we want to try to get in melinda in colorado on the line for people who make over $100,000. good morning. caller: hello. i don't think the tax system is fair. i am a small business owner also. i believe that the weight of this country is on a small businesses backs. i have an s corporation. i paid over $90,000 this year. i think what would be fair would be a straight across the board flat tax. host: the house of representatives is coming in. we will see you back here tomorrow at 7:00 the clerk: the speaker's room washington, d.c. april 14, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable dan newhouse to act as speaker pro tempore on this day.

signed, john a. boehner speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6 2015, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, i'm back on the floor today because while we were home during the easter break, there was a tragedy in afghanistan that largely escaped the national news. on april 8 army medic john dawson was shot and killed and

eight other americans were wounded by an afghan soldier who opened fire on them. this tragedy is yet another example of the american blood spilled in afghanistan. sadly this kind of tragedy and an american soldier being killed by a supposed afghan ally is nothing new. the poster i have with me today is a picture of two little girls eden and stephanie, who lived in my district for a time. their father, sergeant kevin baldis, who was stationed at camp lejeune in my district, died may 2011, in afghanistan along with lieutenant colonel benjamin palmer, who also was stationed in my district at cherry point marine air station. they were shot by an afghan policeman they were training. the night before the sergeant died he emailed his wife amy and he said, i don't trust them. i don't trust them. i don't trust any of them. and the next day he was killed. mr. speaker, last december when

congress passed final appropriations for fiscal year 2015, it provided $4.1 billion for the afghan national security force and additional funding for development assistance. this is more money than the afghan government generates in a year. inspector general for afghan reconstruction, regularly produces report on the rampant waste, fraud and abuse of american taxpayers' dollars in afghanistan and yet we in congress continue to spend billions in afghanistan. to what end? why are we going to spend billions of dollars and have troops in afghanistan for nine more years, for nine more years, mr. speaker? as roger simon said in october, 2014 -- he's an editor with "politico," and i quote what he wrote, if you spent 13 years pounding money down a rathole with little to show for it, you might wake up one morning and say, hey, i'm going to stop

pounding money down this rathole. the united states government wakes up every morning and says the rathole is looking a little empty today. let's pound a few more billions of dollars in that rathole. mr. speaker, that's sad for the american taxpayer who tomorrow many of the american taxpayers will pay their taxes to the federal government and we in congress will continue to take their tax money and spend billions over in afghanistan with very little accountability for the american taxpayer. that is unacceptable. then when you look at the limbs, the death that's going on in afghanistan you wonder why someone years ago said that afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. yes mr. speaker, america is headed for the graveyard in afghanistan. i don't understand my colleagues in congress. mr. speaker, it's time to bring our troops home from afghanistan once and for all. we have wasted billions of

dollars and spilled so much american blood in a futile attempt to save a fractured country from itself. afghanistan is truly the graveyard of empires that i just mentioned. it's time for congress to lead the way and end our presence in afghanistan. may god continue to bless our men and women in uniform and may god continue to bless america. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan mr. kildee, for five minutes. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. speaker. so i come to the floor today to bring up the case of my constituent a young man by the name of amir. he's an american citizen born and raised in the united states, grew up in my hometown of flint, michigan. served in the united states marine corps. he's a brother.

he's a son. 3 1/2 years ago he traveled to iran, his parents are of iranian dissent, he traveled to iran to meet for the first time a grandmother that he had never seen. traveled under his own name, notified the government that he was going and after just a couple of weeks was apprehended, disappeared and after a few months later it was revealed that he had been tried and convicted and sentenced to death. a young man, an american traveling under his own name in iran who had served in the united states marine corps was sentenced to death. simply for being an american in iran that had served this country. he's an innocent man. and he continues to languish in prison. i'm here to make it clear that the congress of the united

states and the american people are watching the iranian government if in fact iran intends as they purport to do, to try to take steps to join the international community. they cannot hold americans like amir as political prisoners. members of congress on both sides of the aisle, from john lewis to darrell issa, have joined in the effort to raise awareness around amir's case. it's important we never let this case fade into the woodwork. i think about amir the same way i would think about if my own son were being held in a prison on the other side of the world and i know that every other member of congress who's been engaged in this effort feels the same way. he is one of us. he is our son and he nes to be reunited with his family. so as we now are considering i

think a really important ment where there have been negotiations to try to deal with iran's nucar aspirations -- and personally i support this direction. i support the direction the administration has gone in creating a framewo thrugh negotiation to make f a more peaceful world. it is very difficult for many of us in congress, especially those who represent those few americans being held in an iranian prison view this agreement other than through the lenof thaexperience. if an truly intends to try to rejoin the global community, they can make a very clear demonstration of their seriousness by reasing amir and the other americans that they hold. we can all play a role in making that happen.

people who want to be engaged, get to social media, use the #freeamir or #freeamirnow. we know that the iranian government does pay attention to what the american people think. the iranian citizens certainly do. and we know that we have to keep the preure on right now. it is very -- as i said, very difficult for many of us who support the direction that this administration has taken, these negotiations and really hope that it bears fruit, really hope that it creates an agreement that makes the world and particular that region safer. we can only really accept iran as a member of the global community, not just by entering into this agreement but by them joining the global community, tht can take young man who served his country, who grew up here, was the captain of his high school hockey team, simply wanted to go to see the country

that his parents were born in and to visit the grandmother that he had never met, to hold him as a political prisoner, as a chip in a geopolitical struggle is beyond the pale and it's something that cannot be accepted. so please, my friends and my colleagues, join me in continuing to raise your voices to make sure that not one day passes, especially during this period where we're considering this potentially historic agreement, not one day passes where amir jason pastor, mr. levinson, that their cases, their names are never forgotten. with that mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, on september 22 2011 former joint chiefs of

staff mullen said that our debt was the -- we suffer from overbearing debt and unless immediate action is taken future generation also face insurmountable challenges. no one wants a future where policymakers will choose between discretionary programs like roads and bridges or educating our children. when they continue to be crowded out by mandatory spending which accounts for more than 2/3 of our annual budget. we need a strong social safety net. we need a strong national defense. we need an america where young learners can have access to a quality education and workers get the skills they need to sustain jobs and keep businesses striving and competitive, both domestically and globally. unfortunately aspirations for a more prosperous america are not going to be achieved until we begin to get out underneath this burden of debt.

myrick since 2009, the obama administration has added more than $7 trillion to our national debt and today we owe more than $18 trillion. an amount greater than the an ute gross domestic product. -- greater than the gross domestic product. while there were some successes since 2007, we must continue to put forth a blueprint that aims to reduce deficit spending and provide a path to long-term fiscal stability. recently the house passed a strong budget resolution that aims to reduce spending by $5.5 trillion over 10 years to get a handle on erroneous regulations and mandates and promote a true patient-centered health care solution. mr. speaker, the critics of this plan have unashamedly that republicans want to quote, end medicare as we know it, end quote. well, those accusations cannot be further than the true. unfortunately, these near sighted individuals have

focused more on partisan attacks rather than look at the long-term challenges that we as a country face together. according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, the medical hospital trust fund will be insolvent by 2030 which is closer than we all would like to admit. the house republican proposal presents a plan to save, strengthen and secure medicare for today's seniors and tomorrow's retirees. it makes no changes for those in or near retirement and provides future seniors with premium support and will result in actual savings for both beneficiaries and taxpayers. the do nothing alternative will only serve to break promises this country's made to our seniors and place on a road to rationing where beneficiaries will be burdened with arbitrary caps to medically necessary procedures and care. mr. speaker, i'm in no way blaming this blueprint is perfect, but please be assured that i was not elected to sit idle nor squander an opportunity to ensure our great country can continue to support

promises that we have made. moving forward, as the house and senate begin to conference and work out the details between each chamber's respective budgets, i'll remain committed to ensuring a strong national security, economic competitiveness and atmosphere that fosters positive growth throughout pennsylvania and across our great country. we have been given an opportunity to strengthen this great nation. let's work towards that end rather than vilify those that look to provide us options. our children and future generations of americans deserve as you much. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the lady from the district of columbia, ms. norton, for five minutes. ms. norton: thank you, mr. speaker. during the next three days i will be coming to the floor

leading up to thursday, april 16, emancipation day d.c. emancipation day. now, that's the day that abraham lincoln emancipated the slaves in the district of columbia before slaves nationwide were emancipated. . i know residents of the district of columbia is a slave today as in 1863. but at the same time the residents of the district of columbia are not as free as the other residents of our country, our fellow americans. so in the district of columbia we commemorate d.c. emancipation day. not only to honor our forebears but to demand equal treatment from our country for the citizens who live in the nation's capital.

mr. speaker, the citizens who live right here in the belly of freedom do not have the same rights as oer americans although they pay the same taxes. i will argue tomorrow more taxes than any other americans. they endure undemocratic interference. even with their local budgets. budgets that are not -- for which the federal government -- for which the congress contributes not one penny. yet that local budget comes before this body without a member who represents the citizens whose local budget is at issue, that member cannot vote. as founding as those elements of

statehood are, perhaps none is more dishonorable than the continued sacrifices of americans who live in the nation's capital without the same representation as other americans. we are known, perhaps, in the nation's capital by no taxation without representation, but we ought to be known, as if there is any -- anything by which we should be better known, it is those who have died since the war that created the united states of america itself. who would believe what those figures show? in world war i more casualties than three states. world war ii, more casualties --

this is one city of which we are speaking more casualties than four states. by the time we get to the korean war more casualties than eight states of the union. and all of that is proportionate, mr. speaker. and finally, when we get to the last war of the -- the last great war considered of the 20th century, the vietnam war more casualties from the district of columbia than 10 states. thousands have died. all without a vote. and yet they have squrd the vote everywhere they went. they secured the votes for the people of iraq. they secured the votes for the

people of afghanistan. they secured the vote for citizens in -- throughout europe and the middle east. and here to this day 2015 almost 125 years after lincoln freed the first slave in the district of columbia, the residents of the district of columbia are still not free. they will not be free until they become the 51st state of the united states. and until their war dead are honored in the way the war dead of other states are honored. by going to war on the vote of the people including their own representative. coming back and being enabled to vote themselves. and so mr. speaker, on this first day of d.c. emancipation week, i ask that d.c. war dead

be honored. that those from the district of columbia who serve our nation today be honored with the vote and with statehood. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the lady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr, for five minutes. mr. barr: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today in recognition of child abuse prevention month. and to highlight the important work of prevent child abuse kentucky. this organization is on the frontlines to make sure that kentucky's children are raised in a safe, loving home and are not abused, mistreated, or neglected. their staff of eight trained thousands of people annually.

their parent education groups offered in every region of our commonwealth serve more than 10,000 people every year. thousands of pin wheels will blanket the commonwealth of kentucky this month, all with the hopes of drawing awareness of child abuse and negligent in our communities. and -- neglect in our communities. and there is much work to do. according to the most recent national statistics on child abuse an estimated 1,520 children died from abuse and neglect in the united states. that was in 2013 alone. an estimated 679,000 children were victims of abuse and neglect. those are unique instances. children in the first year of their life had the highest rate of victimization of 23.1 per 1,000 children in the national population of the same age. just under 80% of reported child

fatalities as a result of abuse and neglect were caused by one or more of the child victims' parents. this is a personal cause for me. as the father of two girls and as the former president of the board of directors for prevent child abuse kentucky, i am incredibly proud of the great work that this group is doing for kentucky children all year long. i hope all of my colleagues will join me in thanking prevent child abuse kentucky and similar organizations around the country as we recognize the critical work of these important groups and as we recognize the importance of national child abuse prevention month. mr. speaker i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the lady from ohio, ms. kaptur, for five minutes. ms. kaptur: thank you mr. speaker. the american people are being kept in the dark by the obama

administration regarding the transpacific partnership. so much secrecy forces us to ask an important question. have any of our past free trade agreements really been net positive for our nation and helped our workers? the gens answer is no. every single agreement, whether you look at the nafta accord with mexico, canada where we are in huge deficit. if you look at the korean agreement f you look at basic trade with nations like japan which remains a closed market, it's l negative. since 1976, our country has lost 47.5 million jobs due to trade deficits resulting from free trade agreements. during that time we have accumulated a trade deficit of more than $9.5 trillion. what a drag that is on g.d.p. these growing trade deficits that outsource our wealth and weaken our economy devastate communities. carrying a massive trade deficit

has hindered economic growth and limited our economic recovery by nearly 16% just in this past year alone. more and more people are slipping away from the middle class as a result with inequality at the highest levels since the 1920's. millions of americans are losing faith in the possibility of upward mobility. let's ask ourselves, what has past trade deals brought americans? just since nafta americans have lost in the manufacturing sector, five million jobs. that's just since the early 1990's. one of every four and more than 57,000 manufacturing facilities have closed, 57,000. washing machines that used to be made in iowa maytag, are imported from monterey, mexico. huffy bicycles that used to be made in ohio are import interested asia. ohio knows well the cost of fast track trade agreements that ship out good jobs and made in the u.s.a. brands.

since nafta, our trade balance with mexico and canada has gone from a $5 billion annual surplus, creating jobs here in 1993, to a deficit of $177 billion today. that translates into three quarters of a million more lost jobs, 750,000 more lost jobs with canada and mexico. the quality of life for americans has been declining under these agreements. middle class america is shrinking as businesses have closed production and moved overseas. three out of every five displaced u.s. manufacturing workers have been forced to take a pay cut in order to secure any kind of job. and one out of three workers experiences a pay cut of more than 20%. these are among the luckiest workers as frequently laid off workers over the age of 40 can't even find replacement work. this is not a problem for america, workers in other countries are caught, too, as

one worker described to me, like a lobster in a cage crawling over one another just to survive. contributing to unspeakable poverty and waves of desperate immigration to the united states from countries south of our border and elsewhere. clearly nafta was a failure for america's workers. if we look at the korean trade deal, which they said would be the salvation, it has worked exactly in reverse. we have already lost 75,000 more jobs to imports coming into our country from korea. the exports going out have been just a trickle. in fact our exports to korea have gone down by 7.5%. the korean agreement was hailed as a wonderful opportunity for the american economy something we just couldn't pass up. well, take a look at what has happened. we have imported 1288,456,000 weeks in cora from 2014, exporting -- korea from 2014.

the korean free trade agreement has been a failure for american workers, too. with these transpacific partnership negotiations continuing to advance, america should ask, could it possibly be a good deal for american workers? we already have colossal trade deficit was some of the countries with which the negotiations are occurring with malaysia, with vietnam, and obviously with japan. the prospectus t.p.p. partners used protectionism and currency manipulation to gain unfair advantage and fail to regulate appalling labor conditions. these nations will not deliver on the promises made in support of t.p.p. history should teach us we need a new trade model. america doesn't need more job outsourcing trade deals. the compkive branch and specifically the national security council, better start paying attention to the harm it causes when it forgets its global strategies have created

undue harm here in the homeland. the people in the united states are asking for a new trade model that creates jobs and economic growth in our country again. i might say robust economic growth. the american people have been waiting for almost three decades. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. this week on capitol hill there are hundreds and hundreds of people from around the country who are delivering a message that america is falling apart and falling behind and it is time for us to address the critical funding shortfall for our transportation needs. they could not have picked a better time to come to capitol hill. the 10-month extension of the

surface transportation legislation is set to expire in six weeks. it is the latest in a series of 23 short-term extensions. no nation ever became great planning its infrastructure nine months at a time. the republican budget passed last month again proposes to cut transportation spending, which is already inadequate 30% over the next 10 years. despite hearing from local governments, business, labor, that the federal government should be larger in its contribution not smaller. the unwillingness to face reality got us to where we are today, falling apart, falling behind. the country that used to have the finest infrastructure in the world was recently rated 17 and we are falling behind. the gas tax hasn't been increased since 1993.

andt's lost nearly 40% of its purchasing power. we can't pay for transportation in 2015 with 1993 dollars. . over a dozen senators have been talking about raising the gas tax. some of my republican colleagues in the house have agreed that raising the gas tax is the right thing to do. when i introduced house resolution 680 in february that would phase in a three-year 15 cent gas tax increase, i was joined by the u.s. chamber of commerce, the afl-cio, truckers, a.a.a. transit, local government contractors, bicyclists. it's the broadest coalition you wil see on any major issue all

saying to congress stand up and do the right thing. a gas tax increase is the only solution that is dedicated, sustainable for the long term and big enough to do the job. mr. speaker, it's interesting that while congress continues to dither, people at the state level are taking action in anticipation that the federal partnership will be there. two years ago i was told it was impractical would never fly politically. well, what we have seen in the last two years that 13 states, including seven republican states have raised the gas tax. of the state legislators that voted to increase the gas tax 98% of them were re-elected. i would note a better percentage than the senate

democrats running for re-election in the last election. with the support of congress, this broad coalition we can actually step up, revitalize the economy. we can strengthen communities. we can put hundreds of thousands of americans to work at family wage jobs in every state in the union. mr. speaker, in 1982, ronald reagan gave his thanksgiving day address where he pointed out that gas tax hadn't been raised in over 20 years. he pointed out needs for critical maintenance and construction. he pointed out that raising the gas tax would create hundreds of thousands of family wage jobs. ronald reagan called on congress to come back and more than double the gas tax. and ronald reagan and speaker tip o'neill and congress did

just that and america was better for it. there's no reason that this congress cannot demonstrate the fore sight encouraged by -- foresight encouraged by ronald reagan to congress over 30 years ago and show the fortitude that's been shown in states around the cntry who are betting that we're going to be there working with them. i sincerely hope that my colleagues listeno the hundreds of men and will on capitol hill telling the story from the perspective of unions, local government, business, the needs are there, congress needs to act. the public deserves no less. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the lady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, for five minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr.

chairman. i appreciate the recognition and the opportunity to revise and extend my remarks and to address the body of the house. mr. chairman as my colleagues all know, this is the week that the american people will strike that check to the internal revenue service to pay their taxes. now, what has ended up happening through the years as this tax that came on our books about 100 years ago and was to be a 1% temporary tax hasgrn and grown and grown and it continues to eat a greater share oour incomes. i hear from constituents every single day every single day

about the unfairness and the overreach of the i.r.s. they are so fed up with this beuse what they observe is government continues to grow and the bureaucracy continues to grow and what happens? it just takes away bits and pieces of our freedom every time that bureaucracy expands, and that is the rson that this week we in the house he set aside ti to make cerin hat we're addressing those concerns that we hear from our constituents. this is a week where we're going to talk about tax fairness, tax equity and also about overreach, which comes from a government that refuses live within its ans and continues to take more out of the pockets of hardworking taxpayers who are fighting and

working so hard to live within their means. you know i think there basically is something immoral about taxpayers working so hard to live witn their means and sending money to a government that rfuses to live within its means. now, there are some things we can do to address this issue and things that we ought to be doing and we are. one is to look at a permanent repeal of the death tax and i am so pleasedhat chairman ryan and chairman brady are bringing these bills forward. the other that i want to talk specifically about for a few minutes is h.r. 622. this is a bill that i'm the lead co-sponsor on wit congressman kevin brady and one that very important my stateof tennessee just as it is to the other states, texas, florida, washington state,

nevada, states that don't have a ste income tax but that choose to fund their government off of other taxes, sales tax, and what this legislationoes is toake permanent the ability of citizens, taxpayers in those ates t deduct their sales tax their state and local sales tax from their federal income tax filing. now, this is an issue congressman brady and i have been working on since 2003 and that year we were successful in having the abily to deduct that sales t restored to your state income tax your federal income tax filing. that's why you have now lines 5-a and 5-b on those rms. and this is the reason that i became so interested in this sue. when i was a state senator in

tennessee i d not a four-day or four-week or four-month but a four-year battle against implementation of a state income tax in my ste. four full years. and it was quite a fight and the people of the state of tennese worked with me to make certain that we would rema state ince tax-free. now of course, they wanted that state income tax to pay for a health care plan. it had been the test case for hillarycare. it was kno as tenncare and that program of government-run health care exceeded th expectationsf its budget by not 100%. it quadrupled and cost over a five-year priod of time. so tennesseans learned in 2000, 2001 2002 the message and the

lesson of what a state income x would do, how it would take more money out of their pocket and as i came to congress in 2003, one the very firs things we did s to p attention on restoring this deductibily. it is an important bill. i congratulate conessman brady chairman brady for his work on it. i thank him for his partnership on the issue. i encourage my colleagues to vote for h.r. 622 and i yield back the balan of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the lady's time has expired. the chair recognizes the lady from w york mrs. maloney, for five minutes. mrs. maloney: thank you, mr. speer. i ask for a moment of membrance for the girls of my jeeria. i believe and people all around e world believe that we can andshould do more to bring our

girls he. the girls whhave already suffered so much. late on the evening of april 14 inhe northeast corner of nige, young girlsere attend -- nigeria, young girl were attending a secondary school they heard guhots. soon they saw men on motor bikesentering the compound. the men told them they were policemen but they were lying. the men gathered all the girls together, some 276 of them, and they were mostly christian girls between theges of 16 and 18. then re men came, fighters and tne guard ran away. the men began shouting anthe girls realized that they were captured by boko haram. as most know by now bo haram ia homegrown ismic insurgency. ughly translated, their ne means western education is forbidden. in e eyes of the men, the girls had committed a grave sin

of seeking an education. according to a repo by human ghts watch, the birthplace of boko haram is in northeasrn nigeria, pla of great poverty. estimates by human rights watch suggests that more than 7000 civilians have died at their hands, and the fatalities ar just part ofhe horror. to the anguish of the girls' families, some meet a fate even worse than death. women and girls abducted by boko hamre forced to marry insurgent fighters, converted to islam and endure beatings and psychological aseord labor and rape and captivity and the terror wl last lifetime. the terror group hasow abducted more than 500 young and girls since 2009. back inigeria that night, some of theerrified girls were forced into a truck and

taken away. others marched into e jungle. though i'glad to se that nigeria's immediate neighbors ha begun pridingssistance, believet is time for us to callll african leaders to do

more to me together to provide resourc, to provide manpower, to unite and fight against boko had a ram. we here in america have a role to play. i encouge everyone to do whatever they can small and large to bring our girls home and to keep the pressure up. . consider those w had such success of recruiting people fromdistant lands to pledge their liveto their murderous cause by using social media platfms. well, we're e people who createdsocial mia and were the billions. can we not do better than tm, rsuing a cause of rcy, not murder? let us, the billions overwhm their hate with ou hope. t's deft their violence th our vision of a better world. so ho you wl consider at you will do one small

thing to help, consider joining onef the globalschool girl marches ting place across the world on this day. tweet out your call to bring our girls home. post something on facebook or you can join men e purple and red ribb campaign of rememance. today or rather tonight the empire state building in new rk city will light uin red and purple in remembnce of th girls. purple is the color ofiolen against wen. red of bri back our girls. here wl be a march from the united nations to the empire state building thank th for remembering. t each of us find some w that we can help to bring these girls home. d if we don' the violence will contue. if you don't stand up and fight bak, thewill continue abducting murdering, raping kilng young girls. so i call up eveonto do what they can particularly the africa leadering tstand up

and fight back against boko haram. hepeaker pro tem

but >> i asked has it affected the morale? >> in the offices where the employees attempted to report misconduct, and there was nothing that happened. it was not reported up an investigated. i can imagine those employees felt they lost faith in the agency. in a number of other cases however, where they are reported out, they are investigated, the supervisors take immediate action, help the employee who has come forward with the complaint. i see over my 35 years at d.e.a. a huge change, more willingness to report, more willingness for supervisors to help that employee who came forward with it. and my job is to work on the

disciplinarians to make sure that as these are reported, as they are thoroughly investigated, that the proper discipline is handed out. ms. plaskett: that's interesting to say it's your job to deal with the discipline. you just stated earlier to the chairman that you don't have any say over the discipline. which one is it? do you or don't you have say over the discipline of these individuals? ms. leonhart: i am not in the process of investigating proposing, or handing out discipline. what i can do is what i did a year ago. i sent out a directive to every d.e.a. employee and said, here are the conduct issues i am concerned about. they must be reported. they are not acceptable. this is not acceptable behavior, in about five or six different areas. and i sent a strong message to the board of conduct and to the

deciding officials that in these type of instances there should be severe discipline handed out. ms. plaskett: what would you consider severe discipline? ms. leonhart: i would consider what happened with the cartagena agentses to discipline. ms. plaskett: what about agents given two to 10 days of paid leave? ms. leon hart: i am not happy with that. ms. plaskett: you're not in the disciplinary process but responsible for the discipline? ms. leon hart: i am responsible for the whole agencies. i am responsible to set up a mechanism to send messages to our ply ployees to hold people accountable if they are not -- if they are going to conduct this misbehavior, that they have significant discipline. that is what i have done over the last couple years to send that message to make sure our employees, number one, report,

report their allegations, and number two hold managers accountable for not reporting. number three, make sure that we set up a process, have good o.p.r. inspectors. i was one at one time. do the investigations. so that our disciplinary process, our board of conduct that proposes and our deciding officials have all the information they need to be able to impose severe disciplines. ms. plaskett: don't you believe that the morale of your agents and the good men and the women of that agency would have been better served and they would have believed that you really stood behind that if the information had been more fully and quickly forthcoming to the i.g.? how can you say that you are -- you weren't pleased with the discipline when you and your agency impeded the investigation at the i.g. level?

ms. leonhart: the i.g. gave the investigation back to d.e.a. ms. plaskett: they gave you the portion of it related to disciplining the individuals. not to investigating the systemic problems in the structure of your agency. ms. leonhart: they gave us back the investigation and said that they would not take it. it looked like a management issue. we investigated as misconduct. and as we investigated it and we learned more and more by interviewing a number of witnesses in the old bogota case the information that was put together the interviews, all of that was entered into the discipline system. and i am very disappointed that our discipline system did not do what it needed to do. and we have to fix it and i put mechanisms in place moving forward to make sure that that does not happen again.

because i don't believe that that discipline that was doled out in those cases that chairman chaffetz mentioned is even close to what it should be. ms. plaskett: i have run out of more than the generous time that you have given me, mr. chairman, ranking member. but it's my assessment that the discussion here and the action are at a complete disconnect. miss chaffetz: i thank the gentlewoman -- mr. chaffetz: i thank the gentlewoman. mr. mica: let me follow up on some of the questioning that's taken place as to whether or not there was a full investigation of this whole matter. you claim administrator, there was a full investigation of the matter. all of these sexual harassment, sexual issues that have been raised, that were part of the

inspector general's review. you claim -- again, just tell us. you believe they were fully investigated. ms. leonhart: i believe they were investigated. i have concerns about the completeness thoroughness of a couple of the investigations. mr. mica: you agree with mr. horowitz, the o.i.g., there was not a thorough investigation of all of the incidents. ms. leonhart: i agree that. so incidents were not fully investigated, yes. mr. mica: that was your position too, the assumption i have from your report. >> that's correct. mr. mica: that in itself raises great questions. when the inspector general says that the -- these incidents were not fully investigated. so that to me is a big issue right there. i yield.

>> i hate to do this to you. mr. chaffetz: on march 26 of this year, you, ms. leonhart: as the administrator, sent this email out within your agency, and you said these allegations were fully investigated by the d.e.a., office of professional responsibility. yield back. mr. mica: again, there seems to be a conflict between, again, what the chairman has just cited, what we have had as previous testimony, and what the inspector general -- that being said, then i have some questions, too. you say you don't have the authority, but you took the authority post cartagena. it looks like before cartagena -- you have been there since 2010. is that being right? ms. leonhart: you didn't --

that's correct. mr. mica: you didn't just arrive on the block. you see the conduct that took place in 2006, 2008, the sex parties, the assaults, all of these things that were going on. cartagena was two years ago? ms. leonhart: 2012. mr. mica: three years ago. you set up a culture within the agency that you could get away with this. and you were there. you must have known some of this was going on. cartagena brought it to the press and our attention the size and scope of what was going on. the thing that concerns me is before that, some of the people got -- who were involved, looks like you attended a sex party, one report here, one agent was cleared of any wrongdoing, seven of 10 agents ultimately attended to the party, engaging with prostitutes.

looked like the penalty they got suspensions of a few days, and i think the most was like six days. up to that time. so that was sort of the standard operating procedure while you were there until cartagena. that's the kind of penalty they were getting right? ms. leonhart: if i can explain, congressman. the first i heard of any of these sex parties or the behavior that's described in the report, was actually cartagena. when cartagena happened, i became concerned is this system snick has this happened before? we went back and we took a look this activity had occurred. if anybody had been disciplined for it. and we found one bogota case. mr. mica: again, we have

instances and we have penalties most of them only got minor penalties, and it was known that some of this had been -- posed great security risk. i guess drug folks are paying for some of this activity. and they got anywhere from four to six days. only a suspension of 15 days or more is considered serious for adverse employment action. so those people went right on working at that time. what i'm saying is the culture existed while you were there, up to cartagena, and there were low penalties. after cartagena you did some action, some people were actually fired, is that correct? ms. leonhart: yes. mr. mica: the difference, folks members of the committee this is the same thing whether it's secret service d.e.a., i.r.s., any agency. she doesn't have the right to

summarily fire people. she has to go through a process merit system protection, the protections of title 5, a federal act created by congress. unless you change that law and give these people the ability to fire people summarily when they are found in a proper process and a speedy process to violate whether it's sexual assault, sexual harassment, you'll have this continue -- all these problems continue across the scope of all of our civil service systems. the only one exempt from that, i understand is f.b.i. to get enough time to ask you questions about how many people you fired. we'll get that on the record at some point i hope. yield back. mr. chaffetz: i thank the gentleman. i recognize the ranking member -- sorry, mr. lynch, the gentleman from massachusetts, who is the ranking member of the subcommittee on national security. now recognized for five minutes. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the ranking member, mr. cummings, for

allowing me to go in his place. ms. leonhart how do you hold people accountable if you are not able to discipline them? ms. leon hart: -- ms. leonhart: the system in place is a three-tiered system. mr. lynch: you're not answering my question. how do you hold people accountable when you cannot discipline them when they do like -- we have 15 to 20 sex parties. 15 to 20. we've got all these allegations. a lot of these agents admitted to prostitution. to soliciting prostitutes, having sex with prostitutes. we don't know their ages because there's nothing disclosed here. we have them taking weapons. we've got foreign individuals,

parts of terrorist groups, complicit in this. we have national security at risk. and you don't have the ability to discipline these people. when i came to this hearing, i thought my problem is that we weren't disciplining these people. the problem here now after hearing you testify, even though you said you were not happy, even though you said you were very disappointed, this is a prostitution ring. 15 -- they are using taxpayer money to solicit and pay for prostitutes. and you're very disappointed? you're not happy? i think we are at different levels here. and i find completely vampid the statement we are not going to let this happen again. we are not doing anything.

we are not doing anything. we haven't -- i think the problem now is we are protecting these people. that's what's happening in your agency. you're protecting the people who solicited prostitutes who had 15 to 20 sex parties, went through this whole operation, used taxpayer money to do it, and i believe compromised the national security. .

should be sexual misconduct upfront, that's what we're talking about here. this is a very serious issue. and you've done nothing. you've done nothing. how about disclosure? if you can't even -- if you can't prosecute them, if you can't -- if you can't bring justice to this situation, why are we -- why are we stopping the inspector general from looking at this? why do the american people do

not -- why do they not have the names of these individuals? administrator leonhart: well, we did provide the inspector general with the information so that he could do his review. as far as protecting them, i take great offense to that. mr. lynch: you do. you take offense someone who runs 15 to 20 prostitution parties, abusing women gets a three-day, two-day one-day, you're offended by that? you're offended by that? administrator leonhart: i'm offended by their conduct. i'm offended by the behavior. i am trying to fix the system. i can't fire. i'm trying to fix a system. mr. lynch: how about naming them? name and shame? how about that? there was some discipline -- it's laughable. it's laughable but you did suspend some people here with pay for one, two, three, 10

days. one guys got 10 days' for conduct and poor judgment. it's just -- you know what i think? and i appreciate the gentleman's earlier comments about we've got to give you power. i don't think that's the answer. i think there's a -- there's a mentality here that needs to be extraindicated root and branch from the d.e.a. operation. i think we have to have an independent agency that actually goes in, that's not part of the old -- good old boy network, that actually goes in and with sunlight, with disclosure goes after these people who like i say -- when i think of the d.e.a. agents and the jobs they're doing in afghanistan today -- today and trying to protect the homeland, you know this is a real -- this is a disservice to those good agents. i'll yield back the balance of my time. mr. chaffetz: i thank the gentleman. i recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold, for five

minutes. mr. farenthold: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. horowitz mr. lynch really hit on something with respect to the good old boy culture and this is my concern that i'm seeing more and more of the good old boy culture as this committee continues its investigation. i mean, we've seen it with the d.e.a. sex parties. we've seen it with some of the things going on in the secret service admittedly, not subject to this. we see -- we see it in a lot of government agencies. in your investigation, do you get a sense that there is a good old boy mentality? is it as bad as i think it is? inspector general horowitz: it's interesting, congressman, you used those words. because our was the good old boy roundups in the 1990's. we did a report in the 1996 about the culture and the need to make it clear about what is permissible and what clearly isn't permissible off-duty and yet we're 20 years later and

there are still no departmentwide policies or training. ms. farenthold: ms. leonhart, you run the d.e.a. do you think it's appropriate in your offtime do engage prostitutes? administrator leonhart: absolutely not and it's against d.e.a. policy. it's illegal. mr. farenthold: how could any of your agents not know this? this strikes me as just common sense that -- and we have a memo from eric holder, admittedly not a fan of mr. holder, but he really -- i can't believe there's even a need for a memo that says -- that says it's not appropriate to hire prostitutes. let me read from the memo -- a couple things from the memo. the slist take of prostitution threatens the core mission of the department. not simply because it invites extortion, blackmail and leaks of sensitive or classified information, but because it

justices undermines the department's effort to eradicate the scourge of human trafficking. regardless of whether prostitution is legal or tolerated in a particular jurisdiction soliciting prostitutes has greater demand of human trafficking victims and increased the number of minored people in sex slavery. i reiterate to personnel, including attorneys and law enforcement officers that they're prohibited from soliciting procuring or accepting commercial sex. to me it seems ludicrous we would even have to write the memo. it defies common sense. mr. perkins, what about the f.b.i.? does anybody in the f.b.i. thinks it's ok to hire a prostitute? associate deputy director perkins: no. mr. farenthold: but with no disciplinary action or time off with pay tends to reinforce that. mr. horowitz, is there

congressional action that needs to be taken? do we need to change some of our laws to make it easier to fire people who are proved to have engaged in this? inspector general horowitz: well that's certainly congress could look at. as been noted, the f.b.i. has certain authorities that other three components do not. i will add one of the things that will help address these is that the o.i.g. -- that they get reported, as they should, to headquarters. that they get reported to the o.i.g., as they should and that we get copies of records that we need promptly so we can look at them promptly. that would help as well and that takes no congressional action because you already have the law in the i.g. act that says that should occur but it's not occurring. mr. farenthold: ok. what do we do to -- what do we do to fix that? i mean somebody has to be disciplined for not reporting it. it's not just the rank and file men and women who are engaged in misconduct that need discipline. it's their superiors that are covering it up and obstructing,

is that not correct? inspector general horowitz: it's certainly our view that if an employee fails to report to headquarters what the policy requires, which all law enforcement cases in the department that's the policy, that is a violation. mr. farenthold: you want disclosure from the folks that you're investigating. we're starting to see lots of redacting stuff here in congress when the i.g. act only says the identity needs to be -- needs to be withheld. in fact, had we wanted more information withheld we could have modified it on section 6103 of the taxpayer -- of the i.r.s. code. you want full reporting. what's the excuse for not giving us more access here in congress? anybody want to feel that? some of it it's the i.g., mr. horowitz. inspector general horowitz: we've certainly put forth on

our website publicly and sent to congress everything we're allowed to put forth pursuant to the privacy act. we've -- we have not withheld material. mr. farenthold: i think we have a different interpretation of that but i see i'm out of time. mr. chaffetz: if the gentleman will yield. ms. leonhart, will you allow the inspector general to search all 45 terms? you limited it to three. administrator leonhart: yes. we don't have the search capabilities that his systems have. mr. chaffetz: will you allow him full and unfettered access to these records? administrator leonhart: we would be glad to run that search. we had problems in doing a search of that many names. we found a different way to do it by running offense codes but i -- mr. horowitz and i have a very good working relationship and if there's something that he wants he has not hesitated

to pick up the phone and talked to me about it and we'll work it out. mr. chaffetz: has she allowed you all the access you want? inspector general horowitz: i think the problem is frankly i had to call too much. i shouldn't have to make those calls, frankly to the administrator to get access. the staff -- my staff shouldn't have to spend four months going back and forthwith the d.e.a. staff getting redacted versions saying they can't get things because of privacy issues when we -- that is not a basis for a legal objection which the d.e.a. and the f.b.i. ultimately conceded. i shouldn't have to be engaging at the highest levels of the f.b.i. and the d.e.a. to get the access that occurred. and let me just put -- say something here in about two agencies that complied fully. the a.t.f. and the u.s. marshal service got us the material immediately. we had no delays. what it took us four, five -- i

don't know how many months to get from d.e.a. and a.t.f., we got in a matter of weeks from a.t.f. and the marshal service. fully cooperated. mr. chaffetz: d.e.a. and f.b.i. inspector general horowitz: sorry. d.e.a. and f.b.i. compared to the a.t.f. and the marshal service who fully cooperated with us. mr. chaffetz: now recognize the ranking member, mr. cummings, for five minutes. mr. cummings: thank you very much. ms. leonhart, do you think do you're the right person for this job? i've been -- i just intentionally wanted to hear some of the testimony. i have a lot of concerns. it seems like there's a culture that has developed in your -- even the attorney general's letter where he says don't frat nice with prostitutes. -- fratenize with prostitutes. hello. am i missing something? i think we are at an all-time low here. don't you?

administrator leonhart: as a d.e.a. agent and a female d.e.a. agent, for the past 35 years i'm appalled of it over this as well. and like the attorney general had to send a memo reminding people last friday, i had to send one last year to remind everyone and put everybody on notice. mr. cummings: ok. i only have a few minutes. i'm very concerned mr. horowitz, and in your report you made the following statement and i quote, we found a regional director, an acting assistant renal national director and groups failed to report through their chain of command or to d.e.a. o.p.r. repeated allegations of d.e.a. special agents getting prostitutes and frequenting a brothel in an overseas posting, treating these allegations as local management issues, is that correct? inspector general horowitz: that's correct. mr. cummings: so despite these facts, none of these employees,

the special agent, the group supervisors, the regional director and the acting assistant regional director ever reported these allegations to the office of professional responsibility or to you, the i.g.'s office, is that right? inspector general horowitz: that's correct. mr. cummings: mr. horowitz, when these allegations came to light in 2014 the d.e.a. administrator counsel, the regional director for failing to report the allegations, is that correct? inspector general horowitz: that's correct. mr. cummings: is that direct you counseled the regional director? administrator leonhart: they were counseled by the chief inspector. he was then counseled by the deputy administrator and then i counseled him as well. mr. cummings: was that the only discipline that he got? somebody sitting there saying you supposed to do your job? administrator leonhart: yes. he was -- mr. cummings: please. you mean to tell me that was a discipline, do your job? that's not discipline, is it?

come on. administrator leonhart: the regional director did -- was not aware of any allegations until it was brought to light a year, a year after an incident. mr. cummings: who was the regional -- administrator leonhart: when i counseled him -- mr. cummings: very briefly. i only have a minute or so. administrator leonhart: i was concerned that he had warnings that this person was involved with prostitutes and i talked to him because if that was the case i would have been looking at significant discipline. it was not the case with him. i even went and looked at the letters that were sent. the letters were sent -- mr. cummings: i wish i had a -- i wish i had a tape recording of that conversation. administrator leonhart: right. mr. cummings: 30 seconds what was that?

administrator leonhart: he said when he was aware of it he was notified by the embassy, the r.s.o. of what had happened. he was told about the incident. he called the agent in. that was the first he knew this agent was involved in prostitutes. he called the agent in, told the agent you're out of here, you're going home. he sent them t.d.y. back to the states until he could finalize the -- mr. cummings: was he suspended at all? administrator leonhart: sorry mr. cummings: you said he sent him back to the united states. administrator leonhart: yeah. the agent received 14 days off. mr. cummings: and this -- and so did you think that was sufficient? administrator leonhart: the regional director took action when he heard about it and he took action immediately after to put in place some mechanisms to make sure that those types of behaviors were reported promptly. mr. cummings: who was the highest ranking d.e.a. official between 2008 who was aware of

these misconduct issues? administrator leonhart: are you talking about the bogota incidents? mr. cummings: i'm talking about the -- let me change that. 2005 to 2009. administrator leonhart: that they were aware of it? mr. cummings: yeah, the highest ranking person? administrator leonhart: probably a group supervisor. mr. cummings: did you have -- did you have power to discipline on the level of the regional -- administrator leonhart: i disciplined the regional director. he's an s.c.s. mr. cummings: you could have fired him, is that right? administrator leonhart: i couldn't have fired him. you have to show misconduct for him to be fired. but with what the law allows me to cowith an s.c.s. he was counseled.

mr. cummings: so you do feel he did something wrong? administrator leonhart: he failed to report it when he learned about it. mr. cummings: and so you -- you -- and you failed to discipline him other than counseling him? administrator leonhart: the discipline available to me appropriate discipline was to reprimand him. mr. cummings: who came up with the suspension then? i'm confused. administrator leonhart: an s.c.s., the discipline -- there has to be misconduct. mr. cummings: right. administrator leonhart: and the discipline has to be 15 days or more. reporting it to an embassy and working it out locally with the embassy rather than reporting it to o.p.r. would not raise to that level. it's the only time that's happened with him. would not raise to the level to be misconduct. so i counseled him. mr. cummings: the -- if reporting now -- if he had reported it, he was supposedly

reported to the office of professional responsibility, is that correct? administrator leonhart: that's correct. mr. cummings: if he reported there was a possibility that the agent would lose -- would lose their security clearance, is that right? is that right, mr. horowitz, do you know that? inspector general horowitz: they certainly could lose their security clearance. if the process was followed through as it's supposed to be followed through. mr. cummings: and if they lost the security clearance does that mean they then lose their job? administrator leonhart: yes. like the three cartagena agents, if you lose your security clearance, you cannot be a special agent. mr. cummings: and looking at it in hindsight the regional director you feel that he received appropriate discipline? administrator leonhart: i believe he made a mistake by not reporting it in. he took action but it wasn't the right action. and he has -- that has not happened with him in the past and he's done a number of things in colombia since that incident to ensure that this

does not happen again. mr. cummings: do you think there's a culture problem here? administrator leonhart: i believe there may have been a culture problem. mr. cummings: may have been? administrator leonhart: may have been a culture problem. mr. cummings: when did it stop? administrator leonhart: years back. mr. cummings: when did it stop? when -- you say may have been. so i assume you have a date that you think it stopped. i had alove to know what it is. administrator leonhart: when you -- mr. cummings: why do you say that? administrator leonhart: when you see that these parties and what was happening in 2000 to 2004 were by one group of agents within bogota, colombia, i would say that's a culture problem. mr. cummings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chaffetz: i recognize the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, for five minutes. mr. mulvaney: thank you, mr. chairman. ms. leonhart i'm new to the committee. i am curious to the answer because i'm very confused. you said some things today that

strikes me to being unusual and may be true and i'm certain if anybody back home is watching they wouldn't understand it either. you say you can't fire people. why can't you fire people? everybody else can be fired. why can't you fire people that work for you? administrator leonhart: under the civil service laws, i can't intervene in the disciplinary process and that's why d.e.a.'s process, similar to some of the other agencies, is a three-tiered process. the administrator, the deputy administrator, management is not -- cannot intervene in the disciplinary process. that's a prohibited personnel process. mr. mulvaney: who can fire people when they commit misconduct egregious misconduct cartel-funded prostitution? administrator leonhart: deciding officials. mr. mulvaney: who are they? administrator leonhart: senior d.e.a. 1811's with prior o.p.r.

experience. they make all of the disciplinary decisions for the agency. mr. mulvaney: are they senior to you or junior to you? administrator leonhart: they're junior to me. mr. mulvaney: could you recommend they fire somebody? you can't fire somebody but somebody junior to you can fire somebody, is that what you're telling us? administrator leonhart: my position as administrator under the civil service act we have to follow certain civil service protections and so our system is set up that the discipline is decided by these two senior people within d.e.a. deciding officials who have -- mr. mulvaney: senior people but not senior to you. ok let's say you wanted to fire some people you saw some activity that merited somebody getting fired -- by the way have you seen that since you worked there? does any misconduct we talked about today in these couple

dozen sex parties in your mind merit dismissal? administrator leonhart: the activity that's been explained today i believe not knowing all the facts not knowing -- vane vane how could you -- mr. mulvaney: how can you not know the facts? administrator leonhart: the douglas factors, so not knowing that piece, only know what the behavior was and what the investigations show, i took action last year to put the agency on notice that activity like that -- and i named it -- prost take and named four, five other things, required significant discipline. and that put our deciding officials and our board of conduct on notice. mr. mulvaney: do you have any idea how absurd all of that sounds to an ordinary human being?

administrator leonhart: i can see someone not knowing the civil service system and not understanding our system would think that. mr. mulvaney: all right. let's assume -- because i think i asked you if you saw someone merited being dismissed and you didn't say yes so i assume you meant no. let's say you saw something that merited dismissal, what would you do? administrator leonhart: i can't intervene in the process the way the law is set up. mr. mulvaney: how do you start the process? administrator leonhart: what i can do is put the agency on notice like i did last year that this will not be tolerated and that i in writing told the deciding officials and the board of conduct that these kinds of behaviors required significant discipline. mr. mulvaney: mr. horowitz, mr. perkins, is it like this at the other agencies? does everybody deal with these arcane rules at other agencies?

director perkins: we're exempted by title 5 and director has fired individuals. we do have a highly structured disciplinary process within the bureau that will, as you go through the process, it raise it up to the appropriate levels for the appropriate level of punishment. there are occasions when the conduct is so egregious that director can intercede and smarely dismiss somebody and has. mr. mulvaney: mr. horowitz. inspector general horowitz: my understanding is the f.b.i. is unique in that regard, as mr. perkins outlined, that the other three law enforcement components in the department have to follow the title 5 rules and the civil service rules. mr. mulvaney: one last question, ms. leonhart, and i'll wrap up. if you suggest a suspension longer than 14 days -- and all the examples in these couple

dozen events no one was ever suspended more than 14 days. is it true if you recommend or someone gets a suspension of more than 14 days that a merit system protection board takes over the investigation in the handling of that matter? administrator leonhart: not quite. if the deciding officials dull out discipline and it's more than 14 days' suspension, the employee can appeal it and when the employee appeals it it goes to the merit system protection board. mr. mulvaney: and who takes over the investigation of the matter when the merit system protection board gets involved? administrator leonhart: no one takes over the investigation because the investigation has already been done. this is at the very end of the disciplinary process. so the d.e.a. deciding official can say 30 days. mr. mulvaney: is that internal to you or external to you? administrator leonhart: the deciding official is internal. the mspb is external. mr. chaffetz: i thank the gentleman. mr. mulvaney: i ask both the chairman and the ranking member to -- this is just -- this is

nuts. how we can't fix this i have no idea. she's telling us she doesn't have the legal authority what everybody on this committee thinks she should have done. maybe we should try and figure out a way to fix that. mr. chaffetz: now recognize the gentleman from california, mr. desaler in five minutes. -- mr. desaulnier. mr. desaulnier: on the surface it's hard to believe and it brings a number of questions including the collateral consequences to drug dealers on the street and the largers problems we have faced in this country when people see this kind of -- this different type of administration of justice. so mr. horowitz, first question is, what was different do you think, between a.t.f. and the u.s. marshal that your

underlings your mid management people were able to access the information so quickly as opposed to the d.e.a. and f.b.i.? inspector general horowitz: they've been fully cooperative throughout our reviews, have not raised objections. mr. desauliner: is a cultural thing? do you need more enforceability? inspector general horowitz: we don't have any enforceability at this point other than my testifying publicly and raising it to the -- mr. desauliner: doesn't seem to be sufficient. inspector general horowitz: it ultimately turns out to be in some instances but it is a problem and it's a repeated problem. mr. desauliner: ms. leonhart:, so the individuals involved in in the sex parties, the rolex, the accepting sophisticated weapons, are they still employed? administrator leonhart: the majority are still on the job, yes. mr. desauliner: and it's hard to believe, just seems completely counterintuitive they could go back to work with

as little as 10 days' suspension and be model agents. have you had to spend extra time overseeing their job performance? administrator leonhart: their supervisors, there are special agents in charge, their high-level bosses are aware of the conduct and with the exception of one, we have not seen any misconduct since. mr. desauliner: do they have heightened supervision because of their past conduct? administrator leonhart: the reason that supervisors are made aware of what the conduct is is so they can put them in positions where they can have good supervision. mr. desauliner: so go back to the questions i asked mr. horowitz. why is it that it took so long to get this information? why did it take so long for the i.g. get the information from your underlings? didn't you admonish people

underneath your command that they should be more forthcoming to the i.g.? administrator leonhart: well, i knew early on there was disagreement or misunderstanding in a couple of areas, with the scope of the audit was that delayed what type of records they were looking for, that delayed it. i wish i would have known about all of those delays and i could have done something more about it but at the -- at the end of the day, the reports did get to mr. horowitz. and with audits since, he and i would kind of have an agreement that if someone is going to deny something to the i.g. that it has to be raised up to my level right away so that he and i can discuss it. mr. desauliner: sitting here it seems question management that you have to spend this amount of resources in something that's such an egregious case,

it just seems misappropriation of taxpayer funds. so mr. horowitz, if the d.e.a. had at that time the same exemption that f.b.i. has would that have been a more efficient response by congress in terms of making sure that management tools were there? inspector general horowitz: well, certainly on the personnel side the discipline side that would have been something that could occur. frankly on the access issues and getting the records promptly there's no reason why d.e.a. and f.b.i. shouldn't have done the same thing the marshal service and a.t.f. did. they didn't question the scope of our audit. they didn't raise concerns whether we could see names or see the facts or run the search terms. they just did it. mr. desauliner: so that seems, ms. leonhart, you're complicit in the management problems. it's not just a culture problem. with all due respect to your years of service, we heard this from the i.g. when it comes to the secret services, sometimes you need somebody on the outside. how do i defend your performance? administrator leonhart: i think being a d.e.a. agent, being

within the agency i can intervene in ways -- mr. desauliner: all evidence to the contrary with all due respect to this case. administrator leonhart: on this audit, i think there was misunderstandings, misunderstandings of what the scope was as well as misunderstandings on this bogota case -- on this bogota case, was not a closed case. mr. desauliner: excuse me, my time has expired. for me to go back and talk to somebody in a poor section of my district or any of these members who have people who are selling drugs who say, how can you admonish us and want to make laws tougher for us when you let the d.e.a. manage their own department this way is quite -- it's counterintuitive, with all due respect. i yield back what time i have. mr. chaffetz: i thank the gentleman. will now recognize the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy, for five minutes. mr. gowdy: thank you, mr. chairman. administrator leonhart, if an agent stateside were soliciting a prostitute that was provided

by a drug conspiracy he was investigating, what would -- punishment you would recommend? administrator leonhart: i can't recommend a punishment. i would just hope that would be thoroughly investigated and -- mr. gowdy: so you're telling me nobody cares what the administrator of the d.e.a. thinks should happen to an agent? you're powerless to express your opinion? you have no first amendment right when it comes to who works for your agency? administrator leonhart: i have expressed my opinion. mr. gowdy: what did you express? what do you think the proper sanction was? administrator leonhart: last year i sent email and i sent a memo to every employee in d.e.a. and put them on notice that this kind of conduct -- mr. gowdy: my question -- my question must have been ambiguous because i wasn't talking about future conduct.

i was talking about past conduct. what punishment did you recommend for conduct that happened in the past? administrator leonhart: under the civil service lawry cannot recommend a penalty. i can't intervene in the disciplinary process. i can't even make a recommendation. mr. gowdy: what does it take to -- what would it -- hypothetically, what would it take to get fire with the d.e.a. agents? because they were worried about using their car to pick up dry cleaning. they were worried of using their o.g.f., o.g.v. to pick up dry cleaning. they were worried about being disciplined. apparently that world has changed. do you know whether any of the prostitutes were under age? administrator leonhart: i don't know that. mr. gowdy: would that impact whatever recommendation you might have in terms of a sanction? administrator leonhart: i don't recommend the sanction. i can't fire. i can't recommend a penalty. there's a guide that the deciding officials abide by and

they have -- they have a penalty guide that they look at and the penalty guide for this kind of activity is anything from reprimand to removal. mr. gowdy: how about security clearance? do you have impact over that whether or not an agent has a security clearance? administrator leonhart: no. there's adjudicated guidelines and that has to be adjudicated? -- mr. gowdy: honestly, what power do you have? you have to work with agents over whom you can't discipline and have no control and you have no control over the security clearance, what the hell do you get to do? administrator leonhart: what i can do is build on and improve mechanisms to make sure that the outcome is what we believe the outcome should be. and that is what happened in cartagena. that is what's going to happen moving forward. mr. gowdy: inspector general horowitz, i find that stunning.

let me ask you this. did the -- did the agents know that the cartels were providing the prostitutes? inspector general horowitz: what we found, congressman, from looking in the file is they should have known given they're trained law enforcement agents and they were dealing with corrupt local law enforcement that was providing them with the prostitutes as well as the various gifts. mr. gowdy: were they supposed to be investigating these cartels? inspector general horowitz: they were. mr. gowdy: so they are receiving prostitutes from cartels that they were supposed stob -- to be investigating and she can't fire those agents. do you agree with her, she can't fire them? inspector general horowitz: i think as a matter of title 5 she can't directly intervene and fire them. i do think one of the concerns we outline in the report as to d.e.a. and the other three agencies is how they adjudicate

these cases. they undercharge them in some instances and so at d.e.a., for example, sexual harassment, if you're charged with that, there's only one punishment, removal. but if you're charged with conduct unbecoming or poor judgment, which isn't even actually a category, then you got a range of penalties. and so one of the issues, as you know as a former prosecutor, is how you charge the case. and that has a consequence. mr. gowdy: well, mr. chairman, i don't know what would need to be done but i, like my friend from south carolina, find it stunning that you can solicit prostitutes -- administrator leonhart do we know whether any of the prostitutes were under age? do we know whether any of them were part of any human trafficking rings? administrator leonhart: because the bogota case happened a decade ago, there were no interviews of prostitutes.

on the more recent one the cartagena one, it did not identify an age for the prostitute involved. mr. gowdy: mr. chairman, i'd just find it impossible to explain to any reasonable minded person how an agent cannot be disciplined from soliciting prostitutes from drug cartels that they were investigating. i find that stunning. mr. chaffetz: if the gentleman will yield. if somebody murdered somebody, could you fire them? administrator leonhart: if someone murdered someone, there would be criminal charges and that's how they'd be fired. mr. chaffetz: but if they were -- could you take aware their security clearance? administrator leonhart: of office of security programs can review security clearances and take their clearances just as they did with the three agents in the cartagena incident. mr. chaffetz: the gentleman from south carolina. >> if the gentleman will yield

for just a second? i heard there was one thing you could fire somebody for was sexual harassment. let me get this correct, mr. horowitz ms. leonhart, if i flirt with a co-worker in office and that constitutes sexual harassment i can be fired, but i can take an underaged hooker from a cartel i'm investigating and you can't fire me, is that what we're talking about here? inspector general horowitz: actually, congressman, if you charge the offense, removal is a possibility. if you charge something less, conduct unbecoming or poor judgment, you don't charge what actually occurred, that's when the ability to discipline is limited. that's the concern we found, as you know in our report. mr. chaffetz: thank you. i thank the gentlemen both from south carolina. we now the gentleman from california, mr. lou, for five minutes -- mr. lieu, for five

minutes. mr. lujan: i want to talk -- mr. lieu: i want to talk about mr. corroborator 2 believed that mr. corroborator 1 gained information from the u.s. agents by getting their guard down, paying for parties. mr. corroborator 1 bragged about the parties with prostitutes and how he sold relationships to mr. crab rator 2. and then mr. crab rator 1 said he could easily get the agents to talk. so ms. leonhart, do you believe actual information was compromised through these sex parties? administrator leonhart: there's no evidence that actual -- that any was compromised but the concern is that participating in this kind of behavior, bringing foreign nationals bringing prostitutes to your gl-2, bringing them around other agents, all of those are

security risks. mr. lieu: doesn't the report provide evidence that you had agents in compromised positions that at least foreign officials believe that the agents were compromised and they could get the agents to talk? did you do an -- how do you know that agents didn't say something, that they maybe should not have said or disclosed information they should not have? administrator leonhart: the reading of the report, one of the concerns was that the agents got very close to these two corrupt colombia national police and that the colombian national police were providing prostitutes and gifts to get in the good grace of the agent and that's about the furthest that it goes. mr. lieu: did you then do an investigation as to what information may or may not have

been leaked? administrator leonhart: the o.p.r. investigation because it was 10 years after the fact did not -- did not identify any instances and in fact the agents were all out of country by the time it was investigated. but that -- mr. lieu: so information could have been compromised or leaked? administrator leonhart: yes. that's a major concern. mr. lieu: let me focus on this discipline issue. when i served active duty in the air force and in the reserves as j.a.g., i dealt with the douglas factors and i understand some of the re strixes that we have because we're a -- restrictions that we have because we're a civil service system. d.e.a., like f.b.i. agents, go undercover, they're law enforcement. any reason not to move the d.e.a. out of title 5?

administrator leonhart: we would entertain any look at that, any exemption that could be given so that an administrator or director can take action and make sure that only the people with outstanding reputations and ethics are employed by the agency. mr. lieu: if the deciding officials make decisions you don't like can you do anything with that decision? administrator leonhart: i can't do anything with the decision, but i can do what i did last year and that is put on notice for the entire work force, not any one particular case, put on notice for the entire work force that this behavior is unacceptable and that i ordered the deciding officials and the board of conduct to consider significant discipline to include up to removal for

behavior in these areas moving forward. mr. lieu: now, even though there are civil service protections for the rank and file when something goes badly wrong and it's a climate issue, a cultural issue what happens is leadership resigns or gets fired. so for example, in the air force when there's problems with some of the nuclear weapons we had, even though the secretary of the air force at the time, the chief of staff of the air force wasn't aware, but because those things happened they were both removed. secret service, there had -- their head is gone. do you believe the climate issue -- if it's a climate issue do you believe maybe instead of focusing on the rank and file, you need leadership changed or removed? administrator leonhart: we have

changed leadership. we have a different set of leaders within d.e.a. now than we did a decade ago. and i believe that moving forward with our better system to deal with discipline and moving forward with instead of looking at what the discipline was in the past that was dolled out to individuals who took part in this kind of behavior the deciding officials and the board of conduct has the clear ability now to -- it's a reset and they can -- they can look at the activity and they can say this is the administrator said this deserves significant discipline and they can take that kind of action. mr. lieu: thank you. i yield back. mr. chaffetz: i thank the gentleman. now recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. walker, for five minutes. mr. walker: thank you, mr.

chairman. ms. leonhart, you have said earlier today you do not dispute the report, i believe is your exact words, yet a couple times you mentioned this is an isolated incident. from what we heard today this has been sort of a spring break frat mentality for the last 15 years. now the adjudicated guidelines for eligibility to access to classified information, these are the considerations for whether or not somebody is given a security clearance is that correct? administrator leonhart: that's correct. mr. walker: part of the guidelines covers conduct that reflects lack of judgment or a person's ability to protect classified information, is that correct? administrator leonhart: that's correct. mr. walker: are you aware of anyone who's been fired for breaching that? administrator leonhart: cartagena, the three agents and we had other agents throughout d.e.a.'s history that have been -- mr. walker: did you have a role in someone losing their job

because of security breaches? administrator leonhart: cartagena. mr. walker: soliciting prostitutes, does that warrant blackmail? weren't some of those agents married? administrator leonhart: i believe so. mr. walker: to me a more potent question, two weeks ago we had the largest human trafficking event in north carolina, brought members from 40 agencies across the state. talked about the human trafficking, specifically the drug cartels are involved with 83% of those girls are from 12 to 14. so my question is this -- having gratuitous sex with an underaged prostitute, first of all, how egregious it is to even use that despicable language, but second of all, at what point does it become a security breach? you mention the word appalled several times. are you appalled with that? administrator leonhart: absolutely. mr. walker: how appalled do you have to be before you jump up and down and scream and holler and say this can't be tolerate?

administrator leonhart: the first dealings i had in this manner or about this matter was in cartagena and i made sure that disciplinary system, that there was coordination between the people that do the investigations and the people that do the security clearances, because i, like you, feel it is outrageous behavior but there are security concerns they have put themselves in danger. they put other agents in danger. they have not --walkwalk -- mr. walker: there are no statute of limitations in our own country of having sex with a 13 or 14-year-old. why would you say that's long ago but from this point on -- i don't understand that. can you help me understand it? administrator leonhart: well, i will say that the security clearances of all the people involved in the bogota incident the person -- the one person involved in 2009 those

security clearances are currently under review by the department of justice. mr. walker: do you have any concrete proof of the age of these prostitutes that these men were involved with? have you done any research on that at all? is there any record that you read? administrator leonhart: i have read the reports and there's nothing to indicate a name. mr. walker: maybe nobody even asked that question. let me ask you something else. april 10, the chairman referred to this a little bit earlier, three days before this hearing the attorney general had to sent out a memo reminding law enforcement agents they are not to solicit prostitutes. are you familiar with that memo? administrator leonhart: yes, i am. mr. walker: the problem with it -- or else what? what happens? just a reminder. first of all the fact that we have to remind these agents to be on your best behavior is ludicrous. but the fact is then what? evidently in the past, hey, you take a couple days off or even unpaid for two weeks at the

most. where is the where else in this? would you answer this? what happens? the attorney general sent it out. hey, guys, you know, leave the prostitutes alone. or what else? what's the penalty? what's the concrete solution that has been clearly communicated? can you explain that or talk about that? administrator leonhart: we're working within our system in the same way the attorney general put the entire department of justice on notice, i a year ago -- last year put the entire d.e.a. work force on notice that this type of behavior was not to be tolerated and that there would be significant discipline. mr. walker: i have three children and i dach about sometimes not to do that but unless the consequences are clearly communicated i don't have a shot that they'll change their behavior. if you had a chance going back, would you be so appalled you would do some things different

handling these matters? administrator leonhart: without a doubt. mr. walker: thank you. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton. ms. norton: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i don't know how to describe what we've seen here. boys gone wild. out of sight, out of mind. what we do know and what most concerns me is how these prostitutes were funded. we are -- it looks like we have implicated taxpayer funds, that some may have come out of official funds and some out of cartel funds. it's hard for me to know which is worse. but it does seem pretty clear that we may be dealing to be sure with a cultural problem but with a cultural problem that has -- is so deep that it is now a problem of corruption. and i say that because i'm looking at some of the excerpts

from the reports where apparently there were corroborating witness. some of this is so eye popping i want to ask for your response. i won't ask why you don't fire people because i understand when the state -- that's the united states or any of its agents is an actor then due process, of course, requires you to go through certain processes. after all those processes are put there by the congress of the united states so i'm going to ask you whether -- about some things that perhaps are you could do. this cooperating witness stated, he required that the assistant special agent in charge, i believe, that his farewell party that was in 2003 and 2004 where a part of the money requested from an operational budget -- those are

the operative terms -- operational budget was used for his party. he stated that the -- his party was organized by the assistant special agent in charge and that he paid $500,000 pecos. that's approximately $261 for each prostitute with funds from an operational budget. now, i want to try to identify what that means. what is the purpose, ms. leonhart, of an operational budget? is it taxpayer funds? administrator leonhart: what i believe that refers to is money is given to the colombian national police to pay for their operations that they're doing in collaboration with us. ms. norton: so it's given taxpayer funds are given to

them so what we're talking about funds that were made not by the -- in this case out of the operational budget, it looks like by agents. who is responsible for accounting for these funds in the regional office? administrator leonhart: the regional director would be responsible for that. ms. norton: if that's the case since of course you have indicated and i understand why you can't precipitously fire someone like this is a private sector if someone is an agent would that fund continue to be under the same supervision if you had -- having this kind of information as it was before? administrator leonhart: the bogota incident you're talking about -- ms. norton: i am. administrator leonhart: was three regional directors ago. and the way that d.e.a. operates with the colombia

national police in these special units has completely changed since -- ms. norton: well, i didn't ask you that. i'm asking how the -- and now how is the operational budget dealt with? in other words, now it is not in control of the agents themselves to pass out this money to bogota or anybody else? is it controlled from your office? administrator leonhart: no. the funds by the d.e.a. bogota office that go to the colombia national police for operations now are audited. they require receipts. the 2000 to 2003 time frame was at the beginning stages of these units. ms. norton: well, according to this cooperating witness the -- again, word operational -- operational budgets were presented to the d.e.a. and was additional information here and i want to quote, for additional

funds. apparently not enough funds were in the operational budget for additional funds which were used for prostitution and parties for agents. are you aware of that allegation, that they didn't have enough so they went back and got some more funds? administrator leonhart: i'm aware that the corrupt national police officers who ended up being indicted by d.e.a. and convicted that what they were talking about is padding their operational requests that d.e.a. took additional money. ms. norton: in other words, fraudulent budgets? administrator leonhart: yes, on behalf of the colombia national police. ms. norton: you can't wash the hands fert -- of the office. look, this is a cooperating witness here who stated that the operational budgets were

presented to the d.e.a. to cover operational expenses. so it doesn't seem to me you can wash your hands of that at the d.e.a. or they could have washed their hands of that. has someone looked back at how these funds were expended during this period so you can now lay out exactly what happened during this period? part of the problem here and the frustration i think of the committee is that it's taken so long because you had no policy so go up the chain of command so you can tell me well, this was 2003 and 2004 but i tell you if i was there i would want to know exactly what happened then so i make sure it's not happening now. administrator leonhart: one part of the investigation was to go through and audit and do just that. ms. norton: from that period? from that period? administrator leonhart: to look at the books from that period of time. ms. norton: because we understand, again, from one of these cooperating witnesses, he could obtain -- this is a quote -- prostitutes for agents from the d.e.a. bogota office.

this is what the cooperating witness said. he would pay the girls to come to the parties and then the agents would pay the girls directly for any sex they wanted. he recalled getting prostitutes for at least 15 to 20 parties. the d.e.a. agents in colombia, they had to crack down on agents on the cartels who were given funds to pay for these parties. mr. chaffetz: the gentlewoman's time has expired but the gentlewoman can answer. administrator leonhart: that's what's so appalling about this, that although the agents didn't know, the corrupt police were getting money from the traffickers. they were on their payroll and using that money for the prostitutes. mr. chaffetz: i thank the gentlewoman. we'll now recognize the gentleman from georgia mr. rice, for five minutes. mr. rice: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. horowitz, in your office report you noted that during

the interviews some in your office staff were evidently told that some d.e.a. employees were under the impression, at least, that they were not to discuss information regarding open cases. do you know who provided that information? inspector general horowitz: we don't know who told them that information. but that is in fact what we were told. mr. hice: all right. so did you ever determine whether or not the d.e.a. staff in fact someone communicated that information? inspector general horowitz: we didn't determine definitively whether it occurred. we believe it did occur given we were told that by several individuals. mr. hice: all right. so you were told by several individuals, it wasn't an isolated incidents. you did not investigate further? inspector general horowitz: we did not. mr. hice: ms. leonhart did your office give information to that effect? administrator leonhart: no, my office didn't and when the report -- i saw the draft asking the office of

professional responsibility and inspections about that, they said there was a miscommunication. they were -- they were under the belief that closed cases were not a part of what mr. horowitz's audit would cover. mr. hice: all right. there was obvious confusion. did you yourself any time give instruction to anyone to withhold information? administrator leonhart: absolutely not. mr. hice: did anyone on your staff? administrator leonhart: no. mr. hice: how do you know? administrator leonhart: we buss we weren't involved in nart of the process. mr. hice: well you can't definitively say no one did it. if you weren't part of the process -- >> this hearing continues live online at c-span.org. we'll leave it here as the u.s. house is about to gavel in to start legislative business. with work on two mortgage-related bills. both opposed by the administration raising the dollar amount of regular

mortgages. the other deals with insurance, escrow fees and points. also, we expect debate and whether to go to conference with the senate on the 2016 budget. live coverage of the u.s. house here on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] thke theou will inrder the pr bffered b ourhapain, fatheron aplain croy: les pr. dear godwe ve you thas f vi us another day