supervisors treated alleged sexual misconduct and sexual harassment as a local management or performance related issue." if t. finds when thed a administrator learned about the allegations her agency imposed extremely light penalties. for example, when she was informed about wild parties involving prostitutes she and i quote "counseled the regional director for failing to report the allegations." that was it. just counseling. no other disciplinary actions. one critical question for the administrator is what women who work in these law enforcement agencies must think. with only coupe selling sessions and suspensions are two weeks or less for misconduct like this, what incentive do women

employees have to report sexual harassment by their supervisors? so, on friday the attorney general sent a letter to the committee outlining steps to address the issues. and we were very pleased to receive that letter. these included reexamining security clearances of those involved reviewing d.e.a. procedures for investigating misconduct and probib prohibiting the solicitation of prostitution regardless of the whether it may be legal overseas. these steps are critical but they are clearly long, long overdue. if the first sentences of this conduct occurred in 2001. the problems transcend politics. on march 27, chairman chaffetz and i wrote a bipartisan letter to the d.e.a. announcing our

investigation and we are fully committed to woking together to investigate these incidents. how the agency responded and whether additional steps are needed to help prevent this misconduct from ever happening again. and with that mr. chairmannion i yield back. chairman chaffetz: thank the gentleman. we hold the record open for any ledge slateor that would like to submit a written statement. we are played to welcome the honorable michelle leonhart. the honorable michael horowitz. and mr. kevin perkins associate deputy director of the f.b.i. the federal bureau of investigation. we welcome all of you and thank you all for being here. pursuant to committee rules all witnesses will be sworn before they testify. if you will rise and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

truth. thank you. let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. h this order to allow time for discussionion we would appreciate limiting your testimony to five-mile-per-hours. five minutes. your entire written statement will be may part of the record. ms. leonhart we will recognize you, first. director leon hart: thank you for the opportunity to discuss the department of justice office of the inspector general report on sexual harassment and misconduct allegations by the department's law enforcement components. t.e.a. has a single mission to epiforce our nation's drug laws. our more than 9,000 employees including over 4600 special agents are dedicated to this single mission and each one of us took an oath, the same one i took over 30 years ago to serve

the citizens of the united states with home run professionalism and pride. d.e.a. personnel located in over 300 offices around the world including 67 foreign countries are doing extraordinary work under often difficult and dangerous circumstances. this includes investigation and arrest of leaders of the most violent and so fessty sophisticated drug cartels in the world. unfortunately, poor choices made by a few individuals can tannish the reputation and evershadow outstanding work being done at the d.e.a. i want to assure the members of this committee that like you, i am disgusted, i am appalled by the behavior described in the inspector general's report and to see the integrity of my agency and a federal law enforcement which i have been a part of for nearly my entire professional life damaged by

these allegations has not been easy. this conduct is a violation of the high professional standards conduct that the men and women of the d.e.a. are held to and undermines our effectiveness in fulfilling our mission and as noted in the report this behavior is contrary to the beliveor of the overwhelming majority of those at d.e.a. although the audit found that there were relatively few reported allegations of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct the serious allegations o.i.g. highlighted are troubling and describe behaviors that cannot be ignored. this particular, the allegations that agents assigned in bogota accepted gift interests truing traffic ares was pursued by the office. the resulting investigation left questions unanswered. even though the events in question occurred between 2001

and 2004, and were not reported and investigated until 2010 it is nevertheless important that we hold our employees to the highest standards and in this instance i assure you that i was quite disappointed in the penalties imposed. however, consistent with the protections afforded to employees under civil service laws, i do not have the ability to change the imposed penalties. i can and do, however, ensure that disciplinary actions are appropriately noted in an employee's personnel file which is taken into consideration when that employee is considered for future positions positions within the d.e.a. this behavior should not be rewarded. at outlined in my written statement, d.e.a. concurred with and has begun implementing changes responsive to each of of the o.i.g. recommendations. hough, it is also essential that we make clear to all employees

that this behavior is not acceptable. it is my hope that the additional training and guidance that we have provided to all personnel, particularly those stationed overseas, will proconvenient similar incidents from occurring in -- prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. d.e.a. has talken specific concrete steps to accomplish this including ensuring that it is clearly understood by all d.e.a. employees this kind of behavior is unacceptable. outlining the steps employees and supervisors must take when incidents occur. increasing training for all employees, a, especially those assign overseas. further clarifying the guidelines for disciplinary offenses. and improving internal procedures so that appropriate individuals and field management in the office of security programs and in the office of professional responsibility are made promptly aware of allegations and can can take appropriate action in a timely manner. this closing i wasn't to -- in closing, i want to reiterate that the kind of activity

reported by the o.i.g. has not and will not be tolerated. o.i.g. plays an important role in reviewing our policies and procedures and i'm committed to working with the o.i.g. to ensure sure they have access to the documents they need to do their work. we have taken steps to address this kind of behavior in moving forward d.e.a. will respond to this kind of misconduct head on and with the decisive resolve you and the public expect. we are open to further recommendations so that we can continuously improve our policies policies that demand the highest levels of personal and professional integrity from our employees. and thank you again for the opportunity to address you today. chairman: i now recognize mr. horowitz for five minutes. director horowitz: thank you for inviting me to testify today. federal agents arehold to the highest stan tards of conduct both on and off duty. as a former federal prosecutor,

as inspector general it has been my experience that the overwhelming majority of department agents meet those high standards and perform their work with great integrity and honor, thereby helping keep our communities safe and our country safe. nevertheless, we find instances where law enforcement agents engage in serious misconduct and even criminal violations affecting the agency's reputation, potentially compromising prosecutions and possibly affecting the security of the agents and agency operations. furthermore, misconduct that involves sexual harassment affects employee morale and creates a hostile work environment. following the incidents during the president's trip to colombia in 2012, the o.i.g. conducted two reviews. one relating to department policies and training involving offduty conduct by employees working in foreign countries and one relating to the handling of allegations of sexual harassment

and misdone duct. the off duty conduct report found a lack of department-wide policies or training requirements pertaining to off duty conduct whether in the united states or in other countries. this was particularly concerning given that we made recommendations back in 1996 in an o.i.g. report involving allegations at the time about department law enforcement agent off duty conduct. despite those earlier recommendations week found little had changed in the intervening two decades. we did find, however that the f.b.i. made changes clouding providing comprehensive training for its employees to help them make day-to-day decisions -- to make appropriate day-to-day decisions about off duty conduct while working abroad. however, we found that the other three department law enforcement components conveyed little or no information about off duty conduct before sending employees aproceed broad.

having only one of four law enforcement components effectively preparing its employees for everyseas deployments demonstrates the need for department-wide training and policies. we issued the report on the nature frequency reporting investigation and adjudication of allegation of sexual harassment or misconduct on the departments for law epiforcement components. the report identified systemic issues that require prompt corrective action by the department. lack of coordination between internal affairs offices and security personnel. failure to report misconduct allegations to component headquarters. failure to investigate allegations fully. weaknesses in the adjudication process and weak is in detecting and preserving sexually explicit text messages and images. together our reviews dem on straight the need to improve disciplinary and security processes. as well as to clearly communicate the d.o.j. and -- to communicate to d.o.j. and

components elemployees the expectations for employee conduct. strong and unequivocal action from department and component leadership at all levels is critical to ensure the department employees meet the highest standards of conduct and are held fully aah accountable for any misconduct. the failure by the d.e.a. and f.b.i. to provide information weigh requested significantly impeded our review. both agencies raised basils legal objections and only relent when i brought the issue to agency leadership. even though the information still is incomplete. we cannot be confident that the the f.b.i. and d.e.a. provided all information relative to the review. after we completed the draft report we learned that the d.e.a. failed to conduct the entire search of its database we had requested. in order to conduct effective oversight the o.i.g. must have

tombly and complete access to documents and tears. this review starkly demonstrates the dangers in allowing the department and its components to decide on their own what documents they will share with the o.i.g. the delays we experienced impeded our work delayed our ability to discover the significant issues we ultimately identified, waved department and o.i.g. resources and affect our confidence in the completeness of our review. unfortunately, this of not an isolated incident. rather, we faced repeated instances if which our timely access to records has been impeded. congress are doing recognized and included a provision in the recent appropriations act section 218 prohibiting department from impeding our timely access to records. nevertheless the f.b.i. continues to proceed exactly as it did before section 218 was adopted, spending appropriated funds to review records to determine if they should be withheld from the o.i.g. we are approaching the one year

anniversary of the request to the office of legal counsel for an opinion on these matters have, if that remains outstanding and we have been given no timeline for its issuance. although the o.i.g. has been told that the opinion is a priority the length of time that has passed suggests otherwise. instead, status quo continues. the american public deserves and expects an o.i. that is able to conduct rigorous oversight of the department's activities. unfortunately, our ability to conduct that oversight is undercut every day that goes by without a resolution of this dispute. i want to thank the committee for its bipartisan support for our work and i would be pleased to answer any questions you might have. chairman: i now recognize mr. perkins for five minutes. mr. perkins: thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss issued raised in the inspector general audit entitled

the handle of sectionle with harassment and misconduct allegations by the department's law enforcement components. the f.b.i. policy on sexual harassment and sexual misconduct is very simple. the f.b.i. does not tolerate sexual harassment or sexual misconduct within the ranks. the f.b.i. has a robust disciplinary process guided by well established policies, procedures and practices. it consists of trained special agents inagents in the inspection division's internal investigation section who conduct thorough investigations of employee misconduct. when the investigation is completed, a team of experienced lawyers in the f.b.i.'s office of professional responsibility take over, reviewing the investigative materials and determining whether applicable policies,ion regulations laws or other legal standard were violated. and if so, what penalties should be imposed on employees in question up to and including dismissal. in addition, the office of the inspector general reviews all

allegations of misconduct at the f.b.i. prior to any investigation being initiated and all final adjudications of misconduct at the f.b.i. are reported on a regular basis to the o.i.g. we are please that the office of the inspector general found relatively few errorred allegations of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in the department's law enforcement components for fiscal years 2009 through 2012. in fact, the o.i.g. found that the f.b.i. had the lowest rate of this type of misconduct a across the components. while we strive to have no cases of sexual harassment or misconduct we have and we willle continue to implement measures to better address these types of allegations. we are please the that the o.i.g. audit recognizes the f.b.i. coordination between the internal investigation section and security divisions as a best practice to ensure that misconduct allegations are evaluated for potential security

concerns including continued eligibility to hold a security clearance. not withstanding these findings there are improvements to be made. we must always look to improve and evolve as an organization. and we appreciate the o.i.g.'s recommendations for making the process better. as a result, the f.b.i. concurs with the recommendations in the o.i.g.'s report. the f.b.i. takes very seriously our obligation to enable congress and the o.i.g. to conduct effective oversight of all of our activities. we work closely with the staff to ensure that we are responsive to their requests and that issues are identified and promptly resolved. you may also be aware that we have a good faith disagreement with the o.i.g. regarding when law requires with respect to providing f.b.i. documents that have been obtained pursuant to provisions of law such as the wiretap act, bank secrecy act and those related to grand jury

proceedings. we have been completely transparent with the o.i.g. and leadership of the department of justice with respect to our legal disagreement and are presently aah waiting the office of legal coupe sell to render -- counsel to render an opinion. we are giving the o.i.g. an assumption of access in the audits with o respect to title iii, result 6-e. senior leadership directed that the internal business process consulting group rigorously evaluate our processes to ensure that we are as effective and as efficient in possible in providing the inspector general with with requested touts in a timely fashion consistent with the law. i thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today concerning these -- our commitment to ensuring allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct are are addressed in a prompt, thorough and equitiable manner. we take our responsibilities on

this topic very seriously and appreciate your interest in these matters have now i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. chairman: mr. perkins i totally disagree with your assessment you are being open and transparent and providing access to the epiforcement spector general. that is a topic we will continue to discuss today but i find your comments to be totally inconsist epiwith when inspector general is telling us and we need to hash that out. one of the reaps that you are here today. glad that you are here. i want to focus with the d.e.a. for a moment. did do you have any questions administrator as to the accurate icy of the o.i.g. report? you don't question the accuracy of the report, do you. >> i don't question the accuracy is. chairman: this included allegations and examples of d.e.a. agents participating participating in so-called sex parties where

local police were watching d.e.a. equipment included a "loud party incidents" involving what with one would consider bad judgment were allowing prostitutes and allowing those in close proximity to the d.e.a. agents to be actually in these agents' rooms and housing. you wouldn't then have a problem with these -- this going away party that was involved a d.e.a. assistant regional director at his residence. you wouldn't disagree then with the assessment that they had multiple accounts of landlord complaining about the loud parties and whatnot were going in there. is it wrong for prostitutes to be in government housing? director leonhart: it is deplorable behavior by the

agents chairman: a violation of policy. >> absolutely a violation of policy. chairman-is it wrong itster a foreign national in close proximity to a d.e.a. agent. personal effetes and computer and smart phones. pose any sort of security risks? director leonhart: of course it poses risk. chairman did you to any investigation as to the age of the women involved. were they sim yum there for entertainment? director leonhart: the investigation although ten years later --. chairman: there is an incident in july of 2009 for instance where the d.e.a. agent in bogota was accuse the of physically assaulting a prostitute over a payment dispute. a security guard witnessed this agent throwing a glass and hitting the woman. this agent then claimed that the woman had had a seizure while she was in the bathroom and cut

herself on a candlestick but later admitd that he had engaged with a prostitute. and you know what the punishment for this person was? 14 days unpaid leave. go on vacation for two weeks. you can sit here and cry a pretty picture about how deplorable it is, but your accountables suggest otherwise. because there was not the consequence that should have happened. this person is imposing a national security risk. engaging in behavior that is just -- it is embarrassing that we have to talk about this. it is an embarrassment that you don't fire that person. it is an embarrassment that you don't revoke his secure clearance. we can't you revehicle the security clearance? what prohibits you from revokele the security clearance? director leonhart: everything you said about the behavior i completely agree with. as far as the disciplinary penalties happened out in the case i'm very disappointed in

that. chairman: you are the administrator. director leon ithart: i don't fire. i can't. chairman can you revoke the security clearance? >> i can't. i can ensure there is a montreal expos nice new mexico place. chairman. >> why can't you? >> like i did after the incident, make sure that there is a mechanism in place for those security -- for security review which resulted in those three agents having their security clearances revoked and they were. chairman: here is the concern i have. high profile in all of the media and everybody reporting with the secret service engaging with prostitutes and you all get nervous about it and those people have discipline. when it is quiet and nobody hears about it and it comes across your desk and your soapar staff, can you show me mother -- your senior staff show me

another scamel where these people were creating the international security problems where you revoked the security clearance. in this case. that is how it happened. that wasn't too long ago. you are not diascopying the facts that show up in the report. there is no -- is there a statute of limitations? a limit that you can't reach further back? and yet you allow this person who engainls a prostitute and throws glass at her and breaks the skin, there is blood all over the place and they are still employed at the d.e.a.? and you allow that. you are allowing that. did you -- i mean did you try to fire them? did you try to revoke their security clearance? do we need to change that law? what do we need to do? director leonhart: you could look at an exemption like the f.b.i. has because the current disciplinary process myself and other directors of federal law enforcement agencies are not allowed to invoke ourselves in the disciplinary process. if we were exempted or if there

was other legislation passed that would allow that, that would allow our directors of federal law enforcement to take that action. the same thing that with the resultsresults where they have done these deplorable activities that it is investigated and that a decision is made by the agency without appeal rights to the mspb. chairman: my concern is high profile you take action. when it is not so high profile and there is a woman involved you don't take action and that is a concern. but i hear what you are saying. last question because i have -- i have exceeded my time. if you are are both the f.b.i. and the d.e.a. sincere about rooting out this problem and finding solutions, them you need to a-- then you need to allow the inspector general to look at

the information. why do you continue to prohibit him from seeing that information? why to you hold it back? why no do all 45 search terms? why did you only do three? i really got to question your sincerity about rooting out the problem if you don't even know the! tent of the problem is or the cases because you won't allow the inspector are general and his staff to actually look at the cases that are there. you limiting their -- the inspector are from doing their job. which is to help you. help us. help them. help the rest of the agencies. that is -- i need you to bog explain that answer to mow and then i will yield to the ranking member. go ahead. director leonhart: moving forward because there is a number of things that i put in place and you should know that the other incidents learned about after cartahe envelope ana.

they had already been through the is system. what we put in place moving forward is the model for how wouldle handle. chairman: is the motto to impede the ability of the spector general to look at the information j why can't the i.g. look at this? director leonhart: the cases are reported immediately to the o.i.g. they handed the cases back to us to handle as a management review. we felt that behavior was so outrageous they needed to be investigated. what we have put in place. chairman but you investigated again and still came to the same conclusion that we would have come to the same conclusion. my time is far exceeded. you gave them two to 10 days paid leave and put them on vacation. didn't take the disciplinary action. i have to yield to the gentleman from maryland. we will go actually to you first.

five minutes plus again rouse evertime if you need it. >> good morning to you all. of course, we all find the reports of sexual harassment and misconduct first first particularly the actions of the d.e.a. spanning back to 2001 extremely troubling and the american people seem understandably outraged over the behavior and particularly women i.g. report states and i quote "sexual hiss conduct and sexual -- misconduct and harassment in the work place aforecast an ememployee morale and hamper ability to have and maintain effective working relationships. mr. horowitz, can you explain how the sexual harassment and misconduct can impact employee morale? mr. horowitz: it has a significant debilitating effect on morale when the individuals in the work place try to report

the information and see no results. and that is one of the things we highlight here that is particularly concerning when for example in three of the incidents we identified in one of them we learned about it or it was reported ... one was reported in june of 2010 through an anonymous letter. that is how that information gets forwarded. the 2001 to 2004 events that are referred to in the report is the sex parties, those don't get reported until 2009-2010 when the corrupt law enforcement officers were charged. >> and what is the rationale as to why they weren't reported? >> mr. horowitz: they were dealt with locally and didn't need to be reported. >> and were they dealt with?

mr. horowitz: they were not. and on the third incident we report there that is sent to the o.i.g. and d.e.a. through the state department. not through the d.e.a. employees in the organizations employees need to know they can come forward and report allegations that will be addressed. >> thank you. miss leonhardt, you spoke about your own outrage being a law enforcement officer, i understand that. i was raised by a police officer who told me every good cop hates the bad cops, because it taints everyone else. do you agree the idea of sexual harassment negatively impacts morale, and have you seen that in your agency? michelle leonhart: i know it has

the potential to do that and that is why several directors -- >> i did not ascii potential, i asked you has it? michelle leonhart: in the offices where the employees attempted to report misconduct, and nothing happened, it was not reported or investigated. i can imagine those employees felt they lost faith in the agency. in other cases, they are investigated and supervisors take immediate action. they help the employee. i see over 35 years, 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 disciplinary and to make sure as these are reported, as they are investigated that the proper discipline is handed out. >> that is interesting you say it is your job to deal with the discipline, because you just stated earlier to the chairman that you do not have say. which one is it? michelle leonhart: i am not in the process for investigating proposing, or handing out discipline. what i can do is what i did a year ago, i sent out a directive to every 3-d 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.

i sent a strong message to the board of conduct that in these instances there should be severe disappointment -- discipline handed out. >> what do you consider do discipline? michelle leonhart: i consider what happened to the cartagena agents, severe discipline. >> what about those that were given paid leave? michelle leonhart: i am disappointed for it >> >> so you are responsible? michelle leonhart: i am responsible to send messages to our employees, to hold people accountable if they are going to conduct this misbehavior, they face discipline. that is what i have done over the last couple of years to send

that message to make sure our employees report their allegations, and number two, old managers accountable for not reporting. number three, make sure we set up a process, have good opr inspectors, i was one at one time, do the investigation so the disciplinary process and our deciding officials have all of the information they need to be able to impose severe discipline. >> don't you believe the morale of your agents and they good men and women of the agency would have been at her server -- served if the information had been more quickly coming to the ig? how can you say that you are not pleased with the discipline when your agency impeded the investigation of the ig level?

michelle leonhart: the ig gave the investigation back to the deep ea. >> i gave you the portion related to the individual. not to investigating systemic problems. michelle leonhart: they gave us back the investigation and said they would not take it, it looked like a management issue. we investigated as misconduct. as we investigated, we learned more and more by interviewing witnesses, the information that was put together, the interviews, all of that was entered into the discipline system. i am very disappointed that our discipline system did not do what it needed to do, and we have to fix it. i have put mechanisms in place moving forward to make sure that does not happen again.

i do not believe that discipline was told out -- in those cases they even mentioned it was even close to what it should be. >> i have run out of the time you have given me. mr. chairman, ranking member, it is my assessment that the discussion here and the actions are at a complete disconnect. >> i thank you. >> let me follow up on some of the questioning that has taken place as to whether there was a full investigation. you claim administrator, there was a full investigation of the matter all of the sexual harassment, sexual assault issues that have been raised

that were part of the inspector general's review. you believe they were fully investigated? michelle leonhart: i believe they were investigated. i have concerns about the completeness thoroughness of a couple of the investigations. >> you agree with mr. borowitz -- mr. horowitz that there was not a roada thorough investigation. that in itself raises questions when the inspector general says they were not fully investigated.

>> will be gentleman yield? i hate to do this, but on march 26 of this year, you, miss leonhardt, since this e-mail within your agency. you said, these allegations were fully investigated by the dea office of professional responsibility. there seems to be a conflict with what the chairman just cited and what the inspector general says. >> i have some questions as well. you say you don't have the authority, but you took the authority post cartagena. you have been there since 2010? michelle leonhart: that is correct.

>> ecb conduct that took place in 2006, 2008, the sect parties -- sex parties etc.. what happened is you set up a culture in the agency that you could get away with this. you were there. you must have been aware that some of this was going on. cartagena brought it to the press and our attention. the thing that concerns me is before that, some of the people who were involved -- it looks like attended a sexed par party. it says 7-10 agents engaged with

prostitutes. their penalty was suspension's of a few days. the most was six days up to that time. that was standard operating 3g or -- procedure while you were there. right? michelle leonhart: if i can explain. the first i heard of any of these sexed parties was a cartagena. when it happened i became concerned that this was systemic. we went back and took a look at where this activity had occurred , if anyone had been disciplined. >> again, we have instances and

we have penalties, most of them only got minor penalties. it was known that some of this had been -- post great security risks. they got anywhere between four and six days. only a suspension of 15 or more days is considered serious. those people went right on working at that time. a culture existed while you were there, up to cartagena and there were low penalties. after cartagena, you took action, is that correct? michelle leonhart: yes. >> the difference is this is the same thing whether it is irs secret same -- service, any agency, she does not have the

right to summarily fire people. she has to go through a process of title five, unless you change that law and give these people the ability to fire people when they are found -- and a proper and speedy process to violate whether it is sexual assault harassment, you will have this continued -- all of these problems continue across the scope of all of our civil service system. the only one exempt is fbi. we will get your record of people fired at some point. chairman: mr. lynch, the gentleman from massachusetts who is the ranking member.

stephen lynch: thank you. how do you hold people accountable if you are not able to discipline them question mar? michelle leonhart: it is a three-tiered system -- stephen lynch: stephen lynch: you are not answering my question. how do you hold people accountable when you cannot discipline them when they do -- ok so we have 15-20 sexed parties. a lot of these agents admitted to prostitution. we do not know their ages because there has been nothing disclosed. we have them taking weapons. we have foreign individuals

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

i think the problem now is we are protecting these people. that is what is happening in your agency. you are protecting the people who solicited prostitutes with 15-20 sexed parties and used taxpayers money to do it. and you are not happy. that is not what i would expect from your department. i worked with the dea in afghanistan, those folks did a great job all stop this is a diverse -- disgrace. they were in some dangerous places in afghanistan. they were trying to deal with the opium there. those are the dea agents i know that worked hard. they upheld the dignity of this country. they worked with the local families there to try to protect

them. i am proud of those dea agents. they are doing wonderful work on behalf of our country. this is a blemish. this is disgraceful that they should be associated with this activity. i feel your system is protecting these people. there are these sex parties and by the way it says here sexual misconduct, it should say that up front. this is a serious issue and you have met -- done nothing. how about disclosure? if you cannot prosecute them if you can't bring justice to the situation, why are we stopping the inspector general from looking at this?

why do the american people -- why do they not have the names of these individuals? michelle leonhart: 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. stephen lynch: don't. you take offense to someone of using women, gives a 2-3 day -- you are offended by that? michelle leonhart: i am offended by their behavior. i am trying to fix the system. i cannot fire. i am trying to fix the system. stephen lynch: how about naming them? it is laughable, you did suspend

people with pay. one guy got 10 days. you know what i think and i appreciate the gentleman's earlier comments about we have to give you power. i don't think that is the answer. i think there is a mentality here that needs to be extricated, root and branch from the dea operation. i think we have to have an independent agency that goes then, not part of the good old boy network it goes then it with sunlight and goes after these people -- like i say, when i think of the dea agents in afghanistan trying to protect the homeland, this is a disservice to those good agents. i will yield back my time.

chairman: now recognize the gentleman from texas. >> thank you. he really hit on something with the good old boy culture. this is my concern, more and more of the good old boy culture as this committee continues its investigation. we have seen it with the dea sex parties and the things the secret service agency. in your investigation, do you get a sense that there is a good old boy and tablet he? -- ood old boy mentality? >> we did a report in 1996 about the culture and the need to make it clear about what is permissible and what is not and

yet, 20 years later there is still no department wise -- wide policies or training. >> you run the dea, do you think it is appropriate in your off time, even in a country where prostitution is illegal, to engage prostitutes? michelle leonhart: absolutely not. it is a legal. >> how can any of your agents not know this? this strikes me as common sense. we have a memo from eric holder, admittedly not a fan i can't believe there is a need for a memo that says it is not appropriate to hire prostitutes. let me read from the memo, the solicitation of prostitution threatens the core mission of the department. not simply because it invites

extortion and blackmail, it also undermines the department's effort to eradicate the scorch -- scourge of human trafficking. soliciting prostitutes creates a greater demand for human trafficking victims and as a consequence it increases minors in the sects industry. for this reason, i want to reiterate, including attorneys and law enforcement officers they are prohibited from a soliciting, procuring, or excepting commercial sex. it seems ludicrous we should have to write this. mr. perkins, is there anybody in the fbi that thinks this is ok? mr. perkins: no sir. we make it clear to our employees. >> the message we are getting with no disciplinary action or time off with pay, tends to reinforce this.

mr. borowitz, we need to change some of our laws to make it easier to fire people? michael horowitz: that is something certainly congress could look at. i will add that one of the things that would help address these is that they get reported as they should to headquarters. they get reported to the oig as they should, and we get copies of records that we need promptly so we can look at them promptly. that takes no congressional action. we already have the law that says that should occur, but it is not. >> what do we do to fix that? someone is going to have to be disciplined for not reporting that. it is not just the rank in files that men and women, it is their superiors that are covering it up and obstructing, is that not

correct? michael horowitz: is a employee fails to report to headquarters what the policy requires that is all law enforcement cases do, that is a violation of that. >> you are also saying you want disclosure from the folks you are investigating. we are starting to see a lot of redacted stuff when the ig acts only say the identity needs to be withheld. in fact, we could have modified it on section 6103 of the irs code. what is the excuse for not giving us more access your in congress? anybody want to field that? some of it is the ig.

michael horowitz: we have certainly put forth on her website everything that we are allowed to put forth pursuing the privacy act. we have not withheld material. >> i think we have a different interpretation, but i see i am out of time. >> ms. leonhardt, would you allow the inspectors general to investigate all five terms? michelle leonhart: yes. we do not have the search capabilities. >> you allow him access to search the records? michelle leonhart: we would allow that. we have had a problem with that many names. we found a different way to do it by running a fence code. mr. horowitz and i have a good relationship, if there is something he wants, he has not

hesitated to pick up the phone and talk to me about it. we will work it out. chairman: has she allowed you to work? michael horowitz: i should not have to make those calls to the administrator to get access. i staff should not have to spend four months going back and forth , getting rejected versions, being told they cannot get things because of privacy issues when that is not a basis for a legal objection. i should not have to be engaging at the highest levels of the fbi and dea to get the access. let me just say something here about two agencies that complied fully, the atf and the u.s. marshal service got us the materials immediately.

it took us 4, 5, i don't know how many months -- we got in a matter of weeks from atf. i think you mean dea and fbi. >> thank you. chairman: i recognize mr. cummings for five minutes. elijah cummings: do you think that you are the right person for this job? i intentionally one it to hear some of the testimony. i have a lot of concerns. it seems like there is a culture that has developed here. even the attorney general's letter, when he has to say don't fret nice with prostitutes. -- fraternize with prostitutes. i think that we are at an all-time low here, don't you?

michelle leonhart: as a dea agent, and a female dea agent, i am appalled over this as well. like the attorney general sent a memo reminding people last friday, i sent one last year to remind everyone and put everyone on notice. elijah cummings: i am very concerned, mr. borowitz you may be following statement, we found a regional director, and acting assistant general director, failed to report to their chain of command for repeated allegations of frequenting brothels and treating these allegations as local. is that correct?

despite the fact that none of these employees ever reported these allegations to the office of professional responsibility, or to you, is that right? >> that is correct. elijah cummings: when these allegations came to light -- is that right? michael horowitz: that is correct. elijah cummings: and mrs. leonhardt, is that correct? michelle leonhart: i counseled him. elijah cummings: was that the only discipline that he got? someone saying you were supposed to do your job. please. michelle leonhart: yes. elijah cummings: you mean to tell me that was discipline?

that is not discipline, is it? michelle: the regional director was not aware of any allegations and tell it was brought to light a year, a year after an incident. when i counseled him -- elijah cummings: elijah cummings: just tell me what you said -- michelle leonhart: michelle: 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 looked at these letters sent. elijah cummings: what did he say? i wish i had a tape recording of that conversation. what was said?

michelle leonhart: he said, when he was aware of it, he was notified by the indices, of what happened. he was told about the incident, he called the agent in told the agent, you are going home. he sent them back to the elijah cummings: saiyou said you sent them back to united states. ms. leonhart: he took action immediately after to put in place mechanisms to make sure that those types of behaviors were reported promptly. elijah cummings: who was the highest dea ranking official

from 2001-2008 who was aware of misconduct issues? ms. leonhart: are you talking about the incident? elijah cumming: let me change that -- 2005-2009. ms. leonhart: that they were aware of it? elijah cummings: the highest-ranking person. ms. leonhart: probably a group supervisor. elijah cummings: did you have the power to discipline on a regional level? ms. leonhart: i can discipline of the regional director. elijah cummings: you could have fired him, is that right? ms. leonhart: i could not fire him. you have to show misconduct him to be fired. -- for him to be fired. what the law allows me to do, he was counseled. elijahg cummings: so you feel

that he did do something wrong. ms. leonhart: he failed to report it when he learned about it. elijah cummings: and you failed to discipline other than counseling. ms. leonhart: the discipline available to me -- appropriate discipline was to represent him. -- was to reprimand him. elijah cummings: you came up with the suspension, i'm confused. ms. leonhart: the discipline has to be 15 days or more, reporting it to an embassy and or without working it out locally would not raise to that level. the only time that this happened with him. they were not raised to the level to be misconduct. so i counseled him. elijah cummings: he was

supposed to reported to the office of special responsibility? ms. leonhart: that is correct. elijah cummings: if you reported it, therehe reported it, there was the possibility he would lose a security clearance. >> he certainly could lose his security clearance if the process was followed at the way it was supposed to be followed. elijah cummings: if they lose that security clearance, does that mean that they lose their job? ms. leonhart: yes like the three cartagena agents. if you lose your clearance, you cannot be an agent. elijah cummings: do you believe he received appropriate discipline? ms. leonhart: he made a mistake by not reporting it. he took action, but not the right action. that has not happened with him in the past. he has done a number of things in columbia since that incident to ensure that this does not

happen again. elijah cummings: do you think there is a culture problem here? ms. leonhart: i think there may have been -- elijah cummings: may ahvehave been? when did it start? you said may have been, so i assume you have a date you think it stopped. and why you say that. ms. leonhart: when you see these parties and what was happening from 2000-2000 or were by one group -- 2000-2004 were by one group of agents in bogata, florida, i would say that is not a culture problem. >> i will recognize mr. mullaney for five minutes. >> i am new to the committee so i will ask you questions because i am very confused. your said something today that

strike me as being unusual. they may be true. if someone watching back home is watching it, they may not understand either. you say you cannot fire people. white cancer fire people? -- why can't you fire people? >> ms. leonhart: under the civil service laws, i can't intervene in the disciplinary process. that is why dea's process is similar to other agencies. it is a three-tiered process. the administrator, deputy administrator, management, cannot intervene in the disciplinary process. that is prohibited personnel practice. >> who can fire people when they commit egregious misconduct, like which is spinning in -- participating in prostitution? ms. leonhart: our decided officials. >> who is a deciding official in your agent? ms. leonhart: there is senior

dea 1811. they make all of the disciplinary decisions for the agency. >> are they senior or junior to you? ms. leonhart: they are junior to me. >> could you recommend that they fire somebody? you can't fire somebody, but somebody junior to you can fire somebody. is that what you are telling us? ms. leonhart: my position as administrator under the civil service act, we have to file certain civil service protections. our system is set up, discipline is decided by these two senior people within dea deciding official-- >> senior officials, but nothing a few. -- but not senior to you. i get that. did you see any misconduct while working there? do any of these parties

merit dismissal? ms. leonhart: the activity that has been explained today i believe not knowing all the facts-- >> how could you possibly, i can't let your the hook-- how could you possibly not know all the facts by now? ms. leonhart: not knowing all the facts that deciding officials are looking at, called the douglas factors. not knowing that piece, only knowing the behavior and what the investigation has shown, i took action last year to put the agency on notice that activity like that, and i named it "prostitution" and 4-5 other things, required a significant discipline. that was what our deciding officials put on notice. >> do you have any idea how absurd all about comes to an ordinary human being? -- all of that sounds to an

ordinary human being? ms. leonhart: i can see somebody not knowing the civil service system and not understanding our system would think that. >> let us assume -- i asked you if you saw anything that meritining being dismissed. i assume you mean no. but let's say you see something that there is a dismissal, -- that merits dismissal, what would you do? ms. leonhart: i can put the agency on notice what i did last year, saying that it will not be tolerated. that i in writing, told the deciding officials in the board of conduct that these kinds of behaviors required significant discipline. >> mr. horwitz, is it like these the other agencies? does everybody deal with these arcane rules at other agencies? mr. hortwiz: for the fbi, we are

exempt from title 5 and civil service statues. the director can and has summa rily fired individuals. we have a disciplinary structure, but as you go through the process, it raises it to appropriate levels of the appropriate punishment. there are occasions when the conduct is so egregious that the director can intercede. >> my understanding is that the fbi is unique about regard as mr. perkins outlined. the other law enforcement department have to follow the title rivals in civil service rules. one last question, ms. lee heart. -- ms. leonhart. if you suggest a suspension of longer than 14 days. in all the examples i have seen,

at least a couple dozen of them, no one was suspended for more than 14 days. if it is true then someone get a suspension for more than 14 days, then a merit is to protection board takes over the investigation in the handling of that matter? ms. leonhart: not quite. the deciding officials dole out discipline and it is more than 14 days suspension, the employee can appeal it. when the employee appeals it, it goes to the merit system protection. >> and who takes over the investigation when the merit protection board gets involved? ms. leonhart: no one takes over the investigation. the investigation has already been done. this is at the very end of the disciplinary process. the dea deciding official can say 30 days-- >> is that internal or external to you? ms. leonhart: the deciding officials is internal. >> i thank the chairman. this is nuts/

. how we can fix this, i have no idea. but she is telling us she does not have the legal authority to do what everyone on this committee thinks she should have done. maybe we should find a way to fix that. >> i don't recognize the chairman or five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. as a new member of this body, i keep looking through the looking glass. you come to a hearing like this, and on the surface, it is hard to believe. it does bring a number of questions, including collateral consequences to drug dealers on the street and the larger problems we face in this country when people see this kind of different type of administration of justice. so mr. horwitz, first question, what is different between the atf and the u.s. marshal that

your underlings were able to access so quickly as opposed to the dea of r fbi? >> they have not raised legal objections and complied with what we have asked for. >> is a cultural thing? do you need more enforceability? >> ms. leonhart: we have no enforceability at this point other than my testifying publicly. >> it does not seem to be sufficient. >> it ultimately turns out to be, in some instances. but it is a problem, and they repeated problem. >> miss leonhart, the individuals involved in these sex parties, the rolex accepting sophisticated weapons -- are they still employed? ms. leonhart: the majority are still on the job yes. >> it is hard to believe it

seems counterintuitive that they can go back to work with as little as 10 datey suspension and be model agents. have you had to spend time overseeing their job performance? ms. leonhart: there are supervisors and special agent in charge. there are high-level bosses who are aware of the conduct. with the exception of one we have not seen any misconduct since. >> do they have heightened supervision because of the past conduct? ms. leonhart: the reason is that the supervisors are made aware of what the conduct is is so that they can put them in positions where they can have good supervision. >> go back to the questions asked. why is that it took so long to get this information? why did it take so long for the ig to get information from your underlings? didn't you feel at some point you are spending too much time on this?

didn't you admonish people under your command that they should be more forthcoming to the ig? ms. leonhart: i knew early on that there was this agreement for misunderstanding in a couple of areas. what type of records they were looking for. that delayed it. i wish i knew about all of those delays and could have done something more about it. at the end of the day, the reports did get to mr. horwitz. with audits since, he and i have in agreement that if someone is going to deny something to the ig, it needs to be raised to my level right away. >> it seems like a question of management that you would have to spend this much of resources in such an egregious case.

it seems like a misappropriation. mr. horwitz, if the dea had think exception that -- had the same exemption that the fbi has with that accomplish the same objective? >> that is something that could occur. on the access issues and getting records promptly, there is no reason why dea and fbi shouldn't have done the same thing the marshal service and apf did. they did not question the scope of our audit they didn't raise questions whether they could see things or fact were going to search terms. they just did it. >> it seems that you are not complicit. in all due respect to your years of service, when it comes to the secret service, sometimes you need somebody from the outside. how do i defend your performance? ms. leonhart: i think being an

dea agent and being within the agency, i can intervene in ways-- >> all evidence to the contrary, in all due respect with this case. ms. leonhart: with the audits, there were misunderstandings of what the scope was as well as misunderstandings of this bogata case. >> miss leonhart, exusecuse me, but to go back and talk to somebody in a port district of or district, and saying how can you admonish us and make tougher laws for us when you let the dea manage its department this way is counterintuitive. i don't the remainder of my time. >> i recognize mr. gowdy of south carolina for five minutes. mr. gowdy: if an agent stateside work soliciting a prostitute

that was provided right a drug conspiracy --provided by a drug conspiracy what punishment would you recommend? ms. leonhart: i cannot recommend a punishment. i would just hope it would be thoroughly investigated. mr. gowdy: you were telling me nobody cares what the administrator of the dea thinks should happen to the agent? you are powerless to express your opinion? you have no first amendment right when it comes to who works for your agency? ms. leonhart: i have expressed my opinion. >> what was your opinion? what did you express? ms. leonhart: last year, i sent email and i sent a memo to every employee in dea and put them on notice that this kind of conduct-- >> 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? ms. leonhart: under civil service law, i cannot recommend a penalty. i cannot intervene in the disciplinary process. i cannot even make a recommendation. >> what would it, hypothetically, take to get fired as a dea agent? they were worried about using their cards to pick up dry cleaning. they were worried about using their ogf to pick up dry cleaning. they were worried about being disciplined. so apparently, that world has changed. you know if any of the prostitutes were underaged? ms. leonhart: i do not know that. >> with that impact whatever recommendation you might have in terms of a section? >>ms. leonhart: i do not recommend the section. i cannot fire, i cannot recommend a penalty. there is a guide that signing officials abide by.

they have a penalty guide that they look at. the penalty guide for this type of activity is anything from reprimand to removal. >> how about security clearance? you have any impact over that, whether or not an agent has a security clearance? ms. leonhart: know, there are adjudicative guidelines. -- no. >> honestly, what power do you have? you have to work 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? ms. leonhart: what i can do is improve on and build mechanisms to make sure that the outcome is what it should be. that is what happened in cart agena. that is what is going to happen moving forward. >> inspector general horwitz, i find that stunning.

let me ask you this -- did the agents know that the cartels are providing the prostitutes? ms. leonhart:>> what we found from looking any file is that they should have known knowing there training, they were dealing with local law enforcement that was providing them the prostitutes as well as various gifts. >> were they supposed to be investigating cartels? ms. leonhart: they>> they were. >> so they were receiving prostitutes from cartels they were supposed to be investigating. and she cannot fire those agents? do you agree with her, she cannot fire them? >> i think as a matter of title 5, she cannot directly intervene and fire them. one of the concerns we outlined in the report as to dea, and other three agencies, is how

they adjudicate these ag encies. they under charge in some 's is. -- in some instances. in the dea with sexual harassment. there is only one punishment removal. but you have a range of penalties with other harassment. it is how you charge the case. that has a consequence. >> mr. chairman, i don't know what would need to be done by ut like my friend from south carolina i find it stunning that you can solicit prostitutes -- to be know if any of the prostitutes were underage? workere they part of any human trafficking rings? ms. leonhart: because the bogata

case happened years ago, there were no interviews. the more recent cartagena one they did not identify an agent for the prostitute involved. >> mr. chairman, i find it impossible to explain to any reasonable minded person how it agent cannot be disciplined for soliciting prostitutes from cartels they were investigating. i find that stunning. >> if somebody murdered somebody, could you fire them? ms. leonhart: if somebody murdered someone, they would be criminal charges, and that is how they would be fired. >> but could you take away your their security clearance? ms. leonhart: the office of security programs could review it and take their clearance just as they did with the part 3 agent in the cartagena incident. >> i am heard you think there is

one thing you can actually fire somebody for, which is sexual harassment. so let me get this correct. if i flirt with a coworker in the 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 when we are talking about here? >> mr. congressman, if you charge the eventoffense, removal is a possibility. if you choose conduct unbecoming what not actually occurs, that is when discipline is limited. that is the concern we found, as you know, in a report. >> we will not recognize the gentleman from california. -- now recognized. >> thank you. i would like to talk about

possible security risks. on page 15 of the lpr report it says the following. collaborator 1 got information from u.s. agents by getting their guard down.

do you believe it is a climate issue. if it is a climate issue, do you believe incident. on the rank-and-file, you need leadership changed removed? ms. leonhart: we haven't changed

leadership. -- have changed leadership. we have a different set of leaders in dea then we did a decade ago. i believe that moving forward with a better system to deal with discipline and moving forward instead of looking at what the discipline was in the past that was doled out to individual that took part in this behavior. the deciding officials and the board of conduct has the clear ability now to reset, and they can look at the activity and say this is the administrator says this deserves significant discipline. they can take that kind of action. >> thank you. i yield back. >> i now recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. walker.

mr. walker: you have said earlier today that you do not dispute the report. i believe it is your exact words. yet a couple timesfrom what we've heard today this has been a spring break frat party mentality. the adjudicative guidelines for determining eligibility access to classified information -- these are the considerations for whether or not someone given a security clearance. ok. it reflects lack of judgments to protect classified information. is anyone ever been fired for preaching that? ms. leonhart: we have had other agents throughout the history that have been -- mr. walker: have you ever had someone lose their job because of security breaches?

soliciting prostitutes -- does that expose it aged to blackmail ? were some of those agents married? ms. leonhart: i believe so. mr. walker: two weeks ago, we have the largest trafficking from across the state. 83% of those girls are from 12-14. my question is this -- having gratuitous sex with an underage prostitute, first of all, how egregious it is to even use that despicable language, but i what point does it become a security breach? are you will paul about? -- are you appalled at that? how appalled you have to be before you say it cannot be tolerated? ms. leonhart: the first incident

i had of any dealings -- i made sure that the disciplinary system that there was coordination between the people that do the investigations and the people that do the security clearances. i, like you, feel that it is outrageous behavior, but there are security concerns. they have put themselves in danger, they have put other agents in danger. mr. walker: there is no statute of limitations -- there are statutes of limitations for having sex with a 13 or 14-year-old. i don't understand that. ms. leonhart: all security clearances of the person in the bogota incident -- 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? ms. leonhart: i have read the reports and there is nothing to indicate a name. mr. walker: so nobody asks the question? last friday, the chairman referred to this earlier, three days before this hearing, the attorney general had to send out a memo reminding law enforcement agencies that they are not to solicit prostitutes -- are you familiar with that memo? ms. leonhart: yes i am. mr. walker: or else what? what else happens? the fact that we have to remind to these agents to be on your best behavior is ludicrous. the fact is -- then what? evidently, in the past, it may take a couple days off.

would you answer that question? what happens? the attorney general said it out -- leave the prostitutes alone. what else? what is the penalty, what is the concrete solution that has been clearly communicated? can you explain that our talk about that? ms. leonhart: we are working within our system in the same way the attorney general, who is the entire department of justice, put the entire dea workforce on notice, that this behavior was not to be tolerated and that there would be significant discipline. mr. walker: i have three children and i tell them not to do that because the consequences are clearly communicated. last question and i will yield back. if you had a chance going back, would you do something different handling these matters? ms. leonhart: without a doubt.

>> i thank the gentleman. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the district of columbia. >> mr. chairman, i don't know how to describe what we have seen here. boys going wild, out of sight and out of mind. what most concerns me is how these prostitutes were funded. it looks like we have taxpayer funds, that some may have come out of official funds in some out of cartel funds. i don't know which is woe rse. we seem to be dealing with a cultural problem, with the problem that is now a problem of corruption. i say that because i am looking at some of the excerpts from the

report where apparently there were corroborating witnesses. some of this is so eye-popping i will have to ask you -- i am not going to ask you what you don't fire people because i do understand that when the state or any of its agents -- the process requires you to go through certain processes. after all those processes -- i the and going to ask you -- i am going to ask you about the things you could do. this corroborating witness stated he recalled that the assistant special agent in charge, that his farewell party that was in 2003 and 2004, was part of the money requested from an operational budget.

that was the operative term. it was used for his party. he stated that his party was organized by the assistant special agent in charge, and that he paid $500,0500,000 pesos for each prostitute with funds from an operational budget -- i want to identify what that means. what is the purpose of an operational budget? ms. leonhart: what i believe that refers to is money is given to the colombian national police to pay for their operations that they are doing in collaboration -- mrs. norton: we are talking about

funds that were paid out of the operational budget, it looks like by agents. who is responsible for accounting for these funds? ms. leonhart: the regional director would be responsible for that. ms. norton: if that is the case, and i understand what you can precipitously fire someone would that fund continued to be under the same supervision that you had having this kind of information, as it was before? ms. leonhart: the bogota incident was three regional directors ago. the way the dea operates with

the colombian national police in these special units is completely changed. mrs.s. norton: how is the operational budget. with? -- operational budget dealt with? is it controlled from your office? ms. leonhart: no. the funds by the dea-bogota office that go to the colombian national police for operations are now audited. they require receipts. the 2000-2003 timeframe was at the beginning stages of the unit. miss norton: according to the cooperating witness -- the corroborating witness, it was presented to the dea with additional information. "for additional funds,"

apparently not enough funds were in the operational budget, "which were used for prostitution and parties for agents." are you aware of that allegation, that they didn't have enough? ms. leonhart: i am aware that the corrupt national police officers who ended up being indicted by dea and convicted what they were talking about is padding their operational requests. this norton: in other words, fraudulent budgets. ms. leonhart: yes, on behalf of the colombian police. ms. norton: you can't wash the hands of the office -- this is a corroborating witness who stated that the operational budgets were presented to the dea to cover operational expenses.

it doesn't seem to me that you can wash your hands of that, or that they could have washed their hands. as someone looked back at how these funds were extended during this. period so you can lay out exactly what happened? part of the problem here is that the committee -- it has taken so long because you had no policy. you can tell me, this was 2003 and 2004 if i was there i would want to know exactly what happened to make sure wasn't happening now. ms. leonhart: one part of the investigation was to go through and audit and to do just that. ms. norton: from that period? ms. leonhart: yes, from that period of time. this norton: we understand from one of these corroborating witnesses -- he hired

prostitutes, this is what the corroborating witness said. he would pay the girls to come to the party and the agents would pay the girls directly for any sex they wanted. he was getting prostitutes for these 15-20 parties. one of the dea agents in colombia had to crack down on the agents who were on the cartels, who were given funds to pay for the parties. >> the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. leonhart: that is what is so appalling about this. although the agents didn't know the corrupt police were getting money from the traffickers. they were on their payroll using that money for the prostitutes. >> i think the gentlewoman. >> thank you. mr. horowitz, you noted that

during the interview some in your office staff were evidently told that dea employees were under the impression that they were not to discuss information regarding open cases. do you know who provided that information? mr. horowitz: we don't know who told them that information but that is in fact what we were told. mr. palmer: did you ever determine if someone communicated that information. ? mr. horowitz: we didn't determine definitively. mr. palmer: so you did not investigate further? did your office ever give information instructions to that effect? ms. leonhart: no. i saw the draft asking the

professional responsibility and inspection about that. they said there was a miscommunication. they were under the believe that close cases were not a part of what mr. horowitz's audit would cover. mr. palmer: there was obvious confusion. did you ever give instruction to anyone to withhold information? ms. leonhart: absolutely not. mr. palmer: did anyone in your staff? how do you know? ms. leonhart: we weren't involved in that part of the process. mr. palmer: obviously, there were reports and testimony given to mr. horowitz, that your employees were instructed not to give information. ms. leonhart: the inspectors

that were interviewed received instructions from opr and the offices of inspection. i have no information about what information was related to them other than -- mr. hice: so you don't know, is the bottom line. you are all over the board today -- you say you can't fire anyone and that you didn't have all the facts, yet you sent information that this behavior is not going to be tolerated. it is absolutely all over the board. you have junior officers who can't fire but you cannot fire. do you have any authority over them? can you fire the junior officers? ms. leonhart: if they are not doing their job, they can be replaced. mr. hice: did they not do their

job by not disciplining appropriately? ms. leonhart: i am disappointed. i think it is not enough. mr. hice: so why were they not replaced? ms. leonhart: again, i can't interfere with the disciplinary process. but i can make sure through our career board that replacements, people that were coming up to take those positions are of -- mr. hice: do you or do you not have any authority over the junior officers? ms. leonhart: i don't have the authority to intervene in the disciplinary process. mr. hice: a moment ago you said you would act differently if you had to do this again. why would you say that? you have made it clear today that your hands are tied and that you can do nothing. i am really having a difficult

time understanding. it appears to me that no one listens to you. you write a letter saying that the behavior will not be tolerated you have no influence as to whether it will be tall the rated were not. did anyone listen to you when you wrote the letter? ms. leonhart: yes, the entire workforce listened. in fact -- mr. hice: if you have no influence whatsoever -- i have to tell you, you say you are in charge of discipline and then you come back and say you have nothing to do with discipline. you are in charge of the agency then say you have nothing to do with correcting problems -- quite honestly, i have serious questions as your competence. it appears to me that we need to seriously consider new leadership at thee dea. >> the gentleman yields.

i would like to give mr. horowitz a chance to respond. mr. horowitz: certainly. with regard to the production of information and answering questions, the frustration we had with both the fbi and dea during this process was we kept having to go back and ask for more once we learned what we were told originally. that was the case with regard to documents. we got redacted information. i had to elevate it months after this started with regard to the interviews. we learned later in the process that certain individuals hadn't told us about an open case, because of their understanding that we shouldn't talk about an open case. when we did get -- they didn't give us everything. we only learned that because we went back and checked our own record to compare and see if we

had everything that they provided us. we thought they had even more than we had which is why we went to them in the first instance but then we found out that the production was incomplete. we had to go back and ask for a further review. after we did the draft report, we found out that the dea haven't run all the search terms we had done without telling us that they had made that decision on their own. we had multiple instances where that occurred. a delayed our report. i can assure you that frustrated the good, hard-working folks in my office who spent months trying to get information. i will go back to what i said earlier -- the atf and the u.s. marshals service, who we asked the same requests, we got the material and we got it fast. we never thought we didn't get from them what we were entitled to. that is what should be happening across the board.

>> we will now recognize the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: thank you. mr. horowitz, the report we are discussing today would seem to suggest that dea's tolerance level for prostitution is part of the local culture. your report says that the dea inspector told us that prostitution is considered a part of the local culture and is tolerated in certain areas called tolerance zones. is that correct? mr. horowitz: that is correct. mr. conley: does the dea recognize that prostitution is embedded in certain local cultures and therefore tolerable, that you recognize tolerance zones?

ms. leonhart: no. what i believe the inspector was talking about was in columbia there are certain tolerance zones for prostitution. with the dea. -- it doesn't matter with the dea. it is against all dea policies. and does it matter if it is legal in a particular country. it doesn't matter if it is legal in a particular area of the city. they are not to take part in that type of behavior. mr. connolly: so it is always wrong in terms of your policy no matter where it is? ms. leonhart: that is correct. mr. connolly: and that is an explicit policy? ms. leonhart: you find it in our personnel manual. mr. connolly: is it called "thou shalt not?" ms. leonhart: basically.

mr. connolly: mr. horowitz? mr. horowitz: certainly that wasn't the case during the course of the years we reviewed this. mr. connolly: it was not the case? mr. horowitz: certainly not the culture and certainly not the understanding. mr. connolly: did you find an explicit policy and their personnel manual, their human resource policy, that explicitly barred such activity? mr. horowitz: it did not at that time. it does now, in light of the memo. mr. connolly: so when you said that it is a violation you meant it is a violation of the existing policy. ms. leonhart: it existed at our personnel manual and a couple different sections, one about -- you cannot have a relationship

with someone involved in illegal activity -- mr. connolly: wait. you just said to me that the tolerance zones referred to columbia, not to the dea's designated tolerance sounds, in which prostitution is legal. you just cited something that refers to the legal. if you go to columbia, it is not illegal in certain parts of the country. did your policy, therefore open the door for what we would consider illegal activity that was not prohibited in the host country? ms. leonhart: what we found with the cartagena case -- our policies didn't specifically say you cannot partake in prostitution. but we had different sections in our personnel manual and different sections in our

standards of conduct that everyone in the agency signs once a year and acknowledges, such as dea personnel are prohibited from engaging in any criminal incidents, dishonest ness, or other conduct prejudicial. mr. connolly: some thought that prostitution was not included in that litany. ms. leonhart: no dea agent not that prostitution was ok. mr. connolly: hm. i don't think that's what the inspector general found. according to the inspector it is common for prostitutes to be present in business meetings involving cartel members and foreign officers. the dea inspector also stated that the acceptability of this type of behavior affects the way

in which federal law enforcement employees conduct themselves in a particular country. so what you just read to us notwithstanding about practice seems to be very much contingent upon local acceptable practices. would that be fair to say? ms. leonhart: i would say every dea agent knows to include going back to 2004partaking in that kind of activity is against dea policy. when carter had happened -- when carnahan happened, we decided to strengthen them and put wording in about prostitution, specifically. to put everybody on notice and

make sure it was clear. our policies were not clear and they did not specifically say prostitution, but there are three or four different places in our standards of conduct where you could point to that and say that is a violation of standards of conduct. this to connolly: with the chair allow me one more question? i just have one more. mr. perkins, on your report, you talk about fbi providing employees with free deployment training regarding conduct abroad. it has been the most of her parents employees to make day-to-day decisions unlike the dea. can you comment on that? this your training program in terms of deployment overseas explicitly deal with issues like prostitution?

the sense of dishonor it brings on the united states if it's employees engage in that kind of activity. mr. perkins: that covers a universe of issues from personal security and the individuals going overseas with standards of conduct that we would expect to exhibit while they are overseas. this began under the former director. we had a significant presence overseas at that time, which required additional training. as are overseas presence remains high we see great benefits and maintaining that kind of redeployment training. mr. connolly: final point. does the dea have a program with the fbi in terms of free deployment training? ms. leonhart: if we do it is called the foreign orientation program.

in may 2012, we started -- we were handing out state department cabal prohibiting prostitution, even if it is legal in a country. we also added extra slides to a presentation our opr gives to all employees and their spouses before they had overseas. that includes information about prostitution, information about security clearances. they are informed before they go overseas. mr. connolly: my time is up. i would like to pursue with you at some point the coalition of training because i think that has a great bearing on what was allowed to happen. >> we now recognize mr. meadows. mr. meadows: thank you. you have been with the dea for

how many years? ms. leonhart: 35. mr. meadows: 35 years, and about five years in your current position. so you take this very seriously, being part of law enforcement. i enjoy a great relationship with law enforcement back home. the standards they take -- the standards that are violated by some within our rank paint a bad picture for the rest to serve diligently -- would you agree? ms. leonhart: yes, these are a few compared to the 4600 agents that work for dea. we are very proud of our agency. mr. meadows: and it should hit you hard. you keep saying that you are appalled and you can't believe this kind of behavior, but my concern is that in 1994, there

was a report that outlined it and you were there at that particular point. that outlined sexual misconduct within the agency. in 2004 there was an oig study that talks about the same kind of inappropriate behavior. yet here we are today with a new oig report that is over 100 pages in length. but we are addressing a decade old cultural problem, aren't we? this is not new to you, is that correct? ms. leonhart: this is new to me in this position, but in law enforcement, obviously, every company, every organization has some people that are not going to follow the rules.