a constitutional right to provide oversight over the secret service? >> yes sir. >> -- does this committee have every single bit of video footage available from that evening? >> i'm sorry, sir. >> does this committee have all available footage from that evening? >> it does not. >> why not? >> sir we have provided that footage video that we have to this committee all of it. we have shown two clips. >> that is not my question. you just said congress has a constitutional possibility to provide oversight and you agreed

me that ranking member cummings and chairman -- so why wouldn't you turn over all video footage to this committee? >> congressmen we will show all video anytime day or night that this committee would like to review the footage that we have. we have done that. in fact, i believe the chairman was the first i believe to see this video. >> with all due respect that's not true. >> i would like to correct the record. >> i would like to yield to -- to the gentleman from utah because i was under the misapprehension that this committee was not in possession of all available video from that night. >> that is correct, you are not in possession of the video but we did allow the chairman to view the video. >> you have shown is us less than one minute of the video. >> yes sir.

>> back to my question. will you make all available video and i say available because all that was not preserved. will you make all video available to this committee? >> we will make it available to this committee for your review anytime day or night. >> will you make a copy of it available so we can retain custody as opposed to simply showing it to us? >> i will not release a copy of this video at this point. >> why not? >> the oig has an ongoing investigation. >> you think the oit supersedes -- oig's possibilities supersedes congress? can't you have simultaneous ongoing investigations quickly can congress provide oversight while the ig is investigating? why do you have to pick and choose? >> sir again, we have one initial investigation from the

oig and we have given them film to look at. >> you understand the responsibility of the ig is very different from the responsibility of congress. congress determines funding among other things. the ig does not. so those two are not exclusive. why can't congress investigate what is in it jurisdiction? >> congressmen i'm sure up to the oig -- the. >> i don't want to wait until after because that makes me think you believe that congress is constitutional responsibility to provide oversight is subservient to the ig and surely you can't believe that. director clancy: sir, the ongoing investigation the secret service has as well regarding the protective intelligence case, we have an individual who committed a crime made a threat and that investigation is also going on at this time. >> how will prove providing that video footage to congress jeopardize that ongoing

investigation with precision how will it? director clancy: that video shows the actions of the individual who would be accused of the crime. representative pocan: -- representative: i get that. my question is how will providing back that to mr. cummings and mr. chaffetz jeopardize an ongoing investigation with specificity? director clancy: i'm happy to show that video all day and be available at all hours of the day and night to show that video but at this point we cannot release that video. representative: that is the video that is available. the video that is not available -- will you agree with me that there are at least two potential crime scenes that play on the evening of march 4? there is an assault on an office and there's a suspicious package. director clancy: that is correct. representative pocan: -- representative: why would the video not be preserved as part of that ongoing investigation that you decided is the reason

you can't get the video to congress? why wouldn't you preserve at? director clancy: my understanding of the process is that the watch commander on-site relays back the incident that he is the commander for and he calls back to our joint operation center and says we do have an incident here. we have a suspicious package. preserve the video from this incident. representative: director, i want you to consider for just a moment the dueling narratives that you just portrayed. number one we are not going to give the video that does exist to congress because it's investigation is subservient to the ig investigation. that's narrative number one and narrative number two is you are not even going to preserve video that could be used in an investigation of two potential crimes. did i hear that right? director clancy: well, we did preserve the video, the footage

from the incident as those in the joint operations center viewed it. representative: right, but are you familiar -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> some of my time was taken by the chairman but that is the chairman's prerogative and of course i would not ask for anymore. >> and the chairman obviously made the right role. >> i yield back. >> good decision. i will recognize the gentlewoman from the district of columbia for five minutes. representative: thank you, mr. chairman. i think mr. clancy, you understand the anger and outrage that you hear really comes from this notion that you are as the -- a zero failure agency. we don't expect that frankly of most federal officials. i was really surprised to see and reading from your testimony on page three sent an agencywide

memorandums say they have to report allegations apparently right away when for example before you came to the agency you knew of the white house incident where they shot at the white house and they learned about that. it was perhaps months later when an attendant found these bullets. it seems like the first order you should have given was please let me know. don't put me on the hot on the -- on the hotseat of not knowing it i say that because i think the committee did the right thing. it began in the right place with leadership. we wanted new leadership. they said we want an expert panel. we have that expert panel. now i think we ought to go and i realize you have not been in place for a long time but i would like to focus on the men and women who are under you because i don't think there has been any focus, except for that

panel. that panel really did focus on -- i was amazed to hear that people were working sometimes 14 days and with a day off if they got it but it could be denied. and i tried to link this to what i knew about the secret service. a kind of serial misconduct in colombia, for example, in the netherlands, all of the drunken agents. i don't think the secret service is a bunch of bums. i have got to look at what is happening to these men and women women. i asked the staff to tell me something about these people. are these people being trained or are these people kind of letting it all out? and it looks like some of that is happening. nobody is spoken of -- spoken up then if somebody does speak up i'm not sure that this

misconduct is not going to continue. this also was the drunken incident. but then i learned that in terms of the training, there's barely any training going on at the secret service. they were it eight special agent basic classes in three years 08, 09 and 10 and by 2012 there were zero. by 2013 there was one. the panel said you needed staff urgently for starters. what is the problem? is the problem with the leadership? is the problem with the men and women not getting good people? why don't you speak up for these men and women if in fact they are letting off steam because you are overworking them. are they being overworked? where does this budget that you have just gotten begin to

relieve some of those serial days on which people don't get any days off. so would you describe that and would you tell us more about training and what training sessions are expected so some of this misbehavior will be understood to be absolutely for -- for bowden? director clancy: congresswoman thank you. i have the same concerns you have. in fact, i want to hear more and more from his agent and these officers what their issues are. just in a nutshell, i will tell you that i walk around the perimeter of the white house frequently. this past sunday, i went to the midnight shift. the following morning, went to the rollcall and wanted to hear what other concerns. in terms of the staff -- representative: but you can see what their concerns are. according to the panel, the agents were consistently working 12 hour shifts under high stress. often with no days off.

is that going to change now that your budget has finally been released by the congress, which has to take some of the responsibility to what has been happening? director clancy: you are exactly right. my number one initiative was to increase the staffing. we have to increase staffing. to do that, we have separated one of our directorates, hr and training, give each more specific training. and we have been working overtime to build on -- representative: you have a new class for 2013 that was only one class. if you need more agents, they will need more training. is there going to be another class of agents trained? and will the agents who are there, who used to get training, i understand, every four weeks or so, will they have that training again to echo director clancy: yes. -- again? director clancy: yes. in fact, we will sit -- exceed our goals.

we will now go nine and eight classes. we expect to hire a lot more people in fiscal year 2015 and continue that into fiscal year 2016. that will also help get more people -- from training. we have to keep the momentum going to with the agent side of the house, that training has come -- increased. as we increase the staff, we will get more training for our people. >> i now recognize the gentleman from florida for five minutes. representative pocan: -- representative: thank you, mr. chairman. i have some questions. i guess this is sort of another got you hearing. we just have incident after incident. we have the fence jumper. we have this most recent one. and you testified that you

cannot take action because -- on personnel as far as this one because of title five. but also chapter 100 20 title v sets some requirements. have you seen a draft that was prepared last year? can you give the director a copy of this draft? 722 14. and it is amendment to the hiring, managing, and discipline of its workforce. this is an amendment for the secret service. so rather than talking about incidents, let's get down to the brass tacks of the issues you face. first is hiring, right to echo you have to hire good -- right? i submit that you need better people. and you need better qualifications. but i left the white house about a week ago. i followed a secret service car

just by accident. i said what is that on a bumper? it is actually -- it is actually soliciting for folks to work. on the bumper of a police vehicle. this is the way we hire folks for the secret service. i didn't know -- i didn't know your predecessor. she came for my local town. she called me after she was there for a while and she says, it is very difficult to get this place under control. i have to have some ability to hire better qualified people. i didn't know that you didn't need a college education for some of those positions. is that correct? director clancy: that is correct. representative: she said bye-bye, we have dumbed down the qualifications. you don't hire them with an advertisement on the bumper of a vehicle. you want all of our prison out with the highest qualifications, right? secondly, you have to be able to manage those personnel.

she asked for those things -- in fact on july 2, there was a meeting with government reform staff. do you know where these recommendations are? i was told they went back to dhs. with -- do you know where they are? does anyone know deco i want to know where they -- does anyone know? i want to know where they are. you will be railroaded out, too, if we don't make changes. but the fault is in the guidelines that you have to follow. she told me managing personnel administering them, you have a 20 year i guess retirement. and you have to -- director clancy: that is the older plan. a 20 year retirement. but the current is not 20 years. representative: in any event when you get to retirement, then it took two years to get people trained for positions. that still exists, right? director clancy: yes.

representative mica: ok, she said that needed to change. you want the best administration right? director clancy: yes. representative mica: ok, so we have an impediment in that. nothing has been done. then finally, she said to hold people accountable. secret service holding protectors accountable. that is what this hearing is about. she asked for the ability to hire and fire and exempt agency under title v. do you agree with that? director clancy: yes. representative mica: you do. and that was one of her recommendations. but we have to do that. we had, oh, there is no command. hell you don't have the ability to command because your hands are tied by title v. you have to go to this layer. i chaired civil-service and i know how difficult it is to get rid of folks. even discipline folks. most people are just moved

horizontally to some other position. director clancy: that is the case, yes, sir. representative mica: again, you have to have the ability to hire and fire. i read the recommendations of the little group that came up with some. until you address this fundamental problem, that director, or whoever succeeds him, will not succeed in managing his personnel because one, he kept manage people who are qualified. and he can't discipline and hire and fire people. is that right? basically? director clancy: basically, yes, sir. representative mica: ok. finally, if a bullet hits the white house window or the building, has something been done to address that? director clancy: yes, we have procedures now if anything hits the white house.

we have an institute of procedure since 2011. representative: and i would like to know more, for the record, behind the scenes about drones. thank you. chairman chaffetz: i think the gentleman. i now recognize the ranking member for five minutes. ranking member cummings: thank you very much. i want to get down to something that you said, you said, was unacceptable. you learned of these allegations on may 9. which is five days after the incident occurred. and that is a big concern for me, and i know it is for you. first and foremost, there is no doubt that you should have been informed about this incident immediately. is that right? director clancy: that is correct. ranking member cummings: you should have been informed of it the day of. director clancy: that is correct. ranking member cummings: and you told us that no one in your immediate office had been aware of this incident. director clancy: that is correct. ranking member cummings: last

week, you testified that they should have reported this incident up the chain. they should have reported it as follows. from personnel on the ground to the deputy chief of the uniform division to the special agent in charge of presidential protection division to the assistant for special operations and that to you. is that correct? director clancy: that is correct. ranking member cummings: yesterday, you produce documents to the committee indicating that the deputy chief of the uniform division became aware of these allegations on the night of the incident. director clancy: that is correct. ranking member cummings: i quote -- is that right? director clancy: that is correct. and if i can correct the record because i know i met with you and other members in a closed-door briefing and you had asked how is that process

started. and i said i think it is a phone call. it was started with a phone call . but i found out subsequently that is a follow-up letter. which i provided to you. with our preliminary findings. the very first day. ranking member cummings: so in -- in the briefing it says, and i quote, deputy chief dyson advised that he was familiar with an incident involving -- and was briefed about the incident on the evening of march 4, 2015. and of course. so the director -- if the deputy chief of the uniform division new about the allegations, did he let the special agent in charge of presidential protection division? did he? director clancy: i don't know sir. and i'm going to tell you that i am infuriated that i have not

then advised on march 4. i will tell you that the deputy chief needed to raise that up through the chain of command. this is something that i have been battling since i first came back. we are working fiercely to try and break down these barriers where people feel that they can't talk up the chain. i can tell you personally i am going out, reaching out to people. we have our assistant director of investigations going out into the field talking to people. we have our assistant director of operations going out talking to people. we have made all these avenues -- hotlines and webpages to even anonymously get information up the chain. if you are not comfortable going up to your chain of command, you have all these other avenues. anonymously, you can go and report incidents of misconduct

or whatever you want to report. but you've got to make use of these avenues. ranking member cummings: let me ask you this. how about the assistant director for protective operations -- when did he learn about these allegations? director clancy: -- i don't know -- well, march 9. i found out the morning of march 9. i reached out to the assistant director. he did not know. at that point, i asked him to go find out. ranking member cummings: i understand there is an ongoing investigation, that according to your own testimony, you did not learn about these allegations from anyone at the secret service. i am concerned about whether there is still a problem with the chain of command right now. there sounds like there is. based on what you know today who is the highest ranked person who knew about this incident and failed to reported? to your knowledge. director clancy: to my knowledge, again on march 9 is when i was given all the

details. we turned it over to the oig. then i stepped out of it. right or wrong, i compartmentalized things and i didn't want to see it. the deputy chief is the last one that was -- that -- ranking member cummings: on more than one time here this money, you have said you had a meeting with your higher ups. and you told them -- you are not going to tolerate this. did you ask them, any of them, did you all know about this deck of director clancy: -- this? director clancy: no, i didn't i was -- ranking member cummings: rewind. these are your top people's? director clancy: yes. ranking member cummings: of these view top aide assistant? director clancy: there would be more than that. ranking member cummings: did you ever ask them -- ladies and gentlemen, who knew about this? director clancy: i did not. ranking member cummings: why not? director clancy: honestly, i do

not want to interfere with the oig integration -- investigation. no indication that we reached out to people or people to leave that room and say, hey, the director is asking for more information. i wanted to give this to oig complete ownership. ranking member cummings: one last question, mr. chairman. at any time, did you have a staff meeting where you would have expected -- i mean, you know, you and i have talked about this they could -- about the sacred trust in the secret service. these jobs of honor. would you have expected -- did you have any meeting amongst the higher ups were -- where you expected somebody who knew about this to say it to you? director clancy: absolutely. absolutely. when i heard about this on march

9, i was in disbelief. but i called and said, hey, look, run this down. but i cannot believe -- ranking member cummings: thank you, sir. chairman chaffetz: i now recognize the gentleman from tennessee. representative: thank you, mr. chairman. the has been a growing believe for many years now that the federal government -- and many top-level federal employees -- have been becoming more and more bureaucratic, elitist, arrogant. and there is, along with this, a growing belief that we have ended up with a government that is for the bureaucrats come and set of one for the people. -- instead of one for the people. and when you not allow these four witnesses to come here and testify -- when you refuse to allow this four witnesses to come and you refuse to release most of the video that has been

requested, you should realize that this looks very bureaucratic, elitist, and arrogant. and it looks as though you feel you are working -- you are not really working for the people of this country. that you are working to protect the people of the secret service. and last week, in the house appropriations committee, the chairman said in a very strong very emphatic way, that he felt there should be terminations and firings for all these -- these incidents that have happened. and i hope that -- that you agree with that. i assume that you are close friends with mr. conley and mr. ogilvie. but i hope that you feel you have more of a duty to the people of this country then you have a duty to protect mr.

ogilvie and mr. conley and others who have been involved in these other instances. what do you have to say about that? director clancy: sir, you are absolutely correct and i have already made changes in the agency. friends of mine. i have moved them or offer them positions and other components in dhs. so i am not opposed to moving people that i know. it is all about the agency. representative duncan: that is one of the problems. too often, one -- they are not very disciplined. they are not cut and paid. they are not fired. they are just moved to a nice desk job someplace else. i have already been told that mr. ogilvie and mr. conley have been moved to some other desktop someplace. -- other desk job someplace. i am going to yield the balance of my time, though.

i think he has another question or two. representative: thank you. director, has custody of the video that was retained and preserved? director clancy: our technical security division. representative: and who has the power to make a copy of that video? director clancy: sir i would in consultation with my legal counsel, i have to be honest with you, i don't know that for certain. representative: to the extent that you do have the power or you have in front over those will you recommend that a copy of all video footage be made available? director clancy: congressman, i will certainly talk to our department and with our legal counsel. representative: you don't need lawyers for everything. you have a bunch of them on this panel. i am telling you, if the only excuse they have is -- to not turning it over to some theoretical investigation or prosecution, i promise they are

not going to interfere with anyone. i promise that. so we can eliminate that concern. now, will you turn over all available video? director clancy: again, the video will be available at all times. but i will go back to the department and our agency and revisit this. representative: do you know if there was emphasis -- emphasis on the word was -- misconduct? director clancy: no, i am not aware. representative: you don't know whether any of the cameras were trained on the cars that the two agents were in? director clancy: the on the video i am aware of is what we have provided as they entered the gate. representative: do you have a policy of attention and preservation of any video that could be potentially part of a criminal investigation or officer misconduct? director clancy: yes, we retain video that is related to any

incident on the complex. representative gowdy: so if there were video of that, no one would have taped over it or just waited? director clancy: the video would not have been destroyed if someone saw an incident somewhere else on the complex. representative: how about take over? director clancy: by practice, it is automatic. my understanding is that you have to selectively decide what you want to preserve. representative: would it potential officer misconduct be one of those things that you want to preserve? director clancy: without knowing the facts, i don't know what took place be on that entry point. representative: i yield to the chairman. chairman chaffetz: i think the gentleman. i will now recognize the gentleman from massachusetts. representative: thank you, mr. chairman. i am a little bit put out by the willful ignorance here.

you know, -- let's just back up a second. the secret service is in intelligence gathering organization. and then, you don't ask questions. and you destroy evidence. i am tying to have faith. i really am. i offer no disrespect whatsoever. i think you are honorable man. but i tell you what, this will system. you said at the tail end of your testimony that you had implemented a change to go to 70's retention. is that correct? director clancy: that is correct. representative lynch: so we went from 72 hours to seven days. director clancy: that is correct. with a look at our storage capabilities to go beyond that. representative lynch: if we had to do it legislatively, the fact

that the department of homeland security requires logan airport to retain their videotapes, tsa for 30 days -- if i have to do it legislatively, i want to make a recommendation that we do legislation that requires the secret service keep video for 30 days. if that is what we have to do. director clancy, who is responsible for technical security division? because i want to send them a subpoena. they are not on the list of these folks we have. but who is this person? director clancy: he is relatively new in the position. joseph -- is the chief now. representative lynch: so would it be correct to meet assuming that he is responsible -- for me to assume that he is responsible for the technology, the tapes the purging or scrubbing of the tapes and all that? director clancy: yes he would

be able to talk to those questions that you have. yes. representative lynch: all right. and we would give him a subpoena, as well, to have him bring whatever information he has. that would be good. you know, i mean, the local supermarket has 30 days of retaining tapes. by scrubbing those tapes, not asking for questions, -- and coming from in intelligence gathering organization is just -- it leaves me almost, almost speechless. i just can't imagine a more deliberate attempt not to understand the nature of the problem. let me see. what is the penalty -- now, it is clear from the tape that the two officers drove into a -- a

-- in active bomb investigation. i don't think there is any question about that, right? mr. ogilvie and the other gentleman. i am blanking on his name. director clancy: mr. conley. representative lynch: mr. conley, ok. so you had an active bomb investigation going on. i guess they were going -- they left their car at the white house, so they were going to get their car. but in the meantime, they drove right through an active bomb investigation. any disagreement on that? director clancy: i don't know the facts in terms of going to get a vehicle, but i know the absolutely drove through an active investigation. representative lynch: and yet we reassign them. so we know that. and yet we just reassign them to a desk jobs with no discipline

at all. what is the thinking behind that? director clancy: to put them on administrative leave, they would have administrative leave with pay. i felt that we could still get some work out of them. and also, i didn't want to do the discipline in a piecemeal fashion. representative lynch: i need to interrupt your right there. -- is that those folks were not penalized at all. for doing what they did. so, you didn't remove them. you didn't remove them. you know. i think it would have been a clear signal to send to every other member of the secret service that those two guys screwed up, and they are gone. for now. and we are going to hold them responsible. instead, instead -- and i note you are thinking about ok, they will be sitting at home instead of working. but i think, on balance, it was

a more important -- especially with a history have here with folks sitting at the -- shooting at the white house, you know, i think it would be a more important message to send to the employees that these guys screwed up and they are being held accountable. rather than just putting them on a desk job. director clancy: congressman rest assured, once we get the final report, which, again, i am told will be weeks. people will be held accountable. i can understand the frustration for many here on the committee as well as within our workforce. but they are looking to see how are these things handled. and how do you handle agents, as opposed to uniform division. representative lynch: in closing, i just want to say there needs to be a rapid response to these incidents. we can't put this into a bureaucratic process where i get

an answer in eight weeks or 10 weeks. that cannot happen. you need to have the ability to act right now on incident like that, rather than, you know, file some forms and bring in somebody else. and engage in willful ignorance. and let somebody else handle the stuff. you are in a spot because you are very capable. in the future, we need you to have the ability to act. chairman chaffetz: i now recognize the german -- gentleman from north carolina. representative: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. clancy, thank you for your testimony. i want to return to what you said earlier about meeting with your senior staff. and not asking what they knew. when did that happen? sir, -- director clancy: sir it happened -- forgive me sir. wednesday. representative: wednesday, what

day? director clancy: that would be the 11th. representative: so you waited until wednesday to meet with your senior staff when you are informed of this on the night? why would you wait two days? director clancy: i had a hearing on the day in between and -- representative: i have hearings every single day. director clancy: forgive me, sir, let me correct the record. i did not have a hearing. representative: so why did you wait two days to echo was it not important to you echo -- you? director clancy: as i expressed earlier, this is usually important to me and the agency. representative: you said earlier that you didn't ask the question, what they knew. you are not interfering with an investigation for you to be informed of what they knew. that would not have interfered with an investigation. is it so you could pull a

sergeant schultz here today that you know nothing? director clancy: in fact, when i pulled that group together, this hearing was not scheduled. i did that because again, it is hard to understand for this committee. representative meadow: it is very hard for mr. lynch and i to understand how they would be a lack of inquisitive nature on why the director would not want to know. director clancy: i compartmentalized this incident. i gave it to the oig so that i could concentrate on -- classified document i have to keep up with, the president of afghanistan, i have all these other issues that i really need to focus on today. representative meadow: the president of afghanistan may be very important. indeed, he probably is. but the president of the united states is a lot more important. and i wouldn't compartmentalize. would you? director clancy: all protect these are important -- protect

these -- protectees are important. if information starts to leak out, and information would have started to leak out, people -- representative meadow: keeping these guys there working on administrative duties, do you not think that they have the ability to talk to some of their fellow workers and spin a different narrative instead of sending them home? do you think it is not dangerous that they might interfere with the investigation? director clancy: they could still converse in their residences with anybody they wanted to. representative meadow: so you haven't told them not to converse. director clancy: i haven't spoken to those individuals. representative meadow: so these are gs-15 and you haven't spoken to them, why? director clancy: i didn't want

to, again, interfere with the investigation. representative meadow: mr. clancy you were hired to clean up the mess. and you and i have met personally before you were actually the official director. and i told you about a number of things where i was asked a getting e-mails. and i still get e-mails. anonymous e-mails on all kinds of different things that are happening. details in honolulu where we have had some of the same accusations made that have been made in other parts of the country. details where people have actually had major offenses and then left within the secret service and allowed to retire a year later. what are you going to do because i asked you specifically about forced transfers and how the threatening of taking away their security clearance for some of the rank and file, yet nothing has been done with that, mr. clancy. are you going to act on that eventually?

director clancy: yes, in terms of threatening -- i understand that was in a letter that goes out to people. routinely, we move people around the country. representative meadow: it is used as a force of manipulation for most of rank and file. are you going to make sure that they know their security clearance will not be taken away? clear and simple. yes or no? director clancy: it is not taken away -- representative meadow: if they are not transferred, you are not going to take it away. director clancy: -- if they say, no, i don't want to go to the president to tell, then we are short on the president detail. representative meadow: this sounds like just the same old problem that we had under the previous director, mr. clancy. i will yield back. chairman chaffetz: i now

recognize the gentleman from virginia for five minutes. representative: thank you. mr. clancy, welcome to the committee and thank you for your service to the country. i want to cite -- first of all i think there is a lot of bipartisan agreement on this committee about the problem .

we will find an approach to how we resolve this. my friend and his questioning raise an interesting point and i am pretty sympathetic with his point of view but i am open to hearing a counter argument you have. congress has a constitutional rule in perspective, the fact that we have the power to compel does not always mean we should use it. especially with the ongoing investigation there are plenty of reasons not to do that we do not want to unduly interfere with prosecution. but i would say to underscore the point the burden is on you and your lawyers to make a case before this committee representing the institution of congress for why at this time it would otherwise erupt the

ongoing investigation. with out it seems we're entitled to those tapes for investigative purposes. we are an independent branch of government, we have every right to exercise our oversight and hopefully responsible. but i am telling you in my view we will move forward on a bipartisan issue in the case. i think that is where we're headed but i join with the ranking member with his observations. word to the wise, mr. clancy that is where we are headed. >> i sense your outrage and i will go back to revisit this with the department to see if we can dominate the rest -- accommodate the request. i have heard you loud and clear with what we need to do. >> i am going to try to get through five questions quickly.

do you believe given your new responsibilities i know you have a lifetime and invested with this noble service with a storied history, is there superimposed on that tradition a creeping cultural problem that has to be addressed in your ranks? >> if think both the chairman and the ranking member catalog the unfortunate headlines. >> we do. we have a small element that has a culture in this case of most of the recent cases of alcohol has been involved. on a something to be looked at.

that is something we have to fix. i know it is not a proper answer, but some of these things take time and it has to come with living trust and litigation and we are trying to hammer this home. give us a chance through communication and. representative connolly: the five-day delay. do you believe that was democratic inertia, or was that someone trying to deliberately preclude you from taking action? mr. clancy: i do not think anyone was intentionally hiding it from me. but at a lower level if they -- i do not know how they viewed the incident, but we will find out the facts. i do not want to regulate at that level. -- speculate at that level. representative connolly: it would be very troubling if it were the letter. mr. clancy: absolutely.

representative connolly: bureaucratic inertia, we can try to clean that up. but if they tried to deliberately stop the scrutiny, it does it but you in a favorable light. mr. clancy: a direct reflection of my of leadership. representative connolly: a direct challenge. i do not know if it reflects your leadership. and that is another element of concern for the public to we had a review panel that recommended strongly to seek an outside director. he did not take that advice but chose you because he had confidence in you and there is an argument to be made only the insider can actually make the tough decisions and knows where the bodies are buried and doesn't put up with the nonsense

. on the other hand, the counter argument could be put someone in there who could not possibly be a change agent and is not what we need. i am obliged to give you that opportunity to respond. mr. clancy: thank you. one of the things we have done since i have come in, it is not the same old upper tier of management. we have made changes primarily because we want to take better advantage of this subject matter of civilian experts. so we had a director and deputy director. now we just recently made a deputy director that was named but at the same level the chief operating officer who was not from within the agency. he or she will be from the private sector. and underneath that officer, on equal level with the deputy director, we have a tier of several chief information officers, several other civilian

roots -- experts, and we're integrating both of them. this is not the same old secret service from one month ago. in the short 30 days i have in here, we have made significant changes to the traditional culture and structure of the upper management. we are new, including myself. i would like to have some time to let that progress. >> the gentleman from florida.

i am trying to do figure out the video policy. representative desantis: last week you said there were three clips of the woman with a suspicious package but only tito two clips of the agents so why is there one more clip of the woman than the the agents? mr. clancy: the female was positioned outside of the gate area, just outside so that is specific to that incident with the suspicious package with the confrontation between the officer and the lady. so there are very short clips of

of that interaction. the others, although it captures the suspicious package of also captures the agents coming through secure zone. representative desantis: that other angle would not capture the vehicle? mr. clancy: the first one, they are two different time frames. i can answer that question. representative desantis: mr. gary also raised the issue of the inspector general. i know you were doing what you think you're required to do. but sitting here and hearing across the whole federal government conducting oversight the number of times a witness say we cannot do anything and give you information because -- i do not believe that with the intent of the inspector general to cause the rest of the world to stand still. we have an independent duty to

conduct oversight over all of these agencies. we are asked to fund these agencies and the american people obviously need to know what is going on we can make decisions about that. what is the timeline of the ig investigation? mr. clancy: i have been told weeks. i have not been conversing with the investigation. i had one call with the inspector general. i was told it would be weeks not months. representative desantis: also looking back at the investigation, you went to be ig with the incident? mr. clancy: specifically with this incident. representative desantis: with the witnesses who were invited we had four witnesses we were asked to attend. what is the reason for not bringing those witnesses today?

mr. clancy: there are a couple of reasons, rather right or wrong -- whether right or wrong. they are rank-and-file citizens. they did not sign up for coming to an open hearing with cameras and lights. representative desantis: your're not interviewing them behind the scenes? mr. clancy: every time you interview someone you get slightly different stories. it might be a slight difference, not intentional, but it would be perceived to differ in run-throughs.

if there are gaps certainly others can follow up. representative desantis: i think that is problematic. we have our own duty to conduct oversight and the questions that we may ask from a congressional perspective may be different than what the ig is looking and at . i think we're all interested in accountability but how that would be done within the executive branch's staff prevail and we as a group who have received recommendations, knows there is funding issues with this that we would want to examine. i am not satisfied that is the way to do it. at a minimum i wish it would have been provided at least behind the scenes so we could have received answers. i yield back. >> the gentlewoman from

michigan. representative lawrence: thank you. director clancy, i'll look for the core values of the secret service. on the website it says they have five core values, justice, duty courage, honesty, and loyalty to these values that is worthy of trust and confidence and to reinforce the values the leaders and employees promote and ensure personal accountability in program performance across the agency by holding each person to the highest standards of personal and professional integrity. the secret service ensures that they preserve those core values in the fulfilment of the of vision and success of the vision.

i am always interested in leadership, so i understand you have 27 years as a veteran of the secret service. during her career you were special agent in charge of the presidential protection division. you yourself in charge of the division. and during your tenure of the 27 years you also served the secret service office of the investigation the internal affairs division. correct? mr. clancy: correct. representative lawrence: my concern after listening to all this testimony and my question today is i recognize you were brought into the office and

given this opportunity. you were brought in in february of this year. looking at your resume i would think experience like this would put you in a position where investigative skills, the knowledge of how a department should operate, because you went up through the ranks, see you have actually performed the duties of the people you're a director of. but i hear things like i do not know, i am outraged, that should not have happened. yes, there is a culture. when you are put into the job you are expected to bring all those skills in and provide the leadership to address issues and concerns.

i am really challenged right now. my question to you, with all of your experience, and with the continuing -- because when you were brought on, we arty have those is that we have outlined today -- how are you going to make a difference? i know that you see you need time. but when i hear you did not talk to those who were in your executive level and you yourself are in charge of the agency's internal affairs i think you would be really prepared to be able to take right into that. and to sit here today and say here is a clear vision and a clear mission under your leadership under your -- how you will address these. i am not hearing that. my question is as a member of

congress and this committee. where is the vision, the leadership, and the fierce commitment to these core values that you took yourself personally that you are now personally in charge of making sure that that is the mission of this agency? i need you to give that to me because i am not hearing it. mr. clancy: in my opening statement i said this is my life's work and i have spent 28 years protecting four presidents. i have given everything i have had at great expense, personal expense, to ensure that our presidents are safe. i did not come back from private industry to just enjoy the ride. this is critical for me in the -- for me, for the country, and

i will give it everything i have read i've spent hours immersed in it, talking to people at all levels. we are building a new leadership tieam, breathing in professional people to work with responsibilities of law enforcement to work together. we are trying to reinvigorate the look of the secret service but unfortunately i do not have the magic wand, it will take a little bit of time. one of the key things is when the report is done, our people how to -- are people held accountable?

we have penalties based on what other agencies use we have . >> a couple of specific questions about the incidents we have been discussing here today and then the agency. as best i can tell, a layman summary of this is that a woman dropped off what she said was a bomb at 10:24 a.m. on a wednesday night -- translate 4 p.m. on a wednesday night -- 10:24 p.m. on a wednesday night. but it does not look would be on a lookout order without until

thursday afternoon. does that display surprise you? would that be too long? >> yes. >> have you investigated why that happened? mr. clancy: our office will investigated. they are going to look at the whole thing. >> you have talked >> >> to your folks about this? right? maybe not a formal investigation but have asked them why? right? mr. clancy: on the incident with the lady with this suspicious package i was briefed on the incident. incident stemmed becky still >> but you still have no idea why it along -- took that long?

mr. clancy: no. >> just coming to this issue for the first time the you found her friday morning. your secret service agents found her friday morning in a hotel in virginia. your agents talk to her while she was having breakfast and did not retain her. were you aware of that? mr. clancy: yes. >> why would that be? mr. clancy: i would say that they are -- there was no arrest warrant. how long should take to get a warrant for someone who throws a

baomb at the white house? mr. clancy: she has a history with the secret service and has been interviewed in the past seven years. >> the arrest warrant did not go out until the following tuesday. took seven days to get the warrant. that takes me to my next question. she was arrested by local police in virginia. they said the suspect is no longer on the secret service . for you at this point, not to know these details is a little disappointing to me. that is for another date review have been here 27 years, you seem like a dedicated public

servant, and i thank you for your service. i think people undervalue cultlike you and what you do for this nation. has it always been this bad? representative connolly: note to her. >> --mr. clancy: no, sir. >> what changed? mr. clancy: i do not know the answer. there was great dedication when i was younger, and i know there is great dedication now. i honestly believe it is a smaller element of people who are not satisfied, and it goes back to how we are treating your people. they are getting crushed with the hours, because the staffing is so limited. we are up for some real challenges as we go into the fall. it will create a tremendous burden on our workforce. i think that is part of it. the demands on the workforce as the nation has expanded come and our staffing levels have not kept up. that is affecting our morale

but it do not want to dismiss the leadership. leadership is the key part of this as well. that is something i correct and i have to work on. but the staffing levels that we're making some headway to, i think that will help over time. >> one last question. was it better when you are under treasury? mr. clancy: i was a young agent a young manager when we were under treasury i do not know how those worked in that timeframe. i would not be able to give you an answer. >> we now recognize the general woman -- gentlewoman from the virgin islands. >> thank you. my questions are along the same

line, and a much more condensed timeframe. i have a problem with people putting out information that is not substantiated by direct facts. i wanted to talk about this anonymous e-mail and some of the allegations that are in it. we understand that you received this five days after the fact. >> that is correct. representative plaskett: this was given to the committee yesterday and we want to walk through some of the allegations that were in there to you have been able to ascertain if being factual as opposed to those which are not credible, or you still do not have information about. in the e-mail, at some point the

two agents drove through the crime scene tape. i will get back to that specifically later. but it says the officers at the scene say there were extremely intoxicated coming home through the retirement dinner. were they in fact, coming home from returning from a retirement dinner? mr. clancy: i do not know. representative plaskett: you have not been able to ascertain the list or the individuals. they were coming back to the

white house. did they go around the roadblock? mr. clancy: i do not know that. it would be an assumption on my part. i know the gate, there was a barrel there that was place there by our officers to secure the zone. they did go through and move that pharaoh -- barrel. representative plaskett: the e-mail says apparently flipped on the light. i've been an investigative prosecutor. currently does not believe -- apparently means that the person does not know themselves. what do you think? mr. clancy: reading that, as sounds like it is secondhand information. representative plaskett: that is what i get out of it. and that the agents noticed to the barrel. we have heard not, crash which one was it?

mr. clancy: a knowledge. -- nudge. the barrel did not cross over, it was a very delicate movement of the barrel. representative plaskett: how fast were they going? mr. clancy: one or two miles per hour. representative plaskett: so to crash would be a greater speed? mr. clancy: yes. representative plaskett: at 10:24 p.m., the suspect drives up. and then at 30 p.m., the joint operations center notifies the metro bulletin police department. 10:32 p.m. the uniform division reports the incident to the operating center.

mr. clancy: yes. representative plaskett: and then at 10:47 p.m., a notification message goes out. yes? mr. clancy: according to your timeline. representative plaskett: the poc sends a notification message regarding the synthesis package -- suspicious package. and then at 11:12 p.m. they sent out the first of two alerts about the suspicious package. what is the difference between the 10 1032 notification and the 11:12 p.m. alert? mr. clancy: they are both protective alerts to alert the

director of staff that there is a suspicious package or incident at the white house. whatever it is. they are updates to the original alert. representative plaskett: when did the officers arrive on the scene? the two officers in question. mr. clancy: they arrived -- representative plaskett: 10:58 p.m. they did not know there was a scene? mr. clancy: they should have. senior staff will receive these notifications, so they should have known. the assumption is that they solve the barrel -- saw the barrels, representative plaskett: was there crime scene tape? mr. clancy: from the videos i have looked at, i do not remember seeing any crime tape

or tape. there may have been some, but i did not get in the video that i saw. representative plaskett: thank you for your indulgence. it just appears that this anonymous e-mail does not necessarily comport with the information we have. >> so we need to see the tapes. we now recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> who is required under the policies of the secret service to report misconduct? mr. clancy: anyone can report. representative hice: who is required to do so? mr. clancy: every supervisor is required to report misconduct. representative hice: if a supervisor fails to report misconduct, your penalties -- we

have another slide. these slides are accurate in terms of what is required and the punishment, penalty if policy is not followed. does the watch commander report to? mr. clancy: two and inspector in uniform division. representative hice: who does the inspector report to? mr. clancy: the safety chief.

representative hice: who does the safety chief report to? mr. clancy: special agent in charge of presidents detailed. . representative hice: you're confirmed that the incident was reported. did the incident follow the proper chain of command? mr. clancy: i know that it stopped at -- representative hice: i am trying to determine if we followed this proper change of -- chain of command. mr. clancy: the throwing of the

books, it did the misconduct, it did not. representative hice: could they have been intimidated, fearful or even instructed not to root worked -- rpeport? mr. clancy: i cannot answer that. i do not know. representative hice: should you know? mr. clancy: i will know once the investigation is completed. representative hice: what will happen to this crime scene if it was just -- disturbed by someone other than secret agents? would anything happen handled differently? if someone driving a car ran into the area. mr. clancy: they would be detained, interviewed, and see if there was an intent. did they know what therey were doing? was there an intent to disrupt the zone? representative hice: but not if

you are an agent. one set of policies if you're a civilian one if you're an agent? that seems to be what you are indicated, if it was someone else it would have all seas for agents who aren't talked to gated -- it would have been different. du you have policies for agents who are intoxicated? mr. clancy: yes. representative hice: do you believe they should be reprimanded for any failure not to report according to policy? mr. clancy: prejudging here, but if we find that people did not report all the way up through the change of command, absolutely. representative hice: you have already admitted that did not happen. mr. clancy: i cannot say that it went to the jeopardy chief -- after it went to the deputy

chief, i do not know where it went after that. representative hice: but there was a breakdown. mr. clancy: yes sir. representative hice: you're also an minute there should be reprimanded. what governments have taken place at this point for those agents who did not properly or or -- what reprimands have taken place at this point for those agents who did not properly report? mr. clancy: none to this point sir because right or wrong i don't want to piecemeal some of these disciplinary actions. i want to wait until i hear all the facts do matter because there's a lot of hearsay and i would like to get the one definitive report. representative hice: you stated a significant number of facts and there is still been no reprimands. i find that inexcusable. thank you mr. chairman.

>> i recognize the gentleman just -- gentlewoman from new mexico. representative lujan: i recognize that this is a difficult environment and i have to say i think there is general agreement on both sides of the aisle and this committee and other committees of jurisdiction that this is a significant series of issues that affect the secret service and then ultimately affect the security and safety of the commander-in-chief and largely everybody else in the white house and the credibility of the country as a whole about our ability to provide that level of protection and security here and currently abroad. i also know that no amount of money will fix an environment that is like the environment that you are describing where there are questions of accountability, transparency where there are reprimands

whether those are fair, whether it's clear that you have got low morale, that folks are reporting incidents. you said while you are having an independent review you did say the chain of command on its face was not followed. i would have to agree that even if you get an ancillary and additional information that e-mail itself warrants some action and there may be other actions as you garner more information about what's coming. and so i believe that without a sustained and concerted effort to change the culture of the secret service that nothing will change. now i say this because i have had a difficult culture change in my career. when i was the department of health secretary and it requires rigorous, constant work and a clear timeframe where you are evaluating whether or not those culture shifts are making a difference. so while i understand you are making administrative changes and there will be new folks, if you're not careful and that's all administrative you are still not going to attract the right kinds of shifts in a culture change in the secret service. i also recognize that you have a

very difficult job and we expect you because that's part of your job, you have to restore not only the operations but our trust and the public's trust that you can do that. i also know it's an honor and a privilege to work for the secret service, so here's a question. tough environment, we don't feel like we get the right answers. you are trying to have some independents, but we are not seeing the workday today that would indicate leadership on culture change. if me some -- give me some clear examples about what you are doing to instill a culture sift culture shift in the secret service. mr. clancy: number one is staffing. we know that our people are being overworked and we are trying to build up their

staffing and once we do that give them more training so that if they receive this training they are going to feel more pride in their work and more efficient and just operate better. we have also initiated about five weeks ago or six weeks ago a worklife initiative where we are reaching out to our workforce to see what is troubling them, what do they need from us, what suggestions do they have. we brought in an outside contractor to do this. we expect to hear some promising results but i would say also that some of these changes we are making including the cio and the cfo, those changes are going to have an impact on the workforce. representative lujan: i'm not getting a sense about the timeline and i'm not saying i disagree that those investments are not important but i'm going -- not important. but i'm going to disagree that you need to give me something, i would like something about your management style. if there is not accountability for every investment that you

make in supporting that workforce, which i agree you have to have a workforce that feels like they are supported but they also have to feel that it's a fair work environment and if there's no accountability or transparency i don't believe that you will have the changes did you desire. what kind of management style, what is the message that you are providing today to the secret service? mr. clancy: we are reaching out in ways that we haven't done in the past to hear our workforce to involve our executives in getting out to talk to the workforce. representative lujan: so accountability is not part of your management style. i'm not hearing that from you mr. clancy. mr. clancy: once this investigation is completed we will see what accountability is administered and we do have this table which is very strict that we have to follow and it shows we are serious about holding people accountable. so there is no making decisions on our own on how we discipline.

we have it in stone and it's modeled after other agencies. that is what our people want to see, accountability and fairness across-the-board. representative lujan: i am still concerned, i have to say. with that i yield back. thank you mr. chairman. >> we will now recognize the gentleman from georgia for five minutes. representative palmer: it's the second straight hearing where i've been misappropriated to the wrong state. my jurisdiction has expanded. thank you mr. clancy for coming in today. there are many reports that suggest the secret service morale is at an all-time low according to the best places

that better government report. the agency with ranks 226 out of 300 agencies. there are routine request for uniformed division officers to do work on my days off in the secret service's failure to pay proper overtime. this is particularly troubling in the context of what we have been discussing because when you have low morale of what was once one of the most respected agencies in the world it seems to be indicative of a climate and an environment not conducive to excellence. and in some respects not conducive to integrity. how do you respond to that? mr. clancy: you are exactly right. when i went to this roll call the other night the first question when i asked what are the issues here, what do you need and why are we having these issues? the staffing the first thing they said was we can't get a day off. to get a day off in the uniformed division very often you have to put in a sick leave. you may have a very important function within your family. we all grow up with that.

anniversaries and birthdays growing up but it's more exasperating now especially within the uniformed division. they are routinely held over for four hours or their days off are canceled and that's one of the most important things. representative palmer: let's talk about the excessive overtime and this was brought up in a previous hearing and the lack of training i think uniformed officers are getting 25 minutes training and the protection detail previously had spent 25% of their on-duty time training and it's now down to 2% rate. that does not indicate that you have got a staffing problem and not only that in the context of what has happened the quality of the people that you are .

i frankly don't understand why you are advertising for secret service agents on bumper stickers instead of going to college is and recruiting the best and brightest they can find. mr. clancy: first of all we have asked for funding to go out to these universities to the military bases and do a better job recruiting. i heard 40,000 people applied for the special agent position so we are getting a lot of people but trying to get the right people, takes us a while to get to it. mr. clancy: i know typically they are given 14 days, and i think there was talk of bringing it back to 10 days to speed up that background check. they still goes through polygraph examination and over

their steps. representative palmer: 10 days though, even 10 days. when you are responsible for safeguarding the president and his family and members of the executive branch does it make sense to have, and in this case a three-day background check? mr. clancy: let me just say this. there are specific requirements in the background check so they , have to be met. we don't lessen the requirements and again it's about a seven month or eight month process to ensure that we get the right people, good people that are fully vetted, that is one of the the reasons it takes a while to get our staffing levels up. representative palmer: you have had some foreign nationals apply . in one case you have a chinese born foreign national who apparently had her review expedited in the washington office despite the fact that it wasn't confirmed whether or not she renounced her chinese citizenship.

what is the secret service's policy for someone who applies foreign national applies who has dual citizenship? mr. clancy: i don't have that answer. you have to renounce your citizenship, mandatory. representative palmer: i realize this country is a melting pot but does it make sense that we are recruiting foreign nationals to serve in the secret service? mr. clancy: she has to be a u.s. citizen to be employed by the federal government. representative palmer: i believe my time has expired. thank you mr. chairman. >> i now recognize the gentleman from wisconsin for five minutes s, mr.

rothman. >> it doesn't bother me of some of you guys don't have college degrees. that's overrated. there are so many great people without college degrees but i want to ask you some questions with the situation with this woman's vehicle. according to metropolitan police they were not contacted until 30 minutes after she fled the scene. is that an accurate statement? mr. clancy: i don't know if that is accurate sir. >> ok i would look into it because that's what i have up my paper. to me if you had to law enforcement divisions say in my neck of the woods the county and the city and somebody was fleeing into the county the sheriff's department would be notified immediately. it is kind of scary that it took 30 minutes. mr. clancy: i would just say in

a short period of time they reached out to the explosive unit so there should've been in the same timeframe the police force was notified. representative: maybe my stuff here is wrong but check into it. did you have a copy of the license plate? mr. clancy: they had her license plate. representative: ok. did you find somebody to show up right away where she lived assuming -- >>mr. clancy: my understanding is the license plate is what helped identify who the individual was. representative: i assume want to know who the person is at least

they have an address on file and somebody shows up. representative connolly: representative connolly: mr. clancy: yes, they showed up at the spouses address in the philadelphia region and we have agents go out to the resident and talk to the spouse who indicated this lady was down in the washington area. representative: what was her name? mr. clancy: i can't say that a public hearing. i would be happy to give it to you later. representative: ok. what else can i say? for every open spot how many applications do you get for secret service? mr. clancy: when i came back as the acting director i was told for special agency vacancy announcements/announcement we have 45,000 people apply and very few actually made it through the process. representative: very few means how many?

mr. clancy: i'm told there are 70 that made it all the way through the process. that's all usa jobs, 45,000 so is very cumbersome. representative: but you had 70 people at least make the first thing for everybody in there. you said a lot of these problems are alcohol related which is kind of scary and you aren't familiar how to deal with them. i guess it kind of bothers me because i have a lot of trucking companies my district and you cannot drink at all. nevertheless these guys never seem to have huge problems finding guys to drive a truck and we don't have a knockoff problem. i guess i will suggest that you talked to some of the local trucking firms if you have a hard time finding guys without alcohol problems and you can ask them how they do that. mr. clancy: driving within 10

hours you can't enter a government-owned vehicle or a leased vehicle that policy has gone out. we revisited that. representative: will just wrap up with one more thing and a follow-up on what congressman palmer said there. when i was a kid, the secret service was the top of the top. if you knew the secret service was coming to town you really felt -- and you go through the stuff in the file and they get their name in the paper the last four or five years. it's kind of embarrassing and it's almost like a screenplay for some comedy or something like that. so just good luck in your job and i hope you can do something to bring back the pride and explain to the guys and gelsey gal you are working with that right now like i said it's like a comedy starring phil silvers or something like that. mr. clancy: something i will say is we focus on the negative aspect we have had over several years here i don't want to paint the entire 6500 force in a negative light. we have people that are doing

great work and they are paid and by this as much as we are here. but there's certainly an element and rightfully so. we have to work to try to get them to where they need to be. >> let me ask you, 45,000 applications. what is the reason most of these people don't make it and i think a lot of people don't realize that we are hitting a brick wall in this country with regard to quality people and i hate to say it. the bowman city police department tells me they have to go through a whole lot of applications before they can get to a few people and i'm just wondering when you talk about 45,000 to fill how many positions? mr. clancy: that was the number i was told when i came back. one of the things we are doing now is with this accepted service we can bring people and that we may know that may have a

good background and they can get into that pipeline picker to go through the polygraph and do the background check and all that so rather than waste a lot of time while people we don't know if they are going to make it through or not they can highlight those that we know we'll probably get through the process. >> i thank the gentleman. pursuant to clause b of committee rule, we will use the next 60 minutes for an extended. question-and-answer and of the witness. i will now recognize myself for 30 minutes. director clancy who is the most senior official on duty the evening of march 4? mr. clancy: the most senior official on duty at the white house was the watch commander captain braun. >> captain braun. did the individual actor properly and report the incident per secret service policy? mr. clancy: i know he reported up to the next level. >> which is? mr. clancy: to the lieutenant i'm sorry the inspector. he reported it up to his inspector who is not in the complex. >> is he the joint operation

center? mr. clancy: inspector is the in-line supervisor. my understanding from the initial parliamentary review he reported to the deputy chief alfonso dyson. >> who is he supposed to report to? >>mr. clancy: he should report it to the special agent in charge, robert buster. >> both of which again these people are invited. you indicated he learned of the event from a former secret service agent. mr. clancy: that's correct. >> can you describe that call? mr. clancy: yes. on the morning of march 9 i was getting ready to leave our headquarters to do an off-site meeting and i received this call from this individual who said are you aware of this incident that happened supposedly on

march 4 in i said no anyone into some of those details based on the e-mail that you put up there on the screen. >> who is the first person you called? mr. clancy: the first person i called, i believe and please forgive me as i go through this because this is weeks ago and i don't have notes in front of me. so i don't intentionally mean to misspeak but i believe it was the assistant director of protective operations. >> who is? mr. clancy: william callahan. >> who counseled you not to ask questions on your own following the incident? mr. clancy: i'm looking at the management director from homeland security regarding the oig investigation. >> who is that? mr. clancy: i'm sorry the management director, it's a memorandum. >> who did you consult with to make the decision that you couldn't ask questions? mr. clancy: i don't know if i spoke to our security

professional or the office of professional responsibility and i think they described it. >> did you consult homeland security? mr. clancy: not other than advising them of this incident. i didn't consult with them in terms of what i could investigate. >> who in your chain of command is ultimately responsible for briefing you about security threats around the complex? mr. clancy: the assistant director of protective operations. >> when did you know there was a n assault on one of your officers? mr. clancy: the evening of march 4 i would have received an alert via e-mail and i believe they called me as well. >> so you knew there was an assault on your officer the night. what did you do? mr. clancy: i knew that there was a suspicious package and i

had to go back to the alert but there was an altercation with an office. this happens, i wouldn't say every day, but that's a routine event at the white house. mr. clancy: the fact that there was a suspicious package would have triggered saving videos. >> an assault on one of your officers, does that trigger? mr. clancy: yes that would have as well. it was one and the same. it was the same incident rate >> two different incidents but what period of time is reasonable before and after that altercation should they have saved the video's?

mr. clancy: i would say once things settle down they would call that evening shortly before the shift was over. i would assume the watch commander would call the joint operations center. >> i'm saying how much video before and after the incident is a reasonable time to save? mr. clancy: anything that captures the incident. >> do you deal with these incidents differently than when the president is in a president -- when the president is in residence? mr. clancy: no. it does not change when a person is in the white house. >> the white house was briefed on the march 4 incident not on

march 4, but on march 9. mr. clancy: march 9 when i found out about it. scheduled and there was a conflict here chairman chaffetz: you have been in this position six months and you have never had a personal conversation with the chief of police? director clancy: since i have been back, i have not -- chairman chaffetz: in the last six months. director clancy: that is correct. chairman chaffetz: and not about this incident? director clancy: not about this incident. there is interaction with the metro every day. chairman chaffetz: i just don't understand when the principles don't ask each other. director clancy: i don't think the chief would want me to call every time we have an incident. chairman chaffetz: but i would think there would be some open minds of in the -- lines of qqq negation open lines of communication. what time did the center alert secret service personnel about

the bomb -- about the e-mail about the bomb threat? i believe the answer is loving: 12:00 p.m., correct? director clancy: yes. chairman chaffetz: this is 47 minutes after the package was dropped and 15 minutes after the crime scene was disrupted. who drafted the alert? director clancy: our protective intelligence division would draft the alert. chairman chaffetz: do they have a specific name or title? director clancy: i don't -- chairman chaffetz: do you think it was complete? you have reviewed this. you have reviewed this. you have gone back, looked at it. director clancy: i have read the alert, yes. chairman chaffetz: why didn't this alleged contain information about the suspicious package being breached by mr. conley and mr. ogilvie? director clancy: i don't know that they were aware of it.

i don't know that the protective intelligence division was aware of that. chairman chaffetz: there is a live feed of this, correct? director clancy: there is, yes. chairman chaffetz: and no one notices that a car kind of disk drives write to the scene. director clancy: they might have noticed it. chairman chaffetz: we should drag these people and have a discussion with them. we tried to invite in mr. buster kimberly, thomas, and michael braun. very senior people within the organization. the witnesses we send invitations to to this hearing personally receive those invitations? director clancy: i don't know that answer. i know they are aware, but i don't have the answer if -- chairman chaffetz: how do you know that they were personally aware of its? director clancy: because some of our people have personally talked to them. chairman chaffetz: did they personally decline to come testify before congress echo congress? director clancy: i was not

involved in those conversations. chairman chaffetz: who's decision was it to not allow witnesses -- who made that decision? director clancy: ultimately, it is my decision. chairman chaffetz: why is it your decision? director clancy: they work in the sacred thing -- the secret service and it is my responsibility to make those decisions. chairman chaffetz: so you told them not to come testify? director clancy: i didn't specifically tell them through our staff. -- we were not provide them in this open hearing. chairman chaffetz: why? director clancy: again, i was focused on this open hearing and i didn't think it was proper for them to be in an open hearing giving testimony. as we heard today, the morale in the secret service is not where it should be. chairman chaffetz: are you concerned that it would have been embarrassing? director clancy: i am concerned

that some of the information that would have been released would have generated a lot more conversation within the ranks and they would have said, welcome if those four were brought up, why didn't we have others? or their story doesn't sound right. it might take others that have to be investigated or interviewed. there is a number of things. chairman chaffetz: so instead of transparency, you opted for just keep it close to the vest. correct? director clancy: no. again -- chairman chaffetz: you wanted one filter point. director clancy: i wanted the office of inspector general -- to give that chairman chaffetz: let's go back to the conversation that we had. did you or your staff have any conversations with the white house officials regarding their appearance? director clancy: with -- no. chairman chaffetz: you had conversations of anybody at the white house? director clancy: no, my conversations were with my staff to chairman chaffetz: who --

director clancy: i did not speak to mr. mallorca. chairman chaffetz: would you give us the answer to that? director clancy: i will research that, yes. chairman chaffetz: when? director clancy: this afternoon, i assume. chairman chaffetz: thank you that would be great. if we invite these individuals and others within the secret service -- if we can them in for transcript interviews, will you provide these individuals to the committee? director clancy: i will. chairman chaffetz: will you provide all personnel we request to the committee for transcript interviews? director clancy: with the department, i'll certainly work through this. chairman chaffetz: you are the director. director clancy: i am the director under the department of homeland security. chairman chaffetz: can you make this decision by yourself? director clancy: i can take responsibility for it. chairman chaffetz: can you make this decision by yourself? director clancy: well, we'll have to see.

chairman chaffetz: is it j johnson that makes the decisions? who makes the decisions deck of director clancy: i would seriously -- director clancy: i seriously doubt it would get to that level. i don't know if they are looking at president. i don't know what they might look at there. chairman chaffetz: why haven't you fully responded to the committee's letter -- the letter of march 19 for our document requests? director clancy: i think some of that takes time -- to acquire chairman chaffetz: do you intend to fully inquire with it -- comply with it? director clancy: yes, i do. i know the intent was to have it ready completely by today. but some of these things take time. chairman chaffetz: have you had conversations with romantic or the above the fulfillment of these request? director clancy: our staff, i would assume, have you -- has.

-- but homeland security -- is? director clancy: yes. chairman chaffetz: anybody at the white house? director clancy: not anybody i am aware of your -- aware of. chairman chaffetz: why haven't you provided the committee a detailed transcription of when you became aware of the alleged misconduct? director clancy: i don't know. i thought i was forthright in the testimony today of what my account of that day was. chairman chaffetz: we need a more complete timeline. you have yet to provide a list of all the personnel on duty or otherwise involved in the response on march 4. is that something you will provide? director clancy: we will. chairman chaffetz: when? director clancy: i don't have a timeframe for that. chairman chaffetz: what is reasonable for that deck of it shouldn't be that hard. director clancy: it shouldn't be that hard. i would assume by the early --

early tomorrow. chairman chaffetz: that would be great. we appreciate it. thank you. representative: let me ask you, when you are in charge of the presidential protective detail did you ever have a situation in which a lower-level situation -- agent or officer raised concerns about security at the white house complex? director clancy: well, i am assuming yes because i was pretty open talking to officers. chairman chaffetz: how did you deal with those? director clancy: well, i would talk frankly with them. what is your concern, what can we do, what vulnerability do you see, have you talked to your chain of command. i'm glad you came to me, but you should be comfortable going through your chain of command. i don't think it would be unusual for me to say i won't talk to you. chairman chaffetz: do you think

you're encouraged to your officers or agents to raise concerns of the chain of demand? director clancy: i think i did and i think my mentor was the same as it is today. very approachable. chairman chaffetz: what is a fireball offense? -- fireable offense? director clancy: well, something that would require your security clearance to be removed. if you had something that might affect national security, in terms of your relations with foreign nationals. chairman chaffetz: did you take any disciplinary action with regarding the failure to report misconduct? director clancy: in this case, i have not at this point. i did move the two individuals that were involved. chairman chaffetz: at the time of the incident, what was the secret service policy for driving a government vehicle after jerking alcohol? -- drinking alcohol? director clancy: you cannot

drive a government vehicle under the influence of alcohol. chairman chaffetz: what level is acceptable? director clancy: the way the policy reads, going off memory here, is that if you are impaired, if you have -- you are not able to control your actions. it is not a legal limit. it is not the legal limit. it could be less. someone could say that you don't have proper abilities. chairman chaffetz: -- representative meadow: would -- representative: would the chairman field for a question? chairman chaffetz: yes. representative: has anyone asked -- yield to the scene? director clancy: again, i don't know the facts of this case. what i have heard -- and again some at this point are news reports, that i am told that they were returning to retrieve

a vehicle. they were not responding back to the white house. representative: can you determine somebody's level of intoxication based on a phone call? director clancy: i don't think so. representative: do you know how many people attended the retirement party? director clancy: i do not. representative: would the chairman field for another question? chairman chaffetz: yes. representative: director, i am trying to understand this the economy between the inspector general and you. does he have power to issue subpoenas to those of ted the secret service? director clancy: i don't know that answer, sir. representative: does the inspector general have the authority to interview former agent? director clancy: i am assuming he can ask the private citizens. representative: but the answer might very well be different? different from a current agent that a former agent. director clancy: yes. representative: you cannot

discipline a former agent. does the inspector general have the power to subpoena surveillance video? director clancy: yes. representative: so the inspector general does have subpoena power. director clancy: my understanding is that they do. my understanding is that -- representative: well, my understanding was that they have even less power than you would have to investigate your own folks. which is why i am kind of wondering why you would stand down your investigation of agents and little of the inspector general who has no authority over former agent at all. director clancy: i may be wrong on that in terms of the subpoena power, but i believe they are investigators. also looking at the management director -- directive -- specifically says that you have to stand down with your

investigation. chairman chaffetz: let me jump into this so we can come back if that is alright with the gentleman. i understand that the washington field office requested the video the morning after the incident. within the 72 hour period. white where the videos that are raised? -- erased? director clancy: i am not aware of that. chairman chaffetz: do you think it is suspicious echo director clancy: from what i -- is suspicious? director clancy: from what i understand about the process, it does not seem suspicious to me no. you can argue that the loop every 72 hours, that that is not enough. but we are not in a position where we intentionally deleted film. it is a matter of just selecting what you think is pertinent to the incident. representative: by the way, the washington field office requested something that you did produce to this committee. but how many videos are a good for your review?

director clancy: i would say the same -- well, including the lady -- i would say 3 4. i know there were 5 clips. chairman chaffetz: when did you first get to see the videos? director clancy: again, the days, i don't know when the days are. chairman chaffetz: it is kind of important. director clancy: before you sought, i wanted to see what we going to present to your committee. chairman chaffetz: thursday, march 5, 10:40 a.m. requesting a copy of the surveillance video recording of the incident. would it have been u.s. secret service policy to train cameras on the alleged misconduct in the -- on the evening of march 4? director clancy: i wouldn't take it as policy, but i think if there is an incident, the watch commander have to decide what an

incident is. and then he calls back and says, preserve this video. if you saw whatever he sees as an incident. chairman chaffetz: have you discussed providing custody of the video to our committee for how much security? director clancy: i have not personally, but i believe our staff has paid chairman chaffetz: have you communicated with the white house? director clancy: no, not that i am aware of. chairman chaffetz: you said you had sent an e-mail to the white house chief of staff regarding the deputy chief of staff on march 4. did it reference that your staff had interrupted a crime scene? director clancy: it reference -- yes, i think the way i phrased it was to individuals go through a secure zone. chairman chaffetz: did you receive a response? director clancy: i am trying to

recall if i spoke to the deputy chief of staff or the special agent in charge. i don't honestly remember. i did speak to the deputy special agent -- i'm sorry, to the chief -- deputy chief of staff, but i don't know if the -- spoke to her first grade i don't know that timeframe. i spoke to her, yet. i don't know that timeframe, though. chairman chaffetz: you will get that to us? director clancy: i will look for it. i didn't keep notes, but i will look for it. chairman chaffetz: will you give us a copy of the e-mail? director clancy: yes. chairman chaffetz: who in the joint operation center would have been responsible for real-time flagging of the video during the march 4 incident? director clancy: there is a onto the supervisor at the joint operation center. chairman chaffetz: you have a

forensic services division correct? have a been engaged in this? director clancy: i think everyone has been tried to retrieve these videos. chairman chaffetz: when you say everyone -- director clancy: i'm sorry, i should be more concise. i know that when we didn't have these videos available, we brought in two of our people from cyber investigations, as well as some of our people from the technical side, as well as the manufacturer. chairman chaffetz: did you engage the frantic services division? -- forensic services division? director clancy: i just don't know. chairman chaffetz: who gave orders on which tapes to preserve, which to not, during the march 4 time frame? director clancy: i don't know that answer. chairman chaffetz: who should have been responsible? director clancy: there is a sergeant lieutenant in the joint operations center, as well as a gs-14 supervisor. and the watch commander decides

what is an incident. as i understand it, would call back and make that request. chairman chaffetz: i recognize the gentleman from south carolina. representative: thank you mr. chairman. director, i am a little bit asked as to whether or not these two agents were on duty or not. i can ensure that you have policies on the consumption of alcohol while you are on duty. and i don't know whether or not either of these agent consumed alcohol. do you? director clancy: i don't know. that would be a matter of the investigation. representative: what we do know is that they either responded to a crime scene, which would be problematic because they potentially contaminated a crime scene, or secondarily, they were unaware and they just can't drive with the dam and drove over a barricade. director clancy: that is correct. representative gowdy: i want to

go to the gentleman of north carolina. i continue to not understand this desire/willingness of government agencies to stand down for the inspector general and suspend their own internal investigations. i just -- you have been an investigator for how long? director clancy: well, i have been in the business for seven years. representative gowdy: if you saw to -- two gs-15's fighting in the parking lot, would you call the inspector general? director clancy: it is their option whether to take it or give them back to our agency. they could have refused to investigate and given effect to us. again, in an effort to be transparent, you know, and i am required to do that at the department of homeland security's memorandum -- representative gowdy: but if there was an ongoing theft, just an ongoing theft of, say a vending machine at your headquarters, you wouldn't call

the inspector general, would you? director clancy: that one would not be required because it is not a gs-15. representative gowdy: what if it were? director clancy: if it is a gs-15, we can notify the oig and it could make a decision. representative: i cannot believe that in the throes of an ongoing crime, you would notify the inspector general. we trust you to protect the life of the president of the united states and you cannot investigate a suspected drunk driver. director clancy: well, we would investigate the incident of the protective interests, which is the female with the bomb. that is ours and we would take that kid with regard to misconduct, that is something we would offer to the special -- or to the oig. representative gowdy: i am going to say this in conclusion. it is great to correct an homage

-- and punish misconduct after the fact. it is even better to prevent it in the first place. there is not a person here who doesn't want to see you successful. i don't think this is a training issue. i don't think it is a resource issue. you have to get the bottom of whatever is pervading the culture. and i hope you can. because it is a venerable well-respected agency. and i hate to participate in hearings like this. chairman chaffetz: i think the gentleman. i reclaim my time. director, it was according to the metropolitan police department 11 minutes after the suspect dropped what might the a bomb on the gate of the white house with the president in the white house. it takes 11 minutes to call the police department. why does it take so long? director clancy: i don't know the answer.

chairman chaffetz: how do you not know? this is what is so infuriating. you are the director of the secret service! and you don't know why it takes 11 minutes to pick up the phone and say, hey, we have a problem down here! it takes 27 minutes to secure the scene! 27 minutes! what if it was a real bomb? what if it was a real bomb? director clancy: mr. chairman, i have been at the white house complex when we have quarantined off areas and it happens very rapidly. chairman chaffetz: but this didn't. and it is the most recent example. why didn't it happen? who are you holding accountable? you are going to wait. that is the problem "q&a! it took you 30 minutes, 30 minutes to be on the lookout for a woman who dropped a package at the white house and said, this is a bomb!

i want to take it down! i want a net to go over that city! i want hurt -- her taken into custody immediately! you take 30 minutes to say, hey we got a problem here! you get an officer behind the right car and they get waved off! you said you had the license plate number! we spent millions of dollars in video capability. somebody can't press we want? don't we trust that officer who has the person in their site and say, your head, pull them over until we clear this up? that you go out to virginia, on the person, and agency, well you can't really arrest this person. this is somebody that had already come in contact with us! and the problem is, you are still waiting! this is the life safety, of the

president of the united states and the white house! when they come to the gate and they got a bomb and they say they have a bomb, believed them! take them down. i want to see determination. i want those officers and their ages to know, we have their back. you do not let that happen! this is the united states of america! the threat is real, but i don't see it. i don't feel it and it is unacceptable. i yield to the gentleman from maryland. representative: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. clancy, i just want to go back for a few minutes. because when all the dust settles, the question is, when all the dust settles is the president of the united dates and -- states and his family and all the other protect these -- protectees safe?

director clancy: absolutely. ranking member cummings: and tell us why you say that. director clancy: i protected for presidents. for presidents -- four president apparently respect the work that i have done. i have directly protected president. i know what it takes to protect residents and their families. and i know that we are not a perfect agency. and this is not a perfect science. when you look at the number of sites that we have per year, you look at the 36,000 people that come through that white house every month, we know what we are doing. do we make mistakes? yes, we do. we make mistakes and we follow up on them. our mistakes compared to the number of visits we have throughout the year -- 5700 in one year -- we have a pretty good track record. it doesn't mean that we have a

problem here. we definitely have a problem. we are going to fix it. but it is not that all of our practices are off for our foundation is bad. we just have to get a better job of training our people and responding quicker to some of these events. i could list several very positive event where we have saved lives, responded very quickly to individuals who want to climb the fence. i noted today, we looking at this negative incident. but i am confident that because of the good work that is being done by the vast maturity of our people that the president is safe, the first family is safe and the white house is safe. it is a challenge in an urban environment. ranking member cummings: a little earlier, i said that when i looked at the memo -- the anonymous e-mail -- that it may

need -- made me realize you believe that we had an agency in war with itself. do you understand why i say that? director clancy: yes. there is a conflict within the agency. ranking member cummings: the idea -- the idea that someone would even create e-mail -- would create it! put it out there. let's assume it is not true. that makes it even worse. to put it out there -- i used to be a -- when i was a kid, there was a saying that said when two elephants fight, the ground suffers. and the point is is that when people are involved in conflict and that is distracting from the

mission, that is a problem. would you agree? director clancy: absolutely. ranking member cummings: just the idea that someone would put that out there. director clancy: it is a reflection on all of us. there is not enough trust within the agency. that you can't bring things up to the agency. somehow, we have to redeem that trust. rather than going out and doing an anonymous e-mail, bring into someone's attention. we have so many avenues that we have created to do that. you see hot light and on punishment -- or call me directly. i have had people trek to contact me with issues they have had. and i have followed up on them. to the workforce that is listening today, if you are and i getting results, contact me so that we can get results. ranking member cummings: what is the -- you know, i think one of the things that becomes frustrating for a lot of us here

is something i said to you of the earlier you it is one thing when you have once incident -- one incident here and one incident there. but when you see them keep coming, keep coming, keep coming , that is when you move into that zone of culture. and it seems like the problems -- because they keep coming -- it seems like we are not maybe digging down deep enough to try to get to the ongoing situation. hold that point. let me go to number two with that. one of the things you also talked about, and congresswoman holmes also talked about, was this overtime and that people can't even get a day off. i am sure that plays a role. but help us try to understand

how do you see it? you got to be sitting there scratching your head saying, ok, it is one thing after another. m i digging deep enough to get that the problems? when you look at all that you have seen, what -- i am sure you see some daylight at the end. the question is, how do you see yourself hitting to that daylight? when i say daylight, i mean breaking the agency back to the level of integrity that it once held. how do you do that? how do you see yourself doing that? can you see yourself become blessing that? director clancy: i am trying to stay the course of what we have started. 30 days ago. when i was named the director. as an acting director, you do

some things, you make some changes, but you are not the permanent director. to be honest with you, i thought if they rotted someone else they would bring in their own team, their own restructuring. and i didn't want to step too far out until i was the director. in the last 20 days -- -- 30 days, i want to stay the course of doing everything we can. that is the biggest issue we have. i admit there are other issues we got to work on with the way we handled this incident, but if we handle this staffing problem i honestly believe it will help the morale of the little bit. when people start to get days off, then they are more excited to work as a team and get back into the -- into the business. but that is something we just got to fix. the staffing. and the communication. i can't say it enough. i know it may be doesn't mean a lot here as i speak to the committee, but we have been stressing with all of our

officials as well as my executive staff, and i have personally tried to engage people, engage them and make them feel comfortable to talk to us and try to make this agency better. you know, it is that 1%. i have said this during roll call. it is the 1% that is turned on the 99% it is that 99% that have to stand up to that 1%. that is what i am asking our workforce to do. if you start seeing someone go south on their professional or personal conduct then that 99% has got to straighten it out. that person in that vicinity has to grab the individual and say hey, that is not what we do. somehow, i need the help of the workforce. beside the supervisors, i need a help of the workforce to stand up for that agency and maketh the way it was so many years ago. and one last thing, i know i'm talking too much her, but we are talking about some very negative exterior.

but there are so many wonderful, wonderful agents and officers. professional people. i am sorry. ranking member cummings: no. i agree with you there. they are great agent. i have talked to a number of them, as a matter of fact, i had one visit with me not long ago. and this was an agent to has been around for a good while, as a matter of fact. he is about to retire. but he really wanted to make sure that the agency got back to that place that i just talked about. the reason why i ask you these questions is because, you know i am try to figure out can we -- i mean, it seems as if some people probably have to go.

and do you understand that? there may be some people who may be this is not where they need to be? or maybe they are good people, but it doesn't mean that they are necessarily good for this agency. and so, i mean, how do you make those determinations? how do you come to that? and do you feel that you can make those decisions? if somebody -- if you know somebody, for 20 years -- director clancy: i have made that decision with some people that we did offer other positions in dhs. again, good people, but i wanted this fresh look and aggressive work that we need to have done on the upper levels. if we can set a tone at the upper levels, that is going to filter down. not only the work ethic, but the

professionalism, but also the idea of trust. i immigrate believe or in trust. you got to try to, through your actions, gain trust in people. i think we just have to -- it is going to take time. but i'm not giving up. it is going to take time. we are just going to have to keep working through it. ranking member cummings: the truth told the committee that 30 minutes was a quicktime response. do you see that is quick? director clancy: i don't know. i can't evaluate the chief haas -- chief apostle -- chief's force. we have our own people on the complex. ranking member cummings: is there a bomb expert inside? director clancy: inside the complex, but not for the metropolitan street. ranking member cummings: but inside the white house? director clancy: i believe it is in the new executive office

building so they can respond within minutes. ranking member cummings: a question also came up with regard to the ig. and according to the code, the ig does have -- the ig is authorized to require by subpoena the production of all information, documents, reports records, accounts, papers, and other data. did you know that? director clancy: i made an assumption. to enter the earlier question, i thought they could, yes. ranking member cummings: i just want to make sure we were clear on that. director clancy: thank you. ranking member cummings: tell me. describe your relationship between -- the relationship between the secret service and the metropolitan police department. director clancy: well, with our washington field office, the asian -- aged in charge, they

were clear closely with the metropolitan police department. and i can see it myself as i walk around the white house. we have protesters and incident at the white house. the are very responsive. i can see them and force. it is actually very comforting. maybe it was a week ago, i walked down there, st. patrick's center, i think, i walked around that weekend and we had a st. patrick's day parade. and there was a syrian protest group. at a large crowd on the north fence line. and the metropolitan police were there offering a lot of support. i remove a talking to some of the officers. my view, it is much better than it was from years ago. so i think the relationship is very strong. but there support has been very very helpful to us. i think there is a very good relationship to ranking member cummings: and -- relationship -- ranking member cummings: and how

has the communications been echo -- ben? director clancy: to the chairman's point, i agree i should have made more of an effort to meet. ranking member cummings: do you plan on doing that anytime soon? director clancy: i do. it is on the schedule for maybe next week. i know it had been canceled and then we had another event. that had to be canceled. so, we have missed a couple of opportunities. but that is on me. ranking member cummings: now going back to the -- the incidence of march 4. i understand what you're saying when you were concerned. you turn this investigation over to the ig. do you think your agency -- if you had the authority -- could have done the investigation? director clancy: absolutely.

i think we could have been much faster. i think we would have worked -- again, i do want to cast judgment on the oig. i am sure they are doing a very good job. but we would have worked on this very quickly. what i didn't want that view. the concern was that it is a service taking over their investigation of their people. i didn't want to take that chance. again, i'm sorry. i am required to give it to the oig. ranking member cummings: yeah, i understand that. i heard you say this many times about, you know, the concerned about -- first of all, you had a duty to do it. but putting that aside, this idea of the perception. talk about that for a minute. i have heard you say this now at least five or six times. director clancy: i just wanted to be as transparent -- maybe the best example i could give you is i know many members

wanted the outsider in this position. so that outsider could make decisions. here we have this incident, and i have reached to an outsider to investigate it. and now, i'm being told that it should have been an insider. so, you know, i am trying to be transparent here. i admit that being new in the role that there is a lot for me to learn. i'm going to learn from our mistakes. i did want to be transparent. i just didn't want to have any indication that we were taking the investigation. that is why -- again, right or wrong, i comport with the last things. let me focus. on the protection of the white house today and tomorrow and future trips. the first lady, who is making a trip overseas. there are so many other issues and threats that are coming in. and this is my third hearing.

then i had a closed hearing. as you can imagine that takes a considerable amount of time from some of my other duties that i'm concerned, you know, that are in the future here. like the pope's visit and the campaign. these are things i should be looking at now in advance. again, it is on us. we put ourselves in that position. i realize that. but it has taken a considerable amount of my time. when i was content, at this point, to let the oig do this investigation. so that i could, i had hoped, to focus on the investigation today. ranking member cummings: i told you that one of my concerns all along here is that -- and i think you are getting a feel that it is probably the concerns of a number of us -- is that in the process of waiting for the

oig, to come back with their findings, recommendations, and what have you, that the president still has to be safe. director clancy: yes. ranking member cummings: and a lot of the concern went to if there are things that may be -- could be threatening to the safety and welfare of the president and the family and all the others, that you protect while we are waiting, something cannot be happening. let me finish. you had mentioned to me -- you had told us that you are going to go back a few days ago to the ig and the in contact with them -- be in contact with them as to things that they could let you know that would allow you if they deemed it serious enough,

to be able to act with regard to disciplinary issues. did you have that conversation? director clancy: i did not have a second conversation with the oig. i will say that, as a result of what i do know here, where these agents drove the the secure zone, we had our assistant director for training. we gave him the task of going back out and looking at our model for into the command. what do we do we have an incident like this? is the communication of properly? so that dreck of has gone out for my office to the training director. so we are looking at this from where we are now from the outside. and just from that, we know that there are things we can do better. and we are addressing those. the piece that is missing, primarily, is the accountability piece. and that comes when we get the -- the definitive fax.

ranking member cummings: now you are going to -- you have told the chairman that you are going to produce certain witnesses. i am not trying to put words in your mouth. let me finish. i want to make sure we are all on the same page. and i want to make sure you said what i think you said. that you are going to produce certain witnesses for interviews. is that right? do you understand me? director clancy: i would have to go back to the department, but that would be my recommendation that if we go back to the department -- and not in an open hearing, i would do in a closed hearing. ranking member cummings: and with that -- would that satisfy your concerns with regard to interfering with the ig? by the way, we told the ig that we would work with him, so as we

would avoid those kinds of albums. director clancy: it would satisfy my concerns. in all candor, that would go through the workforce and they will no who has been brought in and who hasn't. but it was satisfying my concerns. ranking member cummings: when you say it would cause a lot of chatter, and a lot of chatter is going to because no matter what because the ig has to interview the same people we want to interview. you understand that, right? director clancy: yes, if you are going to do all the interviews they are doing, yes. ranking member cummings: we will probably do quite a few interviews. so, what is the difference? director clancy: there may not be, congressman. yeah. in a closed hearing. ranking member cummings: i am talking about closed. so, what can you tell us -- so if you are working with the ig is there -- is there thinks --

if you had done the investigation, it would be much faster. director clancy: that is my view. knowing that we would throw all the assets that we have available, we would take investigators of internal affairs. and 24 hours a day, we would follow through on this to get it done. so we can act on it. ranking member cummings: now, we don't -- when you have a shortage of manpower, how do you deal with that? do you talk about all the vacancies? i still can't get over this 45,000 people. director clancy: yes, sir. we have a shortage of manpower, operationally we pull people in. just as an example, at the white house now, the uniform division is short, in terms of manpower. so we have wrought in agents to assist -- brought in agents to

assist in some of these positions. and we are working towards building up their staff. in fact, this year, we should hire approximately 192 officers. maybe a little bit more. the key here is the retention piece of it. it is one thing to bring them on, but if we lose 100, then our increase is not as great as we would like. we are looking at retention matters, too. should there be bonuses available? retention bonuses? we are looking at other options, too, looking at people who have retired. can we bring them back and some kind of a role? so we are looking at as many different options available to try and build up our staff. and that is where we are. ranking member cummings: does it surprise you that out of 45,000

people, you can't get a few? i mean, there's that surprise you? director clancy: it absolutely does. ranking member cummings: you said it mainly because of drugs. director clancy: primarily because of drugs. ranking member cummings: and when you say drugs, do you mean a history of drugs? they come in for a drug test and they are still on drugs? director clancy: very often, through the polygraph examination. there are admissions to possibly selling drugs or having some -- some kind of a past. a crime in the past you ranking member cummings: let's say somebody is asked, have you ever used marijuana? and they say, yeah, i used it in high school. now they are 27 years old. what happens to that person? is that the kind of thing that would disqualify them echo -- them echo -- them?

director clancy: i'm not sure i can go into specifics because others may hear that. ranking member cummings: i got you. it is a problem, though. director clancy: it is a dilemma, but we have to go through that in order to get good people. we are willing to -- we are not going to compromise our hiring standards because we have got to get good people. the thing i got to battle with, we have done all this vetting, and it takes seven or eight months to go through the polygraphs and the background checks. and they get this top-secret clearance. where do we lose them when they get to the 10 year mark, 15 year mark? why are they not -- you know why do they write to the members echo what are the disgruntled? why are they not reporting up through the chain of command? i have got to find a solution to that because we are getting good people on the front-end.

again, start to keep saying this, but we are looking at a small limits. our workforce listening to this is probably saying this is not the workforce i don't. but there is an element that we have got to do a better job of reaching it ranking member cummings: do we have -- of reaching. ranking member cummings: do we have to do a better job of making sure that the people in the supervisory roles are well selected? i have told you several times -- i have been sitting on the board for years of the naval academy. and one thing and notice is that they are very -- the student -- are very selective about who has leadership roles up and down the ranks. and it is earned. people have earned trust. people have sown -- shown good examples. it is not a, i have scratched your back, you scratch mine. are you looking at -- you are

going to have people at the top but if you got folks in supervisory roles, for example, who might say two officers rank and file -- to officers rank and file don't conduct a sobriety test -- hypothetically -- that -- that is pretty bad. because then you have the person who is tied to do their job being told not to do their job. talking about -- you talk about something that would be harmful to morale. at the same time, take away from the mission. i mean, that is a hell of a dilemma. so are you looking at how you promote people? and check to make sure you have the right people in the right positions? director clancy: a couple things. i know some things have taken place in the time i was not in the service.

to make it more objective, there is testing. so you either have to pass the test for you don't pass the test. so that prevent someone from just tapping their friend and saying you are going to be a supervisor. so you've got to get to that test. but beyond that, we've got to do more training with those supervisors that we have in place today. we've got to do more ongoing training so that they engage their workforce. i am just thinking of the uniform division, for example. those officials need to be walking around that complex as much as possible, engaging their employees. testing our employees. the -- go up to the officers and say, if this happens, what are you going to do? if you have ever played baseball, you are sitting out there in right field and you are thinking, what am i going to do with the ball? well, that is what we have do in

our line of work. you have to think, if this happens, what is my reaction? ranking member cummings: my time is running out, but let me say that, first of all, to the men and women of the secret service i want to thank them for what they do. and you know, i watch them whenever they are around. i have just seen phenomenal professionalism. but when these things happen, you are right, it just takes way from all of those folks who are doing a great job. and i am hoping that they will accept your directions. and that is that if there are people who are not during the right thing, that they themselves will weed them out. they will weed them out in a minute. because they want to make sure that they keep this elite

organization elites. they want to make sure that the representation -- reputation matches the performance. again, i want to thank you, but i got to tell you, as i have said many times, we got a high-powered microscope on this agency. and we will not rest. in a bipartisan way. we will not rest until we get back to where we need to be. thank you, mr. chairman. chairman chaffetz: i now recognize the chairman -- gentleman from georgia. representative: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. clancy, thank you for being here. i want to reiterate what we said earlier and that is that we all want to see you succeed. we do. we truly, bipartisan way what to see you succeed. unfortunately, off to a bad start. and that happened, ok? when your agency hires a new

employee, can you tell me what the process -- how much time it usually takes when you hire a new employee? director clancy: to go through the hiring process is approximately seven or eight months. we have cut it down. it was longer up until about a year ago. and then once we get them on board, a go through training for seven months. we send them down to georgia for three and a half months of georgia. -- of training. representative carter: by the way, that is in my district. director clancy: it is a great facility. excellent training down there and basic law enforcement training. and then they come up to washington for more specific training related to the secret service laws and investigations and protection. it is about a seven month training. representative carter: of that

seven-month training, and i'm not talking specifically about training, but what about background investigations. how long does that usually take? director clancy: it was 14 days. >> the entire process takes -- [indiscernible] representative carter: i am looking specifically for the background check. director clancy: to the best of my knowledge, they get 14 days to go to your schools and neighborhoods and to that background check. it may have been brought down to 10 days. representative carter: but recently, has it been adjusted to be less than even that? director clancy: one of the other members had mentioned that. i am not aware of that. i was where that it may go down to 10 days. i will research that when i go back. representative carter: whoa. you weren't aware of it. there was an e-mail sent out that said because you're trying

to fill the class for march that you wanted to decrease it to three days. you didn't approve that? director clancy: no, i don't get involved at that level, to be candid with you, sir. i said the tone of how many classes we wanted to get. get nine classes or eight classes and fill those classes. i don't know if they brought it down to three days. representative carter: do you feel like you should get involved echo that seems to me -- involved? that seems to me like it is a pretty high management decision. director clancy: the requirements stay the same though. you have to make your you talk to so many neighborhood neighbors, so many schools. you have to still do a background check. it is just that you time to do it is content -- condensed. representative carter: let me ask you, in the background check , if you find somebody who has a

dual nationality, does that impact whether you hire them or not? director clancy: i don't -- yeah -- you cannot have dual citizenship. representative carter: you cannot have dual citizenship, but it is my understanding that that did happen during this time that you had the three-day background check. that is my understanding. director clancy: i will check on that. our staff will check with yours and we will follow up on that. representative carter: i am just concerned. it seems to me like when there is an alteration in policy, the one thing -- look, i am a small business owner. and the one thing that i don't like surprises. i believe you surround yourself with good people and you let them go at it. i admire that. but at the same time, i don't like surprises. and it would appear to me that going from a 14 or ten-day background check. period to a three day as a surprise. director clancy: yes, that is a

significant -- of our hiring process. certainly, if you would help us with that. representative carter: back to the dual citizenship. if you do find out they do have dual citizenship, then they are inevitable -- ineligible? director clancy: my understanding is that, yes, they have to announce their citizenship. they have to be american citizens. representative carter: ok. all right. again, let me reiterate that we want to see us succeed. we don't want to see you here. the less we see of you, the better off we are and the better off you are. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. chairman chaffetz: i think the gentleman. on behalf of all of us, please convey to the men and women who do the hard work day in and day out, holidays weekends, they got family and life's going on yet they are asked to continue to perform the duties. i hope they know how much we

love them, care for them, and wish them nothing but the best. part of what makes united states of america the greatest country on the face of america is that we are self-critical. he can't do the type of discussion we are having in most countries. representatives of the people who care about what you do it how you do it, that is the spirit in which we approach it. and i are you sure that as well. thank you for your personal service. we think the men and women for all they do, all the men and women behind you supporting you today. back in the office, on the ground in the white house, wherever they may be, we thank them. we depreciated -- do appreciate it, the committee stands adjourned.